Men want say in unplanned pregnancies

FrayAdjacent911 · 03-09-2006, 12:25 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html

Quote:

Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 9:23 p.m. EST (02:23 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

What say you?

I think men do have very very limited rights when it comes to unplanned pregnancy. We usually have pretty much NO say in whether the woman carries the child to term or aborts. If she does keep the child, then we're pretty much stuck paying support. Heck, men who have been ordered to pay support, who later have been proven via DNA not to be the child's father have been ordered in cases to CONTINUE to pay child support.

Honestly, men can get pretty well right shafted in the whole deal.

mudman · 03-09-2006, 12:49 PM

Yup, I think my choices were pretty limited about 72 months ago when I found out my girlfriend was pregnant. I wanted to check the box that said 'no kid, nothing to see here, forget this ever happened', but I couldn't, and my life changed drastically.

KevinP73 · 03-09-2006, 01:16 PM

This isn't a new issue or a new case and it doesn't look like anything is going to change(in mens favor) very soon. The only real control we have as men ends as soon as penetration is accomplished.
There was a case recently where a swedish man was ordered to pay c/s when the lesbian couple he donated sperm to split up and left him holding the checkbook.

KevinP73 · 03-09-2006, 01:19 PM

From the national center for mens rights

ROE vs. WADE… FOR MEN TM
Men's Center files pro-choice lawsuit in federal court
Distributes men’s “reproductive rights affidavit”

On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man's right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. TM

More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.

We will ask a United States district court judge to apply the principles of reproductive choice, as articulated in Roe vs. Wade, to men. We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex. We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA: A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother.

We will ask that women be required to share reproductive freedom with men.

Our lawsuit will be filed on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, a computer technician from Saginaw, Michigan. The state of Michigan is seeking to force Matt to pay child support for a child he never intended to bring into the world. Matt insists that the child’s mother repeatedly assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, Matt says that she knew he did not want to have a child with her. Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were “Mattilda.”

Immediately upon the filing of Roe vs. Wade for Men, The National Center For Men will begin distribution of its Reproductive Rights Affidavit, intended to be filed in court by a man and designed to give men legal rights in matters of procreation. We think it will encourage men and women to make family planning decisions together, as equal partners, by giving a man a voice but without interfering with a woman’s right to choose. It reads, in part:

“I will not recognize the moral authority of a court to strip me of my constitutional right to reproductive choice. I will challenge any court order that seeks to impose a parental obligation upon me against my will by asserting my right to equal protection of the law.”

National Center For Men advocates and lawyers and Matt Dubay will be available for press interviews.

Call The National Center For Men at 516-938-3075.

Tervuren · Tervuren's Garage

A little snipet

[quote]
To ensure that a child has financial support from at least two parents[/quot]e

I'd rathet ensure that they have a home with a mother and father.

Wrecked944 · 03-09-2006, 01:35 PM

Wow, I was just about to post the same topic. Personally, I would never opt out - even if I were tricked into the pregnancy. I'd still be the kid's dad no matter what. But that's just my individual choice. I can't deny that the "fairness" argument made by this lawsuit is compelling to me. For those who would make choices different from my own, I have to tip my hat to this plaintiff group. They are about to receive the mother of all butt-whoopings in the media (no pun intended) but I think their cause is righteous.

livi · 03-09-2006, 01:41 PM

My experience too.

If you stick it in - you gotta stick it out.

All down the animal line its always been the same. The two genders manipulating each other to get a head start in the evolutionary race.

The male Achilles heal being an almost unavoidable need to stick it in. We know it - and they know it.

Ones we´re done, we ain´t gotta a chance.

Steve knew what he was talking about writing:
Signed, sealed, delivered - I am yours, Baby!

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

But what if you don't stick it in?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050309.html

pbs911 · pbs911's Garage

Quote:

“I will not recognize the moral authority of a court to strip me of my constitutional right to reproductive choice. I will challenge any court order that seeks to impose a parental obligation upon me against my will by asserting my right to equal protection of the law.”

Men have equal rights in deciding what to do with their body. Hasn't his guy ever heard of the fundamental right to conterception, the right to use a condom? Or the right to so substain from intercourse? Seriously.

Equal Rights also apply to the obligation to child support. If the mother dumps the child off with the father, the mother will be ordered to pay child support. The right to receive support is held by the child, not the parent.

But I guess someone had to bring the suit.

Jeff Higgins · 03-09-2006, 02:26 PM

Demanding the woman "abort it or support it" should be an available out for the man in a country in which abortion is legal. Come on abortion supporters, if the man says "oops... I didn't want a kid" he should be able to legally demand an abortion. If the woman declines, it's all hers. Let's see just how long abortion remains legal if the other party contibuting to the pregnancy has an equal say.

pbs911 · pbs911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Come on abortion supporters, if the man says "oops... I didn't want a kid" he should be able to legally demand an abortion. If the woman declines, it's all hers. Let's see just how long abortion remains legal if the other party contibuting to the pregnancy has an equal say.

I would think the demand for abortion would increase if men could avoid child support payments. Or is that what you are saying and the women would want to end abortion. The probelm there is there are just as many illegal abortions as legal regardless of whetehr the right is permitted under law.

FrayAdjacent911 · 03-09-2006, 02:42 PM

I feel in cases where men are deceived into reasonably believing their involvement in sexual activity will not result in a pregnancy should not be held liable. Fraud is fraud, even if it results in a child being born.

