Roe v. Wade for men

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherho...t.ap/index.html

Interesting lawsuit filed in US District Court in Michigan.

Sounds to me like a convenient way for him to try to get out of paying child support after making a not so smart decision of not using protection. If, as he contends, he did not want to be a father, then why didn't he take the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy (regardless of what his girlfriend said about the medical condition). Accidents happen and there are "miraculous" conceptions (not in the Virgin Mary sense but in the 'we beat the medically impossible odds' sense) all the time. So since he was a willing party in the decision to have sex unprotected which resulted in a pregnancy, he is just as responsible for his actions and thus the results.

Disagree as I wrote in the previous thread. I think the argument point is that a woman has two choices and the man currently one. The woman has a choice to have sex which is the same excuse you used for the man above as well as a choice to terminate the child (at least for three months). the man only has one choice. To make it fair, the man should be able to have a choice within the first three months and say whether he wants the child. Now the woman has an even clearer choice, whether she wants the child without help from the man who impreganated her or whether to abort.

"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." (from the article)

I don't think that would work as the government would lay the responsibility for the child a priori at the father's doorstep before looking for a foster home. He wouldn't be any better off than before. Or orphanages would be overflowing with children whom the mother can't and the father won't take care of. Taxpayers wouldn't like that at all. It all boils down to responsible sex on both sides. I shared a room in the maternity ward with a medical condition who got the surprise of her life when she found out that she was pregnant. So guys, be warned. It can and does happen.

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."

This is the most hypocritical statement ever uttered by a pro-choice advocate. "It's about the rights of the child."

I always thought that child support was based on the grounds of common law, that it's only enforced/granted if the parent not in custody of the child formerly supported the child financially and therefore must continue to support the child as was done before.

Sounds as if she was not to smart if she was so surprised. What did she think she was doing in the maternity ward?

I nearly peed a little reading that

She wasn't surprised anymore when she had the baby, sillies. She had had 9 months to get used to the idea.

If men don't want to become fathers then GET SNIPPED!

It's not that some man doesn't want to become a father, he just doesn't want to become one with her. Amazing how quickly the insistence upon "equal rights" can disappear...

woof.

If I don't want to get pregnant, I use protection. And if a man doesn't want to be responsible for a pregnancy, he should use protection. Sounds fairly equal to me.
That said, accidents happen, that's life.

Hmm... I was looking at past drivel I'd posted, and came across this early link, Conception by Deception that I had contributed. By the famous ex-call girl Tracy Quan, it's still an interesting read. Particularly the part about contraception in monagamy. One TT'er at the time thought it would be questionable if their long-term male partner continued to use condoms. Is that the sentiment in the larger female population? If both partners in a monogamous relationship agreed for birth control, would, after 2, 3, 4, 5 years or so, the woman question and/or discourage the male if he continued condom usage? Is the norm of contraception a "household chore" in practice steered to a woman's guidance?

The solution: The Pre-Sex Contract.

Basically a binding, signed agreement between the unmarried, heterosexual couple before a specific episode of sex that states what will happen in case of pregnancy.

Done! Might prevent the sex act anyway.

(Of course, if the woman does get pregnant and then has a change of heart about aborting, if that's in the contract, she still cannot be forced to do it. But then the father can forego financial support.)

The thing is though - if an accident does happen, then as things currently stand, the woman can choose to abort the fetus - thereby absolving her responsibility. The man must pay for the child - he cannot opt out. The man does not have any way to later say that he doesn't want a child - unlike the woman. As it stands, there is no equality here.

So rather than forcing the woman to have an abortion (certainly not an option), the next fairest would be for the man to be able to decide early on in the pregnancy that he does not want either the responsibility nor the benefits of being a father. If this decision had to be made in the first 3 months, it would also allow the woman to then decide if she wants to carry to term and take full responsibility for the child or have an abortion.

And if the woman doesn't realize in the first trimester that she is pregnant?

