If the court rules against Matt Dubay, it will embrace the curious position that a child has the right to receive money from a man who had nothing to do with her existence, but does not have the right to receive life from the woman who created her.
A few months back, the conservative world was in an uproar because the Supreme Court ruled that the state has the right to take any property it wants if that land can be used to generate more revenue for the state. Matt Dubay’s lawsuit, in which he attempts to avoid paying child support on the grounds that he didn’t want a child, has an interesting resonance with that ruling.
According to CNN, “the president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter. ‘None of these are easy questions,’ said Gandy, a former prosecutor. ‘But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.’”
Confusion from the Leaders
Indeed? What child would that be, Ms. Gandy? According to the National Organization of Women, the decision to have sex is not a decision to have a child. There is no child at the moment of conception. There is no child, really, until birth. How can Matt Dubay be responsible for a child he didn’t create?
According to the most modern, cutting-edge definitions of sexual responsibility, pregnancy and personhood, Mr. Dubay most emphatically did not create a child nor had he anything to do with the creation of a child.
Abortion supporters insist the act of sex does not create responsibility towards a future child. If it did, no one could support abortion. Legal abortion is grounded in the idea that something which does not yet have its own existence does not yet have any rights. Thus, abortion supporters take great pains to explain why the tissue mass in the womb is not really a child.
- It doesn’t have a heartbeat (except it does by the 22nd day after conception).
- It doesn’t have brainwaves (except it does by the 42nd day).
- It can’t feel pain (except it can by the 7th week, in fact, between 20 and 30 weeks gestation, the tissue mass is more susceptible to pain than a born child).
So, to parrot the pro-choice position, how can Matt Dubay have responsibilities towards a tissue mass? Towards something smaller than your thumb? Smaller than a grain of rice? How can he have responsibilities towards a fertilized egg that doesn’t even exist until hours after he has withdrawn from the woman, withdrawn from the bedroom, gotten dressed and gone home to wash his car? Conception happens hours, sometimes days, after having sex.
Even so, life does not begin at conception, remember? One hundred years ago, fifty years ago, even a decade ago, pregnancy began at conception. Today, it begins at implantation. Today, women aren’t pregnant with children, they are pregnant with undifferentiated tissue masses, tissue masses that are nearly as marvelous a source of stem cells as menstrual blood.
Stem cells and abortion. That’s why we changed the definition of when life and pregnancy began, remember? So we could tear apart those little tissue masses and steal, ahem, borrow, excuse me, use their stem cells. What? Oh, sorry. I meant use the stem cells.
Confusion in the Logic
So, we ask again, Ms. Gandy, how can Matt Dubay have any responsibility towards a child he didn’t create? A child is created through the act of gestation, but what has that got to do with a man? Men don’t have wombs. Men don’t gestate. Remember?
This is why we can create embryos for experimentation — as long as we don’t implant them in the womb, as long as these embryos don’t gestate, it’s moral to tear them apart. Gestation is the key, remember? Not conception, not fertilization — gestation. Without gestation, it’s just potential human life. With gestation, it might become real human life.
But men don’t gestate.
Now, why would Ms. Gandy, who has vociferously supported the aforesaid line of reasoning, suddenly come to the conclusion that the act of sex creates responsibility towards a future child?
For years, we have been taught that Americans don’t understand science, and Ms. Gandy is demonstrating that ignorance in spades. Sex does not create children. Gestation does. Only women gestate. Thus, only women create children. Thus, only women have responsibilities towards children.
According to the logic of neo-science and legal abortion, men aren’t responsible for the existence of children. At all. Nada, zip, zero, nothing, goose egg, empty set.
Those are just the facts of modern biology, successfully redefined by the pro-abortion lobby and Nobel-hungry biologists. It’s just the nature of the thing, Ms. Gandy — not our fault. You insisted on the definitions. We fought against those new definitions. We lost. You won. Congratulations.
Confusion in the Ranks
Everyone who attacks Matt Dubay assumes that Mr. Dubay is somehow responsible for the existence of a child. Even abortion supporters are making this argument. But the whole concept is negated by the new science definitions, which tells us no child exists at the moment of ejaculation, nor at the moment of conception, nor even at the time of implantation, but only some later time. It is likewise negated by the new law, which tells us the woman has no responsibility toward whatever possible child might eventually exist.
