Roe vs. Wade for Men

[Phlegm]

It would be interesting to see how far this goes. From Associated Press:

NEW YORK Mar 9, 2006 (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, 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."

[Martrae]

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added.

That's funny in and of itself.

[Tikker]

I actually agree with it, in part


remember a while back, the chick who gave a dude a hummer, saved a jizz, and got herself pregnant after he left?

he was forced to pay support, despite the fact he didn't even nail her

[brinstar]

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.

explain how this is in any way fair

[Lyion]

Its not fair, but the law isn't meant to be fair, only just. I guess in the future men will have presexnups...

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 comical coming from someone who wants unfettered access to abortion for women, with zero say from men.

[Harrison]

I chuckled particularly hard at that part myself.

The rights of the child, which are null and void if the bitch wants it killed.

Why don't they come out and say "It's about the rights of the woman to do what she wants, forget the rights of the child until it's born."?

[Yamori]

I think it's great that someone is working to get this issue out into open discussion... it's a legitimate issue in my eyes.

In cases where men blatantly do not want a child (particularly in cases where there was deception or misleading on the woman's part), and the woman goes ahead and has the child anyways, she shouldn't have much financial power over him - particularly if the father is given few custody rights.

[Minrott]

I look at it from the opposite side. Where the woman may feel inclined to end the pregnancy but the father wants the child, wants custody, etc. He has no say simply because she's the one pregnant? Bullshit.

[Harrison]

It should go both ways.

[Spliffs]

You know, if this actually came to fruition... I bet there would be a substantial overall decline in birthrate, as well as marriage. A lot of chicks just don't give a fuck, because they know that the guy who knocked them up is going to be shelling out the cash for the next 18 years. So many men have been trapped, into either being with a woman, or supporting her, via child support.

Aside from this, men should also have equal rights post-birth. They should lay it all out on the table, who is most financially, mentally, physically, etc. capable of taking care of the kids. If it's the man, let the fucking chick pay child support.

Seriously, I'm going to go campaigning for legislation changes. This is the best shit i've heard of all year!

Of course, these things have far reaching social issues - if you take away the power of child bearing from women, they would regress about 50 years on the food chain. Instead of just getting knocked up to get a free ride, they would actually have to cook, clean, suck cock on demand, you know - that kind of stuff.

(not saying all women are looking for a free ride, but god knows a shitload of them are.)

[Sorina S]

I don't see any way this is gonna hold up under RvW. This fellow has no leg to stand on imho. This is the 21st century, we all know how babies are made. If you procreate you are responsible, period.

No man can demand that a woman undergo a proceedure to abort, that is a decision a woman makes concerning her own body (the crux of RvW). You can't claim that you are to be held harmless because a woman refuses to undergo that proceedure.

So it's pretty basic boys, if you don't want her to have your baby, don't stick your dick in her. This dude Dubay has some serious charachter flaws and btw I saw the mother Lauren and she's pretty hot. I don't get his complaint.

You take responsibility for what you do in the natural world, you don't run to the legal system to bail you out. That's weak.

[Gidan]

I don't see any way this is gonna hold up under RvW. This fellow has no leg to stand on imho. This is the 21st century, we all know how babies are made. If you procreate you are responsible, period.

No man can demand that a woman undergo a proceedure to abort, that is a decision a woman makes concerning her own body (the crux of RvW). You can't claim that you are to be held harmless because a woman refuses to undergo that proceedure.

So it's pretty basic boys, if you don't want her to have your baby, don't stick your dick in her. This dude Dubay has some serious charachter flaws and btw I saw the mother Lauren and she's pretty hot. I don't get his complaint.

You take responsibility for what you do in the natural world, you don't run to the legal system to bail you out. That's weak.

This has nothing to do with forcing a woman to abort. This is about the man having the option to give up his rights as a father in turn for not paying child support. IMO this is a great idea. Every woman has a choice when it comes to becoming a parent, why shouldn't the man. The woman doesn't have to worry about the result, the man does. Why is it that when women think men have something they don’t they yell and scream for equality, but when the situations are reversed they don’t want to budge? Double standards suck.

