Men's Rights in an Unplanned Pregnancy

[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."

[Easy Mac]

I agree that its a bit unfair that the system is set up to where men have absolutely no say in what's going on... but if you don't want it, don't do it... it is that simple.

[Airhog]

I find the concept of this fairly interesting. I think even if it was possible for a man to opt-out of paying, it would be very difficult for the man to prove that.

[Drake]

Heh. Yeah, that ought to be fun. It's about damned time.

I agree that its a bit unfair that the system is set up to where men have absolutely no say in what's going on... but if you don't want it, don't do it... it is that simple.

I agree with this totally...as long as it applies to both men and women.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I agree that its a bit unfair that the system is set up to where men have absolutely no say in what's going on... but if you don't want it, don't do it... it is that simple.

Just out of curiousity - are you pro choice or pro life? As a pro lifer, I totally agree with you...if you don't want to deal with the possible consequences, don't have sex...but if you are pro choice then that statement makes you sound fairly hypocritical.

[Easy Mac]

i think abortion is ultimately the woman's choice. If she wants the baby, she should keep it, if she doesn't she should give it up. I may not think the later way is correct, but that's not a choice I feel I should make for a woman. I don't find the statements hypocritical at all. its not nearly the cut and dried black white issue people want to make it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

i think abortion is ultimately the woman's choice. If she wants the baby, she should keep it, if she doesn't she should give it up. I may not think the later way is correct, but that's not a choice I feel I should make for a woman. I don't find the statements hypocritical at all. its not nearly the cut and dried black white issue people want to make it.

Well why do we tell women that they have a choice with an unplanned pregnancy, but when men, we say, if you didn't want to pay, you shouldn't have had sex? It seems the same thing can be said to women, right?

Of course, this can't allowed to be abused (such as the parent saying they don't want the kid at birth, but later on wanting visitation rights). The man should decide before the birth and then have absolutely NO rights to the child unless the mother allows him to adopt the child later on.

[Franklinnoble]

I think this lawsuit is a bad idea, and I expect it to fail miserably.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I think this lawsuit is a bad idea, and I expect it to fail miserably.

I agree with you that it will most likely fail, but why do you think it's a bad idea?

[ISiddiqui]

I think it's a brilliant idea. It raises the issue. But yeah, it probably will fail.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well why do we tell women that they have a choice with an unplanned pregnancy, but when men, we say, if you didn't want to pay, you shouldn't have had sex? It seems the same thing can be said to women, right?

Of course, this can't allowed to be abused (such as the parent saying they don't want the kid at birth, but later on wanting visitation rights). The man should decide before the birth and then have absolutely NO rights to the child unless the mother allows him to adopt the child later on.

I don't think abortion should be an excuse for sex, but its better than a coat hanger. I wouldn't mind just throwing a scarlett Slut on her shirt if she wanted an abortion. In the end, its not the man's body that's having to deal with it. Its not that hard for a guy to disappear or not pay, guys do it all the time. However, I also think this situation for the lawsuit is a bit different than two college kids fucking (since she specifically said she can't get pregnant, though he's a dipshit for just saying ok.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I don't think abortion should be an excuse for sex, but its better than a coat hanger. I wouldn't mind just throwing a scarlett Slut on her shirt if she wanted an abortion. In the end, its not the man's body that's having to deal with it. Its not that hard for a guy to disappear or not pay, guys do it all the time. However, I also think this situation for the lawsuit is a bit different than two college kids fucking (since she specifically said she can't get pregnant, though he's a dipshit for just saying ok.

No, it isn't the man's body, but it is part of his paycheck for 18 years. That's a substantial amount. It may not be hard for a guy to be a deadbeat, but that isn't something that is... promoted in our society. These guys want a legal choice for men.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well why do we tell women that they have a choice with an unplanned pregnancy, but when men, we say, if you didn't want to pay, you shouldn't have had sex? It seems the same thing can be said to women, right?

