"In an age of a woman’s unfettered access to abortion, why does the state require a man provide child support when the baby is born? Consider:"
I suspect the legal difference is that the baby gets rigths after what the court considers to the point of viability... it's ironic from several different points of view.
It all hinges on what the mother wants. And I suppose as far as your first question goes, the mother's health blah blah blah, but after the child is born the state has an interest in trying to make sure that the child is financially taken care of.
All men should have a moral obligation to support their children despite what evils others may commit. IMO
Nobody wants an aborted baby.
We live in a magical fairy tale legal world, where babies are like velveteen rabbits that only become real if they are loved.
The man has been getting the dirty end of this stick for so long no one can remember when it started. Divorce, Child support , custody, Alimony?? If you dont want to pay keep your zipper up.
Your points are well taken. There should be a provision in all abortion laws that married men must consent to thier wives abortion, barring any other medical complications or rape.
For unmarried potential fathers, it is more complicated. They should at least have the right to be heard on the issue of aborting a life they helped create.
There is a good chance that this argument may present an avenue in which to attack current abortion laws as being unconstitutional, and unnecessarily discriminatory against men because of their sex, men who are immorally viewed as simple drones and financial resources in the eyes of femino-nazi based law.
Because men have not stood up for their rights. Ya'll need a march on washington burn your undies and demand equal treatment under the law. I'm dead serious. Women need to stand up for their sons.
"why does the state require a man provide child support when the baby is born? "
Maybe its because there are expenses that start to occur after the child is born, one could argue expenses begin during pregnancy for health care, but the health care is an optional expense, while it would be mandatory to feed and shelter the baby after it was born and sorry to say men, you get stuck with that bill due to tradition as being the gender to provide food and shelter, whether the mother is better qualified for this job or not.
What I want to know, why isn't this legal empowerment that woman are accused of having ever really offered to young women... those young women in the womb? If it is really about choices for women and if woman do really have more say in the matter, then why are woman babies aborted as often as male babies, as if either gender has any choice in the matter?
Everyone
Thank you so much for replying. I have been struggling with this for about a week now. I will reply to individual posts tomorrow, I have a physics test that I must study for. Once again thank you for your responses.
Chip
Because the Supreme Court in 1973 (the same court that gave us Roe v. Wade) declared the support statutes of all 50 states unconstitutional in Gomez vs. Perez.
The common law was that any child born to a married woman was by law the child of her husband, and that any child born to an unmarried woman had no father.
The mistake here is in assuming that there is a logical answer to an illogical proposition. It is totally illogical for the state to allow the most vulnerable to die when their first charge is to protect life and property.When you begin with this premise there is no logical end.
The short answer is if the owner of the fetus planned on taking to term then it is a double murder. The complicated answer is that the honorable members of congress passed this law to a: make damn sure people who kill pregnant women get their just comupance and b: get their foot in the door to rid the country of abortion.
On the first bit - men just simply get a raw deal. Men buy the drinks, rent the limos, rent the hotel rooms, buy dinner, and then pay for the illegitimate kids and housing for a woman they only slept with once, yet they get no respect. On the other hand, a working single mom with two kids in daycare that "my babies father" pays for is "empowered".
Yeah, like approx 3600, back in 1999. See my tagline.
bttt
Abortion is giving up on life. This means people give up on themselves. It is a most vicious thing. No father should ever have the power to promote abortion through such schemes of not wishing to pay support.
Meanwhile, women's privacy and men's lack thereof is a criminal discrimination and imbalance of power in favor of women. Since when men cannot know who they sleep with? But women have the right to know where they work or how much money they make?
Unlimited privacy is disgusting anyways but male and female feminists want it, it helps pass things like AIDS and not be liable.
"2. How can the American standard be an unborn fetus is a baby if it is murdered, but it is a pre-life mass if it is aborted."
I would agree with you on your first question and I'm amazed that nobody has yet litigated on abortion being discriminatory against men. I agree that in this day and age of unfettered abortion men too should be free to walk away from their children. It wouldn't be moral, but it should be legal.
On your second question, however, I would say that gets into the issue of "choice". I doubt there are too many murder, or second murder, charges brought against a person who killed a woman who was very early in her pregnancy and maybe didn't even know she herself was pregnant. These laws also don't exist in all states. They have been passed over outrage over the murders of women who are far along in their pregnancy and who obviously have not chosen to abort their children. Of course, it has also been done to get a pro-life nose under the tent, and I don't think any reasonable person would doubt or deny that and that's fine with me.
I'm a pro-life woman, as are most freeperettes, and I see your point about the unfairness of things under the current pro-death regime of the left, but of course, it is most unfair to the poor unborn children.