It was inevitable, given the intellectual vacuity of reflexive defenders of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), but a 25-year-old Michigan man has brought suit in Federal court to seek to be relieved of the burdens imposed by an unwanted pregnancy. His argument? Equal protection.
Women have the "right to choose" among three options: carrying the pregnancy to term; surrendering the child for adoption; and abortion.
After conception, men have no say in the matter, save for the issue of adoption (and then, the only choice that they have is to take the child for themselves, with the possibility that the mother will later assert her rights, or give up any rights whatsoever). They cannot force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort.
And if a woman decides to carry the child to term and raise it? The man can be stuck with an 18-22 year bill for child support.
I have two sons. I am raising them --- and continue to intend to raise them --- to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If they ever come home with news that they have impregnated some young lady, I think I know what my response will be (though I hope I will have instilled in them enough sense and judgment to avoid such a happenstance, unless, of course, it is news that it is their wives that they have impregnated).
With that having been said, this suit is completely appropriate, and I hope he wins. I don't support Roe v. Wade. As Liberal constitutional scholar (and abortion supporter) John Hart Ely suggested, it's a monstrosity masquerading as constitutional law. As is fairly typical for the far Left, rather than writing and passing a constitutional amendment to secure a "right" to abortion, they found compliant Federal judges to enact their policy preferences.
The simple fact of the matter is that men are required to "choose" before they engage in the act which causes people. Women are given nine months to "choose." And if they choose to bear the child, they can impose upon the man --- who may have wanted the woman to choose an abortion --- to bear a portion of the costs associated with her choice.
Such is the world that Roe has left us in. None of the far Left commentary that I expect to see (attacking this "man") can be taken seriously, because it will be as intellectually chaotic and self-contradictory as Roe itself is.
Vince and a comment by Saphrosyne at TC are right; he's a loser. I would add that he and those who support his legal efforts apparently possess precious little concern for the daughter that he is probably scarring for life with his actions. So I don't admire Matt Dubay. But he is illustrating the intellectual chaos of the radical pro-abortion crowd. The consequences to his child could, of course, have been avoided had the 1972/73 Supreme Court fully considered the consequences of their actions.
And in that, I confess, I take great, albeit conflicted, pleasure.
No comments:
Post a Comment