"Casey" wrote in message
news:wGEQf.53077$Dh.45044@dukeread04...
R said
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man

Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
become pregnant all by themselves.


Casey

Casey's comment above is either deliberately disingenuous or just plain
obtuse. I'll be charitable and assume it's obtuse. So I'll try to explain
the situation in simple terms.

Yes, the man made a choice, and yes, women don't become pregnant all by
themselves. However, the point here is that in the U.S. at the present time
there is the most obvious and unjustifiable disparity in the way the two
sexes are treated in this context.

Both sexes have preconception choice. However, when it comes to
POST-conception choice, there is grotesque bias against men. For years,
legislators and judges have bent over backwards to find more and more
post-conception choices for women. There's abortion. There's the
unilateral ability to have the child adopted. And now more and more states
are legislating to give women the ability to drop off newborns at places
like hospitals and fire stations, no questions asked. Meantime, the
post-conception choices available to men are being reduced -- most notably
through the law interfering with the choice Mother Nature gave men, that of
walking away from unwanted pregnancies.