Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, March 13, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 2
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, March 13, 2006 at about 11pm CST - Segment 2
Man Eater by Hall & Oates
I'm reading a book called Smart Sex by Jennifer Roback Morse. What it is about is kind of strange, because it is not a self-help book. I mean, too many books nowadays are about how to increase the pleasure of your sex life. Sex has become a product that must be sold as the ultimate good. Let me quote you a paragraph that struck me as particularly interesting. She says:
About two weeks ago, a suit was launched in federal court that will have far reaching consequences. The suit is about a man who did NOT wed a woman. She became pregnant. He had explicitly told her that he did not want kids. The woman he was living with agreed to that. She became pregnant. He moved out and repudiated the child. He did not dispute that he was the biological father of the child that was born to the woman. He just said that because he had an implied contract with the woman, she cannot come to him for child support. Think about this for a moment. The guy is saying that the woman could have aborted the child or for that matter, she should have been more careful in her birth control regime. He was in it for the sex and had made no bones about it, so he contends that she, the mother of the child, has no call on his income, because he does not want or need to be a part of the child's life. Throughout the last thirty years courts have held that the woman has total control of her body. Now the chickens have come home to roost. If that is true, then it logically follows that it is the woman's responsibility to take care of a child, if the father repudiates the child before his or her birth.
What could happen is that if this guy wins is that all a live in boyfriend has to do is avoid putting their name on the birth certificate and they are home free. The father of illegitimate children then can be freed of child support by simply publishing a public notice that says that they repudiate the child by their lover or spouse. Right now a husband can do that with a wife's debts. By extension he can make the case that since he has no control over whether a baby is born, he should not have to pay for a baby he does not want. Back up once more. A woman can overrule the biological father of a child she is bearing. She can have an abortion and the man just has to suck it up. It follows that if the man cannot have any control of when a child is aborted, then he at this point in time has no control of whether it is born. The man in this suit is saying that he should not have the burden of paying child support for eighteen to 21 years for a child he does not want. The case will be based on equal protection precedents.
Now, I wonder what that means for married couples. Right now there is an implicit expectation inside a marriage that a man who marries a woman can expect total monogamy AND in return the woman will bear his children and only his children. What if the husband decides that he does not want ANY children? If there is a pre-nuptial agreement spelling this out, then maybe the man can make the case that he does not support any children who result from his wife. On the other hand, look at what could happen if the wife decides to have a baby and the husband says forget it. Right now, the guy is stuck. Marriage by definition means that the husband will support any children his wife produces (assuming she can prove paternity by DNA testing). If this suit is approved, then the husband can repudiate the child before the child is born, divorce his wife and NOT have to pay child support.
A case I heard about was where the husband divorced his wife and she had herself impregnated with fertilized ovum they had created in a bid for children. The guy in that case had to suck it up and pay child support. If this new case goes through, the husband could now reopen his case.
The nastiest outcome of this one is where the husband repudiates the child and stays married to the woman. How in the world would that be resolved? I mean, the husband has in fact said that he does NOT have to give ANY financial support to his child because he has repudiated it. I know, you out there in the audience are looking at me like I am crazy, but like I said at the beginning, what if the guy in the marriage is only looking for sex and not paternity? Think about it. I do not know how it could be done, but I can see such a case coming down the pike.
As I said, interesting times.
Man Eater by Hall & Oates
I'm reading a book called Smart Sex by Jennifer Roback Morse. What it is about is kind of strange, because it is not a self-help book. I mean, too many books nowadays are about how to increase the pleasure of your sex life. Sex has become a product that must be sold as the ultimate good. Let me quote you a paragraph that struck me as particularly interesting. She says:
Implicit in the modern view is that sexual activity without unwanted pregnancy is an entitlement. Put another way, sexual activity is not only a good, but a great and important good that curtailing it in significant ways constitutes an unacceptable infringement on personal freedom. There are two value judgements implicit in this view. First, separating sexual activity from reproduction is an entitlement. Second, voluntary sexual activity without procreation is always and everywhere a great good. Notice that neither of these statements is "value-neutral." Both contain powerful moral judgements, as well as tacit empirical claims.The whole point of modern feminism has been that women HAVE to be made equal to men for things to be... I want to say fail, but that word has always seemed incompatible with being an adult. Life is not fair, where fair is defined as the outcome of an event is acceptable to 90% of those affected by the event. Such a standard is impossible. By making sex have no consequences, the unforseen outcome is that women are no longer valued as companions and advisors and soulmates. Women have been life support systems for their sexual organs. They are now objects. Women are encouraged to think that having children will make them less independent and less financially secure. What is even weirder is that children become the property of the woman and not the man. A woman can abort a child over the objections of her husband or the unwed father of the child.
About two weeks ago, a suit was launched in federal court that will have far reaching consequences. The suit is about a man who did NOT wed a woman. She became pregnant. He had explicitly told her that he did not want kids. The woman he was living with agreed to that. She became pregnant. He moved out and repudiated the child. He did not dispute that he was the biological father of the child that was born to the woman. He just said that because he had an implied contract with the woman, she cannot come to him for child support. Think about this for a moment. The guy is saying that the woman could have aborted the child or for that matter, she should have been more careful in her birth control regime. He was in it for the sex and had made no bones about it, so he contends that she, the mother of the child, has no call on his income, because he does not want or need to be a part of the child's life. Throughout the last thirty years courts have held that the woman has total control of her body. Now the chickens have come home to roost. If that is true, then it logically follows that it is the woman's responsibility to take care of a child, if the father repudiates the child before his or her birth.
What could happen is that if this guy wins is that all a live in boyfriend has to do is avoid putting their name on the birth certificate and they are home free. The father of illegitimate children then can be freed of child support by simply publishing a public notice that says that they repudiate the child by their lover or spouse. Right now a husband can do that with a wife's debts. By extension he can make the case that since he has no control over whether a baby is born, he should not have to pay for a baby he does not want. Back up once more. A woman can overrule the biological father of a child she is bearing. She can have an abortion and the man just has to suck it up. It follows that if the man cannot have any control of when a child is aborted, then he at this point in time has no control of whether it is born. The man in this suit is saying that he should not have the burden of paying child support for eighteen to 21 years for a child he does not want. The case will be based on equal protection precedents.
Now, I wonder what that means for married couples. Right now there is an implicit expectation inside a marriage that a man who marries a woman can expect total monogamy AND in return the woman will bear his children and only his children. What if the husband decides that he does not want ANY children? If there is a pre-nuptial agreement spelling this out, then maybe the man can make the case that he does not support any children who result from his wife. On the other hand, look at what could happen if the wife decides to have a baby and the husband says forget it. Right now, the guy is stuck. Marriage by definition means that the husband will support any children his wife produces (assuming she can prove paternity by DNA testing). If this suit is approved, then the husband can repudiate the child before the child is born, divorce his wife and NOT have to pay child support.
A case I heard about was where the husband divorced his wife and she had herself impregnated with fertilized ovum they had created in a bid for children. The guy in that case had to suck it up and pay child support. If this new case goes through, the husband could now reopen his case.
The nastiest outcome of this one is where the husband repudiates the child and stays married to the woman. How in the world would that be resolved? I mean, the husband has in fact said that he does NOT have to give ANY financial support to his child because he has repudiated it. I know, you out there in the audience are looking at me like I am crazy, but like I said at the beginning, what if the guy in the marriage is only looking for sex and not paternity? Think about it. I do not know how it could be done, but I can see such a case coming down the pike.
As I said, interesting times.
posted by aRandomTexan at
4:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home