Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy

[Gunslinger]

Wooohoooo men have "activists" now.  I wonder if they will become menanists.

Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 6:52 a.m. EST (11:52 GMT)


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

Manage Alerts | What Is This? 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."

[LePaul]

I read this in the local paper a few days ago.  It was buried beyond the sports section.

My take on this is "Uh huh, keep reaching".

[Urchin]

A fiscal abortion?

[rpm]

Financial responsability starts with buying a box of Trojans.

[Suave]

Never trust a woman when it comes to birth control. Women are crazy, sooner or later they all want to get pregnant, and that will allways be a higher priority for them than a man's trust or respect.

What the hell is holding up the birth control pill for men ?

[DREDIOCK]

See I have no problem with men activists.
If men want to have the right to tell a woman she cant have an abortion.
They should also have the right to absolve themselves from all financial responcability if she insists on giving birth.

It should work both ways or men should just STFU on the issue

Personally I've yet to meet a woman whom a man could get to do or not do much of anything she didnt already decide to before hand.

You got her pregnant
You didnt want her to have a kid yet she had it anyway and now you are responcable for it. Well Tough chit. Your outa luck. You dont have the right to tell a woman not to have a kid.
Like someone else said. shoulda thought about that ahead of time before you doinked her


But Also,
 
You got her pregnant
You wanted the kid, She didnt and aborted it.
Again. Tough watermelon on you.
You dont have the right to force her to have a kid she doesnt want.
You shoulda thought about that too ahead of time and made sure she wanted to have a kid with you before you doinked her.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by rpm
Financial responsability starts with buying a box of Trojans.

True, but the girlfriend still defrauded the boyfriend.

 I for one support such men's rights movements, and it's a long time coming.  If women have full control over thier reproductive capabilities, they should accept full responsibility.

No taxation, without representation!!!....or something like that.

[dynamt]

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 from NOW.  "It's about the rights of the child."

I thought rhey said it was about the womans body and her right to choose.

[Sandman]

If the SC overturns Roe v Wade, the point is moot.

Women have the right to choose abortion. Seems only fair that men should have the right to choose one as well.

It all sounds well and good just as long as the women isn't forced to go to term simply because the father wants the child.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by dynamt
This from NOW.  "It's about the rights of the child."

I thought rhey said it was about the womans body and her right to choose.

It is up until the point of viability, at least in my books.  The rights of the child though is bull**** smokescreen, once again in my books.  If the mother is deciding alone  to give birth to the, without the father having any say than it should be her sole responsibility to bear any burden that having that child might entail.

The law apparently likes father to pay for that decision by the mother.  Because, you know women are helpless or whatnot.  It's a blast arguing this stuff with feminazis.

All these laws do is help to destroy the fabric of nuclear, let alone extended families.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Sandman
It all sounds well and good just as long as the women isn't forced to go to term simply because the father wants the child.

No need to force the woman to do anything.  I'm sure she could negotiate whatever terms are best for everyone involve with the father.

[Gunslinger]

I can honestly say i'm surprised by some of the good responses in this thread.  I for one can't have any more kids so the point is moot for me.  But it was brought up in the thread that it finaincial responsibility is "for the best intrest of the child" yet abortion and the "right" to choose is in the best intrest of the mother and NOT the child.  Seems kinda bass ackwords to me.

[lazs2]

Oh sure....  liberalism is all fun and games until...

someone points out that it should be fair.

lazs

[Mini D]

It's not as good as the Dr that gave the other Dr a bj then impregnated herself with what was left in her mouth and sued him for child support. She won, of course.

[LePaul]

Yea I remeber seeing a few of those such cases in the press over the years [father wants baby, mother doesnt, he sues to block her from aborting].  Usually those are played out as the evil father forcing his choice on the girl, yada yada.

As to the Roe vs Wade issue, I think it should be reviewed and tossed.  This was a case that each state should decide for itself.  Rather than it rest of the whims of the court, let it rest with the people and its elected representatives in their state senate and congress.

As I said, its a reach.  Sure, be activists all you want.  And I know all too many "fathers" who'd love to resign from the role.  But this is a human life, not a pet dog or cat where you can just shuck it when its inconvenient.