So, those who argue against Matt Dubay’s claim are either (1) logically inconsistent or (2) liars out to defraud one-half of the population. And here is where the new learning concerning eminent domain ties in.
Tying It All Together
The idea that the joint act of sex creates a joint responsibility, and that this responsibility is created towards a specific person as yet unconceived and without existence, this is an old idea, an idea so old it no longer applies in this brave, new country. The courts have specifically repudiated the idea in the case of a woman who has begotten a tissue mass.
So, if the court rules against Matt Dubay, it will embrace the curious position that a child has the right to receive money from a man who had nothing to do with her existence, but does not have the right to receive life from the woman who created her.
This is perfectly in accord with the recent eminent domain decision. It doesn’t matter who owns what. What matters is this: can the state legally increase its revenues by taking property from one person and giving it to someone else? According to the Supreme Court, yes, it can. So, the state has every right to take money from any man in order to give that money to any woman with child, and thus keep both the woman and the child off state aid.
So, Matt Dubay will lose not because he had anything to do with creating a child. According to all the most advanced thinkers (which wouldn’t be us neanderthals in the pro-life movement, by the way), he had nothing to do with the creation of the child. No, Matt Dubay will lose because his wallet is subject to eminent domain.
Using logic with our pampered western women is the first mistake. Logic is incompatible with their emotion based line of action. They rarely think issues through instead gushing forth in hysterical fusilades designed to scare ?ussy whipped legislators into action. The courts will find a way to avoid upsetting our pampered and spoiled little girl women so that we don’t suffer their ire and continue as slaves to their emotional tirades and feelings instead of fathers to our children. Meanwhile these same women will go on tearing apart little baby fetuses limb by limb to satisfy their latest emotional fad and desire at some man’s expense.
The author is correct, a father should not be held responsible for non-human tissue. But actually, the pro-choice crowd has a somewhat different definition. It’s only a child if the mother wants it. Otherwise it is indeed an undifferentiated tissue mass, etc.
If the woman wants to keep her baby and not have some abortionist chop it up for her, then it is human from conception.
This creates an additional conundrum. Since it is by the woman’s preference that the baby is human or not, the father has responsibilities at the whim of the mother. If she decides to deem it human, then the father has responsibilities of care and support but no right of visitation or enjoyment of the child.
Interestingly, until the moment of abortion the child is a defacto human for the purposes of a criminal act against the child/mother. That is, if the woman is assaulted and the baby dies, murder charges can be brought against the assailant. For what mother would claim that the baby is a non-human collection of cells at this point and let the perpetrator off the hook?
We must remember that the pro-choice crowd has never been guilty of logical thought.
Dean – Men are equally illogical as women; and equally emotional and ignorant of science.
Rich S. – Women did not create the laws which contain the illogic you point out. Our laws in the U.S. were for many years solely created by men; and even though women now have the right to vote, we are still under-represented in the lawmaking community.
I don’t see why a prosecutor should be allowed to bring charges of murder in the death of any fetus which is not yet viable outside the mother’s womb: maybe charges would be appropriate if a deliberate intent to injure the fetus is proven, but there is a large percentage of embryos that never mature to become fully viable from various causes, with no deliberate human intention. And “proving” something in court has little or nothing to do with scientific fact and everything to do with how the story is presented to the jury of emotional, illogical people who may not fully understand science.
If the situation were reversed and the father/sperm donor wanted the child but the woman didn’t, the father would have no right in intercede in her decision to abort the child. It is starting to look like the woman has all of the rights and none of the responsibility and the man has all of the responsibility and no rights.
Stephen Macklin ,
You said “It is starting to look like the woman has all of the rights and none of the responsibility and the man has all of the responsibility and no rights.”
This is, of course, Mr. Dubay’s position.
Lynn – what has viability to do with this? Consider the space shuttle with the tiles damaged during launch a few years back. At the time it happened, there was no way to repair the damage, and no launch vehicle could have gotten to them before they ran out of air. They were not viable.
Now, would that mean the military could have morally considered the fatally crippled shuttle, with living astronauts still inside, nothing more than a great bulls-eye for particle beam target practice? After all, it wouldn’t be murder, right? Those astronauts weren’t viable.
