Roe v Wade...For Men

Well it's about damn time! I've been calling for this for months now!

-Kiamat Dusk

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

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."

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

Oh, so you're against abortion AND want to duck out of financial responsibility? Nice.

Ah, Chip, you never cease to underwhelm. Let me break it down for you...again...and for the new folks.

I am staunchly anti-abortion. (though I am all for the morning after pill)
However, currently abortion is illegal which leads me to another platform: Pro-fairness.
The feminists claim they want equality, so let's have it. Barring a ban on abortion (which I believe is forthcoming) this is the next best thing. If the woman gets to opt out, so should the man be able to.

Really, Chip, this should all be familiar to you by now, I've only expressed these concerns in a dozen or so threads. But there it is again.

-Kiamat Dusk
...is going to bed...

The way to opt out of responsibility for a child is to not get someone pregnant.

Sorry Kiamat but I simply fail to understand how you can reconcile both positions. If you are staunchly anti-abortion then you believe the woman shouldn't have a choice, so you're saying that because she does but chooses NOT to abort you want to be able to duck out of any financial responsibility because she chose not to do the thing you believe she shouldn't be able to do anyway? Does not compute!

I do see some merit in this argument. I don't advocate letting the men off scott-free, but I think that the system as it is now can be very draconian. Part of the problem is that many so called "dead beat dads" are trying to do the right thing. The problem is that anyone who stand up for them risks being seen as some sort of child hater. However, the system is out of whack and needs some realignment. Not just in the case of unwanted pregnancy, but also in the event of divorce.

Sadly, I've known a fair share of divorced people with children, both with and without custody and the truth is that, with rare exceptions, everyone does want what is best for the children. The problem is that divorce is ugly and hatred of an ex usually results in someone suffering. Mostly its the children, but often it is also the non-custodial fathers.

So many choices for the man.

Choice 1: Don't have sexual relations with that woman.
Choice 2: Take f'ing responsibility for your actions!

I would say this is the stupidest thing I've seen in a while, but the reality is that it is way more absurd that people actively seek to avoid responsibility for THEIR OWN CHILDREN, regardless of how they came to be.

Give me a break.

You say the word feminists in such a dirty way.

You give me equal pay.

You give me 50/50 ratio in higher level positions.

THEN we can talk about your money and supporting children.

Taking away one of our rights and giving you guys another is just wrong. Stop your crying and wear a condom if you do not want a child.

Ugh. *disgusted*
==Chris

What if we just want the additional right but are just fine with you keeping yours? That would seem the most internally consistent stance.

The idea, however, is unworkable until a better support system is worked out for the poor or our society is willing to accept the problems that tend to come with greater numbers of them.

I find this 'opt out' as disgusting as abortions being used as a lifestyle choice. Which still rules the day, far more than rape or 'life and death' situations.

Abortions and opt out forms, instead of facing responsibility and raising children. What kind of society are we becoming, if this is not horrific? Having children is a *good thing* when approached correctly. We all should be so lucky. Speaking as a parent.

Perhaps children should be able to 'opt out' of their loser parents? Extract double the childcare money from them, so they could be raised by caring people? That would approach justice.

Hey, that's funny-women have the same choices! Are you advocating a ban on all non-medically necessary abortions, too, Gabe?

-Kiamat Dusk

How about you start paying as much in car insurance and we'll talk? Or how about you stop your crying and make sure your guy is wearing a condom or you're on the pill if you don't want to have a child...except neither of those are 100% effective anyway.

And go back and re-read my position. I'm not saying that we should take away from the women and give to the men. I'm saying that in a perfect world, both sides would make their choice before hopping into bed and deal with the possible consequences as responsible adults should they arise later. Barring that, however, I think if women can opt out, then men should have the same ability.

-Kiamat Dusk

I am in total agreement, Desmond. This is what I've been saying all along.

-Kiamat Dusk

"Pro-choice" really means "pro-woman-choice".

When it comes to men, it's "choose before sex".

We have already discussed this issue, it seems the agreement is the man has no rights to choose to be a parent after sex, even if he uses a condom. The man's only right to avoid being a father is abstinence.

I couldn't agree more with this article. Men are always on the losing end everywhere.
There are plenty of men who are raped by women. There are plenty of men who are sexually harassed. There are men who are beaten by their wives. There are also men who aren't evil impregnators and have to suffer the lifelong financial penalty of supporting a child that some deranged woman purposefully conceived with malicious intent. Do you have any idea how many women get pregnant on purpose in a lame attempt to get the guy to marry them?

What I'd like to see is the immediate right to contend that you may not necessarily be that baby's daddy.

Millions each year, I would guess.

I'm not sure what the hype is about. Abortion rights don't figure into this because the lawsuit is not about a father forcing a pregnancy or abortion. That would make it equilvalent.

A woman doesn't have the option to refuse financially supporting a child other than adoption. I don't see a problem with a man having the option, prior to birth, of declaring that he wants either an abortion or adoption and severing his parental rights.

I also think this shouldn't be allowed if you're married, unless you have some sort of pre-nuptual contact.

Personally I think a man who isn't responsible for his own birth control, regardless of what his partner says, is as stupid as a woman who does the same thing.

I can think of one case where this makes sense. If a man can establish that a woman raped him or took his sperm against his will. Otherwise UGH, this is the most bassackwards, craven, cowardly dodge of parental responsibility I've ever heard of. When you first brought this up I dismissed it as an obvious troll. It sickens me to see someone actually "trolling" the courts with this crap.

Don't want a baby? You have the right not to have sex.

Amen sister. Tell the women that. Unless they are raped.

Wow... Sounds like you got burned. Don't know what happened, but this much anger is usually personal, not theoretical.

If you're going to make statements like the above, I'd like to see some nonbiased statistics to back it up.

The issues you bring up are certainly valid, but not sure how they figure into this discussion - other than purposely getting preganant.

And I stand by my previous statement. Individuals, male and female, are responsible for their own birth control. "he told me he had a vasectomy" "She told me she was on the pill" is not enough excuse.

How about lobbying for better male birth control since so many guys hate condoms? Although, again personally, I prefer safe sex in both senses - pregnancy is the least of my worries anymore.

I saw a report about this on TV this morning. The lawyers have stated that they do not think they can win but they only want to start a discussion. They got on TV they've accomplished that much. But what about the after effects of a crushing defeat in federal court and the other less thought of after effect of looking like jack asses when they come out of court. Their objective is a noble one but it is lost on deaf ears to many.

I completely agree, however that only works if abortion is legal. I think if the father wants the child aborted and the mother declines he should have the right to sever his parental rights and financial responsibility. That's only fair. But I still can't for the life of me understand someone being for this who thinks abortion should be illegal. That's just not sane.

I think the point is, if women have a right to reproductive choice, so should men. A man refusing support doesn't kill the child. Only a woman can choose to end a life, even if this becomes law.