The Meat of the Matter

Roe V. Wade For Men

This the subject du jour in the news, on talk radio and political websites. Under Roe v. Wade, woman have the right to choose whether or not they will have a baby. Men, on the other hand, do not have the option to choose whether or not the woman will have the baby, and subsequently they do not have the option to choose whether or not to pay for the baby's life. By calling up "equal protection under the law," men are saying that they should have the right to choose as well. They claim that if a woman chooses to keep a baby against the will of the man, the man should not be required to pay for the child. But wait, there's more: This is all coming about because of a suit that's being filed by The National Center for Men. They have been at this, allegedly, since 1990. They do have a valid point (which I don't care enough about to argue here) but I have to ask myself one germaine question. Why is this a big splash in the news now? After all, this is not a new concept, and it is not a new fight. This is a long shot. It's always been a long shot. Why is this a big splash in the news now? Here's a possible reason why I think it is. The NCM's argument makes sense in a way. It's logical, and to the casual observer it might pose a threat to the position of strength that women currently have under Roe V. Wade. In fact, it might make it seem like Roe v. Wade might not be a good idea for women who actually want to have a baby. If you do, after all, you might risk being forced to take financial responsibility for the child's life, if the man is opposed. She might not have child support ro rely upon. But Roe v. Wade For Men will fail miserably, as have the many similar attempts in the past 30 years. A possible reason this is being prominently played in the news now is because it is an attempt to deteriorate the popularity of Roe v. Wade, and to soften the criticism against the anti-abortion legislation that will be before the Supreme Court soon. There are some women who are against abortion (or think that they would never have one) and are currently fence-sitters who are basically Pro-Choice because they feel pressure from other women to be so. This news might push them to the other side of the fence, because they don't ever want to be a single mother without child support. So this "Roe v. Wade For Men" will cause these fence-sitters to move over to the Pro-Life camp. I think that's what this is all about.