Roe v Wade...For Men

It's about the right to opt-out before viability, did you read the article? Are are you having a knee-jerk reaction? The article is clear on this point. Argue with the article...

"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."
"

Kevn,

"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."

Yes, he didn't want a baby, nor did she. He wanted to opt-out as soon as he heard of the pregnancy.

Edit: In fact, he opted-out before sex, with her assurance pregnancy is not possible due to a medical condition.

Wow, $500 a month. On a somewhat related topic, that seems a bargain. Bare bones childcare for a newborn would eat that right up. Glad I'm not dealing with either end of that issue personally.

he's attempting to get out of the child support, the child has been born. "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"

please show me where the word "viability" is in the article at all?

It says ""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 ..."

How hard is that to understand?

You're confusing the National Center for Men's philosophy with the lawsuit itself. I find this real-time display of your inability to process information provided to you to be extremely educational, and I thank you for letting us all witness it.

Um, Feit's group is the one filing the suit, do you think he knows what they are fighting for? Can you show me where in the article it says this father will be exempt from paying should they win the case?

They are using him to forward their agenda, as stated by the leader of the group who filed the suit. The suit isn't asking for retroactive consideration at all. But please, continue with the ad homs, it suits your side well.

that's a pretty impressive term, where did you learn it?

Well, I read....

Here, let me inform you of the meaning...

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.

Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

Examples of Personal Attack

In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong."

"This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer."

"Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that."

"That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."

"Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."

"Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her."

Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."

In a country that allows abortion up to the day of natural delivery, what exactly do you consider viability? Premies born 2 months before their due date go on to lead healthy lives, yet could have just as easily, and legally, been killed in the womb.

Moreover, this isn't an issue about dead beat dads with teenage kids. We're talking about men informed by women they are pregnant or men who may have lost contact with an ex only to get a call from a lawyer over a paternity suit.

The simple fact is, in the current legal system women can opt out of parental responsibility via abortion while men are forced to pay for an unwanted child for 18 years or more.

Barring a ban on abortion, this opt out option is the only way to level the legal playing field.

But let me be clear. I'd rather see abortion illegal and see both sides exercise some personal responsibility. Barring that-then I'd like to see this.

Finally, on a personal note, I'd like to call bullshit on Jake's assertion that " if men could opt out they would, whether or not the kid was intended". I am happy to pay child support and then some for my daughter with my first wife because I want to make sure she is taken care of. Moreover, I am also paying child support for a child of my second wife-a child who is not biologically or legally mine. Why? Because my love for my children is not dependent upon legal or biological connections. Not only did I not opt-out, I opted in .

-Kiamat Dusk

Please don't start a "boo-hoo, us men have no rights, you women have all the rights" argument.

-Car insurance companies have done their own studies and have concluded that males are more prone to accidents, has nothing to do with equal rights.

-Men are also guilty of getting a woman pregnant to get them to marry. Not to mention, using just about any line to get a female to have sex with them. "Don't worry baby, you can't get pregnant the first time", "if you really loved me you'd have sex with me" Unfortunately, there are still women who fall for this kind of thing.

-Just because somebody tells you they have a medical condition that makes them sterile, doesn't make it so. Take responsibility for yourself, use protection, or don't have sex.

-I think this all should be discussed between the two parties, when the pregnancy is detected. It shouldn't wait til after the baby is born. Of course every case is different, so it's kinda hard to make a law to cover every situation. There really isn't a right answer that fits everybody.

Don't forget, women have had to fight for the privilege to vote, to own property, to have a say in what happens to her own body (which is in a very precarious postition atm), we are still trying to get the same wage for the same job, so forgive us when we get a little testy with ya when you start complaining that we have more rights. There are still women in the world that have no rights, that are treated as property. So to those who are whining about women's rights, please, SHUT UP!

Ok, WHERE are these abortions being performed, and where are the statistics to back that statement uP?

Actually you're splitting hairs here and attacking Kevn when he is actually right on this point. Dubay expressed to his girlfriend that he in no way wanted to have a child, and was assured that they would not because she was incapable. This was prior to pregnancy. The case is being filed to make such situations legally binding. If it had been, Dubay would not have been forced to pay child support for a child he in no way wanted. It is not about trying to get out of child support after the fact - it is about establishing the ability to give up financial responsibility in advance - an option that was not available and is now being fought for. I don't agree with the concept, since sex is ultimately about responsibility and one can opt out quite easily to avoid the entire situation.

