The Right to Support But Not to Life?

“I am definitely pro-choice and sympathetic to you views, but letting a man get away without supporting the child is unfair to the child.” (J.R.)

Your argument cannot be sustained if you’re really pro-choice, as you claim to be. Abortion is legal during gestation because a fetus has no intrinsic worth that negates the mother’s right to choose. A future event, the birth of a child, in no way allows another individual or the state to interfere with her reproductive choice via the argument that abortion is unfair to the (future) child. To claim that a (future) child imposes an obligation on the father is to fall victim to the absurd notion that the fetus is entitled to financial support (on the father’s part, through court-ordered paternity judgment) but not to life itself (the mother’s continued pregnancy).

There exists a legal requirement for one parent to seek the welfare of the fetus, the party who is burdened with this sole responsibility with no corresponding, approximate right of refusal. There exists no similar legal requirement for the other parent to continue the welfare of the fetus, the parent who holds the sole right to determine the being and future of the fetus.

There exists no legal requirement to seek the fetus’s welfare for the one party possessing reproductive choice that by a minimum standard of logic and jurisprudence must exist in order to establish the legal requirement of the father, who currently has no measure of reproductive right of refusal during the gestation period.

In other words, there is no primary legal requirement on the part of the expectant mother to seek and continue the fetus’s welfare that would logically give rise to the legal requirement for the expectant father. If the expectant father’s current legal condition cannot accurately be called reproductive slavery then the term holds absolutely no meaning for an intelligent person.

The fetus has a right to support but not to life.

Again, your position cannot be sustained from a pro-choice stance. Yours is the pro-life argument.

"If, as Roe v. Wade instructs, a fetus lacks constitutional protection to assure it an opportunity to be born, we see no basis for according it constitutional protection to assure it enhanced prospects of good health after birth," (Lewis v Grinker,
US Second Circuit Court, 2001)


If “fairness" to the (future) child entered the picture in any way then abortion would certainly be severely restricted. The absurd claim that any legal standard exists for a prospective father (obligation to support the fetus) in the absence of a non-existent primary, logical standard for the mother (the obligation to secure life which requires corresponding paternal support) completely fails intellectually as well as morally. The primary standard for the prospective mother must exist contemporaneously with any secondary standard for the father. The fetus’s right to life by necessity must be guaranteed in order to secure any secondary “enhanced prospects”; but because the right to life does not exist for the fetus no other “rights” can logically follow and the US Second Circuit Court has it exactly right in this respect. All who argue otherwise are arguing the pro-life position.

Reproductive rights, as they pertain to abortion and the right to refuse responsibility for a (future) child, and the issue of child support are two separate and distinct matters. Those who try to conflate the two have failed to grasp the essential findings of Roe.

Thank You, Matt Dubay

The following was first published April 20, 2002, on the now-defunct New York Times' Reproductive Rights interactive forum. (All Footnote 67 sections, to date, were written and published prior to 2006, some dating to the early 1990's.) This past week a courageous young man, Matt Dubay of Saginaw, MI., filed a lawsuit seeking to have courts recognize his constitutional right to choose. Mr. Dubay has come under attack from various groups and individuals on the grounds that "a real man" would never avoid responsibility for his child. Ironically, many of those who smear Matt Dubay for his courage to stand up for a constitutional principle on behalf of all men are the same ones who declare that "real men" would never stand by and allow the courts to dismantle or deny women their right to choose. The hypocrisy of hegemonists is boundless; and any man stupid enough to relinquish his constitutional right merely because of specious attacks on his vanity can hardly be considered a "real man". Thank you, Matt Dubay, and may many others with your courage flood the courts with similar lawsuits!

The quickest path for achieving "equal protection" would be a class action suit in order to bring the issue of men's constitutional right of reproductive choice to the immediate attention of the courts as well as to the forefront of public consciousness. While most of America recognize Jane Roe as the party who lent her pseudonym to the landmark case most people do not know that the ruling came too late to allow her a legal abortion.

