# Roe vs. Wade's Dirty Little Secret **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2003, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242 "2003-04-12T12:06:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/21 "2003-04-12T18:07:41Z")
First, I commend Northern Piper on probably the best rebuttal that I have encountered with regards to “RWDLS”, however, I still have some contentions. > [@](#): > > There’s several problems with that argument, starting with the point that there’s no hard and fast rule for the timing of release. Some cases get released quickly, some take more time. If one studies the dates of arguement and decision for all of the cases heard by the Court in the 72-73 term, you will find the rule to be that arguments and decisions do fall in chronological order, with but a few (very few) exceptions. The relationship between the two cases lends itself to the conjecture of High-Court shenanigans. Furthermore, Oct. 10, 1972, was the second time for the Court to hear “Roe”, which, if any effect, should have shortened the time between argument and decision. > [@](#): > > Don’t you think that if he thought Roe would have caused a problem for the majority in Gomez he would have refused to release Gomez until after Roe came out? Especially if he got any whiff of a suggestion that his collegues were trying to distort the process to protect their decision in Roe? It was not the Roe decision that was in need of protection, it was the Gomez decision that needed to be protected from the issue of “privacy” as addressed in Roe. > [@](#): > > Turning to his legal analysis, Razorsharp characterises Roe as having established ’ the constitutional tenet of “freedom of choice”, No, not exactly. I characterize the Court as establishing what is recognized as a Constitutional tenet of “freedom of choice” through the penumbral right of PRIVACY. Using the “rule of law”, how is it reconciled that a second party has a financial obligation to the private “choice” of the first party? > [@](#): > > So, Razorsharp is wrong on two counts on this issue as well. First, the law of Texas was that a father owed a duty of support to his legitimate children; it wasn’t an obligation of the ex-spouses flowing from the marriage contract. Sophistry. It was the marriage contract that caused the children to be recognized as “legitimate”. > [@](#): > > In Gomez, the Court was faced with a distinction in the law between the rights of legitimate children and the rights of illegitimate children, and stuck to that issue. But support was not a “right” of the child, support was a duty of the father within the bonds of matrimony. Texas law extended that duty upon dissolution of the marriage contract. > [@](#): > > In Texas, both at common law and under the statutes of the State, the natural father has a continuing and primary duty to support his legitimate children See Lane v. Phillips, 69 Tex. 240, 243, 6 S. W. 610, 611 (1887); Tex. Fam. Code 4.02 (1970) (husband’s duty). 1 **That duty extends even beyond dissolution of the marriage,** Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Art. 4639a (Supp. 1972-1973); ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/22 "2003-04-12T18:36:25Z")
According to [this site](http://www.appellate.net/docketreports/ot2001op_final.pdf), the United States Supreme Court heard argument in McKune v. Lile on November 28th, 2001, but the decision date wasn’t until June 10, 2002. Meanwhile in Holmes v. Vornado, the decision was completed the week before on June 2, 2002, but was argued **more than 2 months** after McKune. I think what this tells **Razorsharp** is that the Supreme Court held of deciding the decision in McKune because they were afraid of a contridiction between requiring potential self-incriminating statements from sex offenders (McKune) and the definition of a civil action being one that is not one “arising under” federal law –including federal patent, trademark, and copyright law – if the well-pleaded complaint of the plaintiff does not allege a claim whose resolution depends on a substantial question of federal law (Holmes v. Vornado). Conspiracies abound! ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/23 "2003-04-12T18:43:10Z")
> [@](#): > > But support was not a “right” of the child, support was a duty of the father within the bonds of matrimony. Texas law extended that duty upon dissolution of the marriage contract. With the State imposing a duty upon the fathers of legitimate children, they were giving those children a “right” to child support. Just because it imposes a duty does not take away from the fact that it is also giving the children a right. It can do both at the same time. The judicially enforceable right that they have imposed is on behalf of children, not on behalf of the wife (where the marriage contract would be involved). Insisting there was some sinister purpose behind this is silly, and I don’t see how this has anything at all to do with abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/24 "2003-04-12T18:53:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by j.c. \* > \*\*There are several foolproof, entirely legal methods which all but guarantee men will be able to avoid paying child support. > > 1. Don’t have sex with a woman unless you intend to support any children you may father. You do think that it should work both ways, don’t you? Nah, I doubt it. Anyway, just a few months ago, John Stachokus petitioned the court to prevent his fiance from aborting the child that they both planned to raise. A name and god-parents had even been selected. Suddenly, John’s fiance decided that she didn’t want to be burdened with the responsibilities of parenthood and sought an abortion. The court refused to intervene due to a woman’s pregnancy being deemed to be a private affair of the woman. Now, would it be fair to say, "Don’t have sex with a man unless you intend to bear his child? Nah, I get the feeling that you won’t see it that way. Kind of one-sided though, huh? > [@](#): > > 1. Properly use reasonable methods of birth control when you have sex with a woman unless you intend to support any children you may father. It has been estimated that approximately 1.75 million conceptions occur annually due to contraceptive failure. Abortion rights activists insist that abortion remain a safe and legal procedure because a young woman should not have to suffer the consequences of having her life interrupted