It's a touchy subject, but it does really suck that men can be FORCED to pay support for a child they may not have known existed.

Several stories I've heard that make me think:

Buddy at work got a girl pregnant, shehad the kid and he paid child support. She loses the child to Child Protective Services, but my buddy kept paying child support for almost two years before he found out. She was partying with his money. (The good news is, he took her to court and she was ordered to pay back the money he sent her after the child was taken from her)

Another story - a guy has a one nighter with a girl from another town. Years go by, and he has no contact with her at all. Then he gets summoned to court and forced to pay child support for a kid he didn't know he had. He couldn't get partial custody or even visitation rights, just a newfound absence of his money. I think in cases like this where the woman does not inform the father of the pregnancy, she should then be forfeiting any right to support from the father.

Personally, I've never done the deed without bagging my gator... but sometimes afterwards, I get a little apprehensive. Unfortunately, I've never shagged with a woman I'd want to have kids with. (Haven't shagged with many women period)

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

um...didn't we have a thread about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?!?!?

You stick it in, you deal with the consequences. PERIOD. Doesn't matter what she says. If someone is selling you a 911 and says "oh, the engine was rebuilt but I don't have the receipts," what do you assume? That the engine has never been touched. So when a woman says...

You dip it, you are on the hook. The woman has to go through the incredible difficulty of actually carrying and giving birth. And you wanna opt out for paying money because you decided you didn't want to have one?

Think BEFORE you bang...

KevinP73 · 03-09-2006, 03:20 PM

If all things are equal why do women have the option to turn a newborn over to a safe house as an "opt out" measure. Why can't I "opt out" if I choose?

Jeff Higgins · 03-09-2006, 04:35 PM

I'm all for personal responsibility at all levels. Most conservatives lean that way, but apparently most liberals don't. I find it a bit of a contradiction that liberals who find a way to blame society, ethnic background (more precisely the lack of opportunity certain ones afford), and other factors for acts of personal irresponsibilty still call on men to show some in sexual relationships.

In a modern society where it is no longer politically correct to display any sort of manly behavior, somehow this one hangs on. Feminists have successfully beaten men back to where it is a major social fau pau to display manly traits. But they still demand that men step up to this one. Why?

Because they do not want equality, they want control. They revelled in the "sexual revolution", but stopped short of assuming any responsibility for their own behavior. Men are weak and cannot resist their charms; they know that and use it. Some very expertly. The best part is, when something goes wrong and there is an unnexpected pregnancy, they can bat their pretty little lashes and still blame the man, even if it was their offer.

I say level the playing field. Make both side truly equal and responsible, at least as much as possible. The woman's decision still trumps the man's, in one respect, in that if he wants the child and she does not there is nothing he can do. Today, if she wants it and he does not, he is equally helpless. If he wants to opt out, fair is fair. It should be all hers. I'm surprised liberals are not all behind that one; it's right up their ally.

FrayAdjacent911 · 03-09-2006, 04:52 PM

I think that in the very least, fathers need more rights. Rights to custody or visitation, rights to review child support - i.e., if mommy isn't responsible with the money, then daddy doesn't have to pay it, or other arrangements are made.

What about when a guy, who is not active in a child's life, but pays support, later finds out he's not the father? Should THAT man be absolved of further child support? I think so.

On another forum, a guy related how his buddy found out that his wife had an off and on affair with another one of their friends, and the guy's two kids were actually his friend's kids. He'd been raising them as his own, and they know him as 'dad'. He said he will continue to be 'dad' as all along he thought they were his kids... but would it be right if he were DECEIVED into thinking they were his kids by his cheating wife? Does his friend, the biological father, get away unscathed? What is FAIR in a situation like that?

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I'm all for personal responsibility at all levels. ....

Men are weak and cannot resist their charms; they know that and use it.

way to sell the gender short...men are as weak as they want to be.

Sorry, I still call BS. Of course it isn't equal. When men get the honor of having monthly cycles and carrying the kid for 9 months then maybe we'll have equality.

Sure, there are women who take advantage of situations...just like there are men who do the same. As for "equality", most of the sane women I know argue that if they are doing equivalent work, they should get equivalent pay. That has historically NOT been the case in most fields, and continues to not be the case to this day.

Lots of hostility towards women around here. Geeze, I'm twice divorced and I'm not nearly as angry at women as most of you guys...

air-cool-me · 03-09-2006, 05:47 PM

when is that male birth control pill going to be made available?

FrayAdjacent911 · 03-09-2006, 05:51 PM

A buddy here at work related to me what one of his buddies did:

Put a few shots on ice at a fertility clinic, and then got snipped.

If he meets a woman with whom he wants to have a child, she gets one of his frozen pops. Other than that, he's shooting blanks.

Sounds like a great idea. Have some shots on ice, and if that fails, he can get the reversal and do it the fun way.

KevinP73 · 03-09-2006, 06:00 PM

"Sorry, I still call BS. Of course it isn't equal. When men get the honor of having monthly cycles and carrying the kid for 9 months then maybe we'll have equality."
I say when women work a full 60hr week and die 15yrs younger(as the average male does) then I'll pity the poor little twit for bleeding monthly and being blessed with the birth canal that her God gave her.
We (male/female) aren't equal, never have been never will be. We were made differently, whether it be by the God one chooses to believe in or by the force of nature others feel we were created by. It doesn't matter how you try to even the playing field, I got balls she don't.