Letters to the Editor
-
a sodomized virgin needing an abortion?
"Meanwhile, South Dakota state Sen. Bill Napoli's televised assertion -- that only a religious virgin who got "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it" might qualify for an abortion in his state -- has been reported only in blogs and by Molly Ivins in her syndicated column earlier this week."
Since sodomy has never, to my knowledge, resulted in conception, I am guessing this is another way of saying that nobody will be able to get an abortion in South Dakota. And also, that religious virgins are somehow more deserving of a choice than the rest of us.
-
Did anyone read Cathy Youngs original article?
I would really like to know how a 12 year old can be held financially responsible for something that was raped out of him... Oh wait, he's capable of producing sperm so he's liable. Is that not as wrong as the state forcing a 12 year old girl to carry to term because she is capable of producing fertile eggs?
What about the man who was raped after he passed out from drinking - and it is rape since a drunk person CANNOT give consent. Isn't it wrong to force a person to be financially responsible for something that was raped out of them when they were unconscious and defenseless?
Women, you do not want rape victims to have to answer to their attackers for what happens biologicly as a result of that attack. It is obviously wrong.
-
Irrelevant
This article completely misses the point. An actual living, born child (note to the pro-lifers: no longer a fetus) requires support from the parents to survive, even if it's inconvenient to them. The child didn't choose to be born, and would be directly injured if either parent had a legal mechanism for providing substandard care. That right to basic care and survival overrides the parents' right to keep their entire paychecks, no matter what choice anyone made. Even if it feels unfair to the father, it would be even more unfair to this newborn child, who, unlike the father, has no ability to work a second job (or even a first job) to make ends meet.
This debate is exactly like the "Intelligent Design" debate. It has a patina of legitimacy, but it hides the true intent: to undo a history of social progress by confusing the matter with a "reasonable" sounding controversy. It's surprising to me that Salon fell for it.
-
Dude, your timing sucks
Regardless of the merits of this case, all I can say to Matt DuBay is: Dude, your timing sucks. Claiming you are exempt from child support payments because women have a plethora of choices to terminate a pregnancy, at the exact moment in history when women's choice is under attack nationwide, seems rather unfortunate. How about this: those men who feel economically oppressed by their biology (whew that's rich!) should work their little tails off protecing women's abortion rights and access to birth control FIRST. Once we've established that women really do have a "plethora of choices," and those choices won't be snatched from our grasp by some Fundiegelical activist judge, then we can begin a dialogue about the larger issues of men's parental rights and responsibilites.
-
Biology Is Unfair?
I can't believe that argument is being trotted out here, as it is precisely one of the arguments used against the concept of abortion and even birth control. Don't go there, you might not like where it leads. (Hint: South Dakota)
-
I wonder where NCM learned their tactics?
I don't blame the Triasters for being nervous (and her fear is palpable) - just as the women's movement bypassed the legislatures and state houses - knowing that the casual termination of the fetus would never sell in Peoria, and instead cherry picked courts and judges to push for a "right" to abortion, now, as the state houses and legislators are fighting back - and now that the judiciary might not be so favorable, here come the NCM nutballs employing the same exact tactics and language of the pro-choice movement. For years, some of us have been saying that prochoicers need to build a popular movement - enshrine in the constitution a right to medical privacy - a right to abortion, but the movement has only looked to the courts, sneering at Joe and Josephine unwashed voter, pissing on the flyover electorate as knownothings, "white male" christians, blah, blah, blah - pissing on the "men's rights" movement as fools and dilitants, pissing on any intellectual or moral dissenters as haters and bigots and idiots and those all too willing to stick women back in the kitchen and bedroom, screaming that even children have a complete right to abortion, that even lying to parents was okay, that strangers should have a right to take your children, across state lines, for surgical procedures, that YOUR rights are the only ones that matter, that this is all about YOUR feelings - not some fetus, fuck that fetus, I have law school to attend, fuck that fetus, I already have two kids, fuck that fetus, I wanted a boy, and this thing has no dick, no blue eyes, it may be a retard, it may be gaystraightblackwhitechinese, and fuck that father (if he does/doesn't want that baby) - fuck him, I've got MY life to lead, MY life, MY life, MY life...
I guess Matt Dubay is just saying, well "fuck you," back...
-
Women Want It Both Ways
If a woman gets pregnant a man can't force her to cary the baby to term, take the baby from her and then get the courts to force the women to tithe a percentage of her income to child support.
A woman's "choice" is ultimately influenced by CASH!
Would a woman be so willing to carry to term if she knew for a fact she wouldn't get one penny from the biological father? Heck no. Being a single parent is expensive -- but women have figured out that they don't need to get married to be mothers. They can just send the bill to the biological fathers!
I hate to say it, but a lot of women, especially women in poverty level conditions, often see getting pregnant as winning the lottery. Before roe v Wade a lot of women would ask, "How can I afford this child?" Now a lot of woman say, "How much of HIS paycheck can I get?"
Even upper middle class women who may not have enough income to really support a kid often see it as a lottery: the rational is this, "I don't love the father, don't want to get married, but I'd love to be a mother. How about if I have the kid and HE pays for it?"
How about if the man kocks up the girlfriend, dumps her, then claims custudy of the baby and send the ex-girlfriend a bill every month for child support? We'd all be screaming in outrage -- but we accept as perfectly natural for a woman to treat a man as a cash machine.