There was an article that asked the question whether men should have to pay ...and I say, "Yes!!"

They gave a good argument from a woman's rights point of view ...drawing parallel conclusions for men's rights.  But, I don't agree with either approach ...as I focus on the baby's rights.

I can't even imagine an unwanted child ...

Yes, there are problematic situations, but the way I look at those also ...is that I am problematic, and God still wants me.  Do I show that perfect love??  Not even close, but I do feel that when I look to God's love, that is the best I can do to view it.

Anyway, I am going to post the article here: (typed in italic ...)

A controversial post that recently ran in the New York Times. It was written by Laurie Shrage, a women’s studies professor in Florida. No one in the world will defend deadbeat dads who don’t support their kids after a divorce, that’s a completely different scenario than men who are forced to support a child that they never wanted to have. In her opinion the law should reflect this obvious difference.

“If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.”

(Now, the views expressed here (in italic) are not necessarily the views of this network ...of pirate perspectives (my comments, here, not typed in italic).   And much of this is absolutely not the view of this blogger. I kind of like the name blogger, it sounds rather gnarly.  But, though you may think pirates have earned the reputation of stealing things ...many pirates did not leave home because they wanted to be free and see the open sea.  They often felt rather abandoned ...and certainly that does share a concern for the unborn life. This world of opportunity that we aspire to, should not be someone else's decision on whether it should expire. We should all have our own chance to live.  Stealing is not right ...and it certainly becomes more criminal in my mind when one is robbed of their life. Those who commit abortion often feel they've been abandoned  ...and they feel so overwhelmingly so, that they often don't even consider how they are abandoning that developing baby.  A life is a life, and doesn't become more of a life ...it just develops more.  I am still developing as an adult ...and always will be. I know we need hope and direction ...just like the Lost Boys felt they needed Peter Pan.  If a son of mine got a girl pregnant ...I think he should not just view it as being 'stuck' with years of child support payments, but rather he should assume responsibility as a man without trying to avoid it.  Furthermore, if he cared about her enough to be intimate ...then he should continue to care enough to help protect that delicate intimacy, or at least responsibly support that which he help create.  
And if it wasn't intimacy that resulted in the pregnancy, then was it rape?  I do understand Elizabeth Brake's point on the inconsistency of those who shout for women's rights, but we shouldn't attempt to counteract any inconsistency with an equal shout for men's rights. Perhaps Elizabeth tried to put the brake(s) on that women's rights narrative, but men's right are rather misdirected also ...as the conversation should be about responsibilities, not rights.  Because without talking about responsibilities, we cannot really do what is right, and the rights of the baby does not enter the dialogue.)  

Many women have the reflexive answer that if she accidentally got pregnant, he should be on the hook for it. But that doesn’t quite hold up logically. He can’t have a say over the birth of the fetus (because it’s her body), but she can have a say about whether he supports the accidentally conceived child for the next 18 years?

“The political philosopher Elizabeth Brake has argued that our policies should give men who accidentally impregnate a woman more options, and that feminists should oppose policies that make fatherhood compulsory. In a 2005 article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy she wrote, “if women’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a fetus, then men’s partial responsibility for pregnancy does not obligate them to support a resulting child.” At most, according to Brake, men should be responsible for helping with the medical expenses and other costs of a pregnancy for which they are partly responsible.”

Continues the author, “Feminists have long held that women should not be penalized for being sexually active by taking away their options when an accidental pregnancy occurs. Do our policies now aim to punish and shame men for their sexual promiscuity? Many of my male students (in Miami where I teach), who come from low-income immigrant communities, believe that our punitive paternity policies are aimed at controlling their sexual behavior. Moreover, the asymmetrical options that men and women now have when dealing with an unplanned pregnancy set up power imbalances in their sexual relationships that my male students find hugely unfair to them. Rather than punish men (or women) for their apparent reproductive irresponsibility by coercing legal paternity (or maternity), the government has other options, such as mandatory sex education, family planning counseling, or community service.”

(In response to those young students at the Miami school, whom the teacher referred to ...who protest that our present-day policies aim at controlling their sexual behavior, well, I do believe that their sexual behavior should be controlled. Ideally, it should be controlled by themselves.  Most pirates do not impress upon others a picture of ...or sense of goodness.  But, I believe in a deep sense of morality. I believe that sex is a marital treasure ...and anyone who cannot control their urges, should not engage in any act that could potentially steal that treasure. If you men are not married to her ...then you have no business tempting yourself with designs on her treasure, and leave her booty alone!!)

The article asks, "Is any of this ideal? Of course not. But it’s reality. No matter what we legislate, men and women are going to get drunk, hook up, forget to take precautions, and have to deal with the consequences of unplanned pregnancies. The question is: what’s fair? Shrage seems to suggest that the current laws are anything but."

“However, just as court-ordered child support does not make sense when a woman goes to a sperm bank and obtains sperm from a donor who has not agreed to father the resulting child, it does not make sense when a woman is impregnated (accidentally or possibly by her choice) from sex with a partner who has not agreed to father a child with her. In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.”

Concludes Shrage, “Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These “fathers” are not “dead-beat dads” failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on — they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child.”

(Sorry, but yes they did ...any man who 'voluntarily' gets intimately involved with a woman to the extent that she could become pregnant, has taken on the responsibility. The only point is ...that perhaps he is not willing to 'accept' it.)