As a woman, and a single, never married mom to boot, I generally find myself standing alone in my belief that men, not just women whould have "choice" after conception in deciding to become a parent. I was rooting for Matt Dubay, in his lawsuit claiming that the state interferred with his ability to privately choose when to become a parent, and even after reading the complete ruling, I was apalled at the flimsy excuses made throught trying to make this an issue of morality and nature. But then why is it ONLY an issue of morality and nature for men and not for women?

You can read the ruling on Matt case here:

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/lawsonpdf/06-11016.pdf

Upon the deciscion to have sex - both men and women have the choice to say no to parenthood!
Upon conception - only a woman has the choice to say no to parenthood!
Unon birth - only a woman can claim no knowledge of paternity and place the child for adoption!

And the reality is that the laws in place to allow a father to be notified and contest an adoption of their child are woefully inadequate to truly assure he is aware what is happening.

I myself find the ruling riddled with inconsistencies. ON one hand it repeatedly states that the state took no part in Dubay's deciscion to engage in activities that woudl result in concption, then it turns around and state that birth is required for the state to enforce it's paternity laws. So I interpret that as that although the state took no part in him engaging in an activity that resulted in conception, it absolutely DID take part in forcing him to engage in financial support of a child born. In fact it is not conception that makes a person a parent, a woman can choose NOT to become a parent financially or otherwise AFTER engaging in behavior that would predictably result in conception. In fact, in the US currently, there is no state that requires a woman to be responsible for that same "predictable" behavior, as they state that is inconsistent with their desire to not bare a child. Finally if this "reproductive consequence" of his actions are imposed by the operation of nature (and not statute), then why isn't the same "reproductive consequence" of HER actions imposed by the operation of nature, instead of the state allowing an interruption via abortion of the pregnancy? And that coming from me, a pro choice'r. Indeed the courts, in my opinion are just waiting from a good attorney to rip this argument to shreds because the reality is that while they are making conception and birth consequences one and the same for men, they have allowed them to be two distinctly seperate events for a woman. Further it implies that for a woman a deciscion to bare a child (as in to abort or bare a child) after engaging in activities that would predictibly result in conception is one of privacy and personal choice, so then why isn't that so for men?

So what do I support? I support a virtual abortion for men. I might even recommend a "pre-sex" contract signed by both parties in a sexual relationship that states, prior to conception that 1) You do not wish to become a father, 2) What type, if any, of birth control will be used and I supposed 3) That the contract becomes void if marriage occurs.

That's my two cents, if the government can implement affirmative action to correct the imbalance created by racial inequality in the past, it can create laws to correct biological inequalities created by a woman's right to choose. If women want to KEEP their right to choose (and by the way, a man cannot go to court to FORCE a pregnant woman into motherhood because he wants to be a father), they better wise up and realize that traping a man into fatherhood is not okay.

Now I realize that the child support laws are fiscal in nature, so I propose a "virtual abortion tax", kind of like the alcohol and cigarette tax, that requires a man seeking to be relieved from finaicial responsibility of an unwanted child to pay a fee (to be determined actuarially) for the burden that their sexual behavior places on society to care fo the child if the mother cannot and I'd like to see mother pay a deferred tax after they child reaches the age of majority if they couldn't provide for their child without state support. Now that's my idea of fair.