Print ArticleDear Editor,
Dale Netherton needs to spend more time in this country if he is going to write about issues in the United States. He asks the question, "Does a Pregnant Woman have Rights?" But his answers are wrong on moral, scientific, as well as legal issues.
The pregnant mother can choose to abort the child regardless if the 'sperm donor' wants to be a father - regardless of her marital status. A single pregnant woman has the option of putting the child up for adoption. And if she wants to have the child, she can hit up the father for child support and receive unearned and nontaxable income for 18 years. If married, she can file for divorce and is practically assured of the primary relationship with the child and child support.
Doesn't Netherton know many states have the "Baby Moses Law?" Though the Texas Family Code has the temerity to couch it in non-gender specific terms, it is the female, not the male parent who "may voluntarily deliver a child 60 days old or younger to a designated emergency infant care provider when the parent does not express an intent to return for the child."
Newborns abandoned by Texas mothers are listed on a busy bulletin board in the county they are found in a sham of a search to find the father. (You can bet authorities will go to much greater lengths to find the mother should a man drop off an infant at a designated emergency infant care provider.)
And Netherton is biologically and legally wrong when he says a man "is not forced to be a father." A man who impregnates a woman can be forced to be a father by a woman who lies about her birth control. And he can be forced to be a father and an ATM by the State once paternity is established.
Netherton is wrong again when he says the pregnant women "is the person who must bear the responsibility of her offspring (along with a responsible father)..." I know plenty of responsible fathers who were made visitors to their children (or alienated altogether) by vindictive ex-wives and uncaring judges.
Sure, they may still be ordered to be financially responsible, but noncustodial dads are exiled from the majority of their child's emotional, physical, and academic life. If a custodial mother does not have the financial responsibility to raise a child, the State has a variety of programs to help her. On the other hand, the State will offer nothing to help a poor noncustodial father. Instead, our Government will seek to make him a criminal if he cannot afford to pay child support.
A woman's rights are paramount according to the gospel of Dale Netherton. He trots out biblical reasoning that life begins at conception - then attempts to discredit it. But he completely fails to mention the scientific arguments discovered since the daze of Roe v. Wade.
Netherton is very pro-choice, it seems. Trouble is, he discredits the inherent drive of the unborn to live. And he fails to mention the lack of choice the father of the fetus may have.
Don Mathis
Texas
Dale Netherton needs to spend more time in this country if he is going to write about issues in the United States. He asks the question, "Does a Pregnant Woman have Rights?" But his answers are wrong on moral, scientific, as well as legal issues.
The pregnant mother can choose to abort the child regardless if the 'sperm donor' wants to be a father - regardless of her marital status. A single pregnant woman has the option of putting the child up for adoption. And if she wants to have the child, she can hit up the father for child support and receive unearned and nontaxable income for 18 years. If married, she can file for divorce and is practically assured of the primary relationship with the child and child support.
Doesn't Netherton know many states have the "Baby Moses Law?" Though the Texas Family Code has the temerity to couch it in non-gender specific terms, it is the female, not the male parent who "may voluntarily deliver a child 60 days old or younger to a designated emergency infant care provider when the parent does not express an intent to return for the child."
Newborns abandoned by Texas mothers are listed on a busy bulletin board in the county they are found in a sham of a search to find the father. (You can bet authorities will go to much greater lengths to find the mother should a man drop off an infant at a designated emergency infant care provider.)
And Netherton is biologically and legally wrong when he says a man "is not forced to be a father." A man who impregnates a woman can be forced to be a father by a woman who lies about her birth control. And he can be forced to be a father and an ATM by the State once paternity is established.
Netherton is wrong again when he says the pregnant women "is the person who must bear the responsibility of her offspring (along with a responsible father)..." I know plenty of responsible fathers who were made visitors to their children (or alienated altogether) by vindictive ex-wives and uncaring judges.
Sure, they may still be ordered to be financially responsible, but noncustodial dads are exiled from the majority of their child's emotional, physical, and academic life. If a custodial mother does not have the financial responsibility to raise a child, the State has a variety of programs to help her. On the other hand, the State will offer nothing to help a poor noncustodial father. Instead, our Government will seek to make him a criminal if he cannot afford to pay child support.
A woman's rights are paramount according to the gospel of Dale Netherton. He trots out biblical reasoning that life begins at conception - then attempts to discredit it. But he completely fails to mention the scientific arguments discovered since the daze of Roe v. Wade.
Netherton is very pro-choice, it seems. Trouble is, he discredits the inherent drive of the unborn to live. And he fails to mention the lack of choice the father of the fetus may have.
Don Mathis
Texas
view author's RSS feed