A similar lawsuit seeking to free men from unwanted responsibility for a (future) child may lead the way in like fashion. Roe was not ruled moot after Norma McCorvey gave birth because the case had gained class action status. Progressive rights activists seeking to abolish unconstitutional denial of men’s "equal protection" and "due process" protections should focus on an identical legal strategy for class action status, as McCorvey’s situation representing women as a class mirrors that of men both individually and collectively.

The stark truth of reality cannot be avoided --- granting prospective fathers the approximate reproductive freedom that women currently enjoy would not infringe upon a woman’s "right to choose"; to argue that it does is a de facto argument that a non-viable fetus possesses an intrinsic worth independent of the mother’s consideration and one which merits protection by the state. If courts rule that a non-viable fetus possesses intrinsic worth deserving of protection they must also direct the state to value that intrinsic worth over and above a woman’s independent, subjective determination of its worth to her in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of "equal protection" safeguards.

A woman has the right to make her medical decisions; it does not follow that her medical decisions must bind a husband or partner to years of involuntary servitude. Forcing an individual to accept responsibility for parenthood against her or his will cannot be moral in one situation and immoral in the other, nor should it be legal in one case but not the other.

Hegemonist Intellectual Bankruptcy

The pro-life position states that a human being exists from the moment of conception, and that the human being deserves full protection of the law. Agree or disagree, the position is worthy of respect for its insistence that all parties --- mother, father, child --- have approximate rights that accrue at a precise moment in time, conception.

The hegemonist political ideology takes the position that no intrinsic worth accrues to the zygote/embryo/fetus until an undetermined point is reached in development, and that to force unwanted responsibility upon a mother prior to the undetermined point amounts to reproductive slavery. Yet the hegemonist ideologue advocates forced reproductive slavery for unwilling fathers, based solely upon the intellectually fraudulent position that at some point in the future the fetus will eventually be a legal entity, a person, deserving of (future) rights.

Whereas pro-life asserts that respect for the zygote/embryo/fetus’s rights are based upon a THERE-there that exists immediately at conception, the hegemonist insists that reproductive slavery must be forced upon an unwilling father because the no-THERE-there will be a THERE-there in a matter of time. What, I ask, can be more transparently fraudulent than the hegemonist part-time, pseudo pro-life rationale that reproductive slavery is necessary --- for men only, mind you ---because an entity which they assert has no intrinsic value will possess intrinsic worth at some point in the future?

The hegemonist insists that a condition of forced reproductive slavery is necessary for half the human race by the very presence of something they freely admit has no intrinsic worth. However, the hegemonist reacts with blind fury the moment anyone asserts that the THERE-there (or, the no-THERE-there --- take your pick) does (does not) possess intrinsic worth sufficient to force an identical servitude upon a mother.

I’ll reiterate: what other ideology can anyone name that is as equally and transparently fraudulent as this intellectually and morally bankrupt hegemonist doctrine? There is a pro-life ideology and a corresponding pro-choice one; the intellectually and morally bankrupt hegemonist ideology has no defensible place in American law.

Neither Second-Class Citizens Nor Second-Class Parents

It stands to reason that courts will discriminate against fathers in custody matters because today, in the United States of America, fathers' rights are relegated to the ash heap the instant they become fathers.

The Roe decision specifically denies that any individual, group, or government has the right to enforce arbitrary religious, medical, philosophical, or legal standards on another citizen regarding the intrinsic value of an embryo/fetus until meaningful life worthy of constitutional protection begins at the third trimester of pregnancy.

Yet any prospective mother can march into state courts in all fifty states immediately after learning she's pregnant and have those courts impose the unconstitutional demand that the prospective father monetarily support that entity even when meaningful fetal life will not be achieved until months into the future . Those same states' laws (bowing to federal reproductive rights rulings, mind you) declare that the prospective mother has no legal obligation whatsoever for the health and welfare of the entity lacking meaningful life, a clearly indefensible and unconscionable denial of equal protection and due process to the prospective father.

