Celebrate Roe vs. Wade by Ending Child Support!

/ January 22, 2014

Men should not have to pay child support if they don’t want to be a father. Each individual man (not the Obamagovernment or politicians) should determine the course of his life. A man has a right to privacy, and a constitutional right to reproductive freedom, so even if he conceives a child he shouldn’t have to protect and support the child. No one should force him to become a parent. Just because he had sex doesn’t mean he is ready for a life-long commitment. Protecting and supporting unwanted children hinders a man’s freedom and opportunity to fulfill his dreams.  We must protect a man’s right to choose.

Disagree with me?  Take it up with our Presidentwho advocates for the equality of the sexes.  He made these exact arguments in favor of a woman’s “reproductive rights” in his speech today supporting unrestricted abortion.

Dear reader, can you tell me why we force the responsibility of unwanted children on men via child support, while giving women the license to avoid parenthood altogether by terminating the life of their child? Why can’t men have the “right to choose” too?

Also see, Abortion: America’s Holocaust 

Related posts

15 thoughts on “Celebrate Roe vs. Wade by Ending Child Support!”

  5. This was actually the subject of a lawsuit concerning actions taking place in 2004.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

    Dubay v. Wells 506 F.3d 422 (6th Cir., 2007), was a legal case between Matt Dubay and his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Wells, both of Saginaw Township, Michigan. . . .

    In the fall of 2004, Dubay and Wells became involved in a romantic relationship. At that time, Dubay informed Wells that he had no interest in becoming a father. In response, Wells told Dubay that she was infertile and that, as an extra layer of protection, she was using contraception. Dubay, in reliance on these assurances, participated in a consensual sexual relationship with Wells.

    The parties’ relationship later deteriorated. Shortly thereafter, and much to Dubay’s surprise, Wells informed Dubay that she was pregnant, allegedly with Dubay’s child. Wells chose to carry the child to term and the child, EGW, was born on an unspecified date in 2005. During the pregnancy and birth of the child, Dubay was consistently clear about his desire not to be a father.

    The specific legal challenge in the case was based on whether Michigan’s child support laws apply to men and women equally. If not, then it was argued that they violate Equal Protection. Jeffrey Cojocar, Dubay’s attorney, maintained that Michigan does not force women to make child support payments for children that they do not want to parent, and accordingly, men should not have to either.

    The case was dismissed and appealed and then dismissed by the appeals court, who wrote:

    “Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support.”

    • Thanks for the info, Steve. Very interesting.

      “Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support.”

      Apparently when in utero, the child is not yet “in existence.” By that argument, there is no basis for the laws of 29 states who have on their books charges of double homicide for the murder of a pregnant woman. That also nullifies the federal Unborn Victims of Violence act:

      “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.

      I’m not sure about other government programs, but back when my husband was a youth pastor and we were *scraping* by I was on WIC. When pregnant, they counted the baby as one of the members of our household.

      Abortion supporters just cannot have it both ways. Either the pre-born is a person “in existence” and every law should reflect this, or it’s not a child in any circumstance. As it is, it seems to only be a child when you want it to be.

      • >Apparently when in utero, the child is not yet “in existence.”

        Nobody has made any claim that a child in utero is not in existence.

        The father filed suit after the baby was born, therefore he and the mother both have an obligation to support the child.

        >The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim,

        What that law does is assign higher criminal penalties for conduct that has already viewed under the law as criminal. What it doesn’t do is give the fetus the legal status of a person. Under the law, a victim of a crime has certain rights, and the bill doesn’t confer any of those rights on the unborn child.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841

        (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

        And then it goes on to describe what the penalties are.

        This is what the Act says about abortion:

        (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
        (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
        (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
        (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

        >Either the pre-born is a person “in existence” and every law should reflect this, or it’s not a child in any circumstance. As it is, it seems to only be a child when you want it to be.

        I can be an employee under one statute and an independent contractor under a different one. I can be considered insane for one legal purpose and of sound under another. A juvenile who commits an odious crime can be treated as an adult for the purpose of a particular criminal proceeding, but if he’s cleared of the crime and released, will be treated in the law as a juvenile.

        It is not at all uncommon for a word to have a particular meaning defined in a statute, and only in that statute. It’s not a matter of what “you want it to be”; it’s a matter of how the lawmakers choose to define it.

        So, what is the legal definition of the word “child”? As it turns out, the word has quite a few different meanings.

        a) a person under the age of puberty, sometimes defined as 14 years.
        b) the legal offspring of a parent; I am my mother’s child, even though I am too old to be considered “a child” according to sense (a)
        c) occasionally, we see it as a synonym for “juvenile,” that is, a person under the age of majority, 18 in the United States;
        or
        d) in certain fixed phrases, such as “with child” or “child in utero,” an unborn fetus.

        If I am a child according to definition (b) that doesn’t mean I fit into category (a).

        So what does the word “child” mean according to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act? It turns out that this is one of those cases where a word has a particular meaning “as used in this section,” which might not apply outside of it:

        (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

  6. Can’t argue with that; if moms aren’t responsible for the life they have generated, why should dads be compelled to be responsible?

    (Yeah, yeah, I realize that live women vote while dead babies. don’t)

  7. This was the exact theme of a project that I presented in a speech/debate class at The Evergreen State College. I was heckled and given an oppropriate hypocritical lack tolerance as I argued for equal rights for men. Then after class I had some interesting private conversations with classmates. I doubt that I changed any minds, but people were confronted with a healthy dose of perspective and truth.

    • Nice work Daniel. This is how the culture war must be fought, in my opinion. By attacking arguments and keeping the discussion in the realm of ideas, not targeting personal choices/decisions/feeling. I have had the same experience- boldly state your case (with as much grace and tact as you can muster) and then the honest dialogue begins, and often from surprising sources. Thanks for reading and commenting!

Comments are closed.