Roe v. Wade For (Cowardly) Men

About a month or so ago, I received one of those offers for a free subscriptions to a conservative rag. Since the magazine, whose name currently evades me, touted the likes of one Patrick J. Buchanan, neo-con it was not, and I happily signed up for a trial issue. Arriving yesterday, there were several interesting articles, many focusing on cultural issues. Having come to the pessimistic libertarian conclusion quite some time ago, I've been much more enamored with cultural distractions as of late. One can only write so many articles of the-government-doesn't-solve-problems theme.

This now nameless magazine brought to my attention something I had forgotten. Just over a month ago, a spineless little boy demanded the court remove his duty as a father to pay child support in the event of "unintended pregnancy"--goodness I dislike that phrase; what did you intend to happen, you twit?--in what is being dubbed "Roe v. Wade for men."

On a personal and moral note, this coward is an embarrassment to men everywhere. As the saying goes, a woman is, a man must become. So must a male take responsibility for his actions in order to show himself worthy of the venerable title of man. As Clancy once wrote, "Honor is a man's gift to himself." I know this is probably uncouth, as men and women are now purported to be the same. While I have never felt the sexes to be unequal I beg forgiveness at my antiquated predilection for duty.

Yet all the morality in the world matters not in the legal realm. From a purely legalistic perspective, Roe v. Wade for men makes sense in a land that has already excepted Roe v. Wade for women. If a man does not have a say in whether the woman who bears his child may carry it to full legal personhood status, it is illogical to state that he must pay for the child if she chooses to. This is emblematic of feminist thinking; lacking the ability to rationalize syllogistically--if at all--they see no problem wanting things both ways.

For a time, men were willing to extend this privilege to the fairer sex. The egregious double standard was tolerated by men who, ironically, did not think sameness with women something to be grasped. Possibly incorrectly construed as chauvinistic, a deference for women has up until recently been deemed chivalrous, and all but the most passionate feminist bemoan its sudden retreat into the realm of antiquity, or at least obscurity.

Thus we have the modern emasculated man. In his purest form, the emasculated man neither presents a threat, nor attains the affection of womankind. As Socrates notes, "Woman once made equal to man becomes his superior." No doubt Socrates would get along splendidly with the modern feminist. Though crude, his statements illustrates a very real truth.

Though pathetic and unmanly in his own right, the emasculated man is not at issue here. Forever kowtowing to women, he would never dream of challenging the inconsistent power grab by their ilk, though it has decimated his reproductive rights. Instead, it takes a bizarre half-breed to have the balls to stand up against this nonsense yet lacking in the courage needed to man-up and take responsibility for sexual indiscretions.

There are three ways the ruling could go.

1) Spouting some legalistic nonsense, the court ignores the obvious double standard and forces the boy to behave responsibly. The cultural hatred of responsibility is surpassed only by an inability to enforce the law consistently. If the decision is thus reached as such, look for demi-men everywhere to complain that while women can romp freely, men are yet restrained. Oh the humanity.

2) The court allows the boy to abdicate parental responsibility. I can almost hear the whining from the feminist camp. True equality is a mother.

3) The court forces the man to pay child support, but establishes precedent such that women are now required to get the permission of their partner before aborting their child. This would be the ruling favored by yours truly, although it seems least likely of the three. Once again, the howling from the feminists would be loud and obnoxious. Consistency can seem most unfair.

The courts have a way of taking forever to decide things. Updates will be forthcoming, albeit infrequently. The lesson here is once again to think carefully about sleeping around. Heaven forbid I encourage abstinence, but it should be remembered that sexual intercourse, even that which is coupled with "protection" can result in pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases, to say nothing of the emotional side effects of such an experience.

I shall close with a bit from Underoath--three cheers for Jesus-lovin’ hardcore:
Consequence is our need in times like this. Feeling free is our modern disease.