with an unplanned pregnancy. Should a failure of birth control or a “mistake” occur, the young woman should have the option to terminate her pregnancy for any reason. She may wish to continue her education, enter the job market or concentrate on her career. She may wish to travel, purchase a home or automobile, or just avoid the responsibilities of parenthood if she should so desire. However, the true agenda of the “pro-choice” movement is exposed when those who gallantly rush to the defense of a young lady facing an unplanned pregnancy, idly stand by while the same legislative and judicial systems, that recognize a constitutional tenet of “freedom of choice”, violate the concept of equal protection of the law by forcing an unmarried man into an eighteen to twenty-one year parental obligation. > [@](#): > > 1. Get a vasectomy. How childish. I can only imagine the shrieks from the sisterhood had I said, “If you don’t want to get pregnant, have a tubal ligation”. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/25 "2003-04-12T19:09:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*How childish. I can only imagine the shrieks from the sisterhood had I said, “If you don’t want to get pregnant, have a tubal ligation”. \*\* Shrieking nuns? No? Oh, I probably misunderstood your piss poor attempt at denigration of women who disagree with you. Stick with femi-nazis, I hear it’s a favorite. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/26 "2003-04-12T19:11:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*With the State imposing a duty upon the fathers of legitimate children, they were giving those children a “right” to child support. Just because it imposes a duty does not take away from the fact that it is also giving the children a right. It can do both at the same time. > > The judicially enforceable right that they have imposed is on behalf of children, not on behalf of the wife (where the marriage contract would be involved). > \*\* And just where is that “judicially enforceable right” with regards to the state sanctioning the “choice” of women abandoning their newborns? See, the only time a child’s “right” to support from it’s biological father is recognized outside the institution of marriage is when the mother wants financial assistance with the “choice” that she unilaterally made. It’s all about giving women “choice” after “choice” after “choice”, so long as the man can be held responsible for a particular “choice” at the woman’s discretion. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/27 "2003-04-12T19:23:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > **And just where is that “judicially enforceable right” with regards to the state sanctioning the “choice” of women abandoning their newborns?** I know of no State that sanctions women abandoning their children. In fact, there are quite severe laws forbidding it. Or is that your “mistatements as rhetoric” again? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > **See, the only time a child’s “right” to support from it’s biological father is recognized outside the institution of marriage is when the mother wants financial assistance with the “choice” that she unilaterally made.** Actually, State’s can enforce child support without the consent of the mother. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*It’s all about giving women “choice” after “choice” after “choice”, so long as the man can be held responsible for a particular “choice” at the woman’s discretion. \*\* You’re doing a disservice to those of us who are pro-life. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/28 "2003-04-12T19:31:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\*Shrieking nuns? > > No? > > Oh, I probably misunderstood your piss poor attempt at denigration of women who disagree with you. Stick with femi-nazis, I hear it’s a favorite. \*\* Nah, you didn’t misunderstand anything. You were just desperately reaching for a comeback and all you could come up with was that pathetic attempt. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/29 "2003-04-12T19:40:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\*I know of no State that sanctions women abandoning their children. In fact, there are quite severe laws forbidding it. Or is that your “mistatements as rhetoric” again? > Actually, State’s can enforce child support without the consent of the mother.You’re doing a disservice to those of us who are pro-life. \*\* If an unwed mother deliveres a child, there is no law requiring her to name the father. If she wishes, she can raise “her” child by herself. It’s her “choice”. (So much for the child’s “right” to support from it’s biological father.) If you are Pro-Life, I have no argument with you, your views are consistant. What chaps my hide are these so-called “pro-choice” advocates, who wear their ideology on their sleeve as a badge of honor, who go into absolute coniption-fits at the mere suggestion that there just may be some instances in which men should also be privileged to “freedom of choice”. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/30 "2003-04-12T19:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\*I know of no State that sanctions women abandoning their children. In fact, there are quite severe laws forbidding it. Or is that your “mistatements as rhetoric” again? > \*\* I’m getting tired, would someone please help me on this one? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/31 "2003-04-12T19:54:24Z")
> [@](#): > > What chaps my hide are these so-called “pro-choice” advocates, who wear their ideology on their sleeve as a badge of honor, who go into absolute coniption-fits at the mere suggestion that there just may be some instances in which men should also be privileged to “freedom of choice”. What about those of us pro-choice people who believe that if a woman can decide to end a pregnancy and not be a mother, that a man should be able to decide he’s not a father? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/32 "2003-04-12T20:05:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by catsix \* > \*\*What about those of us pro-choice people who believe that if a woman can decide to end a pregnancy and not be a mother, that a man should be able to decide he’s not a father? \*\* Well, I wasn’t speaking of you, I was speaking of that other bunch. You know the ones I’m talking about. Anyway, those of you are few and far between and I appreciate you, but you don’t speak up often enough or loud enough. And, as a final comment, if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t force it on your foot. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/33 "2003-04-12T20:32:54Z")
