March 09, 2006
Mr. Roe v. Mr. Wade?
Everyone who does not live under a rock (and no, there's nothing actually wrong with living under a rock -- it's very nice in some ways) knows about the Supreme Court decision called Roe v. Wade. It claims that states cannot pass laws that restrict abortion because a woman has a "right" to abort their child.
I'm not sure how that argument could fail -- unless, of course, some people are more equal than others under the Constitution. Danny Carlton, over at Jack Lewis.Net sums it up quite nicely:
Indeed. If outlawing abortion is a violation of privacy, how is forceful paying for unwanted babies? If a female has to bear no responsibility at all for her actions in a sexual act, why does a male?
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Now it seems that a group has filed a lawsuit saying that men have "reproductive rights," too:
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.
I'm not sure how that argument could fail -- unless, of course, some people are more equal than others under the Constitution. Danny Carlton, over at Jack Lewis.Net sums it up quite nicely:
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.
Indeed. If outlawing abortion is a violation of privacy, how is forceful paying for unwanted babies? If a female has to bear no responsibility at all for her actions in a sexual act, why does a male?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:07 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I always thought this issue would hit the courts from the other direction, i.e. men would sue for the right to have their child. If the woman didn't want the baby and the man did, why was it acceptable to terminate the pregnancy? I knew a married couple once where the wife didn't want a second child but the husband did. She just went ahead with the abortion and he had no say in the matter. Never could figure out why he couldn't stop it. Maybe there was a case way back when that I missed or don't remember. Anyone know?
Posted by: Harrison at March 09, 2006 06:05 PM (CoXUy)
2
The woman has the choice, because it is her body.
As for the man... come on, you play you pay. If he doesn't want the risk, heck, have the girl sign a waiver. : )
Posted by: Jenn at March 09, 2006 06:16 PM (QD9ey)
3
But Jenn, isn't the baby half the man's, too? Why does the woman get to NOT pay if they play, but the man is expected to? That's the point here -- people are being treated differently based on their sex.
Thanks for stopping by, both of you!
Posted by: Ogre at March 09, 2006 07:15 PM (/k+l4)
16kb generated in CPU 0.0508, elapsed 0.1601 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.153 seconds, 192 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
88 queries taking 0.153 seconds, 192 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
