Idiot of the Day

Kim Gandy is probably one of my least favorite people in the world (Hillary Clinton also makes the list), because she defines the shrill, reactionary, ultra-liberal feminazis I despise. But before I move on to the fisking, a little back story:
Matt Dubay is a 25 year old man suing his girlfriend to get out of paying child support, on the basis that she didn't have to have a baby, because she could have had an abortion, and because she had a choice, he should also have a choice, and since he didn't, he shouldn't have to pay child support. Basically, the principles of reproductive choice give him the right to say "have an abortion, or I'm outta here." Kim Gandy's reaction?

"Nice, huh? Either way, he'd have zero consequences and zero responsibility. Now some men have been saying that since time immemorial, but this time Dubay and his lawyers at the National Center for Men want the courts to back them up."

Very astute observation, Ms. Gandy. It's true, if this Roe for men idea makes it through the Supreme Court, it will take away all accountability for young men who practice irresponsible sexual behavior. But isn't that exactly what Roe has already done for women? With the original ruling, plus Justice O'Conner's addition of the undue burden test, women are essentially freed from any and all consequences of their behavior. Given NOW's support of such legislature as the (thankfully) unratified Equal Rights Amendment, and the principle of total equality that feminism is supposed to represent, men and women should have totally equal rights, but in this case, Ms. Gandy apparently wishes to grant the "right" of sexual irresponsibility solely to women. But now we get to the crux of the issue:

The other side of Matt Dubay's coin is the men who want to force a woman to have a baby for him (i.e. block her from having an abortion) because that, too, should be his "choice.""

She's absolutely right. Matt Dubay's argument is the logical conclusion to the abortion "rights" debate, and this is the logical conclusion of his case: men should have an equal say in whether or not the woman keeps the child. After all, if the woman wants to keep the child, and the man doesn't, she can still force him to pay child support. So why should the reverse not be true? If he wants the child and she doesn't, why shouldn't he be able to force her to carry the child to term, then pay him regualr child support payments if he raises the child? Finally, pro-choice advocates are going to have to recognize the double-edged sword principle: rights cut both ways, and there is no truly rational way to squeeze out of the situation.

It has long been the covert (and in some cases, not so covert) goal of many a feminist to deny the father a parental role, and now they are finally encountering the result of such a tactic: if men don't have a say, then why should they bear any of the responsibility? If women can escape responsibility by having an abortion, why shouldn't the same principle apply to men? And now we have Gandy's answer:

The bottom line is that it's her body, so it has to be her decision."

I have been here so many times, explained the mechanics to those who still bother to spout this fallacy, but it never really seems to sink in, so I will say this only once more, and anyone who still thinks this is true can find a biology textbook to explain it to them: a baby is dependent on his/her mother, but that doesn't make it part of his/her mother's body.
But she doesn't even stop there:

Once there's a baby, that child is entitled to support from both parents, plain and simple."

Plain and simple, huh? So, tell me, Kim, when exactly is there a baby? According to the "her body" principle, the baby doesn't exist until he/she is no longer inside the womb. What does that make him/her before birth? It's absurd to claim that size, environment, age, or condition of dependency are what determine humanity and seperate us from the unborn; those things are mere accidents, outside qualities, and do not a human or "clump of tissue" make. I hate to break it to pro-choice advocates, but once there is conception, there is a baby, whether or not this fact is politically useful, because there is simply no other logical point at which the "clump" becomes a person. And once there is a baby, sayeth Gandy, there must be parental support for that baby. I would venture to guess that it's hard to stretch support to include abortion.

Kim Gandy, you are today's idiot, because you make it so damn easy. I don't think that fathers (in the purely biological sense) like Dubay should be able to get out of child support payments. But that's because I also don't think women should be able to get out of pregnancy either. And this is essentially what the issue boils down to: either you have to give everyone equal opportunity to act like a selfish ass, or you force everyone to accept the consequences of their actions. You can't have it both ways.
-The Quartermaster


Post a Comment

<< Home