PREMISE: You are only divorced from your spouse, not your non-custodial children. You are still their parent and you are still morally obliged to pay for their upbringing.
The premise is false. Parenting is defined by one's control over one's children. The concept of "Non Custodial Parent" is an oxymoron; there is no such thing as a non-custodial parent. If your right to parent has been terminated against your will, then so have the responsibilities that go along with parenting. A radical position? Perhaps not.
Reproductive legal rights are solely granted to women. A man who agrees to commit to parent children he has no legal rights to see born, does so voluntarily out of love, not legal obligation. No rights = no obligations.
In exchange for his commitments, he gets to have a family in part, secure in knowing that the kids are of his lineage, not of other men. If the woman, by force of the state, terminates a man's parenting relationship to the children against his will, he morally has no obligation to support children rendered no-longer his. The harm this may bring to the children is not of his making. If kidnappers steal a man's children from him and cause them harm in the holding of them as hostages for payment, the ex-father whether he pays up or not, is not the party who has caused them harm.
That men are held legally responsible for their ex-children is a matter of political expediency, enforced by the threat of violence (imprisonment) and not morality.
If you hold a gun to my head, I will comply with your demands of me that I perform work for a master force. However, I do so as a slave and not out of moral obligation. Kidnap my children and enslave me, if you can continue to pull this off legally. But don't try to sell this to me as being my moral obligation.
If you want me to happily support my children, return them to my care and control. I'm willing to share the parenting, too. But not be politically sodomized by the state holding my children, emotionally beating them in front of me, and then insisting that if I really love my children, I will pay up to stop them from being beaten. Most fathers do love their children, so they pay -- even if it subsidizes the destruction of their very own relationships to their children.
For what it's worth, I'd rather be raped...and keep my kids, if given the choice. I wonder if most moms wouldn't do the same if in the same situation?
The invisible violence hated and feared even more than rape: the loss of children. It is a crime against humanity, and no less.
The presumption of shared custody/parenting status is the only moral option for divorcing parents. Starting with anything less is little more than expedient moral butchery and it must be stopped.
| Home | July | Features | Columns | OrgNews | Boutique | Directory | Links | Definitions |
The Backlash! is a feature of New Chivalry Press
Copyright © 1997 by New Chivalry Press
Email to the Editor -- If you don't want it published in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so. Otherwise, it may be published.