Show me your pussy!

Actually, please don't.

But my friend made me a cd with that song on it, so it's in my head. It came on as I was driving my mom to the grocery store. She laughed.

So there's this court case that was in the news the other day; they called it Roe v. Wade for men. Which is mostly bullshit. In this case, a woman who said she could not get pregnant had sex with a man who did not want to get her pregnant. She got pregnant, had the baby, and sued for child support. He doesn't want to pay.

This is not Roe v. Wade for men, by the way. If masturbation, condoms, and coitus interuptus were illegal, because it kills sperm, and a case made it legal for men to masturbate, or pull out, or spoo in a baggie- that would be Roe for men.

Because Roe isn't about having or not having children. Roe is about the bodily integrity granted to a woman by the laws (or founding principles) of this nation. A human being has the right to bodily soveriegnty; what is within them is assumed to be of them, and under their control. Thus, a woman has the right to have another person, living within her and entirely dependant on her, removed. Even if it causes the death of that person. Generally, pro-choice people don't talk about the fetus as a person. I don't like to, either, because I don't fully believe that it is. But, for the purpose of argument, and the purpose of explaining why Roe isn't really about stopping a reproductive process, I'm calling it a person.

A person has the right not to allow another person to parasitise their body, no matter if it is (and it is) their only means of support. That's it. That's Roe. Forget fetuses. Forget bone growth and dilation and extraction vs. dilation and evacuation vs. dilation and curettage. A person has the right, inviolable, to their own body.

A woman having an abortion doesn't sever her parental rights, or prevent the birth of a child- her primary act is one of medical self defense. Not becoming a parent, not bearing a child, are side effects of abortion- not the primary aim. It seems absurd, but consider: If perfect artificial wombs were invented, and a procedure perfected that transfers a fetus at any stage of development into that artificial womb- would any woman with a healthy, normal pregnancy have an abortion instead of a transfer and adoption?

A man cannot find his body suddenly in the service of another body. It's unfair (ish), but in this case, biology is destiny. So he can't have an abortion. He can't force a woman to have or not have an abortion because that, in itself, would nullify the woman's proper somatic soveriegnty.

So this can't be Roe vs Wade for men. Men don't need a Roe vs Wade. They are granted, by virtue of the cock and balls rather than the clit and ditch, an impregnable border. There's no chance that they will end up in anatomic obsequy to an unformed human.

So what is this case really about?

This case is about the voluntary abdication of parental responsibilities to a child, based on the pre-natal conduct of the other parent. A man was lead to believe that he was not engaging in acts that could lead to conception, as conception would be against his wishes. Conception occured, a child was born, and he became a parent with all responsibilities inherent to that. He wishes that, since he was unable to convince the woman to have an abortion, that he be relieved of responsibility, as she didn't.
Doesn't work. Forcing someone to undergo a surgical procedure is as much a violation of somatic soveriegnty as forcing someone to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. So he couldn't have made her. Totally wrecks up the point of abortion. Unless you think the point of abortion is killing fetuses. Which I wish it were. I like gory shit.
And, since she didn't have an abortion, and since the child was born, it has a father, and has a right to support from that father. I'm pretty sure he'd have the same right to support from his father even if his mother raped his father. Because the child was uninvolved in deception or conception. And cannot lose or waive his rights.

What should this case be about?

Fraud. If a person uses another person to concieve a child, under false pretenses (especially ones that would lead a person to believe an unsafe sex act was safe), it should be a crime. As far as I know, it isn't. But, it should be. Perhaps it's a crime if the person was doing it explicitly for the purpose of obtaining child support payments from the other party. However, despite the crime commited by one parent against the other, that does not relieve a parent from the obligation to the child, who was not involved.

So in summation:

1. Both genders have control over their bodies.
2. Both genders have equal responsibilities towards children that are born.
3. Fetuses=crunchy