The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest
Vol: 54 Issue: 11 - Saturday, March 11, 2006
Jointly Irresponsible
It was just a matter of time. Indeed, I don't really know why it took as long as it did. A lawsuit dubbed 'Roe v Wade for Men' was filed this week, complaining that forcing fathers to pay child support violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
In brief, it argues that women are afforded reproductive choices denied to men. Another way of summarizing would be to say men are demanding joint parental irresponsibility.
If one steps back from the messy details the way pro-abortion supporters do and looks at the overall argument, the lawsuit has considerable merit.
It is being supported by a men's advocacy group called the National Center for Men (NCM).
They make a compelling argument which is posted at their website:
"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy."
The pro-abortion lobby has claimed the "fundamental right of choice" as the bedrock upon which their legal argument is based. The NCM's lawsuit uses the identical argument in its test case. Here are the details.
A guy from Michigan named Matt Dubay was ordered to pay $500 a month in support for a child he says he didn't want. He doesn't dispute parenthood; he claims instead he was duped into it.
His girlfriend assured him she couldn't have children. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman.
As I said, if one steps back from the messy details of the abortion question the way its supporters do and look at the bare facts, Dubay has a point.
A woman has to carry a child in her womb for nine months and ultimately give birth. Abortion proponents argue that being forced to do so violates her reproductive rights.
Dubay argues that being saddled with 18 years of child support (which in Dubay's case, amounts to $108,000.00 by the time the child turns 18) amounts to a substantial inhibition of HIS 'reproductive rights.'
Here's the way it works now. A woman learns she is pregnant. From that point on, all decisions are up to her. She can choose to abort it or keep it. The father has no input on this decision.
She can decide to raise it alone. The father's input into raising the child is entirely in her hands.
The only right the father has is if the mother decides to put the child up for adoption, he can adopt it, but only if he wants to raise the child himself.
In all cases, the only one who has any input is the mother. The father is obligated to pay for the woman's choice. Since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, Dubay argues that she cannot oblige him to support it, if she does, for the next 18 years.
Dubay's contentions clearly have as much merit as any argument advanced in support of Roe v. Wade.
It is, as I said, a case of joint irresponsibility.
Assessment:
It's really pretty obvious. When the only frame of reference in this case is a competition of rights, Dubay's lawsuit makes sense.
Before secular humanism and liberal Marxism reduced sex to a biological function of no particular moral importance, when one engaged in sex, the decision included an automatic obligation to any child that may result.
Marxist ideology insists there is no universal morality other than that which is introduced or sanctioned by the state. Roe v Wade took the position that there is no inherent moral responsibility attached to sex, only financial ones.
It created the moral standard of sex without consequences and handed that choice to women. That exclusive right of 'choice' is therefore unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It should come as no surprise to the liberals that men are demanding the same freedom from responsibility that women have enjoyed for decades.
Provided you ignore the messy details. The children. You know.
The way abortion rights advocates do.
Archives of past issues of The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest plus many other Omega Letter member features can be found at: www.omegaletter.com