The American male cannot be held responsible for the birth of a child
The age old controversy over responsibility for children will continue as far into the future as it has extended back into the past. Today women control contradictory legal positions concerning birth and children. An underlying tenet of the American legal system is the concept all men, women, all races, all religions, etc., will be treated equally. Given this primary thesis, laws concerning pregnancy, childbearing, and women having “all rights,” should be interpreted in a manner that absolves the male of any obligation toward their offspring.
Under current law, a pregnant woman can terminate a pregnancy or deliver and force
the father to pay child support. These two contradictory rights remove all control of the fetus from the male, thereby excluding him from the basic American ideal of equal rights and/or treatment. When a man engages in sex with a woman, she can determine if she wants to use birth control or not. If she chooses to become pregnant, she can then saddle the male with the cost of the child. She wants that right over the male (obligating the male) claiming he is half-responsible. That right alone would be fair, except she can also abort the child, denying the male his half of the responsibility (an obligation a male might want.)In no other segment of American law is one side afforded all rights, all control and the other no rights. Women can have sex with whom they choose. Woman can control who fathers their children. Women can decide the life or death of a fetus, i.e. arbitrarily deciding to obligate one male over another. The rational conclusion of such a one-sided arrangement can only be the male is not responsible in any manner for pregnancy.
To correct this inequality, we should codify that males bear no responsibility for any woman’s children. If that is not done, then in the name of equal rights, the legal system should demand woman are held as accountable as men. A woman should have her fetus tested, male parentage established, and the male’s permission obtained before a fetus is aborted. This would be similar to the process she would take to force a male to provide for a child she elected to deliver.
The comparison is extreme, but accurate. The reason for the current twisted societal thought process that led to poor, contradictory and conflicting legal rights is a press that elevated the most maladjusted malcontents (extremist women’s libbers) and gave them a forum. Despite comprising a small fraction of all women, our judicial and congressional system actually responded to the network’s public relations campaign.
The reality is as it always has been: pregnancy is completely the woman’s responsibility and problem. The man has no repercussions from pregnancy. He doesn’t swell for nine months. He doesn’t breast feed. He doesn’t do a damn thing! There is no cost to a male. Only a strict socialist state enforcing male responsibility could ensure any certain cost to a male. Even with today’s laws, a male can move from state to state; he can refuse to work; he can do a thousand things to avoid his legal responsibility for a child.
The current laws and liberal ideology must be forgotten concerning responsibility for children. The common sense the first cave women intuitively knew must again be recognized. The woman from girlhood has to understand any result from sex is 100% her problem. Her only real security is knowing the quality and character of the male before having sex. No law can ensure a woman support of her child. Only the morals of a rational society imparted to its male and female members can do what the law attempts.