Man's say in unplanned pregnancy

Now I usually don't share my political views and here is no different but I found this article and it is something I've discussed at length with some of my friends in the past. Now these discussions happened way before this article but now that it has hit main stream media what do you guys think/feel? Again this is NOT my view or a opinion of mine. I just think it is a interesting discussion.

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


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."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

wear a condom

While I have no desire to comment on this subject I found the fact that you left this in kind of amusing.

Isn't that what pro-life people tell women?

And then the pro choicers remind them that guys don't have to carry if for 9 months and then spend hours if not days in pain delivering before getting stuck with the financial and emotional baggage of raising a child alone.

Then what about women who want abortions and men who don't?

The thing is, many men already do opt out of child care. It's illegal, but they do it anyway. So, I disagree. If it's your DNA, you are obligated, not to necessarily care for, but to somewhat provide for your offspring. Of course, this is only with the mother's permission. If you don't want kids, take precautionary measures, be it condoms or EC.

My comment was an objection to what yumchen said, not support for what these guys are trying to accomplish.

"Wear a condom" is incredibly dismissive and assumes that the solution to the problem is so simple. "Wear a condom" isn't a valid response to the problem of men accidentally fathering children any more that it's an appropriate response to the problem of women being saddled with unwanted pregnancies (though there's no denying it's worse for women).

We all know condoms break. We all know that sometimes it's beyond your control.

[Edited on Mar 09, 2006 by Hooraydiation]

doing it with a crazy liar doesnt excuse you from your half of the responsibility. try not having sex with crazy liars.

A mans say in the matter really ammounts to two words:

"You're WHAT?"

[Edited on Mar 09, 2006 by TheRedBaron]

"Make sure the person you're fucking has the same stance on unwanted pregnancies that you do," would probably be better. I don't imagine the crazy liar scenario is all that common.

The father doesn't pay child support either, if the child is adopted.

Know who you're having sex with, people. Talk about what you'd want to happen in the case of an unwanted pregnancy before you have sex.

Your right.
My comment was a jerk reaction to the concept of a group advocating for men's right to legally opt out of doing what to many men already illegaly do.

p.s. I can't spell illegally and I know it.

Presumably, people who adopt children are prepared and willing to take financial responsibility for a human life. Women who accidentally get pregnant may not be. The analogy doesn't really fit. Try again?


[Edited on Mar 08, 2006 by SuntLacrimae]

With the way abortion has been in the news lately and considering the fact that it's always been a hot topic, I'm almost inclined to say that it's harder to NOT know whether a person is pro-life or pro-choice. Of course, pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion and there's always the possibility that a woman will, when actually given the decision, choose the option she hadn't thought she'd pick.

But just because a person's stance on abortion and guess as to what he or she would want to do when faced with an unwanted pregnancy isn't guaranteed doesn't mean it's not worth getting into. It's not a solution, but it helps.

If I become pregnant I have the option of either aborting the fetus, carying to full term and giving it to someone else to raise, or raising it on my own. How does this even slightly compare to a man being able to opt out of financial support?
Trust me, if I don't want you involved in the decision making, I don't want your money either.
And since when are there "men's rights activists?"

Was I talking about other avenues? Did I say anything about abortion? I was just pointing out that a particular facet of your previous argument didn't make sense.

Half the time it just seems like they're woman-hating smartasses, but I do support men's rights activists who want more in the way of custody rights. I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but the way I see it there's no reason men should be considered less worthy of being able to spend time of their kids simply because of their sex.

These guys are just trying to dodge child support payments, though, so they're really just selfish.



The way I see it, children don't ask to be born and, as such, they deserve support. Men and women who have conceived children owe their kids financial support because you're responsible for their existence.

If you don't like it, then get an abortion. If you're a man, you're kinda screwed. A woman's right to control her body overrules your right to keep your money. Also, a full-fledged child's right to a well-provided existence goes beyond your right to keep your money.

I don't support putting your kids up for adoption right after they're born as an alternative to abortion, but I recognize a woman's right to go through with a pregnancy even if the child's unwanted.

[Edited on Mar 09, 2006 by Hooraydiation]

Should we just call it even for millenia of oppression?

I didn't say that there shouldn't be a discussion about men's rights, I just didn't know there was such a group.
I guess my point would be that men can't get pregnant, so I guess they really just have to make sure that the woman they stick their dick in feels the same way they about the issue of unplanned pregnancy.

Yep.

Does an uninterested father still have to pay child support even if the mother is fully capable of meeting all the child's monetary needs though? That's the one case where I don't see a good reason to override the father's right to keep his money.

This isn't a simple dilemma with a simple answer.

I think just as with burgeoning feminism, the male reproductive rights movement may have to bring up some radical propositions in order to eventually see the pendulum settle somewhere reasonable.

And I'd certainly prefer having some avenue of redress for men who don't want children (those who are lucky enough to be notified before the baby is born) rather than the system we have now which is lots of men roped into fatherhood they never wanted.

I don't know what the answer is but I'm glad to see the discussion is lively.

I think this is a great idea for a nation that has a functioning welfare system, but maybe not so much for the US. But that’s a problem with welfare, not a problem with the basic idea.

I suspect they will get exactly nowhere is they keep that rhetorical point.

Men who want the baby that badly should just carry it in their own bodies for the 9 months. Problem solved.