Neither Pro Choice or Pro Life
Compelling argument:
A child a man agrees to have is one thing, but should a man have to pay child support when he makes it clear to a woman that he does not want one?
Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriend’s baby — despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didn’t want a child.
He made the point to the court that if a woman can choose whether to abort, adopt out, or raise the child, a man should have the same right, and argued that Michigan’s paternity law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Matt Dubay lost the case, which he previously acknowledged was a long shot — but should it have been?
Since reproductive rights grants woman the right to arbitrarily determine when life begins its seems fair that men are granted that same right. Of course this lead to the perverse outcome that a biological father who discovers he has a ten year old child has the right to deny that his child is a living being. Once more, given the supreme court’s argumentation this father’s rights is constitutionally guaranteed. Oh the wisdom of Roe vs Wade. What were they thinking?
Before i get lambasted by Jamie as a closest conservative pro lifer I wish to make clear my argument. My problem with Row vs Wade is that it found a constitutional right that by definition was only applicable to a subset of citizens. Woman were giving the extra constitutional right that, in a particular context, allows them to determine how the state defines life. Give additional rights to some citizens seems to work against the liberal value of the state treating everyone equally. It leads to state discrimination which we the state forcing fathers to support children they never wanted to have.
My solution to the problem of abortion is rather simple and if the Supreme court had not over step its constitutional bounds and forced legislation from the bench, then it probably would of been implemented. There should be a constitutional amendment defining when life begins. Abortions prior to this point are permissible because the people have determined that a fetus at that point is not living while abortions after that point are forbidden.
Its hard to see how this makes me either pro life or pro choice.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Interesting point about Roe v Wade applying only to a subset of citizens, but i think biology makes women and men inherently different in their relation to fetuses and abortion. Women have the child inside of them, connected to them, dependent on them for life, whereas men do not. I love equality as much as the next guy, but I don’t think it applies here.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
This is always tricky ground when it comes to a male’s rights for choice. In one circumstance (pro-life) you could claim that he has a personal responsibility for the “life” and therefore needs to pay. I actually don’t have a strong stand on child support (except for the easy argument of greater good) for men. That doesn’t change my view that women should be able to decide when they do or do not want to have a kid. If a kid is born, women can easily give the baby for adoption. If women are pregnant and don’t wish to be, there is no easy way out except to enslave them to carry the baby to term, thus taking their choice out of the equation. I guess I would argue that all members should have a choice about their responsibility to a fetus. I guess that makes me more libertarian than you can stomach.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
BTW…. Isn’t it ironic that a libertarian (or so called) is asking for the government to make decisions about his life?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I’m not sure what democracy you are living in, but in this country constitutional amendments requires three quarter ratification in each and every state legislature before the constitution is amended. If such a law passed it would mostly certainly be by the citizens and not the ‘government’.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Steve- not sure if you’re aware of the definitions, but saying ‘Abortions prior to this point are permissible’ makes you pro-choice (given the current rhetoric rather than the literal definitions of the terms).
However, I’m not sure your argument is factually true. Roe V. Wade doesn’t actually specifically allow a woman to determine whether something is alive, right? Doesn’t it just make abortions legal?
I think the idea of a constitutional mamendment defining what ‘alive’ is is an awful, terrible idea, because it gives the goernment a huge new piece of power that it doesn’t really need. After all, you’re already allowed to kill living humans- think capital punishment and self-defense. So, we don’t need to define the foetus as not-alive to perform an abortion, we just have to specify that abortions are legal. Allowing the government to define when life begins is like allowing the government to define what constitutes a family, or allowing the government to what IQ score you need in order to be considered ‘gifted’. There’s simply no reason for them to need to do so, and allwoing them to only gives them more power and influence over our personal lives, to no positive end.
As for the guys, it’s tough because, like everything involving sex and the legal system, it’s he-said she-said. If a guy really specifically stated before the termination date of a pregnancy (including before the pregnancy) that he doesn’t want a kid and will not help to support it, and that was completely unambiguously clear to the woman, then yeah, he shouldn’t be held responsible. If he didn’t, then his situation is the same as the woman - he’s stuck with it. Proving what he did or didn’t say in private, though, is not easy (or possible, often), so he question is should caution fall on the side of providing for the child? I think probably, but I dunno, it’s tough to say.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I suppose if the guy really doesn’t want a child, he could have the woman sign a contract stating that if she did get pregnant he would be released from all responsibility concerning the child. Of course such a man would probably never find a woman who would actually engage in intercourse with him, but hey, stranger things have happened.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Well, in this case I will never worry about your solution taking place. There is no possible way that you’ll ever get that kind of agreement on the “life” issue to get an amendment passed. You and your people will just have to stick to bombing abortion clinics.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
[…] Writes: I’m not sure your argument is factually true. Roe V. Wade doesn’t actually specifically allow […]
November 15th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
The argument that it would be impossible to pass this amendment is a compelling one.
While I resent being associated with terrorists i take comfort that your people will happily defend my right to kill innocent people provided I avoid using Christian justifications. Because, you know, its okay to kill innocent people for Islam or ’social justice’ but you have to draw the line at Christianity.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Um… sure. I’m sure I said that it was okay to kill people for islam. When did I say such things?
November 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
You said that at the same time I said that me and my ‘people will just have to stick to bombing abortion clinics’.