Deadbeat Dads of the World, Unite!
A few years ago, I wrote an essay by that name in which I argued that men should seek their own "right to choose." I wrote:

A “deadbeat dad” is merely a biological father who has chosen not to financially support his offspring. What is so horrible about that? So the kid’s father didn’t buy him some food, diapers or the GI Joe with the kung-fu grip—so what? Compared to what the pro-choice feminists are getting away with, the average deadbeat dad’s behavior is commendable, even laudable. For instance, when a pro-choice feminist kills her unwanted baby, she is seen as merely exercising her “right to choose.” However, when a man decides he no longer wants to blow his paycheck supporting his baby, he is labeled a deadbeat dad. It’s just not fair. At least he didn’t kill the child. Which is worse – murder, or withdrawal of financial support? Why aren’t mothers who abort labeled “murderous moms” or some other such moniker?

What these men need to do is manipulate the language to work in their favor. They should not stand idly by and allow themselves to be labeled “deadbeat dads.” What they should do is create the impression that they are simply exercising their God-given, or even—dare I say—constitutional “right to choose.” It need not be more defined than that. (In fact, it is best left vague.) For who can argue with “a man’s right to choose?” If these men play their cards right, they can be seen as heroes rather than villains.

They should argue that since women have nine months in which to make up their minds whether or not to let their babies live, it is only fair that men should have nine months following the child’s birth to determine whether or not he feels up to supporting it. And women should not be heard to complain. At least the male version of the “right to choose,” unlike the female version, doesn’t involve ending a human life. Moreover, because men have no input in a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion, women should have no input into whether a father supports his child. Right now, if a father doesn’t want a mother to kill his unborn child, that’s too bad. He can’t stop her – it is her “right to choose.” In the same way, then, the woman should not be allowed to sue for child support once the father decides that he doesn’t want to support the child – this is his “right to choose.” Who can argue against Equal Opportunity Choice?

Of course, I was only kidding. However, at least one attorney took me seriously, and in N.E. v. Hedges, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals faced the following argument:

The plaintiff argues that the Kentucky paternity and child support laws are inconsistent with sexual and procreative "privacy" rights recognized by the Supreme Court[.] The right to procreative privacy, he argues, "includes the right to decide not to become a parent even after conception," and "must extend to both biological parents," so that "Kentucky's statutory scheme" must be invalidated because it "imposes parenthood on biological fathers while denying them any right or opportunity to decide not to become a parent after conception."

His argument is best summed up by this line from his reply brief: "It was unconstitutional for Kentucky to force parenthood on N.E." How do you like that sentence -- how much further can society fall?

The Court noted that the argument appeared to be based on a law review article (and what crazy argument isn't?): The Male Abortion: The Putative Father's Right to Terminate His Interests in and Obligations to the Unborn Child, 7 J.L. & Pol'y 1 (1998).

However, the Court easily dismissed his argument, stating that "The sexual privacy cases referred to by plaintiff do not give either biological parent the right to escape responsibility after the child is born."

Thus, the $64,000.00 question now becomes: what if a father brings his argument (i.e., that he does not have to support the child, that he is exercising his "right to choose") before the child is born? If a mother has the right to "escape responsibility" prior to birth, I think it is a fair question to ask why the father should not be given the same opportunity.

I wonder where Planned Parenthood and NARAL come down on this one? I'll bet they want nothing to do with it -- it definitely strips away some of the lustre of the whole "right to choose" charade they've carefully cultivated.

And before any of you pro-choice women chime in that men should not have these rights, perhaps you should remember that this is a MAN'S decision, to be made by him and his accountant, and you women should have nothing to say about it. Isn't that what you've been telling us about abortion, lo these many years?

(Cross-posted at Southern Appeal)
- posted by Mark @ 9:48 PM