"If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged world."
"Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall
We have too many people. There are almost 6.8 billion people on the planet as of today. 6.771 billion to be exact according to the US Census Bureau. Even if you round up or down by a billion, that's too many people.
When I was born in 1970, that number was 3.7 billion people. Even with plagues, pestilence, war, natural disasters, school shootings and terrorist attacks, we've still managed to double the world's population in less than half a century.
I'm not going to go into a long drawn out treatise on why we should make less people. If you don't know why by now I want you to add a tab to your browser and look it up, then come back and we can talk.
For those of you who already know that this is our number one socio-cultural-environmental juggernaut, read on.
I'm going to tell you a story about a man. This veers off into the woods of this story for a bit, but stick with me. We'll get back to overpopulation at the end.
Our man, let's call him Mark, is not interested in having children and is clear about that to women with whom he has sex. About 2 years ago, he briefly dated and had one sexual encounter with a woman in her late 40's. THe brought with him and used a form of birth control called VCF, Vaginal Contraceptive Film. They didn't continue their relationship after that.
That was their last and only encounter. The woman returned to her partner whom she had briefly left. Upon realizing she was pregnant realized she named her partner as the father. She didn't get an amniocentesis done, even though being at her age put her in a high risk group for a wide range of problems. She kept the baby, which was born with a severe and rare form of Downs Syndrome.
After 18 months of staying at home and caring for this child, the partner decided to get a paternity test done which proved him not to be the father. He left, promptly. The woman, desperate in her situation as she had relied on her parter for childcare, contacted Mark whohad not seen nor heard from this woman in 2 years. He met with her for coffee at which time she announced that he ws the father of an 18 month old severely disabled child.
Before you all come after me with how crass and callous this all sounds, I don't have any problem with people of all abilities and disabilities being born into the world. That's not my issue. The issue is choosing to be a parent, choosing to take on that responsibility, especially in situations like this in which the father had sex with this woman one time and had no intention of being a parent, made that clear and brought and used his own birth control.
I'm a big believer in a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child. I didn't realize until my friend went through this how powerless men are over their parental rights. I get that the obvious answer is don't have sex unless you want to have children. That's a nice sentiment, but not realistic for most of the single, grown, heterosexual men that I know.
Given that we now have the technology to prevent pregnanies and determine paternity pre-natally, we need to take this to the next step and insure that men are not siring children they explicitly stated they don't want.
This woman, we'll call her Tracy, had the knowledge when she got her pregnancy test back that she had more than one potential father for that child and she chose not to inform all potential father's that they could be siring a child.
Mark never had the chance to decide whether or not to be a father, let alone the father of a severely handicapped child. Had this been a situation in which two people got together and decided to make babies and then one bolted, that's a different story entirely, but that's not what's happening here.
This woman's actions go beyond negligence to malfeasance in knowingly and mindfully ignoring the facts of her situation and being proactive in insuring that the potential fathers of that child were duly informed in a timely fashion and given the opportunity to determine a course of action, whether that be active participation, adoption, abortion or giving up custody.
Our laws don't allow for two parents to create a contract in which one parent opts out of their fiscal responsibility to a child. The state takes over at that point, at least in California, and the parents must contribute regardless of what the parents decide. This makes it even more critical that a pregnant woman inform all potential fathers at the earliest point in the process in order to insure they have a choice in determining the course of events.
That was their last and only encounter. The woman returned to her partner whom she had briefly left. Upon realizing she was pregnant realized she named her partner as the father. She didn't get an amniocentesis done, even though being at her age put her in a high risk group for a wide range of problems. She kept the baby, which was born with a severe and rare form of Downs Syndrome.
After 18 months of staying at home and caring for this child, the partner decided to get a paternity test done which proved him not to be the father. He left, promptly. The woman, desperate in her situation as she had relied on her parter for childcare, contacted Mark whohad not seen nor heard from this woman in 2 years. He met with her for coffee at which time she announced that he ws the father of an 18 month old severely disabled child.
Before you all come after me with how crass and callous this all sounds, I don't have any problem with people of all abilities and disabilities being born into the world. That's not my issue. The issue is choosing to be a parent, choosing to take on that responsibility, especially in situations like this in which the father had sex with this woman one time and had no intention of being a parent, made that clear and brought and used his own birth control.