To arrive at a correct understanding of why there are egregious double standards with regard to custody, one must first recognize that the legal double standard begins at the moment of conception. Establishing this simple fact in the minds of a critical mass of the public will allow this country to begin redress of the massive and grave miscarriage of justice that has taken place since Roe became law. With recognition that massive injustice is the norm today America may begin the process of clarifying Roe's findings that will lead to approximate legal parity in the sexes' reproductive rights.

The possibility exists that additional Supreme Court vacancies might occur during the remainder of President Bush's term; and whatever speculation may arise over the pros and cons of confirmation the central focus will all revolve around Roe v Wade.

It's absolutely necessary to begin a national discussion over how this ruling --- together with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to our constitution --- prohibits any individual, group, or government from imposing a separate and distinct legal obligation upon either sex. Ask your senators to demand that any nominee for the Supreme Court openly declare his or her support for the constitutional imperative that prospective fathers must enjoy the approximate right to disavow the obligations of parenthood during the same window of opportunity that prospective mothers currently enjoy.

This is America; fathers are neither second-class parents nor are they second-class citizens. The simple fact that fathers are deemed second-class citizens at the moment of conception ensures that state and federal courts will forevermore deem them second-class parents --- as the reality of reproductive and custodial law currently attests.

Reader Comment

Nope. The man's "rights" do not exist until such time as a child is born. At such time his rights and responsibilities, like the woman's is present because a child is now present. (L.T.)

You are stating the status of current misapplication of federal law, which, in its current application, violates basic equal protection principles. If you check state law you'll find that the responsibilities the father can be forced to assume begin prior to birth; and when reviewing these various states' laws note that the father's parental rights are also specified.

The philosophical underpinnings the Court used in Roe to justify a woman’s right to terminate the life of another human entity rest entirely on their finding that before viability the fetus possesses no intrinsic value that allows it to exist if the mother determines her "privacy" leads her to make a personal medical decision.

Pre-Roe both father and mother assumed equivalent responsibilities for pregnancy (or potential pregnancy) at the time they mutually agreed to have sex. Equal parental rights as well as responsibilities were attached to expectant couples, although there was no right to an abortion (or ability to refuse parental responsibility, in the father’s case) absent a grave medical threat to the mother. Both parents enjoyed "equal protection" and "due process" in like measure precisely because both were required to subject themselves to the same legal requirements when they engaged in sex and, if it occurred, at the time of conception.

Post-Roe finds us in a situation where a mother has a pre-viability choice of whether or not to have (accept responsibility for) a child; the father has no choice --- no right --- to refuse that same parental responsibility although the pre-Roe intrinsic worth of the fetus has gone from having great value (as a member of the human race) to post-Roe intrinsic worthlessness.

The current failure to recognize the father’s equal protection right in like measure to the mother's is discrimination based solely upon sex, given that all situations and conditions that existed pre-Roe are identical in every respect today.

Beyond the lack of choice, however, we still have a situation where a father, from the moment of conception, is legally responsible for the economic welfare of the same entity that has been ruled to lack any intrinsic worth. The mother has no legal responsibility for the potential child's physical or economic welfare until it's free from the birth canal nine months after conception. Post-Roe, from conception to birth, there exists a different and unequal legal standard for the separate parties although all situations and conditions (again) remain identical to those that existed pre-Roe.

Federal law supercedes state law; in it's current misapplication of Roe federal law allows state law to trump in forcing fathers to accept responsibility for a potential child when no such requirement is mandated for the mother. Were Roe to be applied correctly states would not be allowed to force fathers to adhere to the legal double-standard that now exists.

A father’s independent refusal, prior to viability, to accept responsibility for a child he does not wish to accept will not infringe upon the mother’s independent right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy and is fully in keeping with the findings of Roe. Fathers do have rights; fathers are due the approximate right to refuse responsibility for a potential child that a mother has. That Roe implicitly states this fact in the logic of the ruling cannot be in doubt.

