Roe v. Wade for Men (TM) is neither Roe v. Wade, nor for men
Calgary Herald, Ben Li, Monday, March 20, 2006
The National Center For Men's clumsy attempt to mischaracterize a financial debate as a question of reproductive rights has suckered too many interested parties into choosing from among irrelevant positions.
First, this is not a case about reproductive rights. The reproduction in question happened more than three trimesters ago and no court or piece of legislation can change the biological fact that the litigant contributed half of the infant's DNA. The American legal system already has a mechanism for transferring parenthood known as "adoption". (Also, this suit is not asking for men to gain the right to reproduce, an entirely different issue.)
Second, this is not a case about abortion. No one disagrees that the infant has been alive since 2005. The argument that "A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother" a la Roe v. Wade implicitly demands rights fathers to abort fetuses, which the father does not seek.
Third, this is not a case about equal protection. No legislation currently prevents men from reconfiguring their bodies to exclude the presence of a fetus. The current legislation is congruent with the almost universally accepted interpretation that one's personal rights do not extend into another person's body.
Finally, this is not a case about the natural rights of the born, unborn or adult person. The lawsuit does not seek to establish the right for the father or mother not to have the child in question. The suit's explicit goal is to change the legal and economic framework under which fathers, mothers and children can interact when a parent makes a mistake: "The state of Michigan is seeking to force Matt to pay child support for a child he never intended to bring into this world."
But then again, a debate about tort reform or altering strictly parental rights and obligations in Michigan would be much less sexy for the headlines.
Calgary Herald 2006