Well sorry, my throat is still a bit hoarse from yelling about this subject to a certain feminine named magazine. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/34 "2003-04-12T20:57:10Z")
> [@](#): > > In Texas, both at common law and under the statutes of the State, the natural father has a continuing and primary duty to support his legitimate children See Lane v. Phillips, 69 Tex. 240, 243, 6 S. W. 610, 611 (1887); Tex. Fam. Code 4.02 (1970) (husband’s duty). 1 That duty extends even beyond dissolution of the marriage, There’s nothing about a “marriage contract” in that passage. Its about duty to support ones own children. We can throw the idea of marriage contracts out of the window because its not relevant to the government interests being advanced. Think about it this way. Lets say the wife is dead, her husband, the father, doesn’t want custody, and the child is with the mother’s sister. The father still has to pay for the child’s welfare regardless of any obligation to the mother. The marriage contract is out of the equation then. But lets take the exact same situation except the mother and father aren’t married. The child is with his aunt, and the father is out on his own. Why should the legitimiate children be entitled to money from their father, but illegitimate children are not? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/35 "2003-04-12T21:02:37Z")
I personally would like an “opt out” of fatherhood option, but I’m not going to fault the Supreme Court for making a legally valid decision. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/36 "2003-04-12T21:43:30Z")
_applauds Northern Piper_ Not much more to add really, except a couple of clarifications… > [@](#): > > If an unwed mother deliveres a child, there is no law requiring her to name the father. If she wishes, she can raise “her” child by herself. It’s her “choice”. Unless the unwed mother needs to claim welfare. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, there is a new phenomenon sweeping the nation that offers women yet another post-conception option. Many states now allow women the opportunity to drop off their unwanted newborns at specific locations on a no-questions-asked basis. Cite please. ---
**Author:** ![Papermache\_Prince](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Papermache\_Prince](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Papermache_Prince)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/37 "2003-04-12T22:26:44Z")
“Safe Haven” laws permit the abandonment of newborns at selected locations, such as hospitals and fire stations, without fear of prosecution; the legal details vary among the states. From the International Association of Voluntary Adoption Agencies and NGOs [website](http://www.iavaan.org/safe%20haven%20project.htm#Questions%20About%20Baby%20Abandonment): > [@](#): > > In general, what does legal abandonment legislation entail? > > Legislation varies from state to state, but all laws or proposals diminish or remove the threat of criminal prosecution against parents who relinquish unharmed infants to safe havens identified by the law. Some statutes provide for anonymity and others require an attempt to establish parental identity and provide a basic family medical history. Eight states - Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming - do not have “safe haven” laws. Information on the laws in other states [here](http://www.iavaan.org/page.htm). ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/38 "2003-04-12T22:51:10Z")
Thanks for the info **PaperMache Prince**. That’s very interesting and definitely something I’m going to have to think about. However, it doesn’t seem grounds for saying ‘women get all the choice, men don’t.’ There must be exceptional circumstances for a mother to abandon her child in this way - the tiny number of babies involved supports this. In any case, without details of each case, it’s not possible to know whether some of the fathers were equally involved in the adandonment. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/39 "2003-04-12T23:43:16Z")
Did you know that during one week in 1981, the Supreme Court ruled on _Maryland vs. Apples_ and _Arkansas v. Oranges_? It’s true, but no-one talks about it. ---
**Author:** ![Maximum\_C](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b77776/32.png) [@Maximum\_C](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maximum_C)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242/40 "2003-04-12T23:47:57Z")
Razor, I’m all for legal genderblindness, but this is an issue where that just isn’t possible. The law has to treat the partner carrying the baby differently because… SHE’S GOT A DAMN BABY IN HER BELLY FOR NINE MONTHS. 1. It’s like baseball- there are no ties at first base. If we allowed the father to have equal say in the outcome of a pregnancy, you’d end up with cases where one partner wanted one thing and the other something else. What do you do in these situations? Develop some complicated “fault” law to see who gets to decide? You’ll recall that approach to divorce was rejected decades ago by pretty much every state. If you have to give the power to make the decision to someone, doesn’t it make sense that you’d let the woman cast the tie-breaking vote, given that she’s the one carrying the physical, chemical, socail, and career burden for nine months? 2. It also makes sense that you’d want to force the man to pay child support. When the woman gives birth, there’s no denying that the child is hers. She goes to the hospital, it gets a birth certificate. Unless she puts it up for adoption, she’s locked into supporting that child from day one. The man, as history proves and common sense dictates, is at much more liberty to skip town. So dont we want to force him to accept equal responsibility in this area? If you’re argument is, at base, that it’s not fair to make men and women take equal responsiblity for the baby but then give woman controlling power over abortion… well… see #1. Tough luck, that’s biology. Just thank your lucky stars you don’t bleed and cramp up every month. -C [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roe-vs-wades-dirty-little-secret/168242.md?page=3)