That is an excellent point. But, I think this lawsuit, and the 'equality' being sought, is total horseshit.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by duckman

I agree with you that it will most likely fail, but why do you think it's a bad idea?

Because thousands of NBA groupies will be out of jobs. Instead they'll have to sleep with the poor guy down the street. This will lead to more poor children and the world will be worse for it.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, it isn't the man's body, but it is part of his paycheck for 18 years. That's a substantial amount. It may not be hard for a guy to be a deadbeat, but that isn't something that is... promoted in our society. These guys want a legal choice for men.

He should have thought about that first.

[clintl]

Condoms are cheap.

[Joe]

men have the right to not fuck everything that moves. be smart and it wont happen.

[Drake]

The moral of this story:

Never believe a woman when she says she's incapable of having children. It's amazing to me the number of women who seem to believe this that later turn out to have children just fine.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

He should have thought about that first.

She should have thought of that first. Ban Abortion. Forget her if she can't do personal responsibilty. What? No?

[Drake]

Oh well, if this doesn't pass, men can always go back to the "punch your girlfriend in the stomach until she miscarries" method since it's just a lump of tissue (rather than an honest-to-God baby) for the first several weeks.

Oh wait, a bunch of states have decided that it *is* a baby when it comes to assault on the mother, but not a baby under any other circumstances. So we don't even have that anymore.

At least there's still the "accidentally" push her down the stairs option.

[lungs]

And who wants to use a condom? That's like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, it'll fail horribly..but at least it's being brought up..because no matter how you slice it, the current system is a joke.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

men have the right to not fuck everything that moves. be smart and it wont happen.

Originally Posted by clintl

Condoms are cheap.

True on both counts.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

True on both counts.

I don't think anybody is arguing with these points. It's not the facts we're at odds with, but the inherent silliness of the current system.

The same system that still believes that in cases of divorce the mother should get custody 90-something percent of the time.

[oykib]

I've been waiting for a lawsuit like this to happen for a while, as well. It does seem inherently unfair to me.

To say that a woman should have control of her own body is reasonable. To say that she should be able to impact someone else's income for 18 years is something else entirely.

The current system doesn't really stand up. The woman is making an independant decision, therefore she should be independant provided the man 'opts out'.

In this particular case, it seems that we could go so far as to charge her with fraud. After all, we are talking about over $100,000 here.

[Anthony]

i think the moral of the story is to travel to a nearby state and have random unprotected sex with total strangers, using an alias. if the woman gets pregnant, you'll be long gone by then.

[Schmidty]

I have a 4-year old daughter who I love more than life itself, who was a product of an unplanned pregnancy from a drug-using, abusive, alchohlic scumbucket. If he had been given the right, he would have killed my daughter in less than a heartbeat.

If this law were to be passed, the evil would outweigh the good. Yes, I said "evil". Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, this is an awful idea.

[Schmidty]

Dola.

This was my 2 cents. This subject is too emotional for me, so I will only observe, but I will NOT reply.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I have a 4-year old daughter who I love more than life itself, who was a product of an unplanned pregnancy from a drug-using, abusive, alchohlic scumbucket. If he had been given the right, he would have killed my daughter in less than a heartbeat.

If this law were to be passed, the evil would outweigh the good. Yes, I said "evil". Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, this is an awful idea.

Schmidty, I don't think the idea is to let the man choose to have the child killed. I don't think anybody would support that.

I think the idea is that if the man doesn't want any part of the pregnancy, he can opt out financially.

That's not to say that it's a GOOD idea, only that I don't think they're putting the scalpel directly in the father's hands there.

[WVUFAN]

The core of this issue is that a baby is the result of BOTH the man and the woman, and both should have decision-making power as to that child. When the mother chooses to have a child over the objections of the father, the father should have the right not to have to pay for it financially. That way the mother makes her choice, and the father has one too. To me, this is only fair.

