Three Times the Lady, Once Times the Whore
Myself and every other man on Earth have been saying it for years: alimony is fucked — and it’s extremely sexist.
But wait, what about this?
Did you know you’re liable for child support if you knock some slut up who lies about being on the pill and then doesn’t want to have an abortion because of some ridiculous shit like she suddenly has “principles” or because her mother didn’t abort her? Well you are liable for that cash cow and it’s the biggest croc of shit and injustice that could ever be imagined.
First of all, honey, you don’t do everything your mother does because you don’t swallow. And secondly, where were all these magic, money-sucking principles while you were on your back enjoying the greatest hour and a half of your life? Perhaps you were praying to a different, more easy-going God at that point — or maybe God was half as drunk as you and not paying attention. I doubt it.
Thanks to American Superman Matt Dubay, the black hole of injustice feminist blowhards and the dumbest women on Earth call “taking responsibility” will soon be put straight — as straight as a shotgun or a bunch of cowboys or every single picture frame that any man has ever hung anywhere. Men are master hangers, whereas women are merely masters at hanging onto a free ride.
A lawsuit, rightly dubbed, “Roe vs. Wade for Men”, has been filed by Mr. Dubay and the Nation Center for Men, which seeks the obvious:
Women and Child Support: Fuck You!
Whatever you think about abortion, in America it’s not illegal when it’s not illegal and that’s the bottom line — or the Man Line because that’s the line we men walk at all times. You know what else isn’t illegal in America (at least at the moment)? Eating a Snickers bar. If someone offers you a Snickers bar and you don’t want it, and then they turn out to win like a plasma TV or some jet skis in the wrapper, you’re not entitled to shit! Abortions are exactly the same.
Roe v. Wade for Men claims that since men have absolutely no choice in deciding whether a fetus is unconceived (aborted) or given up for adoption after birth, they have no legal responsibility to pay for the goddamn thing.
Is this Law for the Retarded: 101? Of fucking course that’s true. Look, here’s how the court proceedings will go:
“Have you motherfuckers ever heard of No Taxation Without Representation!?”
No, I’m joking. You can’t say motherfuckers in court.
“Your honor, guess what. If you go rent a car and opt not to tell them you’re blind, you can’t go wrecking around town like a carom and then drop a damage bill off at the car rental place with their newly renovated Renault Peugeot that now has two missing wheels and new fucking Delorean doors. It’s not their problem. It’s yours. Case closed.”
The Honorary Man of the Month for March is Matt Dubay’s lying slut of an ex-girlfriend — we’ll call her Slutarella; who is about to be thrown under the proverbial bus of her fucking lifetime in the name of men’s rights. Not equality for men man-mind you, but men’s rights. Men seeking equality is like Robert De Niro auditioning for a Star Wars film.
It’s beneath him.
Related Articles:
March 17th, 2006 at 7:20 am - IP Man-Hash: 34e3b10c32441
Oh, fuck. It’s still here !
Anyone get sick to death of trying to make this femmie(Gloria_Steinam_botbot) clone see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Maybe it could carry the torch and go searching ?
It’s just too boring.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:18 am - IP Man-Hash: fc1fbf9be3493
christianj, you should see how many posts of hers never even see the light of day. The mule has nothing better to do than sit at home and make spiteful comments to a world that gives no fuck.
-Dick
March 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pm - IP Man-Hash: f08c5d00c286a
——————————————————————————–
Ramesh Ponnuru: liberal editor-in chief of the National Review
March 15, 2006
by David R. Usher
If the National Review is going to send someone to do the Bill Maher show, why not send a conservative?
The case of Matt Dubay, who has filed a historic lawsuit euphemistically dubbed the “Roe v. Wade for Men�, was brought up on Bill Maher’s show this week.
The case involves a young man whose girlfriend got pregnant by lying to Dubay about her ability to have children. For this reason, birth control was not used.
The central issue of the case is this: if the woman represents to the man that she is physically incapable of getting pregnant, and this is a misrepresentation of fact, then should the man be held financially responsible when she gets pregnant?
