The Fight for a Man's Rights
A while back I brought you the story of a young fellow named Matthew Dubay, one of these nerds who had somehow found a woman to have sex with. He told the broad he didn't want to have any kids, because he's smart like that, and she said it was cool because she couldn't have kids anyway with all the Jolt she was drinking.
Somehow though the bitch ended up getting pregnant and having a child. When the court tried to hit Dubay with that child support foolishness, of course he was like, "I told this bitch I wasn't about to take care of any kids. If she got pregnant anyway, that's her problem." The case came to be known as "Roe v. Wade for men."
It would seem obvious to me that Dubay shouldn't have been compelled to provide for this child because a) he said he didn't want to in the first place, and b) the bitch was a liar. If I let a guy borrow my car, but failed to tell him it wasn't actually my car, would that make said guy guilty of grand theft auto? Obviously not.
The judge disagreed though and the case was recently dismissed.
Here's my thing (nullus): If a woman doesn't want to provide for a child financially, she can abort it, or if she's an evil Christian supremacist, she can bring the baby to term and put it up for adoption (read a life of crime).
Some women are arguing that you can't compare a woman's choice to not have a child to a father's choice not to provide for one because of the pain and discomfort involved in pregancy, but I wonder how much of that pain has to do with the fact that you're a woman. It's not a man's fault that women lack the ability to "man up."
That said, the committed feminist that I am (nullus), I think a man should be compelled to provide half of the cost of an abortion, provided he has it. A man who wasn't willing to drop $180 to handle his responsibility would no longer be worthy of my respect. Yeah, I said it.