Men's Rights in an Unplanned Pregnancy

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

child support is neither a 'fine' nor a 'punishment.' Children, whether wanted or not, have to be supported. Should the state support them?

That's my issue with this idea, too. The kids aren't going to be magically taken care of. Fathering a child is a big deal, and I don't think you can just say "I called dibbs on not paying!" Choosing whether or not to be a part of the kid's life personally is one thing, but financially, I don't think so.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I've been advocating this for a while, so I'm glad a group has taken this up! Now there is no chance they'll win, but I wish them success!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fa...cnn_topstories

Men want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy

Activists seek right to decline financial responsibility for kids



Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 7:41 p.m. EST (00:41 GMT)

Matt Dubay contends his ex-girlfriend assured him she was unable to get pregnant.

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."

Agree with this 100%. If a man doesn't want to have a child and the woman "duped" him, he shouldn't be responsible for it.

[IwasHere]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Explain this better?

They won't offer them here because women oppose it?

The World Health Organization is promoting these male Birth Control "Pills", although their first choice are shots, to 3rd world countries everywhere.


None of these drugs are currently FDA aproved to be used as a male birth control. And, I doubt the women in this country will ever allow it.

These pills would cause women to lose their right to choose. If a man could just pop a pill and end his chance of getting a woman pregnant, women woud lose all of their power when it comes to pregnancy. You can't hide a condom, so right now a women is in complete control when it comes to her getting pregnant.


The W.H.O. has been using Male Birth Control for over a decade in 3rd world countries to control population growth.

[Rockstar]

You could just have 10 kids right away so when this situation comes up you can just say "take a number".......

No, seriously, if a guy fathers a child by any means, then he should be required to pay support for the child. The bigger problem I have seen with the "choice of parentship" issue is the ripoff that is child support. No judge orders moms to provide recipts for the money that is being spent on the child. This of course should be after the amount allowed for housing. It embitters men to the point that they dont pay.
The point before about not trusting any woman who says she cant have kids is right on. Its not true 99% of the time. I am on the side of if you are the parent of a born child (your the dad OR mom) then you either adopt the child out or provide for that child.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by IwasHere

The World Health Organization is promoting these male Birth Control "Pills", although their first choice are shots, to 3rd world countries everywhere.


None of these drugs are currently FDA aproved to be used as a male birth control. And, I doubt the women in this country will ever allow it.

These pills would cause women to lose their right to choose. If a man could just pop a pill and end his chance of getting a woman pregnant, women woud lose all of their power when it comes to pregnancy. You can't hide a condom, so right now a women is in complete control when it comes to her getting pregnant.


The W.H.O. has been using Male Birth Control for over a decade in 3rd world countries to control population growth.

I can see the mass flood of paternity suits now. "Your honor, my client is not the father. He cannot release healthy active sperm. Its our point of view, your honor, that the plantiff is clearly a ho."

[IwasHere]

The male birth controll pill would alow men to do the same thing women are doing right now....Lie about rather they are on the Pill or Not.

How many Ho's out there right now are telling men they are on the pill when they are not, just so they can trap a man?

In a man's case you would take the Pill and then lie to your money grubbing Ho and claim that you were not taking the Pill.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The bigger problem I have seen with the "choice of parentship" issue is the ripoff that is child support. No judge orders moms to provide recipts for the money that is being spent on the child. This of course should be after the amount allowed for housing. It embitters men to the point that they dont pay.

That's because, as far as I know and I may be wrong, that the amont of child support paid is entirely based on the income of the person paying child support, and not how much it is costing to raise the child.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by sabotai

That's because, as far as I know and I may be wrong, that the amont of child support paid is entirely based on the income of the person paying child support, and not how much it is costing to raise the child.

Which is a huge flaw in how child support should be figured. It should be what the average cost to clothe and feed a child at a given age range plus 1/2 of the daycare. It should be updated once the child moves out of that given age range. Instead, fathers are giving up to half of their pre-taxable income.

Right now, I'm giving 1/4 of my income to my son's mother and will giving up more once we go to trial in May. I should be responsible for paying for the care of my son, but I shouldn't be dropped below the poverty level. I can't even buy a decent car because I don't have the means to while my ex is able to make a house payment and drive a new car.

