Forced Fatherhood - Grade: 98 A+ PDF

Preview

Summary

Perfectly compares and contrast the argument of forced fatherhood and abortion...

Description

Khalil Warner CJSS Final Professor Grassel 11/16/17

Should There be a man’s right to Choose: Forced Fatherhood The topic of Forced fatherhood or in other words, financial abortion, is an extremely controversial topic. Some think that the father has a duty of financial care when it comes to bringing a child into this world. The opposition begs to differ. They debate that if the woman has a way to avoid responsibility then so should the man. In this case, they mean that the Father should not be forced into parenthood, or provide financial care for something he wants no part in. This is a moral grey area. It’s hard to be able to pick a side, when it comes to these warring sides with opposite views. They both bring up inarguable point which leaves them arguing in circles. This has been a long debated topic. In this paper, I will discuss the pros and cons of the matter. In the early history of The United States, back when America first gained its independence, many states applied english common law. Meaning that it was a no go for prochoice. 30 states declared abortion to be illegal, with the exceptions of a few states. These few states only allowed the right to abortion in certain situations this included: A woman’s health, the health of the child, and rape or incest. The United States remained firm on their stance of abortion and barely showed signs of changing, that was until the early 70’s.

It all started with the landmark case, Roe v Wade. In 1971 a pregnant woman by the name of Jane roe, challenged the Texas criminal abortion laws. The laws of Texas at the time prohibited women from getting abortions, with the exception being, that the terminating of the child could only be done if it is to save the mother’s life. The district attorney, Henry wade was given the case, He was in support of the laws of the time, that abortion should remain in prohibition, with the exception to save the life of the mother. The case brought up a constitutional issue; Does the Constitution support the right for a woman to procure an abortion, voiding Texas’ law on the matter. After a long hard fought battle, on the road of appeals, the case finally found its way at the door stop of the supreme law of the land. In 1973 the United States Supreme Court, reached the verdict of Jane Roe and the lesser known companion case, Doe v Bolton. (This was a nearly identical case but located in Georgia) The Justices on the case most notable, Thurgood Marshall, Ruled in favor of them 7-2. They found that her choice was backed by the constitution under the 14th amendment “Due Process” clause. It was explained that the 14th amendment extended to a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion. They went on to say, that the newly appointed rights, must be regulated through state interests. This included the protection the women’s health, as well as protecting the potentiality of human life. Concluding the ruling by stating that the balance must be in accordance by the trimester of the pregnancy, which was decided that it be by the third trimester. Once the case was decided on the federal and state restriction of abortion, Roe v. Wade started the debate we now know as “Pro Choice” Vs. “Pro Life”. Both sides are at constant opposition with one another. The debate brings a rise to many questions such as, “To what

extent should abortion to be legal?” And the moral question of “Who has the right to decide for someone who doesn’t have the ability to decide for themselves. This is the seed that has given root to another debate. The choice of the father. Now, this is not to ask that the biological father of the child have any say as to what the mother does with her body. Yet it poses the question of the legal responsibilities in terms of finances that have been thrust upon him. There is a choice for the mother but not the father. Knowing that Women’s Right Activists have Long since struggled with the voluntary choice for motherhood. It is a rejected concept that a father has the same ability this is in terms of opting out of parenthood. Political Philosopher Elizabeth Brake argues for the ability of the father to not be forced into parenthood. “If women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.” A retired Sociology professor, at Brown University Purposed a concept to how this could be addressed, she called it a “Financial abortion”. She suggested that when the father is notified of the conception, he has the option to either opt out of fatherhood or just to become a parent. If he chose to decline parent-hood he would have a short window to make his decision. Once the decision is made he can no longer have anything to do with the child. This would be documented in court. I present you with the case of Matt Dubay V Michigan. In 2004, Dubay had just ended things with his girlfriend, named Lauren Wells. The two had completely opposite sides of views when it came to the decision on what should they do with the new life they had created. Dubay wanted nothing to do with the child, but Wells wanted keep the child. Dubay expressed his concerns to her, he told her that he was not ready to become a father. Wells had the child and

demanded that he pay child support, he refused. When the state of Michigan got involved and pressed him as well, he stood his ground and said he would not. This resulted in a legal battle that is one of the most prominent when it comes to men’s reproductive rights. In court, he put forth the notion that when a child is unplanned men should an equivalent choice to opt out of parenthood. He wasn’t trying to say that men should be involved in the decision of what women should do with their body. He was making a point that when women to not want to become come parents they can get an abortion. Dubay went on to say that men should be given the same choice, of opting out of the legal and financial responsibilities, that come with parenthood. The judge ruled in against Dubay, and told him this "If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case."

In this debate, some say that it isn’t fair that men are forced into fatherhood, and that there should be a leveled playing field when it comes to men and women as parents. If a woman can have a say in whether or not a child is born without the man’s consent, then where is the common ground for a man who doesn’t wish to be a father. The responsibility lands on both parties but one gets the higher ground in a sense. The opposition states that this goal that men have for equal reproductive rights isn’t realistic. They say that a woman’s right to an abortion and the man’s right to reject fatherhood aren’t similar in any sense. They go on to say that child support is a legal relationship with the child. I ask what good does that do? Growing up how do they think Dubay’s and Well’s child feel, knowing that his father went to such great lengths to avoid being his father? It would probably feel horrible.

Society condemns men for accident pregnancy, and forces the child to have cope with a life-long void of having an absent but legal father. I don’t feel as if they are “dead-beat dad”. They are men who never had a choice in the matter of being a parent. There is seemingly no respect for the man’s place in the matter of reproduction. Following this trend of forced fatherhood just leads to a pain for the child in a father who wants nothing to do with them. It seems that the only reason Politicians refuse to propose any type of legislative changes that would allow men to have reproductive rights, are due to the assumptive notion that in doing, it would open the floodgates. Result in an exponential amount of men opting out of fatherhood. In conclusion, I may not agree with the man’s choice to opt out of fatherhood, but there must be some level of equality in this whole thing. It’s hard to argue with. In reality, it’s hard to argue that this is something that is equal, because it isn’t. A woman has a right to choose but a man does not. He may not be mentally or financially prepared to deal with an 18 year to life-long commitment in terms of raising a life. This is not to mention if the baby has special needs and may require more of a commitment. There has to be some sort of an common ground in this situation. For now, it seems that the idea of a man's right to choose his role in parenthood will continue sit with the rest of the bills waiting to be passed on Capitol Hill.

Work Cited La wt o n ,Zo ë .“ Sh o u l dMe nBeAb l et oOp tOu to fFa t he r h o od ? ”Vi c e ,3No v .2 0 1 6, www. v i c e . c o m/ e n _ us / a r t i c l e / e x k b 9 n / s h o u l d me n b e a b l e t o o p t o u t of f a t h e r ho o d . “ Et h i c s-Ab o r t i o n :Fa t h e r s ' Ri g h t s . ”BBC,BBC, www. b bc . c o . u k / e t hi c s / a b o r t i o n / l e g a l / f a t h e r s . s h t ml . Gi b bs ,Na n c y .“ AMa n ' sRi g h tt oCh o o s e ? ”Ti me ,Ti meI n c . ,1 5Ma r .2 0 0 6 , c o n t e n t . t i me . c o m/ t i me / n a t i on / a r t i c l e / 0 , 8 5 9 9 , 1 1 7 3 4 14 , 0 0 . ht ml . " Ro ev .Wa d e . "Oy e z ,1 6No v .2 01 7 ,www. o y e z . o r g/ c a s e s / 1 9 7 1/ 7 0 1 8 ....