Then she risks not telling the man in time and then risks not having financial support. So women, pay attention to your bodies.

Very helpful, thank you brokenm.

There are plenty of reasons a woman might not realize that she is pregnant early on besides being careless about her body. Do I need to go into detail?

Then she still has the option of adoption...

Yes, I would appreciate that. Enlighten me! But i think Hazza made a much better point.

Impractical. You can't force women to adopt out their children for lack of funds.

We've gone over this before. What man is going to want to pay up for a child he didn't intend? Is this a fair burden to place on a woman? Kill it or deal with the consequences, is what you're saying. Either way, the mother has a terrible choice to make.

The father can go skipping off scot-free, nothing on his conscience or out of his paycheck, and this is considered "fair."

Women don't have babies they didn't intend for shits and giggles, you know. If the mother wants to go through all the work to keep the child, the least the father can do is ante up a few bucks for his/her maintenance.

Babies aren't cars or toys, if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of human life, then you shouldn't be screwing her/him in the first place. Use protection, be smart, and accept the fact that accidents happen. It's life, not a game.

Yes we should all wait until we're married shouldnt we ?

As already seen on this forum "accidents" seem to happen a fair bit when the lady hits 30ish. Having the power (ie inequality) makes it more likely that abuse of that power will occur.

heh? I would think less accidents happen the older a woman gets considering she is less fertile and has more experience using birth control so mishaps are less likely to happen.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant. I'd love to know which accidents you're referring to.

I didn't say wait until you are married - I said take responsibility for your actions.

And - though I was conceived in wedlock, my mother was on the pill at the time. Accidents happen. Don't want to be a father? Wear a condom or don't have sex.

Yup, blame those women, parnell. Sneaky bitches. Going off and getting pregnant and trying to make the innocent father pay.

What I don't like is this inherent idea that men are "evil". The likelihood that a man will skip out on a child for money is equal to a woman having a child for money. Yes these people exist, but are the exception and not the rule. The point is it is a hard decision and one that should not be taken lightly. But, if you give this "choice" to the woman, than the man should be allowed the same choice. If you don't like the idea of choice. Then it would only be fair to either take it away from the mother or give it to the man as well.

But if a woman doesn't want a child, then she can go and have it aborted - no money out of her paycheck and she gets off scot-free.

A man can't opt out like that. So how is that fair??

Abortion isn't an option for many women so you can't lump all women into that category.

Yes it is. Any woman can have an abortion. If it's against her beliefs, then that still doesn't mean she's able to have one. She merely chooses not to.

When did I say men are evil? They are less than honorable, though, if they try to eschew responsibility for their own child, intended or not.

One of the worst things about this case and the media coverage of it is that it contributes nothing to peace between the sexes.

I'm not speaking of religious beliefs. If a woman believes abortion is murder (not because of any religious affiliation but because biologically speaking she sees a developing child as a developing child) you say she still has a choice?

I guess we all have the choice to murder whoever we please but the way I see it that's a ridiculous argument.

This really cheapens the actual decision-making process and experience of having an abortion, Hazza.

ER, your point is valid. But what this suggests is that before people have sex with one another they should discuss all implications of what they wold morally, legally do if a child came from this union. This does not occur most of the time. So, a man should not have sex with a woman who believes abortion is an option if he does not believe in it. As, a woman should not have sex with a man who believes contrary. But that is what choice means.
It would be hard on a man who believed that abortion is wrong when his partner decides to have an abortion. Just as it may be difficult for the woman to raise the child alone or to give it up for adoption without financial help from the male. This is not an easy decision for either partner, however, (at least in the US) more people believe that this should be a choice, therefore the choice should be granted equally to both the male and the female.

I don't think that it is a war. It just is imbalanced. and your point is that a man can be less than honorable?? How is that not honorable. The man is telling the woman he does not want to be financially responsible while she can still make the decision. Where is the deception. Not honorable would be for the woman not to tell the man she was pregnant, or the man who says he wants the child and then decides he doesn't want to be financially responsible.

