| | "The fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the state played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child," Lawson wrote.
Huh? How does an empty non-sequitur expose any fundamental flaw? It's like this judge hasn't even a grasp of the issue involved. He's not alone, BTW; I've tried explaining the hypocrisy of present law to folks in the plainest terms I can, and some simply don't get it. Some can't conceptually get past such mantras as "If you didn't want to support a child, you shouldn't have had sex." Totally failing to grasp that legally, currently, women have certain choices regarding reproductive rights that are denied to men. Simple as that.
Throw in the "liberal" moral obscenity that we have rights over our bodies, but not our pocketbooks. Making a woman carry a child for 9 months to term is slavery, but 18 years of forced child-support is a-okay.
"If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case," Lawson wrote.
Lawson's a shithead. How do morons like this become judges?
Throw on top of this the total lack of common sense regarding her repeated assurances to him that she couldn't conceive due to medical reasons.
One can hope that this does end up at the Supreme Court. They gave the country RvW, they can certainly be consistent about it.
|
|
