Miscreant Moms

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/04/miscreant-moms/

Miscreant Moms
April 04, 2006
by Marc Rudov
For the past two days, the San Jose Mercury News has been heralding the
efficacy and value of California's Safely Surrendered Baby Law (SSB). A
local mother, who decided not to be a mother, dropped off her unwanted
newborn baby at a San Jose fire station.

She is allowed to do this. The SSB law encourages her to do this. California
is one of at least 47 states to offer safe haven to "desperate mothers who
are unwilling or unable to keep their babies." California brags that, as of
January 1, 2006, 122 babies have been safely surrendered under this law.
Champagne, anyone?

For those of you unfamiliar with these "safe-haven" laws, depending on the
state, mothers have 72 hours after giving birth to return their unwanted
newborns to police stations, fire stations, or hospitals - no questions
asked. How nice. Oh, but wait, there's more. The hapless mommy can change
her mind (what's new?) within 14 days of discarding her little bundle to
reclaim it. Again, no questions asked.

Recently, the National Center for Men filed a landmark federal lawsuit on
behalf of Matt Dubay, called Roe v. Wade for Men, asking for dismissal of
his obligations to support a child he did not want. The mother of this child
told him, at the beginning of their relationship, that she is infertile and
also was taking birth-control pills. As expected, feminists, and many men,
impugned Matt Dubay as a deadbeat dad. If he wants out, he's a villain. If
she wants out, we say: "Poor baby, you have so much stress. We understand.
There, there."

Is it possible we have yet another double standard here? Let's see. Despite
a man's wishes, a woman can get an abortion. Or, she can deliver her child
and then collect child support from the father, who, according to Roe v.
Wade, was meaningless during the abortion decision. Or, she can deliver the
child, then decide she doesn't want it, then dump it off at the fire
station, thereby releasing herself and the father from parental obligations.
Or, she can go back to the fire station, 14 days after legally abandoning
her baby, to reclaim the abandoned child, thereby reobligating herself and
the father to support the child. Or, or, or, or, or, or. So many choices.
What's a woman to do? Alas, the man has to go along with whatever she
decides. Seems fair, right?

We, as a society, must start holding women to account. Such a move would be
a breakthrough, as women have far too many escape routes to avoid
responsibility. I suggest we use the term "miscreant mom" to describe a
woman who either: 1) shirks her responsibility for her child or 2) uses her
child to take financial advantage of a man.

Let's see if NOW (National Organization for Women) begins throwing around
the term "miscreant mom" as easily as it does deadbeat dad. Let's see.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/04/04/miscreant-moms/

Miscreant Moms
April 04, 2006
by Marc Rudov
For the past two days, the San Jose Mercury News has been heralding the
efficacy and value of California's Safely Surrendered Baby Law (SSB). A
local mother, who decided not to be a mother, dropped off her unwanted
newborn baby at a San Jose fire station.

She is allowed to do this. The SSB law encourages her to do this.
California
is one of at least 47 states to offer safe haven to "desperate mothers who
are unwilling or unable to keep their babies." California brags that, as
of
January 1, 2006, 122 babies have been safely surrendered under this law.
Champagne, anyone?

For those of you unfamiliar with these "safe-haven" laws, depending on the
state, mothers have 72 hours after giving birth to return their unwanted
newborns to police stations, fire stations, or hospitals - no questions
asked. How nice. Oh, but wait, there's more. The hapless mommy can change
her mind (what's new?) within 14 days of discarding her little bundle to
reclaim it. Again, no questions asked.

Recently, the National Center for Men filed a landmark federal lawsuit on
behalf of Matt Dubay, called Roe v. Wade for Men, asking for dismissal of
his obligations to support a child he did not want. The mother of this
child
told him, at the beginning of their relationship, that she is infertile
and
also was taking birth-control pills.

It escapes me why it's relevant that she told him that she could not get
pregnant. A man can tell a woman that he's as fertile as a rabbit and STILL
she can decide that she will not be a parent. But a man has to have
deception as a reason for HIM to not become a parent? What's up with THAT?

As expected, feminists, and many men,
impugned Matt Dubay as a deadbeat dad. If he wants out, he's a villain. If
she wants out, we say: "Poor baby, you have so much stress. We understand.
There, there."

Is it possible we have yet another double standard here? Let's see.
Despite
a man's wishes, a woman can get an abortion. Or, she can deliver her child
and then collect child support from the father, who, according to Roe v.
Wade, was meaningless during the abortion decision. Or, she can deliver
the
child, then decide she doesn't want it, then dump it off at the fire
station, thereby releasing herself and the father from parental
obligations.
Or, she can go back to the fire station, 14 days after legally abandoning
her baby, to reclaim the abandoned child, thereby reobligating herself and
the father to support the child. Or, or, or, or, or, or. So many choices.
What's a woman to do? Alas, the man has to go along with whatever she
decides. Seems fair, right?

We, as a society, must start holding women to account. Such a move would
be
a breakthrough, as women have far too many escape routes to avoid
responsibility. I suggest we use the term "miscreant mom" to describe a
woman who either: 1) shirks her responsibility for her child or 2) uses
her
child to take financial advantage of a man.

Let's see if NOW (National Organization for Women) begins throwing around
the term "miscreant mom" as easily as it does deadbeat dad. Let's see.