[sterlingice]

I dunno, I think this easily breaks down into a pretty simple 4-part square:

The first two are easy-
Man does want baby, woman does want baby: They have kid
Man doesn't wants baby, woman doesn't want baby: They have abortion

The other two are where things get messy but frankly, it's unfair as it is and I think this new idea is much more fair-
Man does want baby, woman doesn't want baby: Her body, her abortion
Man doesn't want baby, woman does want baby: He doesn't have to support it

And I'm not talking about "guy who doesn't want to raise kid but wants visitation or something". I'm talking about "I didn't want a kid, you said you couldn't have a kid, I shouldn't have to pay for a kid" like this case is talking about. I think if you're willing to sleep with a person (and I'm sure this is where my naivete comes in), there is a level of trust built up to the point where you don't think a person would lie about this. If the guy wants nothing to do with the kid but she does, then if she wants the kid, then he shouldn't be obligated to pay for said kid. I'm sorry, but as much as everyone wants to say "it's the woman, it's her body", the minute she decided to have sex with the guy, she gave up some of those rights and the system should recognize that.

SI

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think if you're willing to sleep with a person (and I'm sure this is where my naivete comes in), there is a level of trust built up to the point where you don't think a person would lie about this.

That made me laugh out loud!

[Young Drachma]

I know lots of scenarios in which women will sleep with men, knowing full well said individual has absolutely no interest in having a kid. When said woman gets pregnant and the dude comes back and says 'well, you know where I stand.' The woman says, "Well, you knew where I did too and by having sex with me, you consented because you knew this could've happened."

Most of society agrees with that, despite all the subsequent damage it does to the kid. After all, I wonder what happens to these "unwanted" children that parents who don't "want" them and (do the responsible thing) and pay for them...like, what do they feel? And how does that affect their relationship with said kid?

I mean, you hear about absent fathers on TV all the time. But, I wonder if it's better to have a father around who despises a kid for a decision the kid's mother makes...versus an absent parent who financially supports, but wants nothing else to do with said child.

I dunno. It's such a complicated issue, but I don't know that I think the current way of doing things works or is fair.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I know lots of scenarios in which women will sleep with men, knowing full well said individual has absolutely no interest in having a kid. When said woman gets pregnant and the dude comes back and says 'well, you know where I stand.' The woman says, "Well, you knew where I did too and by having sex with me, you consented because you knew this could've happened."

Most of society agrees with that, despite all the subsequent damage it does to the kid. After all, I wonder what happens to these "unwanted" children that parents who don't "want" them and (do the responsible thing) and pay for them...like, what do they feel? And how does that affect their relationship with said kid?

I mean, you hear about absent fathers on TV all the time. But, I wonder if it's better to have a father around who despises a kid for a decision the kid's mother makes...versus an absent parent who financially supports, but wants nothing else to do with said child.

I dunno. It's such a complicated issue, but I don't know that I think the current way of doing things works or is fair.

I disagree with the idea that it's complicated. It's quite simple. You make an independant decision and you're independantly responsible. No one else should have to pay because you watched a little too much Murphy Brown.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm very interested in reading more about this and how it turns out - but strangely enough from the opposite perspective, I have always felt it unfair for a pregnant woman to get an abortion without the consent of the father to be.

If a father has to provide responsibility when a child is borne then he should surely have some say in whether his embryo is killed or not? - something along the lines of if he wanted the child and the mother didn't then he gets custody and the mother is exempt but has to pay child support.

PS> Yeah I'm pro-life, you might have guessed ... I've never been particularly good at being PC

[Raiders Army]

Finally some equal rights for men.

[Qwikshot]

Why is it that there is so much emphasis on a woman's choice to keep/give up for adoption/ or abort?