In order to hold someone responsible for child support, we have to consider the act of sex – regardless of whether or not it cconceives a child – as an act which creates responsibility towards any possible child which might come into existence as a result. If that is true, abortion is not morally permissible, because it violates the understanding of the act.
In short, abortion is a woman’s decision not to provide child support, refusal to pay is a man’s decision not to provide child support. Both refuse a responsibility that was taken on by the fact that they chose to engage in sex.
Gestation and viability really have nothing to do with the problem.
Lynn,
Thanks for the comment, but why don’t you actually answer the points rather than parroting vapid extremist feminist rhetoric? I wrote, “…the pro-choice crowd has a somewhat different definition. It’s only a child if the mother wants it…” Can you please tell me how what I said has anything to do men making laws?
That a prosecutor would bring charges against someone who killed a non-viable fetus is precisely my point. This is the situation created by pro-choicers, not by eeeeevil oppressive patriarchal society. They have made the mother the determiner of whwther on not the fetus is human by virtue of the fact that it is wanted or not wanted.
These comments of yours are exactly what I was talking about. You pro-choicers can’t seem to engage in logical thought. You’d rather bring up some irrelevancy than actually engage the issues presented.
Do you have anything to offer other than regurgitated leftist talking points? Could you actually engage the conversation and offer an independent, thoughtful opinion?
I doubt it, Lynn like most of our pampered women who call themselves feminists nowdays are probably incapable of engaging in any sort of intelligent dialogue their heads filled with the backasswards and vapid crap taught in universities now.
I wonder if women like Lynn would even want true equality. True equality as a man experiences it, no less: men, usually held to higher standards in most every aspect of life, this does not mean men are better at all aspects of life, oh heavens no, I have to put that disclaimer out to prevent the sure to come emotional response from our girls and their enuch followers, no I mean men in this society are held responsible for their actions whereas equality for most Western females has meant nothing more than a free ride to engage in whatever whimsical desires their little hearts dream of and expect men to pick up the pieces. Want a child; just get pregnant, the man will pay, society will pay, don’t want it, get an abortion, rip that little bastard to pieces if our girl’s are inconvenienced, have to compete in the classroom, then by all means, we cannot have that, the boys might learn something, no we have to figuratively castrate the little fellas, can’t compete for a job, then make laws to hire women first, yep, I admire the modern western girl, You go girl! You have to admire her, told from birth she’s owed everything and if doesn’t come right away then uncle sugar will fix it or the majestic nitwits on the supreme dictatorship will make it so. Nope men know what it is to be held responsible, I wonder if our girls ever will…
I agree. The feminists don’t actually want equality, they want superiority and domination. The perks and not the drawbacks……….. The way to be set in this country is to be a handicapped lesbian black female with a child from an unknown father. ( That happened before becoming a lesbian.)That’s the ticket to a free life.
-Get rid of the draconian Bradley amendment
-No tax on child support for fathers or mothers
-equal custody
-no move aways
-no child support increases after divorce except to meet bare minimum subsistence standards
-end fed to state subsidies for child support collections
Great article and good comments! I tend to ignore abortion politics because people are well-entrenched in their views and there seems to be no new arguments, pro or con.
This case breaths new life into a tired debate.
I find it interesting in post 3 with the statement “..maybe charges would be appropriate if a deliberate intent to insure the fetus is proven.., ” my God Lynn, do you not see the double standard of this and abortion?
I meant to quote injure, not insure. I sure wish this sight would fix the comment box.
After all the debate, people are still human after conception. No emotions change that fact. Lynn, viable is an ugly word contrived to kill one’s children without remorse. My children were unique in the womb, some causing me to throw up shortly after conception with the presence of their hormones. The fact is, motherhood and fatherhood require a lot of sacrifice if done right. I just ran into a friend who showed me a picture of her grandchild concieved through a bank so that the lesbian partners could have a baby. But, there is a father even though unknown. This grieves me. Hail to fathers who want to know their children and bear the responsibility. Hail to mothers who do not veiw babies as either a burden or an acquistion. There is too much fiction and fantasy in our culture obscuring the reality that a two parent male/female family is just plain better for children. PS. I was raised by my mother alone.
