Thursday, February 15, 2007
COMMENT TO MARCH 10, 2006 POST ON "ROE V. WADE FOR MEN"
Following is the comment we received from an anonymous poster to our March 10, 2006 Post in which we opined that we thought that fathers should not be allowed to opt out of supporting their offspring in those situations where the mother refuses either to abort or to place the child up for adoption. Judging from the the failure of anyone to challenge Mr. Anonymous, we must assume that our readers agree with his position.
Following is the comment we received from an anonymous poster to our March 10, 2006 Post in which we opined that we thought that fathers should not be allowed to opt out of supporting their offspring in those situations where the mother refuses either to abort or to place the child up for adoption. Judging from the the failure of anyone to challenge Mr. Anonymous, we must assume that our readers agree with his position.
________________________________________________________
While the suit on its surface may seem outlandish the pendulum has swung so far in the direction of a woman's right to choose, it may take this type of action to get attention to begin the swing back.
Having a vasectomy or "keeping it in your pants" may avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but the same could be said for tubal ligations and the aspirin between the knees method of birth control. However, in the latter case an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated in the first trimester with an abortion and the future dad has no say so.In reading some of the comments of the suit's author on other sites I believe one of the remedies he is seeking is to offer the man the right to opt out of the pregnancy and give up all rights to the child in the same period that the future mom has to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. If he does so, she, then may not be looking at a paycheck each month, but still has the right to keep the child, raise it herself or put the child up for adoption.
The state's position for the man is simply "you played so you pay" and don't put the burden on us. But where is it written that a woman who does not want the unborn child shall. if the father wants the child, carry it to term, give it up to the father who will raise it and then mom pays him child support? This would never happen because the state has decided that women, rightfully so, are not simply breeders. Likewise, men are not simply paychecks.
As for the attorney's involved and the Plaintiff, it seems to me that it takes quite a bit of courage to pursue this type of lawsuit and if they prevail in any manner it may be one step closer for some equality in reproductive rights.
