Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

From The Houston Chronicle:
Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit _ nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men _ to be filed Thursday 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 suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

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.

"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, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

I wondered when this would finally come up. Ideas have consequences, and the logical consequence of “personal reproductive rights” is that what applies to the goose ought to apply to the gander as well. If the woman has the intrinsic right to kill the child, why doesn’t the guy have the right to ignore it? In terms of your own life, which would you prefer? To be ignored by your father? Or to be whacked by your mother? Which is the greater offense?

Who was it that said "the problem with insanity isn't that it is illogical, but that it is only logical?"