Thursday, March 09, 2006
Fatherhood
I'm going to rant... Be warned.
Life is messy. NOTHING turns out exactly as we expected because there are too many variables beyond our control. Nowhere is this more evident than in human relationships.
What makes a "man" is the willingness to take responsibility for the unintended consequences of our actions.
Enter "Matt Dubay," the unexpected father of an healthy baby whose mother he had relations with while not wearing a condom. (To be fair, he claims that she told him that she was sterile.)
Matt has to pay $500/month in child-support because of his indiscretion. He sees it as a penalty and, an unconstitutional one at that. He argues that his former girlfriend (the child's mother) knew that he didn't want a baby and that her choice to carry the child should not visit upon him the unintended consequences of fatherhood.
As public policy, a ruling in his favor would be disastrous.
It is hard enough to raise a child with two parents; harder still with one. Given the financial cost of raising a child, the more resources the better. Yes, I understand the argument that he presents, but from a policy perspective, that the choices made did not take into account all of the possible consequences cannot set us free from the costs for making the situation right. Furthermore, the extension of such a ruling to other cases would render null twenty years of child enforcement policy. I think the courts will decide the case on this ground alone.
Of greater significance to me is the idea that a child is MERELY a burden.
I am amazed that a man would refuse to recognize his offspring. Forget that children are a blessing or, at least, an opportunity to provide for a man's long-term welfare (one day most of us will need someone to care for us in our old age), it is utterly immoral to visit upon an innocent the consequences of our misdeeds. Matt and his girlfriend had sex, knowing that one of the consequences of sex is the potential creation of life. Matt would have the state transfer the responsibility for that act to his offspring. This is fundamentally wrong.
I really don't care if there is a constitutional argument to support Matt's position or not. It is just wrong.
Life is messy. NOTHING turns out exactly as we expected because there are too many variables beyond our control. Nowhere is this more evident than in human relationships.
What makes a "man" is the willingness to take responsibility for the unintended consequences of our actions.
Enter "Matt Dubay," the unexpected father of an healthy baby whose mother he had relations with while not wearing a condom. (To be fair, he claims that she told him that she was sterile.)
Matt has to pay $500/month in child-support because of his indiscretion. He sees it as a penalty and, an unconstitutional one at that. He argues that his former girlfriend (the child's mother) knew that he didn't want a baby and that her choice to carry the child should not visit upon him the unintended consequences of fatherhood.
As public policy, a ruling in his favor would be disastrous.
It is hard enough to raise a child with two parents; harder still with one. Given the financial cost of raising a child, the more resources the better. Yes, I understand the argument that he presents, but from a policy perspective, that the choices made did not take into account all of the possible consequences cannot set us free from the costs for making the situation right. Furthermore, the extension of such a ruling to other cases would render null twenty years of child enforcement policy. I think the courts will decide the case on this ground alone.
Of greater significance to me is the idea that a child is MERELY a burden.
I am amazed that a man would refuse to recognize his offspring. Forget that children are a blessing or, at least, an opportunity to provide for a man's long-term welfare (one day most of us will need someone to care for us in our old age), it is utterly immoral to visit upon an innocent the consequences of our misdeeds. Matt and his girlfriend had sex, knowing that one of the consequences of sex is the potential creation of life. Matt would have the state transfer the responsibility for that act to his offspring. This is fundamentally wrong.
I really don't care if there is a constitutional argument to support Matt's position or not. It is just wrong.
# posted by Gorgius Vegetius : 8:30 AM
