Roe V Wade for Men.
Roe V. Wade for men? A 25 year old from Saginaw Michigan is suing to prevent him having to pay $500.00/month in child support. The grounds? That men are not protected equally from such responsibility by our existing laws. The argument is if a woman gets pregnant she can elect to abort the baby thereby dodging her responsibility to the baby, whereas a man has no say in the matter. If a woman gets pregnant she and the child are automatically entitled to support from the man.
I say to the 25 year old from Saginaw.
The purpose of marriage and asbstaining from sex is to avoid situations such as this. However, our society is hellbent to wreck marriage and make it nothing more than an event for which to dress up extra special for.
Well, 25 year old and his ex decided to have sex and as a result they brought a life into this world. In the olden days this wouldn't have happened or it would have been done in the context of a committed marriage and there would be no court case. Not today, in fact 25 year old is suggesting men have a period of man opt-out for a given period of time during the pregnancy thereby giving the woman a chance to react. Huh, great, more work for lawyers, more legal wrangling, more.... Do we really want to go there? I am sure the various state bars do but do we?
Why does the quest for non-discrimination all too often seem to be a race for the bottom of the barrel?
Update:
Such a measure would take all disincentive out of the pre-marital sex act and that I oppose. I support putting full disincentives back into the act.
I say to the 25 year old from Saginaw.
GROW UP AND BE A MAN!
The purpose of marriage and asbstaining from sex is to avoid situations such as this. However, our society is hellbent to wreck marriage and make it nothing more than an event for which to dress up extra special for.
Well, 25 year old and his ex decided to have sex and as a result they brought a life into this world. In the olden days this wouldn't have happened or it would have been done in the context of a committed marriage and there would be no court case. Not today, in fact 25 year old is suggesting men have a period of man opt-out for a given period of time during the pregnancy thereby giving the woman a chance to react. Huh, great, more work for lawyers, more legal wrangling, more.... Do we really want to go there? I am sure the various state bars do but do we?
Why does the quest for non-discrimination all too often seem to be a race for the bottom of the barrel?
Update:
Such a measure would take all disincentive out of the pre-marital sex act and that I oppose. I support putting full disincentives back into the act.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 9:18 AM
<< Home