Gloria Steinem issued the expected insults, but conveniently forgot to mention the central issue of the case. She also made appear that Dubay wanted the child aborted (We can expect hyper-feminists who support abortion rights for women to insult a man even if he doesn’t want it).
Then, Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for the National Review chimed in. He also failed to mention the fact that Dubay was essentially “raped�. I almost fell out of my chair that Ponnuru called Dubay a “deadbeat dad�, and rendered absolutely no conservative analyis on the issue.
What Ponnuru should have said is this: If the woman lies to the man about her reproductive capacity to become “Murphy Brown� and then steal his money, the man she reproductively raped should receive automatic custody of the child at birth. And we should consider prison for the woman.
There is no other relief possible that does not reward the woman for taking advantage of the man. To suggest that Dubay must pay his rapist for committing an act of rape is outrageously liberal and radically feminist.
Reproductive fraud is an extremely serious and life-affecting issue. I do consider it rape. When a man forces his reproductive capacity on a woman, we call it rape. When a woman forces her reproductive capacity on a man, it is also rape. I cannot bring myself to lessen the offense to something cute like “paternity fraud�, simply because the perpetrator happens to be a woman.
The only difference between the two is the means that a particular sex uses to get what they want. Whether fraudulent means or physical force is used is substantively immaterial to the case. Clearly, men should never be forced to pay their own rapists for the acts they committed.
Illegitimacy is still at record levels, despite the fact that we have the best birth control methods in the history of civilization. Most of them are invisible — making it very easy for women to rape men. Automatic awards of welfare and child support make this a profitable activity.
It is my experience that the vast majority of men do not want to have a child out of wedlock. It is quite clear that the vast majority of illegitimacy is actually predatory reproduction for income and to achieve status as a brave “single mother�.
When conservatives widely expect fair treatment of men in family law and society, illegitimacy will decrease steeply and marriage rates will improve drastically.
Conservatives who assume a professional feminist position on family issues prevent conservatives from reaching their goals. When we blame all of society’s problems on men, we turn the family over to feminists and big government. Federal social expenditures necessarily rise. Social statistics, have not improved under Republican leadership.
Self-entitling federal social expenditures that are driven by husband-absence, such as welfare and heath care, are a tremendous portion of the federal budget. We cannot have a balanced budget while fighting the war on terror until we stop driving husbands out of the family and entitling permanent non-marriage.
The Dubay case is clearly a step towards rebuilding a sound social infrastructure and resolving many otherwise unsoluble federal budgetary problems.
David R. Usher is Legislative Analyst for the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
Posted in BullsEye, David R. Usher at 11:55 pm by David R. Usher | Permalink |
This article was found on MND
March 17th, 2006 at 4:31 pm - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
That doesnt even make any sense. A logician is someone who studies logic. Any half intelligent person can use logic, and recognise when logic is being used.
If you want to speak like a feminist, spout bullshit and try to make it sound profound.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Have a read and you tell me if you think the amount payable is fair.
Collegue of mine has just mentioned to me her ex pays her $45 week as worked out by this agency, that doesn’t even cover the cost of having their child in a child care centre for one day, while she goes to work.
http://www.csa.gov.au/
Yes, men should pay and they should pay as much as they can, not as little as they can get away with.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:31 am - IP Man-Hash: 8f5fa079b338a
Ok, let’s try one more time to crowbar this simple concept into your titanium-encased cranium:
The woman in question told the man in question that she was biologically incapable of having children. This was a lie. She was obviously and clearly just using him to get herself a baby and quite possibly intended to use him as a source of income forever.
This is not a case where some jerk gets a woman pregnant and then fails to take responsibility for his actions. This is a case where a woman intentionally lied to a man. He was told that there would absolutely be no repercussions, and it was an out-and-out lie.
Why, then, should the man be held responsible for this woman’s lies?
Dakota Smith
March 18th, 2006 at 11:28 am - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
That’s his defense.
And that could be absolute bullshit yet you are willing to believe it because he is a man and she is a woman, right?