If the man doesn't want to be a father and the woman wants to keep child, that’s fine, she should be responsible for the child. If she cant support it but wants to have it, either find a way or give it up for adoption. I also think that if a woman doesn't want to keep a child, she should be able to give birth and then give up her rights as a mother and have the baby go to the father who takes on full financial responsibility.

Of course while we are on this dream that men and women could actually be considered equal when it came to children. Maybe it would be nice if when custody of the child was being determined they actually cared about what was best for the child. You know, give it to the parent who is best able to raise and take care of it. Maybe it would solve the problem of women wanting custody just for the check, while putting next to nothing towards their child.

[araby]

I agree with it and hope to see it happen. I have no problem at all with people making decisions like this. In all honesty-everyone knows that women have abused their rights they have over men using children as punishment and receiving an assload of child support for it. over the last several decades since becoming liberated...over half of our nations population are raised by single parents. It's not about the rights of the children at all-it's about individual rights. Noone had to own up to these things in the old days-they never expected men to support these children women had. If women didn't want to get pregnant, they'd better keeps their legs closed. and if you did get pregnant, you got shipped away.

Well..now they aren't afraid to use it as a noose...women do it all the time. If I'm not wrong-you are the father as long as your name is on the birth certificate. Even if you say, "there's no way it's mine" even though there is a way-you can't dip out. If your name is on the birth certificate, you are the father. And will be responsible for raising the child. This is why you have to give men this right-
women have the option at this point-LEGALLY-to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes to do so.

Men do not have this option-removing himself from fatherhood is the same thing. the mother wants it, she can have it. He should not be legally responsible for anything.

(unless it was rape and that's a whole new can of worms considering how many women lie about this.)

And you're right, the number of births would decrease tremendously. I think we're overcrowded anyway. (and that isn't to say I want more abortions, because I happen to be pro-life. I just think people would use more discretion, especially women!)

[Sorina S]

Actually Gidan the suit has everything to do with that. The guy is claiming that because the mother has the choice of becoming a parent by virtue of her being a woman and having a choice to either deliver, or abort the baby. That he should have the same rights.

Wrong answer. Once concieved a man has no rights to dictate the outcome. That's a law of nature. You can debate it with laws of man for 9 months but you know, well you know what.

And Ahsly the only thing a win for this guy will do is reduce the sale of condoms. Don't gimme this bull how women are havin babies for child support. Most guys don't even pay it.

If you feel the need to get busi then have your control in order. It's not that hard to do. This dude Dubay mabey making the morning talk show rounds now but he'll be pay 500 bux a month long after we all forgot his name, trust me.

[Gidan]

Where did he claim he should have the right to force her to have an abortion? He doesn't want to be financially responsible for a child of a women who he claimed said she couldn't get pregnant due to a physical condition.

Should a man be able to detemin the outcome of a pregnancy? Of course not, a man should never be able to force a woman to have an abortion. However, he shouldn't be required to be financially responsible for it as long as he completely give up his rights as a parent.

And you say it will lower the sale of condoms? Maybe the women will not have sex with the men without condoms if they dont want a child. Their are 2 people involved in this, 1 is required to take responsibility, the other is not. This is about equality, their is none today.

[Sorina S]

No I didn't say that he wanted to 'force' her to have an abortion. What he's saying is that because 'she' has the right to decide whether or not to be a parent (by vitrue of her legal right to abortion) that 'he' should have that same right. Wrong answer.

It defies natural laws. Once you make a woman preggers boys, you're screwed. The fact that a woman has the right to abort the natural process has nothing to do with you. If the child comes term and is born, guess what, you're the daddy, pay up.

I would be stunned and amazed if any court anywhere held that a father would be held harmless of paternety by virtue of a woman choosing to have his child even though she had the right to choose to abort. It's a different kettle of fish.

[Gidan]

No I didn't say that he wanted to 'force' her to have an abortion. What he's saying is that because 'she' has the right to decide whether or not to be a parent (by vitrue of her legal right to abortion) that 'he' should have that same right. Wrong answer.

