The difference is that the legal right to "unilaterally abandon future offspring," as you so loadedly put it, already exists for one sex but not the other. It's not created out of thin air; it's already there, but is applied unequally. I propose applying it equally.
Is that not exactly the right being argued for here? It's certainly not about reproductive rights; nothing being proposed here can alter the biological fact of parenthood. This is exclusively about parental responsibilities and how we assign them.
How does the right to own a widescreen TV follow from any other recognized right? As far as I'm aware, no "class of people" is guaranteed ownership of a 52" HD plasma screen, unfortunately for me.
It would be said to emerge from property law in general in the same way you argue that the right to forfeit parental responsibilities emerges from privacy rights. I can, if I have the money, walk into a store and purchase a TV. I can't do this if I don't have the money. This is no more a guarantee of ownership than the right to abortion guarantees that you will get an abortion. But in practice, there are those who can purchase a big ol' HDTV and those who can't. This right appears to be a social construct in the same way that parental responsibility is. Why are those who can't afford the TV not entitled to pursue an equal protection claim according to the model you've presented?
No, you both have a legal right to enter into a business transaction with a television retailer. You also both (if I had my way, anyway) have equality of opportunity with which to obtain the money necessary. There is no legal issue here.
Yes, but in practice, someone with money or credit can do this and someone with neither cannot. To be clear, you're arguing that the reproductive situation creates a
de facto inequality which must be addressed, while this one need not be. Why?
Discrimination is acceptable when there's a legitimate concern at issue. I simply think that upholding equal protection is a more important concern than the ones you mention. It's a fundamental concept of our society -- possibly the most important -- and deserves to be treated as such. In this case, it would override nebulous and subjective ideas such as "for the public good." Again, this is the kind of thinking that has led to the eminent domain abuses of the last few years.
It hardly seems nebulous to me--it is good for a society to ensure proper care for children. I think you'll have a difficult time arguing that a man's interest in retaining his wealth supercedes a child's interest in being supported.
No, my argument has always been that equality under the law does not equate to equality in all aspects of life. The law must treat everyone equally, but that doesn't mean life has to.
But you have yet to put forward a satisfying explanation of why equal protection should apply to fact of law that doesn't yet exist, even if the practice does. You're then falling back on a defense of equal protection when challanged on this point. As it happens, I don't think either argument works, but it seems very much like you're affirming the consequent here.
And slavery was legal in this country for close to a hundred years. Would you use that as evidence to undermine the way we interpret our rights today? Attitudes change. I think they've changed for the better, and I have no problem interpreting our rights more broadly than they have been in the past. I'm more concerned with theory than with practice in this debate.
Well, I certainly wouldn't have appealed to the 14th amendment prior to the passage of the 14th amendment. I would have made my argument in more general terms. My point wasn't that the Civil Rights Act or the ADA are unjustified, but that arguments on constitutional equal protection grounds were not sufficient to extend the rights in question.
What is the legal issue here? Does a person have an innate right to HIV treatment, or does he rather have a right to spend his money as he chooses (which follows from the rights to privacy and free association)? I argue for the latter.
It would probably something about an implied constitutional right to general welfare. There is no such thing as an innate right to HIV treatment as far as I can tell, but then neither have I discovered an innate right to anything else. Both of these seem to be legitimate interests; remaining alive on the one hand, and retaining the fruits of your own labor on the other. It's a difficult calculation, no doubt, particularly in light of diminishing returns. But I don't think it's an either/or question.
Okay- so I'll see you around. Meg, I'll find that evidence you're looking for. Its in one of the 4 books I have in front of me right now but I'm way tired right now.