OK girls, what price Roe v. Wade now? A father has just sued to avoid paying child support on the grounds that he never wanted the child and shouldn’t have to pay for that unwanted child.
In other words, he is pro-choice in the sense of NARAL Pro-Choice America and he is demanding his right to choice. Just as a woman can make the choice after conception whether to take her baby to term, so this young plaintiff is demanding his pro-choice rights too. According to CNN:
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.
Well, that’s not the point, Jennifer Brown of the pro-abortion Legal Momentum insists, according to CBS 11 in Dallas:
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."
Well, that’s up to the Supreme Court to decide, according to the concept of the Living Constitution. After all, things have changed since the 1973 Roe decision and the Constitution must change with it.
But conservative Mona Charen isn’t impressed.
The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility — and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same.
Now that’s a thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment