It was ruled a frivolous lawsuit.  And it was, in fact, pretty frivolous.  I disagreed 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 after the original choice to copulate and potentially create another person is made?

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?

Isn’t an abortion still 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?” Or maybe we should just stop kidding ourselves and realize that killing an unborn child simply because the mother, and sometimes the father, don’t want it isn’t really a choice at all.

***More by the Whistler***

I was also going to do the story.  My take on it was from this statement in the story:

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.

So now it’s for the children.  What is wrong with the court system when they’re worried about financial support and but actually make up the constitution to say these children have no right to live?