It's election Tuesday in America and while many of us will not be going to the polls several bell weather races are taking place. That is not what I am going to blog about today; rather I am going to take on a more controversial topic that is taking place locally. Last week Dameon Gatson was found guilty by jury in his participation of a murder-for-hire plot against the woman who carried his unborn baby. Shyloe Linde was six month pregnant when the attack took place and gave birth the day after the attack. According to the Star Tribune article Jury Convicts in murder-for-hire plot on October 31, 2009 the prosecution planned to "introduce transcripts of interviews with Petersen in which he said Gatson hired him to punch Linde because Gatson did not want to pay child support."
The transcript is where I want to focus; specifically the issue of child support and the role of the man in the decision of having a baby. When two people decide to engage in the act of intercourse a potential outcome is a child. According to The New York Times, Out-of-Wedlock Birthrates Are Soaring, U.S. Reports, stated that "unmarried mothers gave birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United Sates." NPR reported, Abortion Decline, Despite More Liberal Laws Worldwide, that "the number of abortions worldwide dropped to about 42 million in 2003 from little over 45 million in 1995." Now, I am not one that believes that abortion is an option when two people engage in the act of intercourse at their own free will. At the same token, I do not believe I have the right to impose my belief on abortion onto others and they ought to have the right to decide what is best for them.
That being said, the decision of having an abortion is a weighty one and should not be made in haste. The United States Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, stipulated that a woman's has a right to terminate a pregnancy. Unfortunately the suit left one aspect of the equation out of the picture; the father. Now, I do not condone the act of Dameon Gatson in hiring a person to inflict harm upon another but I do understand his frustration in being required to pay child support for a child he does not want. Nor does Gatson have a say in the outcome of the act he engaged in with Linde that created the child.
As I said before, if it were me the concept of an abortion is not an option. A double standard is created by unwanted pregnancies. The double standard is that the decision to have or not to have the child is ultimately the females alone. The female can decided to terminate the birth regardless of the wishes of the willing partner. Let's set aside the case above that brings us here as this conversation moves forward. The father of an unwanted pregnancy has no recourse if the female decides to terminate while is expected to support the child if the female has the child. Why is this? Why is the father's voice silent in the decision?
The father is required to support the unwanted child by law yet the father holds no legal standing on the decision to abort. Why cannot the father of the pregnancy not have the same luxury to abort or not to abort the child? For instance, why cannot the father say that he'd like to have the child regardless of how the mother feels? Or why cannot the father be exempt for child support if the mother has the child and he "bows out"?
I think this whole issue could be solved if men were able to get pregnant and carry a child, too.
ReplyDeleteAnon..please elaborate upon what you say as I believe that Barbara Walters interviewed a man who gave birth this year..ahh here it is..http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20284188,00.html
ReplyDeleteAnon is Lis... sorry, I don't have a username thing, so Anon was the only profile I could select to update my comment...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I was mostly being facetious with my statement. However, the way I see it is just biology at its finest. Women get pregnant, men can't (regardless of that crock story of a transgendered "man"... still obviously has the female chromosome). So, as long as women are the only sex that can get pregnant an issue of some sort will always be present. It is what it is.
While the transgender birth is one for a different entry, why does it have to be "It is what it is"? As I asked, why cannot a man have more in the decision or, in this case, why cannot the make bow out and not have to be obligated to pay support?
ReplyDeleteWell, the short answer would be that this is the crazy situation that legalized abortion leaves us in.
ReplyDeleteBut the better answer is that a man gives up his rights when he has sex with a woman he isn't married to and doesn't use contraception. Despite the past 20 years of pop culture telling us that men and women are perfectly equal, the fact exists that women get pregnant and men don't. Since the biology of men and women is unequal, their rights must be unequal as well.
Dave..okay, what if contraception is used and it fails? Why cannot a man "bow out" and not be held obligated to pay support for the child?
ReplyDeleteAgain...I do not believe in abortion nor would I "bow out" either. Just wondering if an option existed perhaps the case that prompted this entry would never be heard.