I'm a big believer in a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child. I didn't realize until my friend went through this how powerless men are over their parental rights. I get that the obvious answer is don't have sex unless you want to have children. That's a nice sentiment, but not realistic for most of the single, grown, heterosexual men that I know.
Given that we now have the technology to prevent pregnanies and determine paternity pre-natally, we need to take this to the next step and insure that men are not siring children they explicitly stated they don't want.
This woman, we'll call her Tracy, had the knowledge when she got her pregnancy test back that she had more than one potential father for that child and she chose not to inform all potential father's that they could be siring a child.
Mark never had the chance to decide whether or not to be a father, let alone the father of a severely handicapped child. Had this been a situation in which two people got together and decided to make babies and then one bolted, that's a different story entirely, but that's not what's happening here.
This woman's actions go beyond negligence to malfeasance in knowingly and mindfully ignoring the facts of her situation and being proactive in insuring that the potential fathers of that child were duly informed in a timely fashion and given the opportunity to determine a course of action, whether that be active participation, adoption, abortion or giving up custody.
Our laws don't allow for two parents to create a contract in which one parent opts out of their fiscal responsibility to a child. The state takes over at that point, at least in California, and the parents must contribute regardless of what the parents decide. This makes it even more critical that a pregnant woman inform all potential fathers at the earliest point in the process in order to insure they have a choice in determining the course of events.
Now, our friend Tracy, claims to be Catholic, and thus abortion was not an option. This is a thin vail of morality to me, since she wasn't too Catholic to screw around with Mark out of wedlock. I can totally understand someone not wanting to get an abortion, but she didn't even consider adoption, assuming that this partner of hers (not the father of the child) would be so kind as to take care of her severely mentally retarded son for who knows how long.
So, where are we? Mark is going to be held fiscally responsible a child he doesn't want from a woman he doesn't know.
So, where are we? Mark is going to be held fiscally responsible a child he doesn't want from a woman he doesn't know.
So what's a man to do?
Since men can't really do much about the laws right now until enough of these cases go to the Supreme Court and the ridiculousness of the application of the law is recognized, men must do everything in their power to insure they don't sire children they don't want.
One of the most frustrating aspects of all of this is how often I've heard men say they won't get vasectomies and always based on some heresay mythology of it screwing up their junk. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD if you don't want kids get your junk snipped.
One of the most frustrating aspects of all of this is how often I've heard men say they won't get vasectomies and always based on some heresay mythology of it screwing up their junk. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD if you don't want kids get your junk snipped.
Say you don't get a vasetomy because you may want kids some day and you are having sex but don't want to have a child right now or with her? What are your options?
Here's a real buzzkill of a solution, but perhaps one that would have some weight if it ever came to a court case.
Create a document for yourself called a Declaration of Non-Procreation. Bring a copy with you and ask your potential partner to sign it. What? Is that not realistic? Do you have a better idea? Because I want to hear it and so does Mark and the other men who are having their wages garnished to pay for children they didn't even know they had sired.
Have your partner sign the form in front of a witness like a notary public. You think this is crazy? You'll wish you had done it if you're ever named in a paternity case with a woman you screwed one time. Even still, this is a frail attempt at establishing an intent not to procreate and who knows if it will stand up in court.
So, back to my first paragraph. How does this all relate to my original statement about overpopulation?
Well, I believe that we can't even begin to get our global reproductive gluttony under control until we as a developed, industrial country can create and enforce policies and procedures that insure that both parties in the procreative process have full access to reproductive rights.
Until women are held accountable for making sure that all potential fathers are notified of a impending birth, now that we have that technology, we will continue to see unwanted children struggle in social services and inadequately funded circumstances.
Every child that is born in this country should be wanted and be cared for. This begins with the basic decency of insuring that both parents are made aware of a pregnancy and have the opportunity to determine participation in the parental process.
Again, in instances where both parties DO know about the child, DO agree to parent and then one splits then it's gloves off, no holds barred, go after the bastard or bastardette for all you can.
At this point in time, there are too many people on the planet with too few resources to support them all. We in the United States should at the very least make sure the children we make have parents who are willing to care for them.
Let us set a precedent for 21st Century Reproductive Rights that include both parents, insuring that every child born is a wanted child.