There are enough abortion threads currently going. If you want facts and figures go look in those. The fact remains, however, that late term abortion is legal into the third trimester. So long as the head isn't out of the mother, the fetus/baby/pre-human entity can be terminated.

Here's a good site:
http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/

-Kiamat Dusk

This is another case of fighting for the welfare of the unborn, while ignoring the welfare of the born.

The hell with both the mother or father's needs -- There's a baby that requires funding.

How hard is THAT to understand. Of course most anti-choicers tend to give up any pretense of caring once the baby is actually born.

Look! Magically it's a baby!!!

One more time for the Liberals in the cheap seats...

What we are talking about here is the option for the father to opt-out before the birth of the child when he has knowledge before birth...just like mom. If mom surprises him after birth-that's her fault.

The decision to be a father is a personal, private one that should be made between a man and his accountant. When you're paying child support, then you can talk.

Funny how suddenly everyone is advocating pre-sex personal responsibility. Where were these voices in the abortion threads.

-Kiamat Dusk

Hmm, so stating more education so people know how to keep from getting pregnant isn't helpful? Besides, we were busy defending said women from being called sluts and whores because they couldn't keep their legs closed.

And if this thread doesn't have anything whatsoever about abortion, why do you keep bringing it up?

They do tend to be called "Baby" after birth, Kiamat. Not magic at all.

I'm not advocating abstinence at all...I'm advocating that BOTH parents should grow the fuck up and take care of their responsabilities.

The fact is one can't "opt-out" of a baby's life simply because one did not want said baby.
The excuse of using a women's ability and RIGHT to choose as a quid-pro-quo for a father's ability to opt out is deceptive at best --and intentionallly malicious at worst.

Understand this simple point --the domain of reproduction rights is a woman's because THAT's where reproduction takes place. period. end of story.

I am a registered nurse with 17 years of experience in neonatal intensive care. This means that I spent countless hours in delivery rooms also. I worked in a very busy level 3 University Hospital, where theoretically, abortions up until the day of delivery would be performed. In 17 years, I have never seen an abortion performed on a woman past the gestational age of 22 weeks, unless it was for severe fetal abnormalities that were incompatible with life. I have seen babies delivered at 23 weeks and up for many reasons, none of which included the convienience of the mother or her desire to abort the fetus.

I don't know a single doctor who would perform an abortion on a woman past the age of viability, ever. And I've never seen a partial birth abortion either. I'm not saying that they don't happen, but they are pretty rare.

I don't know where these full-term abortions are taking place.

And to clarify my own position, I am pro choice, but to paraphrase Zuzu, I believe abortion should be legal, safe and extremely rare.

People who want it call it a baby from conception.



Wow, we so agree!

Do they even do elective abortions in a neonatal intensive care unit?

I'm not sure how I feel about this "opt out" option. I was a single mother who never received a dime of child support (my choice) and since I am a nurse, I've always been able to support my daughter without government assistance.

My husband (we got married last year) pays child support out the ass to his ex-wife. He pays much more than he should be based on the state guidelines, but it's his choice to pay it and not go back to have it modified. Of course, in his case, his child was born into a marriage. So there wasn't really an opt out option available, not that he would have taken it anyway.

In cases where women become pregnant on purpose, I guess the man should have the option to "opt out". However, he really shouldn't have trusted her in the first place and used a condom. It's a very emotionally charged issue, since there is a child involved.

I think that child support and child custody laws need to be re-vamped to provide for shared parenting, 50/50 custody and both parents having equal responsibility for their child. Interestingly, New York State is currently looking into putting a shared parenting bill on the ballot in November. It would make shared parenting the norm, rather than having the mother be the custodial parent by default. It will probably go down in a ball of flame, but I think it's a good idea.

That's why you formed the National Association to Secure the Right of Men to Obtain Safe and Legal Vasectomies, eh?

That was a noble act but you could have chosen a more euphonious acronym than NASRMOSLV. Thanks for your altruism.

No, they don't, but the NICU was on the same floor as the delivery room. I spent a lot of time over there and knew everyone pretty well. Believe me, as charge nurse, I knew pretty much everything that went on, since my unit would get the result of whatever went on in Labor and Delivery. Stop trying to confuse the issue.