Equal Protection Clause
Friday, March 10, 2006
Time : 9:33 AM
There is a case in the courts right now that involves Roe VS Wade. But in a way you may not imagine. Back when R.V.W was being argued before the supreme court, opponents argued that a women could choose not to have sex. Feminists (who I generally support) argued that it should be a womans choice.
Today there is a case in which a young man is being sued for child support. Before the couple had sex he emphatically stated to the woman he did not want to be a father, she told him that due to a medical condition, that she could not become pregnant... she did. She is now seeking child support from him. She had a several choices, she could have put the child up for adoption, got an abortion, choose to be a single mother without burdening him with financial responsibility, or choose to be a mother and force financial fatherhood on the young man. Ok, what choices did he have? To not have sex... thats it. The fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is the Equal Protection Clause. Does this not apply to the young man? I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, I do feel though that his reproductive rights seem to be subjugated beneath hers.
Well LOC I know a woman very well who got pregnant by a man who claimed to have had a vasectomy but later admitted crassly that he just 'liked it bare better'. Run to court? The kid is now a teenager and he's a deadbeat bum. SHe dropped out of college, and life has been rough ever since. Not for him though! Both sides can look at examples where lies entrap another human being into circumstances that are sad and unfortunate. Is the remedy to legislate decency and truth? I have a friend whose husband, a cool guy, has been praying for a baby for years and wants desperately to be a father. The wife, my friend, had an abortion in September and begged me never to tell. She just doesn't want kids. Oops! Then there's the lady I know who is infertile because hubby brought home a venereal disease from his girlfriend on the side. THAT sucks too. But see the point? People victimize other people and it is wrong, sure. I could go on and on...point is, these are complicated matters and I say BOTH sides have their malice. A woman who ends up pregnant, a man that ends up paying child support for eighteen years. Both victims, sadly, of lies. Whats the moral of the story? Unless you want to be in either position, take charge of your OWN raincoats. Wear one. Weather has a way of being unpredictable. What else can be said?
Those are all excellent examples of a complex situation. As I said, I don't know if I can come up with a firm stance. I agree with your final statement though.
Maybe they could talk about that in the abstinence-only faith based curriculum? Then again, when health teachers talk about condoms its so damn hot that it just makes them ALL want to run out and get busy.
Well said, Lily. Using the same logic as in the post, it seems that if the man did not want to be a father, he then should have either taken precautions or not had sex.
... but only the woman can changer her mind after the fact.
Mary, (playing devils advocate here) why didn't that argument stand when legalized abortion was argued before the court the first time? Apply the same argument to the man as it was the woman. Thats my point. Under the argument "taken precautions or not had sex", abortion would still be illegal. There has to be more to it.
Regardless of what the dude wanted or thought he was getting, he sired a child. If the kid's his, he's the father. That makes him reponsible. Biological fact. End of story. How 'bout the guy who is told by the woman ... it's okay it's safe right now (because of her menstrual cycle) ... maybe not quite as compelling, but same principal ... I'm with Lily ... know who you are shtupping, wear a frickin' rubber, or if you don't wanna do 1 or 2, get ready to step up if you become daddy ...
Rory , your preaching to the choir here. This was an excercise in logic, not what is right or wrong.. The problem posed was why the original arguments for abortion does or doesn't apply to this mans reproductive rights.
If she told him that medically she was unable to get pregnant and (as you imply) that she knew that was untrue, then hasn't she been fraudulent?
OK - you could argue that that's not the child's problem. But if person A tells person B something that is untrue in order to trick him into committing an act that makes him liable to person C, then can't person C recover his costs from person A?
Foe example if Jill tells Jack that she has serviced his car and that the brakes are in perfect condition, and then Jack accidentally runs over and injures Ruth because the brakes didn't work and if it can be proved that Jill lied about the brakes, surely it is Jill who has the liability for the accident, not John?
no, i didnt imply she was being dishonest about being infertile. I didnt get that from either the artical or the interview with the man on CNN.
cleary the answer is banning all abortion like SD
LOC, this came up now at the Boot and they posted this at the Aurora (Rhino and Donkey) I suggest you check out what Dusty had to say on their blog if you have time because sister was awesome! Love that Dusty!
Lefty, i know i'm late to get over here, but i just spotted your comments on my piece.
I think the problem is no one understands the question.
As i see it, it's not a personal or moral question, it's a legal one. and the question is, equal protection under the law?
According to Roe, the woman has a few months to decide if she wants to be a parent, but the man doesn't have the same protection.
Regardless of how we feel personally, isn't that law unconstitutional?