Prove they’re lies and not just BS he’s made up to get the sympathy vote. Hold on, I don”t even really care whether it is a case of entrapment or not, the fact is, he didn’t take adequate measures (wear a condom or get a clue and a vasectomy while he’s at it) to ensure that what he said he didn’t want happening (creating a child), didn’t happen. Why rely on what the woman says, even if she did say it, she may have believed what she was saying was true at the time. I have previously told you that my own mother was told by doctors that she would never have children. As I’m here, I guess they don’t know everything.
Honestly, if he doesn’t want to procreate, he should have a vasectomy. If any one knows him personally, please urge him to do so for the benefit of all.
March 18th, 2006 at 1:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
I support Roe v. Wade for men. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose, so I say. I hate abortion, but if you’re going to keep it legal, call it ‘reproductive rights’, and insist that the mother is the only one who has any say in the matter. Even without abortion, it is still incredibly unfair that men do not have equal reproductive rights as women! Just frickin’ awful! If she lies(!!!) about sterility or contraception -then, that is an injustice that must be remedied. Gosh, I feel sorry for the children.
“I imagine when there is a pill or patch for men all of this bullshit will come to a complete halt.”
Yep, there will be a whole new social revolution with just as drastic democraphic and social effects. The birth rate will fall even further, which is why some governments may not support male reproductive rights. Already Canada and many European countries are facing a tough road with their slumping birth rates, plus the social service programs they have enacted, a high taxation rate on the populace, and an aging population. While the US is still above replacement level, it is only by a very small margin.
Nevertheless, a pill for men is already in the works.
“she reproductively raped”
Excellent phrasing.
“the man she reproductively raped should receive automatic custody of the child at birth. And we should consider prison for the woman.”
Yep. Joe, you’re awesome for providing this little article for us.
I want to say that I stand by you men 100% on this. I support true reproductive rights - not the ‘reproductive’ rights that feminists support (when all they mean is the ‘right’ to commit an abortion, even though reproduction has already occurred. It’s typical of feminsts to abuse the English language) - which is necessarily a right not just applicable to women, but to all of us: the right to decide when and whether we want to reproduce.
March 18th, 2006 at 1:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
“And that could be absolute bullshit yet you are willing to believe it because he is a man and she is a woman, right?”
Female, you are not paying attention, are you?
“Why rely on what the woman says”
Huh - okay, then…I guess you’re right. Following along that logic, we should discard all laws having to do with fraud. Is that right, Female?
March 18th, 2006 at 3:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Seems you are the one who is not paying attention. When I said, don’t really on what the woman says, here are a few reasons why.
1. Man should take personal responsibility for his own life choice and decisions, ie, wear a condom.
2. The condom might break, so vasectomy is better option, or be celibate.
Recenty a woman I know fell pregnant, accoding to her, she and the father of the child didn’t even have sex. Somehow or another the semen entered her uterus just because his penis was near, but not in, her vagina. Believe this or not but I am not making this up.
3. The woman may believe she can’t have children based on receiving incorrect medical advice.
4. She might be out and out lying.
In any case, the guy can’t cry foul after he hasn’t personally taken all steps to ensure that whoever he has sex with does not fall pregnant.
That’s like blaming an ingrown toenail for breaking your skin when you didn’t bother to cut your nails.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
“The legal system places great emphasis on the ability to appreciate the consequences of one’s actions (ie, not wearing a condom). Additionally, jurors are more likely to assign greater levels of culpability if they believe that a specific outcome under deliberation would not have occurred ‘if only’ the action carried out by an indiv. or org. ensued an alternative action preceding the outcome.”
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~reason/Site/Publications_files/BaFug_RoySoc0 4.pdf
Is this man unable to engage in counterfactual thinking, ie, consider “if only” “What if?”. Does he have damage to his parietal cortex or connection from and to it? Is he 15?
He needs to forget about his, “Wah, but she made me do it, wah, wah” story, stand up, account for his actions and be a real man.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: a659aedfb537f
Memoirs of a Geisha ! Ha ha, LMFWAO :) !! You feminists are a joke, FACT…
March 18th, 2006 at 5:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
You mean the way women do when they have an unwanted pregnancy and end up chucking their unborn fetus into a stainless steel pail?
March 18th, 2006 at 6:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
You mean like what he wants her to do so he doesn’t have to pay child support? And if he can’t physically enforce her to abort, then he’ll edge her towards it through other means, such as by not paying his share of child support. You hypocrites need to get your feet out of your mouth.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: bc780dabec0ff
Prime example #1: Aussie Kerry
Try to introduce true equality into a feminist issue, and the feminuts get all bent out of shape.
Aren’t you women whining incessantly about gender equality, even playing field, and the chance for the same rights men have? Now we find out that wasn’t what you women wanted. Feminazis for decades have screamed “Equal rights!”, have they not? When men try to put their the feminuts demands into practice…….feminists all of a sudden say “WHOA! Not REAL equal rights. We meant rights for me, not for thee.”
Well here is a little secret for you ladies……we knew that you never wanted equal rights, just special entitlements. Men have instinctivly known this, you women weren’t fooling anybody. You just lied through your teeth about it for decades.
Well Aussie Kerry, you women wanted equal rights. Well guess what? Be careful for what one wishes for. Is responbility on a women’s part, leaving a bad taste on your tongue?! Is it that you women would actually have to do something, rather than letting daddy government take care of it for you? GOD FORBID! Men may actually have a say in things, considering we are doing the lion’s share of the hard work.
For all you manginas reading this, if this double standard, displayed the females here, hasn’t opened your eyes by now nothing ever will.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Equal rights? Yeah, we’ve got them now thanks, you like to call them “special entitlements” and advocate getting rid of them, so that we return to a situation before equality, when the govt. did not enforce men to pay alimony. Remember those days? I can’t, before my time, however, I know they existed and I also know what used to happen to women who were unmarried and who fell pregnant. They had a backyard abortion, ruined their future reproductive capacity, or were lucky and didn’t receive lasting physical damage; or they were forced into loveless marriages or the church stole their child from them. Great times they were apparently. NOT.
I don’t care what BS you care to sprout, YOU are NOT advocating for equal rights, YOU ARE ADVOCATING for a return to inequality for women. You’re a mysogynist for Gods sake.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: bc780dabec0ff
Abortion, Authority, and Responsibility
March 17, 2006
Vox Populi
We hear a lot about women’s “reproductive rights.� In fact, some leftist politicians – Barbara Boxer comes to mind – seem to be able to segue from any conceivable topic to a discussion of them with aplomb. But do men have reproductive rights too?
Answering in the affirmative, a men’s group is filing a lawsuit to win those very rights. According to CNN.com,
The National Center for Men [NCM] has prepared a lawsuit – nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men – to be filed Thursday [3/16] in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend’s daughter . . .
. . . 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. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
Let’s start the discussion.
The relevant principle here involves authority and responsibility, two things that are inextricably linked. With authority comes responsibility, and with responsibility must come authority. For instance, we don’t accord minors the authority of adults – they mayn’t vote, buy alcohol or tobacco products, join the military, etc. – but we also don’t ascribe to them the same level of responsibility. This is why children are punished less harshly for committing crimes.
It should be obvious why authority and responsibility go hand in hand. If a minor is under your care, you act in loco parentis and have authority over him. If he then plays with matches and burns down the neighbor’s house, you are responsible. On the other hand, he wouldn’t be held responsible if you burned down the house because he has no authority over you.
The problem with our laws governing abortion and parental rights is that they rob a man of all authority over the fate of his unborn child but assign him fifty-percent of the responsibility for that child should the woman, exercising her total authority in the matter, decide to bring the child to term.
It’s for this reason that the NCM intends to argue its case based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. And it’s understandable. We live in a society that is obsessed with equality, and our government zealously enforces onerous regulations and mandates and imposes a radical-egalitarian model on all of us (i.e., Title IX dictates, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, etc.). Despite this, inequality is not only tolerated but prescribed when it redounds to the detriment of men and the benefit of women. And this is a perfect example: woman+conception+100% authority=50% responsibility. But what about man+conception+0% authority? Well, you won’t see this on the SATs, but the answer is still 50% responsibility. It’s amazing how placing a man in an equation completely alters the answer. It’s the New Chivalry at work.
