The SECOND Most Anger-Inducing Article EVER!

First things first.
This is about abortion.
If you cannot restrain yourself from swearing and jumping up and down at the very mention of the term, no matter which "team" you find yourself on, skip this. Click here and leave the hell on outta' here.
I have some things to say, and I'm frankly not interested in a whole lot of incoherent jibberjabber, from either side.
If, on the other hand, you think you MIGHT just be able to hear a few things you haven't heard before and retain control of your faculties, read on. I will try to entertain you, without offending you. (Just kidding. Why bother? Chances are you will be offended, no matter what.)

Today, in Michigan, a lawsuit was filed by the National Center for Men.
At the very, very least, it will ignite a shitstorm. Most likely, it will get swept under the rug to avoid the shitstorm it rightfully deserves.
More on this, with linkage, in a minute.

Now. Abortion as an issue exists with two questions: who has the right to make the decision, and is the procedure illegal / immoral / whatever.

My gut, and my brain, agree on the second: you, all of you who get so worked up over this, are missing the point. The question is not whether it's illegal, it's WHEN it's illegal, because no matter how you dance around it, at some point in the pregnancy, the fetus is sufficiently developed that what you are doing is murdering a human being. At that point, it's ALREADY illegal - murder has been against the law as long as there have been human civilizations.

Now, the pro-life folks will tell you, loudly, over and over, that "life begins at conception," which is technically true, but also misses the point. The pro-choicers are more varied, as some of them think there's a certain developmental point at which it's no longer "ok," and some feel that pulling the baby part-way out and sucking its brains out with a vacuum tube IN THE DELIVERY ROOM is "ok." For me, so-called "partial-birth" abortion is so obviously murder, specifically infanticide, that I won't even dignify it with a response.

Now: the fact is, medical science may not know everything, but we're not back in the Dark Ages, either. The amount of knowledge that doctors are able to gather about a human fetus is amazing. Which leads me to my first of several points: when DOES the baby stop being a "non-viable tissue mass" and start being a BABY, anyway?

Well, we know for a fact that premature infants can survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks of gestation - a typical pregnancy being 38-40 weeks. Is it likely? No. But it's possible, and at that point, they may be small, but they're clearly babies. Let me be clear, folks: a baby is not an "unintended side effect." It is a HUMAN BEING. Your right to "terminate a pregnancy" ends when it becomes a HUMAN BEING. This is because killing a human being is murder. Destroying a non-viable tissue mass is, well, gross.

Now, the question is still unanswered: when is it a human? Clearly, earlier than 5 1/2 months, because the prematures at that developmental stage are clearly, recognizably human. Medical science can observe facial features, a heartbeat, and liver function as early as 2 1/2 months; for the sake of discussion, let's call it the first trimester. At the end of that time, the fetus is developed enough that the child can be observed to move independently, which sure indicates something other than a "non-viable tissue mass" to me.

Ok: we've succesfully answered one of the great questions surounding this issue: when is it legal, and when isn't it: very simply, it's fine, until the baby becomes human, which is in the vicinity of the first trimester. If abortion is going to take place, for any reason other than the life of the mother, this is when to do it. After that point it is already covered by the United States Code, which says you can't murder humans. (I have my quibbles with the methodology of the "health of the mother" determinations, but as they're strictly a matter of my personal opinion, I won't go into it.)

Well, that HUGE HURDLE overcome, let's talk about the real quandary: who gets to make the decision? Women's groups would have you believe that because the male does not physically carry the fetus, he should have no say, despite the fact that the fetus exists in part due to his actions, and 50% due to his biology; I think this is utter, arrant nonsense. A male that wants to have some say in the life or death of his child is not "oppressing women," he is taking voluntary responsibility for the results of his actions. Does that mean he gets to make the decision by himself? No, and that's my whole point: a child is a being which cannot, of its nature, exist without the efforts and biology of more than one person. (Barring clones, which are an entirely different issue.) Allowing EITHER of the parents, regardless of gender, to make a decision to destroy the child without the agreement of the other is simply morally wrong.

(OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER FOR ANY DUMBFUCKS WHO'VE MADE IT THIS FAR: Clearly, if a woman is raped, the father does not get a say. Also clearly, if the father just bails and doesn't want to hear about it, he doesn't get a say, because he HAD his say when he walked away. Neither of these points are germane to the discussion.)

Now. Now we get to the crux of the issue, which is: under the current state of the law in most of the United States, women do not have to consult the father at all. They can make the decision to keep the child, put the child up for adoption, or kill the child, all on their own. This is not "a triumph of empowerment," it is a statement to men that their role in the creation of the child is lesser, and their rights and responsibilities with regard to the child are lesser, than those of the mother.

