One man is taking Roe v. Wade to the extreme - making it look more ridiculous than ever.
The AP reports the National Center for Men filed suit today in federal court demanding male "reproductive rights," on behalf of one of its members.
From the center's press release:
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.
We will ask a United States district court judge to apply the principles of reproductive choice, as articulated in Roe vs. Wade, to men. We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex. We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA: A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother.
We will ask that women be required to share reproductive freedom with men.
Our lawsuit will be filed on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, a computer technician from Saginaw, Michigan. The state of Michigan is seeking to force Matt to pay child support for a child he never intended to bring into the world. Matt insists that the child's mother repeatedly assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, Matt says that she knew he did not want to have a child with her. Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were "Mattilda."
Immediately upon the filing of Roe vs. Wade for Men, The National Center For Men will begin distribution of its Reproductive Rights Affidavit, intended to be filed in court by a man and designed to give men legal rights in matters of procreation. We think it will encourage men and women to make family planning decisions together, as equal partners, by giving a man a voice but without interfering with a woman’s right to choose. It reads, in part:
"I will not recognize the moral authority of a court to strip me of my constitutional right to reproductive choice. I will challenge any court order that seeks to impose a parental obligation upon me against my will by asserting my right to equal protection of the law."
Good point made on Below the Beltway:
Taking the logic of Roe to its most logical extreme, its hard to see why this argument doesn't make sense. If a woman has a virtually unlimited right to determine her reproductive future, then why, given the existence of the Equal Protection Clause, doesn't the same right apply to a man?
And Don Surber explains why this suit might have more sway than South Dakota's recent abortion ban in knocking Roe v. Wade to the floor:
Men who do not pay child support are vile little cretins who do not deserve to sit at the same table as civilized men. My own father went to jail before he paid for support for me and my sisters, sired during his 13-year marriage with my mother. That was in the 1960s before the federal effort to collect child support (the lawyer got 40% of the money - bastard).
That said, as long as we are going to pretend women have abortion rights, then the 14th Amendment compels us as a nation to extend this parental termination rights to men. This lawsuit should do what South Dakota's misguided abortion ban cannot do: End abortion rights.
Rob made the point in a previous post that South Dakota's ban may do more harm than good (too much at once), and that a "baby step" approach would have been the smarter way to go.
Now it appears this new development could serve to convince die-hard supporters of Roe v. Wade how ridiculous "reproductive rights" are once and for all.
Then again, who knows. For anyone who still hasn't figured out that killing unborn life is murder, this argument is probably way over their heads.