I think men have been painted negatively over the years when it comes to parental issues. I am in my own quandry because I help my ex-gf (who is now remarried) with her 5 year old. My "daughter" does not know that I am not her real father. Yet I have no parental rights to this child, should my ex and her husband decide to terminate any offered visitation then I will have to accept because legally within the law I am nothing. Even though I was there for her 5 months before she was born, ultrasounds, the birth itself and everything afterwards (up to 3 years with her mom and now every other weekend). I buy clothes and toys, provide guidance and love. The birth father (to my knowledge) has never expressed any interest in reconnecting (or ever connecting for that matter), and the new husband has expressed no desire to formally adopt. Thus my daughter is in limbo when it comes to a father's rights, she is basically under her mother's right.

This is fine to me because I still get the opportunity to see her, but I have no rights to taking her to the doctor or dentist, or enrolling her in school. I also do not have to pay child support.

This is my situation and I'm fine with it, I accept.

But I would think that if Zia were my child I would have severe reservations with everything.

I think that just because a mother gives birth to a child does not give her full rights to decide it's fate. There should be an agreement on whatever choice by both the father and mother, or between their lawyers. This should be binding by law. A father cannot opt out once the child is born, A mother cannot abort if expressed agreement to give birth.

My ex won't give me guardianship because she does not want to give up parental rights even though I privately question her intentions when raising Zia; such as the fact that Zia is five and hasn't been to the doctor for completion of vaccinations, she only took Zia to the dentist for the first time in February but really because she (the mom) had tooth pain and wanted it cared for (never mind the fact that Zia has milkrot and I had expressed concern and a need to see the dentist at least two years prior for her), Zia has no preschool training and there is still a question of whether or not she'll be properly enrolled for kindergarten. These seem to be trivial matters to my ex concerning Zia.

However should I voice them it could lead to termination of visitation.

Such is my life.

If a guy decides he doesn't want to be a dad, he should be able to do so with minimal cost.

To me the main issue is that women get to have their cake and eat it too; instead of a system of equality which is what I thought we were going for in the first place.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well why do we tell women that they have a choice with an unplanned pregnancy, but when men, we say, if you didn't want to pay, you shouldn't have had sex? It seems the same thing can be said to women, right?

Of course, this can't allowed to be abused (such as the parent saying they don't want the kid at birth, but later on wanting visitation rights). The man should decide before the birth and then have absolutely NO rights to the child unless the mother allows him to adopt the child later on.

Exactly.

I dislike men versus women discussions, but in this situation it always feels kinda weird to me to hear how laws/concensus always seem to favor women. Granted, the man isn't 'sacrificing' his body, but he didn't choose to be the man of the couple.

I've heard from a situation where a girl got pregnant, the guy didn't want to be a parent at his age, but took responsibility and wanted to support it. The girl didn't want it, she wanted to have the baby as her 'Barbie doll'. A couple of years later, the girl has gone crazy, she turns out to be unable to be a good parent and now the kid is growing up with it's father. I know, it's just one example, but concerning birth and parenting, men are the ones discriminated over their sexe, not women, unlike in most of any other daily life situations.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

To me the main issue is that women get to have their cake and eat it too; instead of a system of equality which is what I thought we were going for in the first place.

Right on the money.

[IwasHere]

Currently there are 2 forms of male birth control "pills" aproved by the World Health Organization on the market in foreign countries.

But, none are even close to cracking the Politcal female barrior here in the United States, so no major US Drug Pharmacy will touch them.

[Telle]

For me, the bottom line is that a woman gets to make decisions about her body. Yes, the biology is unfair in that it's always the woman that gets pregnant and never the man and so it's always her making decisions about her body and never him making decisions about his.. but there's not a whole hell of a lot that can be done about that now is there.

However, I think when a baby is born, the law should try to make things as equal as possible. If the mother does not want the baby, the father should be granted custody (if he wants it) and the mother should have to pay child support. Also, the father should be able to make a case to get custody in the first place even if the mother wants to keep the baby herself.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Telle

For me, the bottom line is that a woman gets to make decisions about her body. Yes, the biology is unfair in that it's always the woman that gets pregnant and never the man and so it's always her making decisions about her body and never him making decisions about his.. but there's not a whole hell of a lot that can be done about that now is there.

