Casey ) demands special rights for women:
R said
I think we're missing the point of this. What is being asked of the
court is a man who had no interest in fathering and parenting a child
was duped by a woman who is forcing this man into parenting a child via
child support. The woman named in the suit had a choice; She could have
aborted the pregnancy, put the child up for adoption, or in this case,
kept the baby. The man however, had no choice. He was ordered by the
court to parent the child via child support. This, according to the
suit, is unconstitutional. I agree with this argument. The other
thoughts or opinions that have been discussed so far here are
irrelevant. If the woman has a choice, so should the man.

Exactly right, R. Rights for all, not just right for those with a
uterus...

Seems to me that the man made a choice as well - women don't generally
become pregnant all by themselves.

That is exactly the case *against* ALL women's-only POST-coital choices.

Please notify your local legislative representatives that, as you
oppose post coital choice for men, you also oppose ALL post coital
choices for women.

Petard. Hoist. You. laughs

" Men are people who deserve equal rights, too ? " gasped the annoyed
and incredulous WomenFirster.

Rights for all, or rights for none. All else is special interest group
bigotry.

Andre