Court rules – No Choice For Men – Says idea "frivolous"

Posted on November 17, 2007
Filed Under Choice for men | Leave a Comment

Here is another story I come across on the Men’s Activism news site that just makes me mad as hell. Where is the justice? Where is the equality? I don’t believe in abortion. First it makes no logical sense to me when people argue the the baby in the womb is not a human being. From conception on we are human beings. We pass through different stages of development throughout out are lives but we are still human beings. To say that a fetus is not a human, not a person makes no more sense to me than to say that a child is not a person or that a teenager is not a person or a senior citizen is not a person. Abortion is murder. It is the taking of an innocent human life. It is not the death of a clump of cells it is the death of a person.

However having said that let me say this. As long as abortion is legal and accepted in this society under the false premise of allowing women to “choose” whether or not to become mothers. A choice made after having already engaged in the act that would under normal circumstances cause a woman to became pregnant. It seems to me that men should also be given a choice after the fact as well. Why is it that only women are allowed to “choose” whether or not to take on the responsibility, financial and other wise for a child.

Feminism has never been about equality. It has always been about reducing men to second class status. It is about among other things allowing woman to behave as they please while demanding men submit to the burden of taking on all the responsibilities of the “choices” woman make. while at the same time denying the right of men to make any “choice” about there own lives. Especially if that “choice” would in anyway interfere with the plans of a woman.

Slavery is alive and well in today’s society. If a woman “chooses” to have a child you can be sure that there is a man somewhere who has been given “no choice” but to become the economic slave to that women for the next two decades, whether he wants to or not. He has “no choice”.

So much for the feminist lie of equality between the sexes.

For more information on “choice for men” click here

Court rejects ‘Roe v. Wade for Men’

LANSING, Michigan (AP) — A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed “Roe v. Wade for Men” filed by a men’s rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn’t have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend’s daughter.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay’s suit was frivolous.
Dubay, 25, had said ex-girlfriend Lauren Wells knew he didn’t want to have a child and assured him repeatedly she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition.
He argued that 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.
U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Bay City disagreed, rejecting Dubay’s argument that Michigan’s paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause because it didn’t extend reproductive rights to men.
The suit was prepared for Dubay by the National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, New York., which dubbed it “Roe v. Wade for Men.” The nickname drew objections from women’s rights organizations.
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.
Dubay sued the Saginaw County prosecutor and Wells in March, contesting an order to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born to Wells in 2005. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal.

<$BlogFeedsVertical$>

  • Share/Bookmark
Print

Comments

Leave a Reply




SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline