Roe Vs. Wade Vs. My Soapbox

Ok - enough with the funny posts for a moment - it's soapbox time.
(insert catchy 'it's soapbox time, (la la) this is the theme for soapbox time (la la)' song here...)

Should men have the rights to reject being a father?-- including getting out of paying child support? Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old from Saginaw, Michigan, is suing his ex-girlfriend, 20-year-old Lauren Wells. They had a baby girl who is now eight months old. Dubay says he told Wells up front (prior to conception) that he did not want to be a father. She also told him that she could not conceive. Now that she has, and gave birth to the baby she claimed she could not have, and he did not want...he doesn't feel he should have to pay $560 per month in child support since they clarified the decision to not have children up front. A national men's rights group backing the suit argues that a woman gets to decide if she wants to have a child, give it up for adoption, or have an abortion, while the man has no control.

The problem with this whole debate is that it stems from the fact that the entire situation is ALREADY biased in the favor of women - biologically. No matter if a consensus is reached on the child's fate - the mother is the one with a physical decision and the father with only the verbal one. Should men be punished for biology? Especially if, in this case, the decision is made in advance. Why is a man held responsible for his partner's change in decision, but not vice versa? The court cannot tell a woman to keep a child that her man wishes to have. Why then does the court get to tell a man the same thing? A lack of a womb is no excuse for a lack of voice.

People get too caught up in this emotionally, as people do...but it boils down what we have now is a legal requirement that man to be responsible for a woman's decision. And as a person concerned with equal rights for all people, not just women...I see a fundamental problem with that.

I just came up with the brilliant concept of a 'pre-nup' for sex...such that a man may file something that legally says he does not wish to have children, and he is not responsible for any child that results of any union, as his choice is abortion. As unfair as that sounds generally - it could solve the problem...and force a woman into taking into account if such a document exsists before she decides to keep her child alone. Possibly it's more fair if it legally requires him to PAY for said abortion, as that's his choice. I think this document should exsist for women as well - so that a man may not challenge her decision to keep a child - as she's stated so in advance! What a different world it would be if a woman were legally required to have a baby her male partner wished to keep if she didn't file paperwork indicating she did not want a child! It's thought provoking...and possibly finally fair?

Discuss amongst yourselves...

(That was the theme to Sara's soapbox, la la, We hope you've enjoyed Sara's soapbox, la la la.)