Not that there’s a realistic expectation that NCM will be able to prevail upon the court with this line of reasoning. Said Matt Dubay, the plaintiff in the case,
“What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is.�
Yes, fairness has nothing to do with it. Why does the equality-for-me-but-not-for-thee, feminist-powered abortion lobby and its sympathizers in government prescribe such a double standard?
Because they can.
But abortion and fairness never had the same address. The truly fair thing would be to abolish abortion and afford the unborn their right to life. This creates a problem of practicality, however, one that a libertine society finds unacceptable: how can you then indulge lustful desires while avoiding the responsibilities that attend bringing a human being into this world, a sometimes unavoidable unintended consequence?
So, we stripped unborn children, who can’t vote, complain, lobby or donate money, of their right to life and gave the right to kill to those who just happen to be walking about, who can vote, complain, lobby and donate money. But then we found that this created another problem of practicality: who specifically will have that power over life and death, the mother and the father? Well, as C.S. Lewis said, “You can’t have a democracy of two because the votes cancel each other out. Someone must cast the deciding ballot.�
So you grant the power based on the preferences of those who vote, complain, lobby and donate money the most.
And we salve our consciences and numb our intellects with the fanciful. We not only rationalize that a baby is merely part of a woman’s body before birth but a person immediately afterwards, but also that he has no kinship with the father before birth but a very definite one afterwards. That is, unless the mother decides she wants the child, then, somehow, some way the “it� within is magically transformed into both a human being and the father’s progeny.
So, believing that free lust is a moral right, we see the choice between chastity and unwanted pregnancies as a dilemma. Then, forgetting that someone’s right to life trumps your right to convenience, we are unfair to the unborn. But this creates another dilemma, prompting us to be unfair to the fathers of the unborn, who now have no say in whether their children will be murdered before seeing the light of day. Ah, what a tangled web we weave . . . .
And the only ones we deceive are ourselves.
I know many will warn that absolving men of responsibility in unplanned pregnancies will encourage abortion, but on balance this may not be so. Just as the best way to eliminate an unjust law is to enforce it, the best way to eliminate the exercise of flawed principles is to force their proponents to live with their implications. The NCM lawsuit is a step in that direction.
But getting back to the matter of authority and who shall cast that fateful deciding ballot, there is a third party who would, if possible, most assuredly weigh in: the unborn baby. And as to this grave matter, one of life or death, which way do you think the little one would vote?
Contact Selwyn Duke
This article was found on MND
March 18th, 2006 at 7:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Exfuckingactly.
Dodge your parental+financial responsibility and live with whatever shit befalls you. Even if that means influencing an increase in abortions. Then what will you do hey? Let me guess, lobby to make abortions illegal, yea that sounds about right. Then what will happen? Let’s see, oh I know, I know, women will go to ‘discreet’ clinics and possibly end up dead. Is that what you want? Be very considerate of the outcome of your actions, MEN.
And buy some goddamn condoms.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8f5fa079b338a
Not particularly. I’m a man, so I want to have things proved to me before I believe them.
However, since this claim is the central tenet of the case, it can be discussed as if it were true.
So what the discussion revolves around is: assuming that this distinction is true (that the woman claimed to be physicially incapable of having children when she in fact knew that she was), should the man be required to pay child support?
I see. Ok, well, at least you’re honest. You don’t believe a woman should be held accountable for the consequences of her actions the way a man would be.
I disagree, but if that’s your position, fair enough. No point in continuing the discussion.
Dakota Smith
March 18th, 2006 at 8:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: bc780dabec0ff
Joe v. Wade
By Matt Hutaff, Mar 16, 2006A new lawsuit over men’s reproductive rights is reinvigorating the debate on society’s commitment to inequality.
Matt Dubay is a brave guy. The father of an eight-month-old daughter he never wanted, he’s battling the state of Michigan over a judgment requiring him to pay $500 a month in child support. And he’s hoping to reshape the landscape of men’s reproductive rights in the process.
