A men's rights group has filed a lawsuit in federal court to exempt a father from having to make child-support payments for a kid he doesn't want.

Personally, I find the idea that a man can just abandon his kid distasteful and outrageous, but this is what the feminist movement has brought us to, because the pro-abortion talking points taken to their logical, and absurd, extreme dictate that a man should be able to put the entire cost of raising a child on the woman.

Just listen to some of the pro-choice arguments:

It's an old story, and one the courts have been very clear on, said Bruce Boyer, director of the child law clinic at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. The child's interest in receiving support, he said, overrides any interests the father may have.

"I can understand why people might be sympathetic to Mr. Dubay if he was duped into becoming a father," Boyer said. But if the child is his - as is the case - "this shouldn't be about him and his rights; it should be about this child and the child's needs."

Child or clump of tissue? And with the current state of the law, who unilaterally decides which it is? The woman. The child's needs are paramount after birth, but can be waived by the mother at any time before that through the abortion procedure.

Legal experts said they don't think the case, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court, has a prayer of success. "It's a lost cause," said Charles Kindregan Jr., a professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston.

Having sex is an inherently risky enterprise and the only way to enforce a man's right not to father a child after conception would be to compel the woman to have an abortion, Kindregan explained. "The courts are not going to buy that," he said. "That's her choice, not his."

So the woman gets to make the choice unilaterally to force a man to turn over a substantial amount of money every month for 18 years. This is not equal protection of the law.

And did you ever think you'd hear a pro-choicer making this argument?

As for the argument that men don't have the same reproductive rights as women, Greenberger doesn't buy it. "If this person wanted to avoid parenthood, there were steps he could have taken beyond accepting the word of the woman - what about not having sex or using condoms?"

Let's just say that my jaw hit the floor when I read that one. When I made the argument that the point where a woman had the "right" to a "choice" regarding her body was when she decided to have sex in a college speech class, the feminists were outraged! How dare I condemn a woman to have to live with that choice when abortion allows her an easy way out?

When a pregnancy occurs, there is no question of equality: "Physically he is not in the same situation as she is," Greenberger said. Once a child is born, equality is re-established in that both the mother and father are deemed responsible for the infant, she added.

The woman is in the "situation" for nine months. The man is in the "situation" for 18 years.

I'll say it again. If you don't want to get pregnant or pay child support for the next couple of decades, keep your trousers buckled, whether you're a man or a woman. I'm quite sure that this lawsuit will fail, but it's done a valuable service to the public by getting people like Ms. Greenberger to unintentionally expose the fraudulence of the pro-choice arguments.