Lets let men shirk their responsibility shall we

BooBooKItty · #1 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 07:43 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/...atherhood_suit

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

NEW YORK - 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, Mich.

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.

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."

mrsryan23 · #2 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 07:59 AM

It's about the rights of the child

No, I'm pretty sure its not about the rights of the child. Let me get this straight, women have the "right" to terminate a pregnancy, ending the life of the child and also ending the rights of that child, but all of a sudden it's all about the child's rights when the father wants to bail. I know that legislation like this could be abused, but I think you have to look at equality of rights. In a circumstance that is outside of rape, two consenting adults engaged in an act that they BOTH had to be a part of to create a baby.
I don't think fathers have ENOUGH rights. That child is equally theirs, and if the mother has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby, the father ought to have the choice whether or not to support it.

Kelli

geela · #3 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 08:05 AM

Ita

BooBooKItty · #4 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 08:09 AM

f the mother has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby, the father ought to have the choice whether or not to support it.

I totally disagree. The man has the right to have sex with only women he knows would have an abortion, women he knows is on BC, with a condom at all times, or even only having sex while in a committed relationship. but I don't think the man should ever have the right to say "well she could have had an abortion. so too bad, I'm not going to support my child" Absurd.

mrsryan23 · #5 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 08:16 AM

but I don't think the man should ever have the right to say "well she could have had an abortion. so too bad, I'm not going to support my child" Absurd.

Why is this so absurd to you? THE BABY IS EQUALLY THE FATHER'S!!! My point is not to say that I think it is RIGHT for a father to walk away from his responsibility to his child, but don't we allow mothers to do the same thing? If she just decides she doesn't want to do it, she terminates the pregnancy or adopts out.
Don't try to convince me that you can hold one to a standard but not the other. If a woman has the SOLE right to terminate a pregnancy, then a man should have the right to CHOOSE not to support a child.

It just amazes me to hear the righteous indignation over the rights of the child to have a father's support, monetary or otherwise. Again, where are the rights of that child when its life hangs in the balance?

clarebear · #6 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 08:34 AM

No, I'm pretty sure its not about the rights of the child. Let me get this straight, women have the "right" to terminate a pregnancy, ending the life of the child and also ending the rights of that child, but all of a sudden it's all about the child's rights when the father wants to bail. I know that legislation like this could be abused, but I think you have to look at equality of rights. In a circumstance that is outside of rape, two consenting adults engaged in an act that they BOTH had to be a part of to create a baby.
I don't think fathers have ENOUGH rights. That child is equally theirs, and if the mother has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby, the father ought to have the choice whether or not to support it.

I couldn't agree more.

Kadydid · #7 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 08:36 AM

If this law is worded correctly I don't see it being any different than a woman getting an abortion.

I think it is very unfair to not support the man's rights to not want a child, but support a woman who wants an abortion. Many women get abortions for financial reasons. I don't see this being any different. In fact it might force some would be mothers pull their heads out of there butt, and ensure that they are doing everything they can, not to have a child.

wandb · #8 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 08:42 AM

I agree that men get the short stick here. Women have complete control over their reproductive rights and men don't.

If a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby knowing that it is against the expressed will of the father, she should not be entitled to child support. If abortion is out of the question, she can give it up for adoption or raise it herself. It takes two to tango, so why should only 1 get to make any decisions?

Annette027 · #9 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 09:27 AM

I do think women have more rights than men.
Women who don't want to be mothers have 2 options...abortion or adoption.
Men who don't want to be fathers have NONE. They are stuck with whatever decision the woman makes whether they like it or not. It takes two to make a baby, so why does the all the decision making fall with the woman?
I do think that if a man tells the woman from the get go (when they find out about the baby) that he doesn't want to be a father and be in that child's life, then there should be an "out" for him and he shouldn't be forced to pay child support. That way, the decision lies soley with the mother on whether she can raise a child alone.

Kadydid · #10 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 09:29 AM

Don't try to convince me that you can hold one to a standard but not the other. If a woman has the SOLE right to terminate a pregnancy, then a man should have the right to CHOOSE not to support a child.

I may be wrong here, but it looks like you are doing the same thing. Only the opposite side of the fence, you seem to be against the woman’s rights yet, for men’s.

The ultimate question for the pro lifer is do two wrongs make a right?

The question for the pro-choicer is are you really for equal rights?

neubie · #11 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 09:40 AM

I agree that here men lose either way, so, they should have the right not to pay any money for child support when they categorically refused to have a child.

However, if such a law is ever enacted, there would be a great potential for abuse. Men can simply claim that they did not want to have a child in the first place and refuse to pay child support when they might have agreed intially to have a child but chicken out later! How is a woman going to prove that the man had initally agreed to have the child?