Dubay contends he should not be required to forfeit any amount of money. He told ex-girlfriend Lauren Wells repeatedly he did not want a child with her; Wells assured him several times a medical condition prevented her from even becoming pregnant. Now that she’s given birth, however, the state has awarded her compensation even though Dubay had absolutely no say in his reproductive choice. He calls it discrimination; I call it fraud.
Think about it. The law protects consumers financially when one party in the transaction willfully lies. A car buyer has legal recourse against the dealer who knowingly sells a lemon; homeowners frequently go to court over structural defects the seller knew about well in advance yet failed to disclose. In Dubay’s case, he was told by Lauren Wells he had no chance of becoming a father. Why should he be on the hook for her lie? Why should Wells profit from that lie? In most cases, she couldn’t.
The National Center for Men agrees. A proponent for men’s equality, the Center has been trying to contest current reproductive rights laws for over 15 years but never had a clear-cut case of discrimination that could challenge current dogma until Dubay came along. “There’s such a spectrum of choice that women have - it’s her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions,” said Mel Feit, the center’s director. “No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say.”
The suit filed by Dubay and the Center argues the option of declining financial responsibilities for men involved in an unwanted pregnancy. In doing so, however, they abdicate future possibility of being a part of their child’s life unless the mother says otherwise. That seems fair; women can already give their child up for adoption or abort them to avoid financial repurcussions, it stands to reason a man should have the same ability.
“If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible,” Feit added. “If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”
Laws like the one proposed by Dubay and Feit would no doubt reduce the number of pregnancies throughout the nation. Aside from instances where it simply becomes impossible for the woman to afford her baby, it would also eliminate the possibility of women intentionally deceiving their significant others into giving them an 18-year meal ticket.
Appalled by the notion that a woman could do something like that? It sounds ridiculous, yet it does happen. You’ve likely heard stories/urban legends about women taking sperm from a condom and impregnating themselves with it. And women go off their birth control without telling their partners all the time. If this is the case, it should be at the man’s discretion if he wants to be involved in his child’s life.
However, Dubay’s case has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding. Even Dubay himself is poised for the courts to rule against him. “What I expect to hear,” he said in a telephone interview, “is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is.”
And that is because we live in a country that is very selective in its equality. Americans bleat and bray endlessly about how we are a nation of equals, yet that parity ends with social convention. For example, I defy any white guy to start a club for other white guys. He’d be branded a racist and a misogynist despite the fact that every other race and creed can form similar exclusive clubs with zero consequences. Heck, those clubs are even lauded for their “diversity.”
Homosexuals are ineligible for many basic rights the rest of us take for granted. Muslims and Arabs are targeted for suspicious activity based on the color of their skin or the belief in their hearts. Dissidents are attacked, profiled and jailed simply for disagreeing with our own government.
We are not a nation governed by equality. Far from it. But Feit’s hope that this case raises awareness of the dichotomy between men’s and women’s rights is shared by myself and many others. Because I would like to live in a country where I am equal to everyone else. That’s a right we should all share together, even if the result snubs its nose at long-entrenched social mores. Matt Dubay has already been painted as a deadbeat dad by a wide swath of Americans despite being as much a victim of the process as his illegitimate child is.
If Dubay did not consent to have a child and was told repeatedly it wasn’t going to happen, he should be legally off the hook for the financial woes of his infant daughter. Morally and ethically he should make an effort to play a role in his daughter’s life. However, the law is not about morals. (If it was, Congress wouldn’t be trying to legitimize illegal wiretaps, criminalize dissent against the government and continue burying other crimes.) The law is about judging fairly and evenly, regardless of outside influences.
If Matt Dubay was a woman, the court system wouldn’t blink twice about his decision to terminate his pregnancy and financial obligation. And that’s really all that matters.
“The problem is this is so politically incorrect,” Feit added. “The public is still dealing with the pre-[Roe v. Wade] ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility.”
Time to lay that aside and act with an impartial mind. As upsetting as that would be (the uproar over Roe v. Wade continues 30 years later), I don’t need my government to legislate my feelings. It’s my hope fair-minded people will agree.
Canon Fodder is a bi-weekly analysis of politics and society.
This article was found at http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01111_joe_v_wad e.html