lumigan tramadol tadalafil

If Teen Motherhood Is A Right, Why Is Teen Fatherhood A Responsibility?

2008-10-15
By

The big problem I have with The Tennessean’s September 24th editorial topic of targeting teenage dads, and of course the guest editorials that embrace yet another social government program, is that we’re left with a truly false dichotomy.

That is, teen motherhood is an absolute “right” while teen fatherhood is just a financial “responsibility.” I am so sick and tired of hearing this same old song and dance. Teen mother – good. Teen father – bad. She had no choice but to deliver a baby she cannot afford without taxpayers footing the bill. He had all the choices at hand but now must pay financially through the nose. Not to mention, he must accept that everyone but him decide how little parenting time he actually gets. It’s a disgrace par excellence.

A lot of ink was spilled on September 24th targeting teenage dads. The Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference shouldn’t be in the business of pushing statewide education programs like “What’s The Rush?” More smoke and mirrors. Bait and switch. Teen mothers are told of all the programs that are at their disposal, while teenage fathers have it drilled into their head that if they do not pay what can be confiscatory child support, they will lose the very license they need to actually drive to a job!

Gina Lodge, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Services, has got it wrong in writing “Most teen mothers must turn to welfare.” My question is this: Why don’t most teen mothers do the right thing and turn to adoption? Instead, Lodge tells us “between 75 and 80 percent of all teen mothers turn to Families First, the state’s welfare program to get the support they need to survive.” To survive? Please. Perhaps if the welfare program wasn’t in place, there would be more adoptions or father involvement.

I also disagree with Lodge in writing that “only 55 percent of parents pay their court-ordered support on a regular basis.” Where does this figure come from? What about the fact that some teenage fathers or adult fathers simply cannot afford to pay what can amount to confiscatory child support? But more importantly, it’s a solid fact that when fathers are actually allowed to be, well, fathers, they pay their court-ordered support on time and in full at a rate of about 90 percent.

This being said, teen mothers and government agencies ought to be held criminally accountable when they interfere or withhold parenting time from the father. There’s countless programs and philosophies aimed at once again financially targeting fathers to the point of garnishing wages and tax refunds. Not to mention, public ridicule supported by the state. Incredibly, there are virtually no programs in place to really punish mothers and secure a father’s time with his children.

Why is this? We respect someone as young as 15 to give birth, and they’re emotionally supported. At the same time, we view fathers as ATM machines and dead beat dads. They’re emotionally discarded. We need to stop all the word games and draconian laws aimed only at fathers. Believe me, they want to spend more time with their children. It’s simple. Just ask them.

Let’s start a conversation on not just teen parenting, but what it means to have rights and responsibilities as any parent. Who gets all the financial responsibilities? Who gets all the rights? What are we left with? Why do we automatically assume mothers of any age are more responsible than fathers? Here’s the thing. The last time I checked, mothers are the ones in the news who irresponsibly leave their children in hot cars with the windows rolled up.

Tony Zizza is a free-lance writer who lives in Hermitage, TN. He writes frequently about parenting and popular culture.

1,085 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • Shawn

    Now some of these comments are just stupid i am an 18 year old male me and my ex had a son back in november and she walked out on us so it is not just the father who walks out on the kid she walked out on us and she hasnt been back for weeks im the one taking care of my son i am working 7 days a week with 2 jobs and i also still am going to school it may be hard but i am never going to walk out on him she can go do what she wants i dont care but im staying so before you start blamming fathers of walking out on there kids you also need to look at the mothers that have walked out too im a single father and im doing perfectly fine me and my son are happy and im not going anywhere anytime soon so think about the other side of things before you start ridiculing only one side

  • Amber

    Coming from a womans perspective the man who wrote this article hasn't got a clue what it's like to be a single mother. He probably has an idea, and theories, but I dare him to ask anyone from off the streets about how most fathers just leave the women to fend for themselves and the baby that he helped her concieve and I bet you almost 75% will tell you that the father left before the child was even born. You see not all men are noble, and not all men are worried about their finances. Some men just leave because they didn't want the baby in the first place and they got all they needed from the mother. Think about that for a while, and then read your article again.

  • Robert Stevens

    Any morally bankrupt idiot who supports the insane notion that some young, dumb and underage girl has any right to be a parent is bordering on criminal. This comes from over 40 years of the ” out of control” welfare state.
    If you understand the problem you will know why these Idiots we call civil servants promote such irresponsible behavior. These servants(stifled laugh) want more money ,power and control, to get it they need to create more problems for themselves to solve. The more young,dumb and underage girls they con into believing that they have some kind of right to procreate without being grownup, without the support and permission of the would be father and without any accountability to the children. The more, they do this, the more jobs, the more money and political power they get for themselves. It’s kinda like what the snake, ie Satan, did in the garden of Eden. Con the women, or in this case the dumb little girls, into believing they can do what ever the hell they want to and not be accountable to anyone.
    We need to go back to marriage and make that marital contract enforcable and make the right as a parent enforcable. When You break that contract or subject someone else to a form of slavery and being made into a noncustodial parent is akin to be subjected to slavery, hold that person sternly accountable. Stop rewarding socially, legally and morally irresposible behavior.
    That is basiclally what is wrong with women and the little girls whole will become women. They have been given the “goodies and benefits” of equality without the corresponding accountability and without having to consider the rights and the lives of others.
    None of this will happen, until the men in this country stand up. Stop putting up with “special previleges” just for women, or girls. Do away with VAWA, and all the other bull sh** laws that are unequal, unfair and just plain unconstitutional an as such, are unlawful!
    Men will also have to be given a choice in the area of procreation, ie a ” mans birth control pill”. Once the man can say, Hey, I don’t want a child and we’re not having one, I will let you know when I am ready, so we can make that decision together. Once women or in this case girls are held to the same standard of accountability and have to abide by and respect the lives and rights of others, this thing won’t even be an issue anymore. There will be very few unwanted children and the legal system will actually work the way it is supposed to,with no discrimination or bias against men,it actually will protect society and respect the lives and rights of all, not just the “pretty and PO-litically CO-rrect”