So, do you sign a legal document stating that the husband/boyfriend has agreed to father the child? Can such a document be revocable if the father later changes his mind?

What about the fact that historically majority of men would rather not be burdened with children (when they are not married or in a committed relationship), nor pay for childcare? Do we base our laws on such evidence or end up with a large gaping hole in the law just because women have certain reproductive rights and it is unfair that men do not have equal rights?

I do feel that there is no right answer here.

Annette027 · #12 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 09:47 AM

I do think that in order for there not to be any abuse, the man should sign a legal document stating he wants to give up any and all rights to his child and in turn he is not going to be financially responsible for that child.
I'm not sure about the clause in case he changes his minds. I do think if men want to be part of child's life, they should be financially supportive, but if they don't want any contact, they should be legally allowed to not pay child support.

Kadydid · #13 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 09:50 AM

I do feel that there is no right answer here.

I really don't either, but for the sake of equality I think it should be explored.

Also I really would hope that a woman would really even more so take the time to ensure that she is doing every thing she can to prevent a pregnancy.

I think it would really be hard to write this law.

midwifemommyofmany · #14 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 09:51 AM

Well personally I think that your *rights* start when you have sex or don't have sex with someone. Ultimately (unless you are raped) you have the choice of whether or not to have sex with someone. We all know you can get pregnant having sex. And we all know that birth control fails. So ultimately men (and women too) HAVE the choice from the beginning.

BooBooKItty · #15 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Annette027

the man should sign a legal document stating he wants to give up any and all rights to his child and in turn he is not going to be financially responsible for that child.

If that were the case then I think this should be done before the people ever have sex. I think if I knew that the man I was having sex with wouldn't take financial responsiblity for our child if an accident should happen then I certainly wouldn't be having sex with that person. Talking about these things just aren't enough, I have known many people that were in a relationship with a man, planned pregnancy and then have the man just change his mind and skip town, how fair is that?

mrsryan23 · #16 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 10:21 AM

I may be wrong here, but it looks like you are doing the same thing. Only the opposite side of the fence, you seem to be against the woman’s rights yet, for men’s

I am against the right to have an abortion, yes, unless it involves a life threatening situation. I don't want to derail the thread into why I believe what I do, but I will say this. I think women should have the right to decide whether to keep the baby or put it up for adoption. I also think the father should have the same rights. If the mother does not want the child, then the father should have legal recourse to adopt the child.

I'm not trying to squash women's rights, even though it might be perceived that way, I'm just trying to shed some light on the fact that men really do get the short end of the stick in these situations.

Kelli

Annette027 · #17 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by BooBooKItty

If that were the case then I think this should be done before the people ever have sex. I think if I knew that the man I was having sex with wouldn't take financial responsiblity for our child if an accident should happen then I certainly wouldn't be having sex with that person. Talking about these things just aren't enough, I have known many people that were in a relationship with a man, planned pregnancy and then have the man just change his mind and skip town, how fair is that?

It's not fair, but it would be jumping the gun to have a man sign away all rights to a child that is not even conceived yet. I knew a couple who were married and had 3 children ages 6, 4, & 2 when the wife all of a sudden changed her mind about wanting to be a mother and left her husband and her children. Women have been known to change thier minds also about being parents...would the solution be for both to sign away their rights? It doesn't make sense. Who know when or if this could happen? We don't have a glass ball where we can see the future.

BooBooKItty · #18 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Annette027

Women have been known to change thier minds also about being parents.

And they should be made to pay child support as well.

Kadydid · #19 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 10:31 AM

I am against the right to have an abortion, yes, unless it involves a life threatening situation. I don't want to derail the thread into why I believe what I do, but I will say this. I think women should have the right to decide whether to keep the baby or put it up for adoption. I also think the father should have the same rights. If the mother does not want the child, then the father should have legal recourse to adopt the child.

I'm not trying to squash women's rights, even though it might be perceived that way, I'm just trying to shed some light on the fact that men really do get the short end of the stick in these situations.

Thanks for the clarification.

but it would be jumping the gun to have a man sign away all rights to a child that is not even conceived yet

Nobody would be getting laid either

"What do you mean, if I got pregnant you wouldn't be there for me! You deadbeat loser!" I can hear someone saying that.

Emaline · #20 (**permalink**) 03-09-2006, 11:24 AM

Here is my question when does this decision get to be made? What if the father of the baby goes into this wanting the baby, then at 18 weeks decides he no longer wants the baby. This woman thought she was planning a life with the father of her baby and was not going to be alone, is she just screwed then? What about a husband who is suddenly scared at the prospect of being a father and bails out at 38 weeks?

Is this only good for one night stands? Length of relationship? How well they know each other? Or does it always mean that men have the right opt out of fatherhood no matter when?