It defies natural laws. Once you make a woman preggers boys, you're screwed. The fact that a woman has the right to abort the natural process has nothing to do with you. If the child comes term and is born, guess what, you're the daddy, pay up.

I would be stunned and amazed if any court anywhere held that a father would be held harmless of paternety by virtue of a woman choosing to have his child even though she had the right to choose to abort. It's a different kettle of fish.

In other words, your in favor of unequality. You think womens should have more rights then men when it comes to children. Women should have the right to do anything and everything in their power to get pregnant inorder to force men to pay.

Let me ask you this. Whats the harm in allowing men to give up their rights as a father in return for not having to be finacially responsible as long as its done before the woman is beyond the point that she can have an abortion?

[Sorina S]

No dude, it still takes one man and one woman to procreate. That's natural equality...use it wisely. Make sense?

The harm is that more babies than there are now, and it's alot, would have no legal fathers. It's not a good thing man. The laws aren't written to protect the mother or the father, they're written to protect the child. And that's what's missin from your argument.

It's a womans choice after conception, but it's an equal choice before. There's equality man, don't kid yourself.

[Gidan]

No dude, it still takes one man and one woman to procreate. That's natural equality...use it wisely. Make sense?

The harm is that more babies than there are now, and it's alot, would have no legal fathers. It's not a good thing man. The laws aren't written to protect the mother or the father, they're written to protect the child. And that's what's missin from your argument.

It's a womans choice after conception, but it's an equal choice before. There's equality man, don't kid yourself.

Their may or may not be more babies. Actually I think there would be less. You would have far fewer women who would allow them self to become pregnant if they knew they might have to raise that child with no help from the man, and there is nothing they could do to force him. And the idea that the laws are there to protect the child is BS in today’s world. That may have been the intent but it is not the result. Just look at custody, how often is a father given full custody even when they are by far the better choice?

Also, learn the definition of equality. "It's a woman’s choice after conception", that’s not equality, that’s 1 person having more power then the other. Its equal choice to have sex, but not equal once the deed is done.

I personally would never give up my right as father of a child, I would gladly pay child support for that child, and though I would do everything in my power to make sure that child actually benefits from that money. I have however known girls who made comments about just needing to get pregnant, they would have him. The laws are what give people ideas like this. The fact that a woman has the power to force a man to either merry or pay her simply by coercing someone to have sex is horrible. No man can every force a woman to become a mother or pay him (as they shouldn’t), however women have that power and something should be done about it

[Sorina S]

Oh you little pisser gonna school me on the definition of equality are ya? Listen you motherfuckin piece of irreverent shit, the only power a pregnent woman has is over the life of her unborn child. RvW as it is now protects that right by virtue of a woman's right to have personal control over her bodily functions, i.e pregnency.

You think fewer women would 'allow' themselves to become pregnent. That's a laughable statement my man, how bout fewer men would 'allow' themselves to become fathers? Check your stats man, men don't pay child support in earnest and many women don't even know who the father is.

I told you the definition of equality a long time ago. No law, no convention, no twisted morality can change the simple law of of nature. You are correct, you have equal choice at the time of conception, after that, it's all about the child. Which you continue to ignore.

[Harrison]

This bitch makes me raff

[Samboa]

I think in a lot of cases it is more the women forcing the men to become fathers. Sex requires two people, and the decision to abort a baby should come from both people, who participated equally. We all know that men won't ever have the chance to make a decision regarding abortion, therefore they should get their choice about being the legal father and paying child support.

[Gidan]

Oh you little pisser gonna school me on the definition of equality are ya? Listen you motherfuckin piece of irreverent shit, the only power a pregnent woman has is over the life of her unborn child. RvW as it is now protects that right by virtue of a woman's right to have personal control over her bodily functions, i.e pregnency.

The only power she has is over the life of the unborn child? What world do you live in? She has the power to determin if she wants to be a mother or not. She has the power to determin if the father will become a mother or not. Also, this isn't about taking the power over her bodily functions away.

You think fewer women would 'allow' themselves to become pregnent. That's a laughable statement my man, how bout fewer men would 'allow' themselves to become fathers? Check your stats man, men don't pay child support in earnest and many women don't even know who the father is.