Everyone knows contraception isn't 100% effective, you are assuming the risk it won't work and have to live with the consequences.
ReplyDeleteFurther, where is the woman's right to "bow out"? And don't say she can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. Neither of those choices are remotely close to the option you are giving the guy of just being able to wash his hands of the whole thing.
Agreed that a woman cannot "bow out" physically or emotionally when the outcome of intercourse, protected or not, is a child. The core issue of why the murder-for-hire plot took root was the financial obligation the father was to required by law to provide.
ReplyDeleteIn that essence, the financial aspect of the equation - which is the point of my article - the female can "bow out" by either of the two option listed above in the last comment or by allowing the father to have the child. Which gets me back to the question at hand - Why cannot the father opt out?
Because the child's right to be cared for takes priority. Especially when the father could have prevented the occurence in the first place. You can't throw your hands in the air and not take on the consequences of your actions because you don't like the outcome.
ReplyDeleteWhy should I as a tax payer have to pick up the slack of a deadbeat dad?
The assumption made that "the father could have prevented the occurence" is no more the blame of the male than the female in the equation. The attempt absolve the role of the female is a terrible injustice to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteAs I say, if the female decides she wants no part of the financial responsibilty she has options while the father does not. I agree that the taxpayer ought not foot the bill, then again, regardless of the involvement of either parent, I do not see where the taxpayer should subsidize the birth of child in or out of wedlock. That is a conversation for another time.
Let's not deflect from the task at hand. The father looking to opt out does not equate to a deadbeat dad; so why can a father not wish to opt out?
I'm not absolving anyone. The father opts out by not getting in the situation to begin with and keeping his pants zipped. You can't honestly view this issue as a solely financial one. The emotional and physically factors are the overwhelming issues. Regardless of if the father wants to take care of the child, the mother still has to carry the child.
ReplyDeleteHe can't opt out because it's called taking personal responsibility for your decisions.
He can't bow out because he has given up that right when he had sex with a woman he was not married to. I'm not trying to say that pre-marital sex is evil, just that it has consequences.
ReplyDeleteSex is a voluntary act for men, we can choose to do it or not to do it, unless you are talking about a rohypnol-viagra cocktail.
I am looking solely at the financial issue since that is the issue at the murder-for-hire case per the transcripts that prosecution wanted to have admitted into to evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe comment of the "father ops out by not getting in the situatino to being with" are you saying these females are tricking the father, trapping the father, or that the father is forcing himself onto the female?
But I digress. The issue at hand is the financial aspect and the lack of choice the father has in it and the double standard. The female can opt out financially by aborting the child, giving the child up for adoption,leaving the child at the hospital, or by giving the child over to the father. The father cannot opt out financially.
I think it's pretty clear by the remainder of that sentence that I'm saying the father has a choice by not engaging in the act to begin with. I'm bewildered that you can honestly read something else into it.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the father be able to opt out? He willingly participate know what the outcome could be. Why should he not be held responsible for his actions?
Anon..you want equity in the decision to engage intercourse yet the decision to abort or not to abort is one sided. All I am asking is why is not equitable for the male to have the same choice. Since the male cannot force the female to keep the child against her wishes, the only other recourse for equity is financial responsibility. Why is not equitable?
ReplyDeleteBecause we aren't talking about a labradoodle and it's not solely a financial issue and to think so minimizes the impact on the mother, for one. The choice is to not engage in intercourse. You really think the father has no responsibility to a child he fathered? Did he not know this was a possibility? I wish I could just hit reset on some of the outcomes in my life that I didn't like even when I engaged in the act knowing what all of the possible outcomes could be.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the benefit of allowing the father to opt out? Are you concerned that this type of scheme is a common occurrence? Do you honestly believe that scores of men are killing their unborn children because they don't want to pay child support? What benefit does the mother or child receive by allowing the child to opt out? Are you solely concerned about saving the father some money? Any argument that the "benefit" of allowing the father to opt out is saving money on enforcement and collection actions against the father ignores reality. If you take away child support payments, no matter how minimal or inconsistent the payments may be, the mother will undoubtedly look for assistance from city, state or federal sources. What would be the benefit of allowing the father to "opt out"?
