by Rand E Oertle

Created on: July 23, 2009   Last Updated: July 28, 2009

At what point in the process of human progress is a father even considered necessary? Is it just as a sperm donor? Where is his value? How do we evaluate fathers? Is he to be considered a money tree with no consideration in the creation of humanity? In today's world fathers have been reduced to "necessary evils" to be demeaned and maligned by much of feminist thought. In a perfect world, the choice to have children would be a carefully considered joint decision. But we don't live in a perfect world.

Are all men perfect? No! Are all women perfect? No! Does the place of fathers in the lives of their children help or hinder the quality of their upbringing? If the question of the value of responsible fathers is positive, then a father has a right and responsibility to be heard in any abortion decision.

The problem with an issue like abortion is that it treats all pregnancies in the abstract. That is, there is no judgment as to how the pregnancy occurred, which is an untenable factor in making the decision. If the father is a one-night stander, then the mother is a one-night stander and the question for the father becomes: "How do I get out of this?" His reaction and that of the mother is roughly the same. Abortion is our "lazy" method of birth control, an inconceivable calloused and cold-hearted view of human life.

To frankly answer the question one has to make some unequivocal judgments. If the father is responsible, mature and conscientious why should he not have a say? Is the mother equally responsible? With these prerequisites then certainly the father should have a say.

The problem is that not all pregnancies occur under these circumstances creating the dilemma. Mind-boggling situations have been reported in news stories that cloud the issue. In the past year or so, there have been two stories that have a bearing on whether a father should have a voice in the abortion decision. A young man (27-years-of-age), was reported to have fathered 156 children with more than 100 women.

Without a doubt, he not only should be denied any voice, but a strong case should be made for his castration. He certainly will not be able to support those children and he is cavalierly giving fatherly responsibilities to the state, meaning taxpayers. The one-hundred women, on the other hand, chose to have the children, knowing that there would be no possible way for this "man" to support them or their children. Did they view those children as welfare cash producers?

Then there

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>