If a woman doesn't know who the father of her child is, whos fault is that? If you present women with the situation that they go into sex knowing full well that if they get pregnant they may be responsible for 100% of the responsibility and they still choose to have sex, then its their responsibility. They can still choose to abort, they can still choose adoption, they can still choose to raise the child alone.

I told you the definition of equality a long time ago. No law, no convention, no twisted morality can change the simple law of of nature. You are correct, you have equal choice at the time of conception, after that, it's all about the child. Which you continue to ignore.

Yet our laws still dont give a shit about the child. This also has nothing to do with nature, its purely about equality. Up to conception if takes 2 people. From conception to the point where abortion is no longer an option the woman has ALL the power. From that point on the power to make decision is not all on the womans side, though the majority of it still is.

Since you still dont see to understand the word equal so here

Equal - Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

This issue is about being equal not only in conception, but in what results from conception. Right now, that is not what you have, their is no argument that you can make that prove the rights of men and women post conception are equal because they are not, not even close.

[Sorina S]

Oh you little pisser gonna school me on the definition of equality are ya? Listen you motherfuckin piece of irreverent shit, the only power a pregnent woman has is over the life of her unborn child. RvW as it is now protects that right by virtue of a woman's right to have personal control over her bodily functions, i.e pregnency.

The only power she has is over the life of the unborn child? What world do you live in? She has the power to determin if she wants to be a mother or not. She has the power to determin if the father will become a mother or not. Also, this isn't about taking the power over her bodily functions away.

~I live in the real world pal. I live in a world where birth control is as accessible as candy bars. I live in a world where pregnancy as far as the law is concerned is considered a biological condition. I live in a world where a persons rights to treat that condition as they see fit should be unencumbered.

You think fewer women would 'allow' themselves to become pregnent. That's a laughable statement my man, how bout fewer men would 'allow' themselves to become fathers? Check your stats man, men don't pay child support in earnest and many women don't even know who the father is.

If a woman doesn't know who the father of her child is, whos fault is that? If you present women with the situation that they go into sex knowing full well that if they get pregnant they may be responsible for 100% of the responsibility and they still choose to have sex, then its their responsibility. They can still choose to abort, they can still choose adoption, they can still choose to raise the child alone.

~Fault? Well it's even steven you wanna play you might have to pay. This goes directly to my point. "They" don't choose to abort. That's not a choice for a man. If you're a man you had your chance to choose, after that, you've reliquished your rights to the outcome.

I told you the definition of equality a long time ago. No law, no convention, no twisted morality can change the simple law of of nature. You are correct, you have equal choice at the time of conception, after that, it's all about the child. Which you continue to ignore.

Yet our laws still dont give a shit about the child. This also has nothing to do with nature, its purely about equality. Up to conception if takes 2 people. From conception to the point where abortion is no longer an option the woman has ALL the power. From that point on the power to make decision is not all on the womans side, though the majority of it still is.

Since you still dont see to understand the word equal so here

Equal - Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

This issue is about being equal not only in conception, but in what results from conception. Right now, that is not what you have, their is no argument that you can make that prove the rights of men and women post conception are equal because they are not, not even close.

~And you make my point right there. Equal in this instance is having the choice to concieve, or not. Both parties have at their disposal many methods of choosing whether or not to do this. That's your moment of equality, after that you own it. And as far as the courts not being interested in child welfare, I'm guessing you're never seen a family court proceeding.

I said it in the beginning, if you don't want her to have your baby don't stick your dick in her. Once the biological process has begun, you are no longer equal, you are now, responsible. And that's the way it should be.

I'm all for fathers rights and if the question at hand were different you might be suprised just how strongly I feel about them. But this question is obvious. This guy is asking for relief because he doesn't have the same rights as the mother under RvW. That's simply absurd. A child was born, he is the father and therefore responsible til the day he dies. Nuff said~

Anyways sorry to bump this so late I been down Florida all week. Happy St. Pats~

[Diekan]

Here's an idea... keep your legs closed, and keep it in your pants and stop pretending like sex is oohhh so important to life (besides reproduction) and maybe JUST maybe you wont need an abortion.