Which brings me to the lawsuit.
The National Center for Men has filed suit on behalf of Matt Dubay, of Saginaw, Michigan, against his ex-girlfriend, requesting relief from his responsibility to pay child support. Why? Because, he claims,

the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

In other words, she made the decision to get pregnant without consulting him, thus denying him his right to choose; that denial therefore relieves him of any responsibility for the consequences.

Now, NCM is arguing that if decisions regarding pregnancy are, as Roe v. Wade states, up to the woman and not the man, then it is unjust for the woman to retroactively saddle the man with responsibility for decisions she made without his consent.

Here's the problem with all this. Everything about this issue has been approached in the wrong way. Like I said before, if a child exists, it's due to the actions of not one, but two people. Moral responsibility therefore devolves upon BOTH parents. If either parent chooses to disavow the child, they have made their decision, and it should be a legally enforceable, irreversible one. Neither parent should be able to sue for custody or support, years later, of a child that they voluntarily walked away from. A woman's position here is somewhat more complicated by virtue of the fact that the child is physically attached to her, and as such a decision to abandon the child has to be a choice between carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption, or abortion, but the decision is still the same: keep it, or don't. At that point, the pregnancy must factor into a woman's thinking, in terms of whether it's worth it, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy; but that doesn't absolve her of the responsibility of consulting the male.

(ONCE AGAIN FOR THE DUMBFUCKS: Rape, clearly, does not count. In a case of rape, the male has, by leaving, disavowed his consequences in advance. There are criminal penalties for the sexual assault; the penalty inherent in the act of rape, with regard to parenthood, is total, irrevocable loss of any parental rights whatsoever.)

Currently, the state of the law enforces a double standard of monumental, hideous proportions. The father does not have to be consulted by the mother, despite his equal responsibility in the actions which occasioned the decision; yet he can be called on years later to provide financial support for children in whose lives he has had no say whatsoever. This has gone to completely outlandish proportions in some places; there was a case in Sweden recently where two lesbians had themselves artificially inseminated via a sperm bank, and then sued the sperm donor for child support.

The NCM lawsuit is predicated on this same principle. If the mother can voluntarily, summarily banish the father from the child's life, the father can voluntarily, summarily banish the mother from his life. It is a moral evil of profound proportions to require someone to accept consequences stemming from the actions of someone else; any five-year-old can tell you this, if you try to punish them for something someone else did.

But, if the connection there seems a bit tenuous to you, let me illustrate it in the following fashion: Imagine, for a moment, that you work in a giant retail store. Call it "Brand X."
Now, you hold a position at Brand X where you do not place orders, choose product lines, buy product, or in fact do anything other than hand the product to customers and say "Thank you, have a nice day." Suddenly, one day, the Loss Prevention officers at your store come to you and say,

We've discovered that another department has ordered a product that doesn't sell well. Because you work at Brand X, we're docking your pay until all the non-selling product is paid for.

The moral principle involved is exactly the same. A decision for which you are allowed no responsibility has suddenly become the justification for punishment directed at you.

This is morally wrong.
Now, to me, a rapist is already a criminal, and a man who does not want to take responsibility for a child he created, using his dick, is a reprehensible shitball who should be spat upon publically; but that does not change the fact that the gentleman from Michigan is exactly right. If he was, in fact, told that no child would result, and did in fact state in advance that he wanted no children, and the woman proceeded to have one anyway, despite her assurances to him and her foreknowledge of his disinclination towards parenthood, then he should bear no responsibility, financial or otherwise, for the child. More importantly, if the woman flatly took the decision out of his hands - and the law says she can - then it is injustice of the highest order to claim that he is irrevocably bound to support the child.

My personal feeling is that you shouldn't stick your dick in a woman that you're not willing to take the risk of having a child with; this guarantees that no matter the outcome, you are at least to some degree prepared for it. And frankly, as my father used to say,

people will go places with a hard-on that I wouldn't go with a shotgun.

But his point is nonetheless true for all its sliminess, weaselliness, and general shitheadedness: he shouldn't have to pay for the kid, as long as the state of the law says that fathers don't need to be consulted.

No doubt there are some very angry people right now: and no doubt they will email me to tell me so. Too damn bad. I'll read your emails, send one in reply that says "Thank you for your comments," and otherwise ignore you.
If, on the other hand, you are one of the 4 or 5 people I know capable of rational argument that doesn't agree with me, feel free to send me any rational comments you choose to make on the subject, or feel free to post them in my comments section; that's what it's there for.
With that, I will say, have a good evening and good night.