Uhm - I'm from the US and I do't think this is a choich that should be granted equally to the male and female, if only for the pure biological reasons behind it. Like it or not (and many women have a hard time with this reality as well) it is the woman's body and life that is comprimised, and not just in a minor way. I do not think that the parental choices rights and responsibilities of the male should be ignored either though.

She still has a choice. After all, there is no medical reason she can't have an abortion. Otherwise there is the choice of giving up a baby for adoption.


Maybe.

However, if you think of a scenario where a woman becomes pregnant as a result of a one-night stand. The child is not wanted, but the the woman does not want to abort the child. Then the man is forced to pay for a child he didn't intend to have. However, if the woman doesn't want it, then she may have an abortion. Either way, it is completely up to her and the man has no choice in the result. This is about giving him some choice as well.

It's not supposed to be an argument about abortion. After all, that's already legal. The argument is that a man has no control over what happens once a child is on the way. A woman does. Why not let him opt out completely - let him have nothing to do with it? Basically give him the same right as a sperm donor.

DDBug,
I am not advocating that a man can force a woman to have the baby or to have an abortion. I am advocating that since a woman can make that decision, the man should have an equal say concerning whether he wants the child. And if he doesn't and the woman still wants the baby, he is not financially liable.

And this is the point.

Until now, they are ignored.

The issue is about abortion though. If abortion wasn't such a morally complicated issue, a man could withdraw consent and force a women to have an abortion and then both would have equal rights.

Basically both parents should have equal right to decide whether a child should exist or not which at the point of intercourse they both do. Women are just given an an additional window to decide, that's all. Do away with abortion and it's all equal again.

Agree ER, but it is more than that. Therefore people need to look at the results from the three perspectives, not just one or two perspectives.

OK, OK. We have now dispensed (again) with all the philosophical arguments.

We disagree, but let's leave it. I think we have come to an impasse.

Let's talk about whether this lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell in 2006 America. I say no, because the conservatives are in power.

These are the people who are in favor of abolishing abortion to begin with. And some are apparently in favor of abolishing birth control, too. The reasoning behind the lawsuit is completely invalid where there is no choice on the part of either party, except the choice of whether or not to have sex.

Those who are fiscally conservative and not particularly socially conservative are not going to be in favor of society bearing the burden for some men who don't want to pay for their offspring.

Maybe we could all use our energies more effectively in this climate by fighting for continuing the rights we currently have, and hash out the details later, when these rights are not in themselves threatened.

[Getting off high horse now, but I'm serious. I'm really worried about this.]

True.

But why not allow an extra window for the man to decide his responsibilities? The child need not be aborted.

Things have changed - in the old days, a pregnancy usually ended with a rushed marriage. Now it ends with the woman having the child and the man having little or no access, but being forced to hand over a large part of his pay cheque

Hear, hear. Let's allow an extra window for the woman to decide her responsibilities, too.

WTF??? How would that work?

Shall we wait to see if we have a boy or girl, and then see if we want to be fiscally responsible, for example? See if we get that promotion and raise we've been hoping for at work?

WTF??!?!? Normally this means that a woman lives below the poverty level, struggling to juggle children and earning enough money to pay for daycare and the man shows up every other week if he feels like it and plays the generous one.

Get real.

She already has that window...She can abort the child. So she has 3 additional months to decide.

Well I understand if a man was to opt out, then he would have no right to see the child...

I say impregnate the male with the child - wouldn't that be the perfect solution, then he can quit work and stay home and give birth and she can decide if she wants to be bothered with it.

Not true, Hazza. There are many instances of men not paying child support, or very minimal, and still having access to the children. In Germany as well.

...And be forced to pay for it, whilst he makes it almost impossible for her to see the child on a regular basis.

I honestly don't know who you know in that sort of situation, Hazza. That is not the case in this country. You are spreading a myth.