The system is broke and it needs fixing.

[IwasHere]

How much should the custody part play into it?

If the child's mother is with it 90% of the time, then I think the child's father should have to pay 90% of the Bills. This would include putting a roof over your child's head, and letting the child live the same Lifestyle as the father.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by IwasHere

How much should the custody part play into it?

If the child's mother is with it 90% of the time, then I think the child's father should have to pay 90% of the Bills. This would include putting a roof over your child's head, and letting the child live the same Lifestyle as the father.

That's absurd. Because the fallacy is, the child isn't living the lifestyle of the father because 1) the child is with the mother and 2) the father has nothing left FOR a lifestyle, creating resentment where there might have been any, not to mention adding stress to a situation that is far more complicated than saying "you must do this, because she raises the kid."

[duckman]

Originally Posted by IwasHere

How much should the custody part play into it?

If the child's mother is with it 90% of the time, then I think the child's father should have to pay 90% of the Bills. This would include putting a roof over your child's head, and letting the child live the same Lifestyle as the father.

That idea is stupid. In reality, there is no way you can split the time equally between parents with school schedules running 9 months in a year. What about those mothers that move their children out of state and the father can't get equal time? They should be punished because they don't follow their ex's like puppy dogs?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

That's absurd. Because the fallacy is, the child isn't living the lifestyle of the father because 1) the child is with the mother and 2) the father has nothing left FOR a lifestyle, creating resentment where there might have been any, not to mention adding stress to a situation that is far more complicated than saying "you must do this, because she raises the kid."

Case in point, one of my former workers was married. They got divorced, she got remarried. The mother and son live four hours from the father who got a decent job. And the frustration he goes through...he lives in a garage, he has to work constant overtime, he barely see his son because the mother refuses to bring him down, even then the father barely has any place for them to play, he's lonely because he has to work to pay support.

He was ready to just stop seeing his son because he's so frustrated and full of despair trying to be involved...he'd rather just pay the support.

That's just wrong, and while it isn't the norm, it happens.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by duckman

Which is a huge flaw in how child support should be figured. It should be what the average cost to clothe and feed a child at a given age range plus 1/2 of the daycare. It should be updated once the child moves out of that given age range. Instead, fathers are giving up to half of their pre-taxable income.

Right now, I'm giving 1/4 of my income to my son's mother and will giving up more once we go to trial in May. I should be responsible for paying for the care of my son, but I shouldn't be dropped below the poverty level. I can't even buy a decent car because I don't have the means to while my ex is able to make a house payment and drive a new car.

The system is broke and it needs fixing.

Keep us updated on that story in your thread. Still have that battle axe lawyer who is helping you?

SI

[duckman]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Keep us updated on that story in your thread. Still have that battle axe lawyer who is helping you?

SI

Yes, she's still on the case. I'm little unhappy with her right now.

You're right. I haven't been keeping regular updates. I'll do that now.

[Solecismic]

Unless a man has the right to deny or force an abortion on a woman, he should not have to pay in this case.

Any child growing up without two stable parents is in for a rougher ride. It has very little to do with money. A child needs a consistent presence encouraging its moral development, and that's difficult without more influence at home.

Women want equality today. I agree 100%. It's time the laws reflect equality. Since it's unrealistic to expect a woman to have or not to have a legal abortion based on the wishes of a boyfriend or even a husband, it should be equally unrealistic to expect him to support the child in this instance.

People are going to have sex. I don't see anything wrong with that - it's some strange Puritan artifact of America's heritage that so many of us are utterly consumed with who is having sex and who isn't.

Since the woman has to carry the baby, it has to be her choice, too, to support it alone if the man does not want to be a parent. With the pregnancy decision also comes a financial decision. If you feel abortion is wrong, then, as a woman, you absolutely must either abstain from sex or use reliable birth control methods if you are having sex outside of marriage.

I know many people reading this response are going to say "why should a guy be able to stick it wherever he wants without consequences?"

I disagree. There are always consequences. But since the woman carries the baby to term, he has very different decisions to make. There's a clear double-standard, and that's necessary in an equal world given the physical situation.