Replies

I am hopefull that the more men force this issue the more it will aid in acknowledging and practicing the truth that these defenseless little boys and girls are not to be killed by anyone, not the mother nor the father who have conceived the child and not the doctors who callously slaughter these little boys and gils. These are human lives and are every bit as valuable as our own.

“The fundamental flaw in Dubay’s claim is that he fails to see that the state played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child,” Lawson wrote.

—Wait a minute!!! So the state DOES play a role when the WOMAN’s behavior results in conception or birth of a child??? I’m confused here...

"The fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the state played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child," Lawson wrote.

If this is true, then abortion laws are unconstitutional. I guess they can't see the hypocrisy in their stupid statements.

says men should have the same rights as women do under Roe v. Wade to exempt themselves from responsibilities for a child they don't want.

And I'll give the men the same response I give the women:
"You don't want the responsibility? Don't do the act in the first place!"

My daughter and I were watching the musical, “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” the other day. At the end there is a shotgun wedding. I had to explain what a shotgun wedding is. These days shotgun weddings are unheard of. Instead, the guy who has impregnated his girlfriend is considered a real prince if he coughs up 50% of the cost of an abortion to “take care” of the inconvenient product of conception.

“He says his former girlfriend, Lauren Wells, did not want have children and told him during their relationship that she couldn’t get pregnant.”
If she told him that, and he can find another old boyfriend to whom she said the same thing, I’d think he could sue her! Doesn’t help the poor child though!

State courts have previously ruled that any inequity men face is outweighed by the need to provide adequate support for children as they grow up. However, the New York-based National Center for Men is siding with Dubay and is calling the case "the Roe vs. Wade for Men."

Whenever a judge rules something like this it is a blatant indicator that they are ignoring the Constitution because they don't like the effects that following the Constitution would have.

Of course Roe v Wade is an example of that itself, which is why judges have to keep violating the Constitution to support it.

Our family courts are horribly, unconstitutionally biased against men, and the reasoning is always that is is in the best interest of the children. The constitution doesn't give the government the authority to ignore it whenever they feel it is best to grant one party something by taking it away from someone.

Equal protection, means equal protection.

It is in the best interest of a child to have two loving parents that share in their upbringing. When that isn't possible, the only preference the courts should show is for women that are breast feeding babies, and joint custody should really be joint custody like it is in Canada, not some system where the mother gets primary custody, and both parents have to share in the expenses as a percentage of their incomes.

A pregnant woman may choose whether to have an abortion and if she bears the child she may leave the child at a “newborn drop-off site” and walk away from any responsibility forever.

A man has no legal right to object to or require an abortion of a child he has fathered and even if he never knew the mother got pregnant he can be hunted down in perpetuity and forced to pay child support.

Thus women are assigned 100% authority and 0% responsibility while for the man the reverse is true.