Thursday, March 09, 2006

Roe v Wade for Men?

Here is another thought-provoking article from Jack Lewis. Very intriguing indeed.
SUMMARY: A national men's rights organization is challenging the child-support laws at the national level contending that due to Roe v Wade, involuntary child-support violates the Cosntitution equal protection clause.

From the From the Associated Press...
Contending that women have more options than they [men] do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose....

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.
Setting aside the painfully obvious fact that were both parties to have shown self-control in the first place there would be no problem—their argument is valid. If women can choose murder over having a baby, why shouldn't a man choose "neglect" over financial bondage. Exactly how is it more beneficial to society to allow women to murder babies they don't want, but harmful to society to allow men to escape the financial burden of the choice the woman makes? Proving exactly who knew or intended what is still a problem, but, one the pro-death people seem to not bother with when allowing women to murder their babies.

It just seems to horrifyingly twisted that we allow murder as "choice" and "privacy" but force men, who are not allowed any choice, to pay for that "choice/privacy" as a "societal necessity". I'd say NOT MURDERING BABIES would be a much more important societal necessity.

And then the guy can't argue there's an unfair disregard for his choice.
He does have a point. If the man wants the child, he has no say but to watch his child die. If he does not the child, he is helpless. Many women lie to the man and say, "I had an abortion." Later, they come back for child support! Nevermind the fact he didn't even know a child was living.

I have always wondered why it was fair to have this happen. I do not agree that men should not pay for their actions. That is not my point. My point is what is fair for the man? Don't they have any rights? Have we shut them out? ...and we wonder why there is so much crime...