Reader Comment
Nope. The man's "rights" do not exist until such time as a child is born. At such time his rights and responsibilities, like the woman's is present because a child is now present. (L.T.)
You are stating the status of current misapplication of federal law, which, in its current application, violates basic equal protection principles. If you check state law you'll find that the responsibilities the father can be forced to assume begin prior to birth; and when reviewing these various states' laws note that the father's parental rights are also specified.
The philosophical underpinnings the Court used in Roe to justify a woman’s right to terminate the life of another human entity rest entirely on their finding that before viability the fetus possesses no intrinsic value that allows it to exist if the mother determines her "privacy" leads her to make a personal medical decision.
Pre-Roe both father and mother assumed equivalent responsibilities for pregnancy (or potential pregnancy) at the time they mutually agreed to have sex. Equal parental rights as well as responsibilities were attached to expectant couples, although there was no right to an abortion (or ability to refuse parental responsibility, in the father’s case) absent a grave medical threat to the mother. Both parents enjoyed "equal protection" and "due process" in like measure precisely because both were required to subject themselves to the same legal requirements when they engaged in sex and, if it occurred, at the time of conception.
Post-Roe finds us in a situation where a mother has a pre-viability choice of whether or not to have (accept responsibility for) a child; the father has no choice --- no right --- to refuse that same parental responsibility although the pre-Roe intrinsic worth of the fetus has gone from having great value (as a member of the human race) to post-Roe intrinsic worthlessness.
The current failure to recognize the father’s equal protection right in like measure to the mother's is discrimination based solely upon sex, given that all situations and conditions that existed pre-Roe are identical in every respect today.
Beyond the lack of choice, however, we still have a situation where a father, from the moment of conception, is legally responsible for the economic welfare of the same entity that has been ruled to lack any intrinsic worth. The mother has no legal responsibility for the potential child's physical or economic welfare until it's free from the birth canal nine months after conception. Post-Roe, from conception to birth, there exists a different and unequal legal standard for the separate parties although all situations and conditions (again) remain identical to those that existed pre-Roe.
Federal law supercedes state law; in it's current misapplication of Roe federal law allows state law to trump in forcing fathers to accept responsibility for a potential child when no such requirement is mandated for the mother. Were Roe to be applied correctly states would not be allowed to force fathers to adhere to the legal double-standard that now exists.
A father’s independent refusal, prior to viability, to accept responsibility for a child he does not wish to accept will not infringe upon the mother’s independent right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy and is fully in keeping with the findings of Roe. Fathers do have rights; fathers are due the approximate right to refuse responsibility for a potential child that a mother has. That Roe implicitly states this fact in the logic of the ruling cannot be in doubt.
You are stating the status of current misapplication of federal law, which, in its current application, violates basic equal protection principles. If you check state law you'll find that the responsibilities the father can be forced to assume begin prior to birth; and when reviewing these various states' laws note that the father's parental rights are also specified.
The philosophical underpinnings the Court used in Roe to justify a woman’s right to terminate the life of another human entity rest entirely on their finding that before viability the fetus possesses no intrinsic value that allows it to exist if the mother determines her "privacy" leads her to make a personal medical decision.
Pre-Roe both father and mother assumed equivalent responsibilities for pregnancy (or potential pregnancy) at the time they mutually agreed to have sex. Equal parental rights as well as responsibilities were attached to expectant couples, although there was no right to an abortion (or ability to refuse parental responsibility, in the father’s case) absent a grave medical threat to the mother. Both parents enjoyed "equal protection" and "due process" in like measure precisely because both were required to subject themselves to the same legal requirements when they engaged in sex and, if it occurred, at the time of conception.
Post-Roe finds us in a situation where a mother has a pre-viability choice of whether or not to have (accept responsibility for) a child; the father has no choice --- no right --- to refuse that same parental responsibility although the pre-Roe intrinsic worth of the fetus has gone from having great value (as a member of the human race) to post-Roe intrinsic worthlessness.
The current failure to recognize the father’s equal protection right in like measure to the mother's is discrimination based solely upon sex, given that all situations and conditions that existed pre-Roe are identical in every respect today.
Beyond the lack of choice, however, we still have a situation where a father, from the moment of conception, is legally responsible for the economic welfare of the same entity that has been ruled to lack any intrinsic worth. The mother has no legal responsibility for the potential child's physical or economic welfare until it's free from the birth canal nine months after conception. Post-Roe, from conception to birth, there exists a different and unequal legal standard for the separate parties although all situations and conditions (again) remain identical to those that existed pre-Roe.
Federal law supercedes state law; in it's current misapplication of Roe federal law allows state law to trump in forcing fathers to accept responsibility for a potential child when no such requirement is mandated for the mother. Were Roe to be applied correctly states would not be allowed to force fathers to adhere to the legal double-standard that now exists.
A father’s independent refusal, prior to viability, to accept responsibility for a child he does not wish to accept will not infringe upon the mother’s independent right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy and is fully in keeping with the findings of Roe. Fathers do have rights; fathers are due the approximate right to refuse responsibility for a potential child that a mother has. That Roe implicitly states this fact in the logic of the ruling cannot be in doubt.
posted by Steve at 9:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home