Wampum

I do not think men and women are biologically equal. Yet if that were the crux of equal protection, there would never be a point in discussing it. It's a given. We are biologically different, and yet, both humans with parts to play, and both deserving of an equal weight of consideration. A man and woman do come together to insure a viable ovum. And both will feel the weight of duty and pull of the heart if that child is born. Not only one person.

If a woman is allowed to have a juncture called "choice" in the further development of this 'project' or "life" that both are legally obligated to, spiritually obligated to, and morally obligated to....why does only one weigh in on that "choice" juncture? Gender causes aside, I don't understand the logic there.

Akhenaten,

Why is only post-fertilization choice limited to the woman? The man's sperm are live organisms when introduced vaginally - shouldn't he then have a say as to whether she should use a spermicide with the predetermined intent to murder them all?

In addition, if a man's seminal fluid contains syphillus, which then finds a host in the woman's body, does he get a say as to whether she chooses to take medical action to eradicate the live organism(s)?

Nature determines that not only are all of a woman's unfertilized ova effectively discarded, but that a significant number of fertilized ones as well, usually within days, but oftentimes much later. There is no promise that an embryo medically aborted at three weeks post fertilization would not have been "naturally" aborted a week or two or even ten weeks later. In fact, it is estimated that 20% of implanted embryoes are naturally aborted within the first trimester - an additional unknown number of fertilized ova never actually implant.

While many women grieve the early loss of an embryo in a wanted pregnancy, many others are grateful for this aspect of nature. But the funny thing about Nature- it generally doesn't even take into consideration the desires of the woman, let alone the contributing man, when making determinations as to the future of an embryo. Should then women, who are naturally endowed with an adequate brain and free will, be any more responsive to the opinions of a man, particularly one with a biological vested interest in the embryo, but not necessarily the host?

The argument in the linked blogs is that the Equal Protection Clause requires men to have the same rights as women. As I noted, that clause only applies if two persons are similarly situated. For instance, once a child is born, both are parents and both have the same duty to care for and support the child.

Before the child is born, they are not in the same circumstance. Anti-Choice advocates want to use the government monopoly on violence to force a woman, at the point of a gun, to carry the pregancy to term. They can make no such demand of a man due to biology. The man is not required to under go the pain of labor, the risk of chidbirth, the restriction on many facets of life that occur late in preganacy. To argue that they must be treated equally in that inherently unequal circumstance would turn Equal Protection on its head.

You write "I do not think men and women are biologically equal. Yet if that were the crux of equal protection, there would never be a point in discussing it." I think that is exactly right.

Well, he does, the next time he is carrying a baby inside him. Until then, anyone who thinks that men and women are similarly situated with regard to pregnancy needs to attend a biology class.

The actual argument is one of responsibility, not biology. If women have absolute say over the child in her womb -- even though it took a man to impregnate her -- then if the women decides TO have the child, great. If the father does not, however, then why shouldn't he be allowed to be so absolved from HIS responsibility?

It's the classic "wanting to have your cake and eat it too" argument for the woman. 'Cause, after all, if dad wants the kid but mom does not, dad is s*** out of luck now, isn't he?

Hube:

Because his responsibility is not to the women, it is to the child.

ihis dialogue of the absurd would go away if the child support claim, the child's, were upon the polity, and not upon specific persons.

the children of dirt poor women, and optionally men, have different "child support" expectations than the children of filthy rich women, and optionally men.

if everyone "paid" for the defense against time, as everyone "pays" for the defense against the Soviets, then all our children could be guaranteed a livable minimum ... wage, rather than a guaranteed sub-minimum wage with all kinds of "dead beat" pursuits of already dysfunctionally oppressed people, and guaranteed super-maximum wage.

is the child's claim one of human rights on a polity, or one of property upon a small set of persons?

In coitus, a man voluntarily hands over (hmmm...bad choice of words, perhaps) his sperms cells to the control of the woman, thus surrendering his rights to them. If the man wants to retain control over his sperm, he should either keep them to himself or enter into a legal contract with the woman to protect his interests. If I give someone a 20 dollar bill, I lose the right to dictate how the $20 is spent.

On the other hand, if I give someone $20, knowing they will use it commit a crime, I do not give up all responsibility for the outcome of the person's actions. Thus, a man shares responsibility for "aiding and abetting" the act of bringing a child into the world. If any man does not like this arrangement, then he is free to abstain from sex, or to engage in forms of sexual activity that do not run the risk of bringing children into the world (e.g. autoeroticism, bestiality, sodomy, homosexuality).

Now, I would admit that, from a theoretical perspective, there might be some circumstances under which the man should not be held responsible for the resultant child (deliberate deception, perhaps). But as a practical matter, such a thing would be impossible to prove. You shouldn't just accept someone's word about such things, anyway; caveat emptor, as it were.