The Don: Right On
Posted by Adam Graham in : AbortionI’ve had my disagreements with Don Surber in the past. He remains always on my bloglines, becacuse I know that whether he infuriates me or not, he always has good reasons and he thinks through what he writes. Today, Don hits the issue of “male abortions” brilliantly:
A 25-year-old computer programmer is ready to file suit to block a child support order to pay for a daughter he does not want. The National Center for Men plans to use the suit to establish that men, too, can choose whether they want to become parents.
Its one of those great inconsistencies of Roe v. Wade. Even viewing the unborn child as property, our current law is confusing. Under Roe v. Wade, it makes the child the sole property of the mother, but under Child Support Laws it makes it the Joint Responsibility of the Father. Talk about a violation of Equal Protection Under Law.
Surber continues:
This lawsuit should do what South Dakota’s misguided abortion ban cannot do: End abortion rights.
The double standard is outrageous. Consider AP’s quote of feminist Jennifer Brown:
“Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government – literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want. There’s nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.”
Excuse me, but the federal government collects $22 billion a year in child support. There are heavy fines for companies that do not dock the pay of parents to comply with this intrusive law.
Checkmate! Very incisive and Surber is reading the law better than a lot of lawyers. (Maybe he missed his calling.) Surber’s clear that he does believe child support should be paid, but the double standard he points out is very compelling. Surber does pretty good at this writing stuff. He might consider making a living of it. Oh wait! He already has.
Comment by Del [Visitor]
Let me get this straight: you want to end the responsibilty of men to pay child support, at the same time you want to end the womans right to have an abortion? Doesn’t those two things seem to be in conflict? It seems to me that if you end the responsiblity of child support that that is even more reason to make sure there are abortion rights, because the woman would be left without any way to support the baby.
I dont think you can call this “abortion rights for men”, “mens Roe v Wade” or whatever either, because its not the government thats forcing a man to be a father, its the woman thats sort of doing that. But thats not an infringement of rights, only government can infringe rights, people commit crimes. I could see a crime being committed by the woman if she tricked the man into making her pregnant. But the only way a right could be infringed imo is if you say the government shouldnt be able to force financial support. I think if you do that though then you definitely have to have abortion widely available, and welfare too.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
You miss the point. Neither Don nor or I are arguing that Child Support should not be enforced. Don argued quite the opposite.
What I’m arguing is IF abortion is legal because a woman has a right to choose, where is the man’s right to choose?
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
Children don’t need living piggy banks with an intact male organ.
They need fathers.
Comment by Del [Visitor]
Adam,
You have choice over your own body against government control, not about whether you become a parent or not. Rights (choice) restricts what government can do and the government is not forcing either the man or woman to be a parent. So only when it takes action does it infringe on choice/rights, and that includes laws against abortion or possibly laws forcing child support.
I dont miss the point, I get it. But like I said its not ‘choice’ for you if its not your body and if its not the government forcing you to stay pregnant. He doesn’t understand what a “right” is, thats his problem. Smarter minds do though and thats why I have no doubt this argument is DOOMED. The case about child support may change the law though, but not in the way that he or you hope, like I said, imo it’ll give more ammo to the abortion rights side.