Declining fatherhood
Matthew Dubay does not want to be a father to his born child. He does not want to pay child support or have the legal or emotional responsibilities involved in fatherhood.I am a little confused here. Some in the men’s ‘movement’ wish to have the right to be consulted when children are put up for adoption. Some men wish to have the right to be consulted when a woman seeks to terminate a pregnancy. Other men are fighting both here (reg. required) and in the UK (and the European Court of Human Rights) to stop embryo’s which have been fertilised by their sperm being used by former partners at a later stage. (Pro life supporters are a little quiet on all of this are they not? Is it the IVF that’s stopping them?)
Matthew could of course have said no, or perhaps wear a condom. And I don’t believe the ruse where he said his partner at the time claimed to be infertile and using birth control just in case. Again disposing of his responsibility in the matter. The use of the term ‘being duped’ into fatherhood is interesting too….wish it were as respected when used by the women misled, assaulted, abused, sectioned etc.
And what about the rights of his child to a parent?
posted by Maman Poulet @ 3/12/2006 06:20:00 p.m.
6 Comments:
that page gives me a registration page but this link via google may be better.
Actually the right to lifers are getting into it - a quick google turned up these:
http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/index.html
http://www.donkeystomp.com/archives/2006/03/roe_v_wade_for.html
thanks Mark will edit it - forget how many newspapers I have registered to read these days.
The pro-lifers have been interested in this alright!
I posted a piece on before I noticed yours browsing dowm irishblogs.ie.
I don't quite follow what you mean here - "women misled, assaulted, abused, sectioned etc." - well, just the sectioned bit - are you refering to Michael Neary or what?
Hi Auds, Noticed your piece a few minutes ago and I'll read it properly later.
By Sectioned I mean sectioning under the mental health acts. I am thinking about the practices involved in situations where husbands have tried to get wives committed when they were not really ill at all - a practice that is probably not heard about these days and with better running of institutions and inpection etc. hopefully a thing of the past.
Matthew could of course have said no, or perhaps wear a condom
Actually pro-lifers use that exact same argument when attacking abortion. Are you saying that it is alright for a woman to behave foolishly but then later decide that she doesn't want to be a parent, but it is wrong for a man to want to have the right to do the same thing?
Are you saying that it is alright for a woman to behave foolishly but then later decide that she doesn't want to be a parent, but it is wrong for a man to want to have the right to do the same thing?
I am saying that he is not the one carrying the child but he has a responsibility in 'making' it if the woman decides to or is able to proceed with the pregnancy. If he did not want to be in the position he should consider the situation before hand, many women bear the burden of their own 'mistakes' because of biology - bringing up children takes much more than biology.
Post a Comment
<< Home