Roe Vs. Wade For Men
This got a laugh out of me...
I disagree with the premise of this lawsuit (I am of the belief that both the man and the woman should be held fully responsible for any offspring they create), but you've got to admit that these guys have a point.
The people who are in favor of keeping abortion legal in this country often tell us that they are "pro-choice." Except, they are only pro-choice when it comes to the mother. The male in a given relationship gets no choice at all. If the mother decides to abort the baby it is aborted. If the mother decides to keep it the guy is obligated to either stay with the mother or pay child support. As far as the guy is concerned that is how it should be. You face the consequences of the decisions you make. But why, then, does the woman get to opt out?
Consider this case from Lufkin, Texas. A nineteen-year-old kid gets his girlfriend pregnant with twins. They both decide that they don't want children, so with his girlfriend's cooperation the kid gets up on her stomach and walks around a bit killing both of the unborn children.
In the end the guy was charged with two counts of murder and was convicted. He will spend the rest of his life in jail. The girl? Not charged with a thing. Why? Because she supposedly has the "right" to an abortion.
This example brings the duality of the whole abortion question into sharp focus. Why does the status of an unborn child hinge solely on the opinion of the mother? Why do we mourn miscarriages yet hold up abortions as though they were an act of bravery?
Is an abortion still not a death even if the mother doesn't want it? Why does an unborn child only get to exist if the mother wants it? And why doesn't the father of an unborn child get a say in what happens? If we are going to hold him legal responsible for any offspring shouldn't he get a say in these "reproductive choices?"
NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they 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.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have — it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
I disagree with the premise of this lawsuit (I am of the belief that both the man and the woman should be held fully responsible for any offspring they create), but you've got to admit that these guys have a point.
The people who are in favor of keeping abortion legal in this country often tell us that they are "pro-choice." Except, they are only pro-choice when it comes to the mother. The male in a given relationship gets no choice at all. If the mother decides to abort the baby it is aborted. If the mother decides to keep it the guy is obligated to either stay with the mother or pay child support. As far as the guy is concerned that is how it should be. You face the consequences of the decisions you make. But why, then, does the woman get to opt out?
Consider this case from Lufkin, Texas. A nineteen-year-old kid gets his girlfriend pregnant with twins. They both decide that they don't want children, so with his girlfriend's cooperation the kid gets up on her stomach and walks around a bit killing both of the unborn children.
In the end the guy was charged with two counts of murder and was convicted. He will spend the rest of his life in jail. The girl? Not charged with a thing. Why? Because she supposedly has the "right" to an abortion.
This example brings the duality of the whole abortion question into sharp focus. Why does the status of an unborn child hinge solely on the opinion of the mother? Why do we mourn miscarriages yet hold up abortions as though they were an act of bravery?
Is an abortion still not a death even if the mother doesn't want it? Why does an unborn child only get to exist if the mother wants it? And why doesn't the father of an unborn child get a say in what happens? If we are going to hold him legal responsible for any offspring shouldn't he get a say in these "reproductive choices?"