Common Sense

Roe is predicated upon the right of a pregnant woman to "privacy" in determining the outcome of her pregnancy but not her right to extend the boundaries of "privacy" to include the forced economic and legal sanctions of her dissenting husband or partner should she decide to carry the pregnancy to term. Roe states that in the absence of universal agreement by theologians, philosophers, physicians, and legal experts regarding the issue of when or whether the life present in the womb is entitled to protection it is impermissible for one religious-philosophical-medical-legal viewpoint to trump any other during the first two trimesters. Therefore, the Court reasoned, the best way to deal with the controversy is to leave the decision regarding the outcome of the pregnancy in the hands of the mother in the first and second trimesters.

The Court also declares that in the third trimester a state’s "legitimate interest" in the life of the fetus may permit it to restrict abortion. The rationale behind the third trimester qualification rests upon the Court’s determination that viable human life --- capable of meaningful existence outside the womb --- may be cause for legislation that severely restricts a woman’s right to choose abortion in cases where no serious danger to the life or health of the mother exists. Prior to the third trimester the fetus possesses no constitutional rights and only in the third trimester does it (in theory) lay claim to any.

How then can a woman or the state force an unwilling father to assume the unwanted responsibility for a (future) child he does not wish to accept when the highest court in the land has determined that the existence of a non-viable fetus carries no similar responsibility for the one party vested with the sole ability to determine the outcome of the pregnancy? A pregnant woman can decide to have an abortion for any reason, including her "mental health"; yet no one has stepped forward to answer the question of why an individual medical decision covered by Roe would necessarily exclude men from determining that their "mental health" might lead some fathers to forego accepting the unwanted responsibility for a (future) child.

A father’s exercise of his right to privacy in this realm, based upon his mental health well-being, would not preclude the mother from exercising her unrestricted right to determine the outcome of the pregnancy. But in countless debates one encounters reproductive hegemonists who incoherently posit that "for any reason" means that one sex may enjoy a privilege far exceeding medical decisions to include the forced economic and mental health sanctions on the other sex.

Reproductive hegemonists, incredible as it may seem, declare that to restrict or abolish abortion on demand "for any reason" would amount to a return to reproductive slavery for women yet strive to find endless excuses for declaring that reproductive slavery is a moral and legal requirement for men. Those reproductive hegemonists who would deny all men the right to independently determine their own reproductive destinies invariably resort to pro-life arguments in order to justify their egregious legal and moral double-standard!

That men-only reproductive slavery is currently a legal requirement is indisputable; fair-minded people of all persuasions recognize that men who avoid unwanted parental requirements prior to viability are no more reprehensible morally than are women who exercise the same choice by every means allowed them. That men are legally entitled to equal protection in the matter of reproductive rights is also indisputable.

Understanding Roe v Wade

There is a strong possibility that President Bush will nominate one or more candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies during the remainder of his presidency. In anticipation of this event I believe that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should consider asking the future nominee(s) to fully elaborate on his/her understanding of Roe v Wade in order to ascertain the candidate’s fitness to serve on the highest court in the land.

A thorough reading of Roe inescapably leads to the understanding that the ruling permits a woman to determine the outcome of her pregnancy. On the other hand, it is also inescapable that the ruling does not permit a pregnant woman to use the excuse of her pregnancy to compel a father into unwanted parenthood any more than the excuse of that same pregnancy can be used by another party to force her into a condition of unwanted parenthood.

Roe states that a non-viable fetus enjoys no intrinsic value that would force one sex into the condition of unwanted parenthood. Any Supreme Court nominee who fails to understand that the same non-viable fetus has no more standing to force the other sex into unwanted parenthood is clearly not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, by virtue of his/her lack of understanding of, or disregard for, both Roe and America’s judicial ideal of “equal justice under the law”.

It is incumbent upon all members of the Committee, the senators who will vote for or against a candidate's submission to the full Senate, to stand firmly behind the constitutional doctrine of equal protection for all citizens of the United States. By closely questioning the candidate(s) and by insisting on clear responses that leave no doubt where the candidate(s) stands regarding this critical matter, the Senate Judiciary Committee members will assist in furthering the correct application of Roe as well as demonstrate their adherence to the principle of equal protection contained in the constitution. And should any candidate fail to express full support for the equal protection doctrine in the realm of reproductive rights as it applies to fathers Judiciary Committee members must vote against confirmation.