ReplyDeleteDave, Sex is a voluntary act for women as well that has consequences. And if the woman chooses to have pre marital sex, then she should be willing to raise that child and support that child if the father does want to be responsible for it.
ReplyDeleteThere should be a legal document, like a prenup agreement in marriage. The father should have to be notified of the pregnancy and be allowed to have it documented that he does not want that child. This should be done early enough in the pregnancy to allow the woman to decide if she still wants to have that child and take responsibility for it alone. If she does not, then she has options. If she does, then that also be her choice, and the father should not be required to pay for a child that he doesn't want. This would stop women from getting pregnant just to collect the child support. And if you don't think that it happens that way, come and spend a day in the families division at your county welfare office. Deb.
Deb. Thanks for your comments as you hit on the core issue of my entry originally. We all agree, for the most part, all parties to intercourse are willing partners and are fully aware of the outcomes of said act. Where I am asking equity for is in the decisions that follow.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I am opposed to abortion and expect the both participants to take an active role in the decision making of whether to have the child or not. My question is simple, why is there not more equity in the process?
Setting aside the mental and physical scars that can take place from an abortion, a female really does have an opt out after the deed is done.
Thanks again Deb. I am curious to see what other have to say.
I have a huge problem with womens rights and being equal. I am a 46 year old woman and I have never gotten the whole equal rights thing. Women and men are different (thank God) and I do believe in equal pay for equal work but I don't think that women have the right to make the choice of abortion or keeping the child and making the man pay or even of going to social services. If there were true equal rights the man would have every right to raise his child without the womans say. My husband could run parenting circles around the woman that gave birth to his children and yet because she is female she is "raising" the children (and several other mens) The whole system is wrong and our children are paying the price. I believe there should be no abortion but in lew of that there should be no abortion unless the man agrees. If the woman decides to have a child alone it should be without relying on the man or society or the man should be allowed to have the child and not have to pay the female. Of course, idealy the couple should not have sex unless they can raise a child together but women don't get that whole idea any more than a man does. But back to my original point is that there is no such thing as equal rights.
ReplyDeleteDeb, do you honestly think a woman collects more in child support than it costs to raise the child? That's the only way having kids pays. If that's the case, someone has a very, very good lawyer or a very, very bad one. I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure the DA and courts enforce the order to pay, too.
ReplyDeleteSo, one of your arguments is that a woman should have to carry a child full term if the man is willing to take financial care of it, right? It's only fair to compensate the woman for essential only being a host to a parasite, right? So, pregnancy is 40 weeks. 7 days a week, 24 hours a day is 6,720 hours. What's minimum wage these days? Let's just go with 6 bucks, but I'm sure anyone who has had a child would think that's ridicules. So, we're looking at over $40,000 just to carry the child. Plus, medical expenses.
I think we can agree there are health risks to having a child, up to and including not being able to have kids later and death. How much is fair compensation for that? We would all want to be compensated for doing something we didn't want to do, nor have to do. What's a fair value for possibly dying? 6 figures? 7?
Anon, I work in the Human Services industry, and I work in the welfare dept. I am not saying that child support is enough to raise a child on. But what I am saying is that there are women here in my place of employment everyday whose only source of income is child support and MFIP. Without that child, she would not have any income. And even $200 in child support each month is more that what she had before. AND, the money is not spent on the child. The child is actually supported by food support, MA, and MFIP cash programs, and by the hundreds of other communtity agencies out there that give all these single mothers everything they need.
ReplyDeleteThanks Deb for bringing to light firsthand accounts of the waste and abuse that goes on within our welfare system.
ReplyDeleteBack to the main point though. The question at play is:Where is the equity in the ability for the male to opt out or opt in when the famale decides on the opposite?