It is dangerous to argue, from a purely male perspective, that a woman is incapable of intelligence learning. This argument falls victim as it gives a sense of “reason” for the pro-choice argument in general. It becomes a logical fallacy if the setup is male vs. female. In fact it is not an argument of the sexes, but liberalist theoretical irrationality. Not all women agree with abortion; at least most do not, thank Heavens. Further this issue has been in discussion in my political science classes for the past two years as abortion rights vs. pro-life becomes an appropriate topic. Good to see it being debated in depth here. Hope it goes beyond…
This was a well written article. The truth is that men being less guilty
but most accountable is nothing new. When we make it any different
we destroy all access to the finer side of what is truly ‘woman’. Through
weakness God’s love is made perfect. Woman is the ‘weaker’ vessel.
May we who are greater, “less weak” become servant to all . . . the weaker.
May it become more than duty but may we pleasure our emotions by
just the thought of such delightfully miserable and exciting the prospect is.
We forget much principle in all our theorizings of great weight.
The beauty of man is that he is able to take that which was taken from him,
a rib, and a life built around it, by God, woman who took her life from
man gives it back again, a baby. Utterly beautiful aye? If you respond,” no”,
it is only proof such isn’t evidenced in your own life. Don’t rule it out that
such may well established be in the
humble lives of others . . . . .I found meself sounding a bit Irish there.
I’m reluctant to comment here because so many of the submissions are quite frankly, despicable. As a woman, I take issue with the idea that I am lacking in reason, logic or basic understanding of science. I did after all, major in mathematics from a top 10 college, have a masters in applied math and an MBA from a top business school. So as disgusted as I was with some of Dean’s opinions, I must admit that he has a few strong points.
I went through a tour of feminist literature and philosophy while I was in college and made it a point to learn and appreciate some of the great strides we’ve made as a nation in civil rights, for all. However, somewhere along the line feminist thought got side-tracked (in my humble opinion). I am completely supportive of equal wages for equal work, equal opportunity and access to education, respect for families and the institution of marriage. But when did women’s rights mean subjecting men to a position of inferiority? How can we as women demand equal rights when we are unwilling to accept responsibility and accountability for our own mistakes and failures?
We stomp and scream for everything our hearts desire: college, graduate school, jobs, and child support. Then many of us end up throwing away careers in the pursuit of the stay-at-home mom “profession”, since corporate life can be cut-throat, competitive and exhausting. But oh no, we all know that staying at home with children is the toughest job in the world, right? Try telling that to a man working in a middle management position and having to sustain the endless politics, corporate rat race and constant threat of outsourcing for a whopping $80K per year, and trying to support a family of four because his wife wants to stay home. But I digress.
With respect to the issue of abortion and men’s reproductive rights, I think there really is no other answer than to allow men to accept or reject a pregnancy in the same way that women can, outside of the context and contract of marriage of course. I’ve been pro-choice since I was in the 8th grade, even though I spent 12 years in Catholic school. I’ve always firmly believed that I have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. However, the right to an abortion does not relieve women from their responsibility and accountability should they make a mistake with their birth control (or lack thereof).
As with many controversial issues, it is usually the more hysterical and emotional voices that are heard because they are the loudest. Reasonable, educated people are usually much more silent on the matter. Therefore, I urge you to reconsider your opinion with respect to the female gender’s ability to reason and think clearly.
As for the women out there who seem inclined to rant and rave about the Matt Dubay case and how horrible you think he is, I urge you to think about how you would feel if your son, after having invested a lifetime of money, education, love and support was put in a position he had no desire to be in simply because a woman wanted to entrap him. No matter how much we may not like to admit it, we need to admit that there are women who consciously or subconsciously use their bodies and reproductive abilities to get (or try to get) what they want. The way the laws are written now, society says that it’s ok to act like this because we can force a man to pay. If Matt Dubay wins his case, I do not believe that society will bear the burden of unwanted children. I believe that women’s sexual behavior will drastically change if they realize that they have no “out”. That means being very careful with whom you sleep with and what methods of birth control you use. Will there be more abortions and adoptions? Perhaps. But we fought for these rights, we cannot have it both ways.
As for Matt Dubay, I wish him luck. He’s a very brave man to stand up for himself and it’s about time.
That was a good one right thar!
I don’t care who you are… that was funny!!
That is a funny one right thar!!!
(((((larry the cable guy laughing@ambidextrous right thar))))