Mar 13, 2006 / 22:00 pm
Two pro-life organizations have criticized a recent lawsuit filed by the National Center for Men, which argues that fathers should be able to opt out of financial responsibilities for “unwanted” babies.
In Dubay v.Wells, a Michigan man is claiming that the constitution protects him from having to pay child support for a baby he did not want carried to term. The case has been dubbed "Roe v. Wade for men."
Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, says this case challenges the consistency of the pro-choice position.
"The problem here for abortion supporters is that they either have to uphold the notion of reproductive choice and leave single women with no monetary support to raise their children or they have to say that reproductive choice is a human right that only applies to some humans," he said.
Furthermore, the priest warned, the law should not “make it any easier for men to evade their responsibilities.”
Concerned Women for America (CWA) voiced a similar concern.
"This is merely an attempt for these men to avoid their responsibilities if their 'girlfriends' shoulder their own duties and refuse to have an abortion,” said Dr. Janice Crouse, CWA’s Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute. But the most important question about the rights ofthe child remains, she said.
Crouse observed that absent fathers are becoming increasingly common; the phenomenon is detrimental to children, the family and society. Children who are raised without fathers tend to suffer “long-lasting wounds” and “often look to destructive avenues for the acceptance,” she said.
“Fathers must start acting like men and accept responsibility for their actions,” she stated. “They need to wake up … and realize that fatherhood is a beautiful and huge responsibility, which affects the lives of children and our society as a whole.”