Columnist offered flawed reasoning

By Moises Casuso Casales, Henderson

Sunday, July 2, 2017 | 2 a.m.

This is a response to David Brooks’ column explaining reasons why fathers leave children.

The problem with Brooks’ case is that he relies on generalizations in key factors of his argument. The fact that Brooks believes the father would redefine his role when a new father figure enters the picture, as opposed to the mother, supports the extremely common misconception that fathers are second-class citizens in terms of parenting.

In reality, no father is forced to abandon his child when a new father figure enters the picture, just as no woman is forced to do so when a new maternal figure enters.

The child equally belongs to both parents. Whether it is the mother or the father that abandons the child, you can logically narrow it down to one or both of these two reasons: Either they simply do not want to raise the child or they are either mentally, physically or financially too unstable to raise the child. If you do not fit into one of these two categories, that means that you are a healthy individual who wants to raise a child and there is no legal reason as to why you should not be able to. A person who states any other explanation for abandoning a child is simply trying to justify his or her actions for social or subconscious reasons.