However, I think when a baby is born, the law should try to make things as equal as possible. If the mother does not want the baby, the father should be granted custody (if he wants it) and the mother should have to pay child support. Also, the father should be able to make a case to get custody in the first place even if the mother wants to keep the baby herself.

Barring rape or incest, a woman has control of her body when she has sex and from there has made the judgement to grant risk of pregnancy (whether or not contraception was used). She deemed the man worthy to have sex with, therefore he now has a say in the repurcussions that go along with it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by IwasHere

Currently there are 2 forms of male birth control "pills" aproved by the World Health Organization on the market in foreign countries.

But, none are even close to cracking the Politcal female barrior here in the United States, so no major US Drug Pharmacy will touch them.

Explain this better?

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

[Young Drachma]

I'm presuming that if this precedent was established, most folks here would not want there to be a grandfathered clause related to this, but instead that it would only apply to people who get in this predicament afterwards?

Or would lots of people have a modicum of recourse?

[thrym]

In a word, the current Child Support Enforcement System is Punitive.

If you are ordered to pay support you are basically being ‘fined’ for a single action(or inaction if you want to call it that) for the next 18+ years…some states have extended support out to the age of 25 if the child goes to college.

The fact is, once pregnant; the Woman has three choices, a)to have b)not have or c) give away). The man has two a) pay or b) take away). The third option a man has c)to run, is not a legal option.

To argue that CSE is fair, that it treats the “supporter” fairly is absolutely absurd.

This conversation is long over due, IMO.

Also, help me here. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a fine that is processed as a recurring fine. No single action ever gets fined multiple times for the same single action. Fined for speeding, drug possession or a gun charge…all one time fines. You might be ordered to make payments and charged interest but if you ponied up the cash, you could pay it all in one lump sum.

Try multiplying your support by the month and then the years and try to ‘settle’ with the CSE people. You’ll get your payments increased is what will happen! Its really about punishing the man(or woman in a few cases) for an IMMORAL action. I just wish they would come out and admit it.

[Subby]

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.

I am ashamed for my team.

[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?

[Raiders Army]

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?

If the father can prove that he told the mother he didn't want a child and that she told him that she was barren, and then she decided to have the child against his wishes, the mother should support the child. The state should not. If the mother wanted the child so badly, but cannot solely provide for that child, then she should give the child up for adoption. Seems simple to me.

I want a bunch of new stuff for my house, but I didn't get it and then ask the state for help.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If the father can prove that he told the mother he didn't want a child and that she told him that she was barren, and then she decided to have the child against his wishes, the mother should support the child. The state should not. If the mother wanted the child so badly, but cannot solely provide for that child, then she should give the child up for adoption. Seems simple to me.

I want a bunch of new stuff for my house, but I didn't get it and then ask the state for help.

Ok, but what about the "normal" situation where children either weren't discussed or both sides were open about not wanting them and then contraception was either not used per agreement of both parties or the contraception failed?

I can definately see an argument for the case where the man was deliberately lied to. The most outrageous incident of this was when a woman, after divorcing her husband, used frozen embryos that they had created while married and got herself pregnant without his consent.. and then he was made to pay child support.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Telle

Ok, but what about the "normal" situation where children either weren't discussed or both sides were open about not wanting them and then contraception was either not used per agreement of both parties or the contraception failed?

I'll tackle these two separately, beginning with the latter:

If both sides did not want then and then the contraception failed or was not used, then the father should still have a choice in whether he wants to pay for the birth/child support. This is because there was an understanding that they both didn't want a child and then the mother changed her mind when she became pregnant.

If both the mother and father did not discuss this issue, then it's a little more grey, but the father should still have a choice. It wouldn't make a difference if it was a one-night stand where that wasn't on their minds or if it was a long-term relationship. No ground rules should default to giving both parents a choice in the matter.

In either case, if both the mother and father want an abortion, then the father should be obligated to pay for half of the costs associated.