  • panic

    The number of way in which this can be controlled is large and varied.

    Example:
    “Tell us the name of the little boy who impregnated you?”
    Acceptable responses currently include: “No”, and “I can’t remember (there were so many)”.

    Improvement: “You’re a material witness in a felony sex crime (statutory rape). If you don’t help us, we’re going to prosecute you, and take your bastard to an orphanage. No, we will not permit the fictitious “my mother will adopt it using tax money, and I will then both have the child and the money, and be free to have more bastards”. Of course, this will end your dream of your own apartment, dropping out of school, and free money forever.”

    Example: currently the ability to give birth is equal, in every way, to the ability to be effectively BOTH parents for the next 21 years. This is utter rubbish. These children are not permitted to take their own aspirin, vote, drive, write checks, or own anything. Their judgment is proven faulty, their decisions poor.

    Improvement: the default position is that the fetus is aborted, or goes to an orphanage unless the “mother” (pregnant child) can make a compelling argument as to how she (and she alone – not her mother, grandmother, or government agency) will raise the child to a level higher than she (and every member of her family for 5 generations) has reached. If she fails, she’s the child’s mother but not its parent.

    Why, then, does it continue plunging over the cliff?

    Because the entire bureaucracy is based on the Ponzi scheme of raising bastards for profit. If there were fewer bastards, some of these poverty professionals would have to GET A JOB, and their agency would no longer be a bottomless pit from which to feed.

  • roger

    Totally agree. But our legislators were clever enough to build a gravy train.

    A better alternative would be the following rule:
    pregnant women shall show up at the birth place with a WILLING male partner in tow, or the child shall immediately be taken into state custody for adoption outplacement. period.

    this allows children to grow up with two willing parents, rather than one willing parent and a hostage.

    i’ve seen too many times where the women “just decides” she is going to have a child and stops taking birth control. as Dr. Phil states, she “abducts” her partner against his will.

  • T Finnan

    Merck, You got it right. The Peter Principle: What if social workers end poverty (or single motherhood)? Years ago, there was the poor house, where you lived and had to work, while your child was cared for by the poor house. Most wanted to get out and they did so by finding employment or giving the child up for adoption. LBJ was wrong. Aid to Dependent Children was and is a disaster. The earlier programs worked and the replacement program a disaster, but there is no intelligence in government programs, only perpetuation.

  • merck

    Let’s be perfectly honest about this.

    The vast majority of women, who purposely give birth to children outside of marriage, are using the child to make a living for themselves, at the expense of the father and the taxpayer. The welfare state created in the mid-sixties made this possible for women.

    There is an enormous government bureaucracy set up to encourage and facilitate these pregnancies. It’s blossomed into a huge multibillion dollar a year industry, employing countless government bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, psychologists, etc. etc. etc.

    This industry, and all of its support industries, is bigger than “Big Oil”.

    This huge industry, that hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and “professionals” derive their livelihood from, will not be dismantled out of a sense of fairness to the father? This industry relies on the ability to make the father, and taxpayer, a slave to the “single mom” and to all the really disgusting people who make their living this way.

    The taxpayer needs to take an interest in this because it’s bankrupting our nation, destroying the lives of millions of children, undermining the Constitution, and robbing us of our future as a free nation. The parents of these children should not be our number one concern, when it involves the future of our country.

    In most cases, it needs to go back to the way it was before the creation of the welfare state. A child born out of wedlock should be adopted by a married couple, who can provide a stable home for the child, unless the mother and father agree to marry and take responsibility. Children fair best, when they have both parents, even if they’re adoptive parents.

    In some cases, the parents may be mature enough to agree on a shared parenting plan without getting married.

    In any case, welfare entitlements, and involuntary so-called “child support”, need to become a thing of the past.

    The gravy train for “single moms” and “welfare state bureaucrats” needs to be derailed.

  • T Finnan

    At various tourist traps there are signs to hang at home for teenagers: Now that you know everything, you can become completely independent and support yourself. Same for teen mothers: you’re old enough and smart enough to have a child without marriage; now, go to work and support yourself and the child. The man didn’t want the child, you did. You’re not a victim; you’re the perpetrator. Can’t support and raise the child; then give it up and go to work to pay child support.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise