Roe V Wade for Men

I spent the weekend flying kites so I'm a little behind the times. Sue me.I have to say I love this Roe V Wade for Men debate. A lot of pro-choicers are hopping mad about the suggestion that men should be able to opt-out of child support for babies they never intended to spawn. Others are miffed that this particular turn of the screw in the great reproductive rights debate will distract us from the fact that eighteen states are currently working to increase restrictions on abortion.I disagree.The plaintiff in the case is Matt Dubay (that's him on the left there with the lovely cat). Allegedly Matt made it very clear to his girlfriend that he did not want kids. She claimed to have a "medical condition" (red herring there, Matty) that rendered her infertile. Miracle of miracles. She got pregnant. He says he told her right away that he did not want the child. She exercised her reproductive freedom to have the child and now he owes her $500 a month in child support.His argument, in brief, is as follows: Roe V Wade gives women absolute control over their reproductive decisions. Men should be able to state their preferences and if those preferences are to abort, he should not have to pay child support. The plaintiff is not arguing that his preference should in any way compel the woman with respect to her reproductive choices.Some people think the lad is being a lout. The child's interests should outweigh his. I hear that. But, listen to these words from Matt's lawyer, Mel Feit:"We're actually asking a question of women. Is your stand on choice a principled stand, or does it work only when applied to you? As a progressive pro-choice man I am willing to support a woman's right to choose, but not if she's unwilling to reciprocate. I understand she's got to make the ultimate choice. But there is a disparity here that gives her complete control. So maybe there is a way to take advantage of this timing coincidence and say to pro-choice women: Are we in this thing together?"We could be. The thing about Matt's case is that it rests entirely on Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade is the precedent that places men in the hot seat in terms of child support. In the olden days men could be sued for child support because there was no right to abortion. So it was only fair that he be forced to pony up for his unintended children. Now with women's reproductive freedom, for the moment anyway, secure it's harder to argue this.The only thing that bothers me about Matt's case is the fact that it takes money away from children. It basically sets the child's welfare in opposition to the father's. Is there a way around this? I don't know. But that issue aside, I find it very hard to argue against Matt's case. And the fact that it places men's rights directly in line with Roe V Wade makes the timing fortuitous from a pro-choice standpoint rather than troubling as many have suggested. Broadening the debate about reproductive freedom to include men is probably a good thing. Perhaps once they enter the scuffle they'll understand the horror of having your most intimate and weighty life choices controlled by others. Wouldn't this be a good thing?