PDA

View Full Version : Roe v. Wade for Men?


Boobs McGee
03-10-2006, 02:47 PM
This is a very interesting article from cbsnews.com which I thought had some pretty provocative and valid points. My personal opinion still stands that if you're man enough to have sex, you should be man enough to support a baby.....
what's your opinion?

'Roe v. Wade For Men' Suit Filed

NEW YORK, March 9, 2006



A Quote

"I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Mel Feit, director of The National Center for Men


(AP) Contending that women have more options than men 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 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.

...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 will probably 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.

..."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."...

bendog
03-10-2006, 02:53 PM
I think it's a smokescreen by some right to life people.

Crushaholic
03-10-2006, 02:57 PM
Any man who knowingly leaves a woman with a baby on the way is a coward.

Boobs McGee
03-10-2006, 02:59 PM
Possible, but I think it's going to come down to irresponsible men vying for a piece of the equal rights debate

Hogan11
03-10-2006, 02:59 PM
I understand it's got the backing of the national "Fathers By Force" committee Ha!

Boobs McGee
03-10-2006, 03:00 PM
Any man who knowingly leaves a woman with a baby on the way is a coward.


I'm in full agreeance here.

I truly hope that this lawsuit doesn't actually win...because ultimately, it IS the man's responsibility to be a father to his child. I know we don't live in a fairytale world, but lets not give irresponsible people even MORE avenues for escape

alkemical
03-10-2006, 03:08 PM
what about those situations where a woman has a child but only wants the money from the man, but doesn't want him to see the child, could that be an opt out?

Boobs McGee
03-10-2006, 03:17 PM
I think you might have some kind of a case there...you would think.

If the father WANTS the child, and is fit to keep him, but the mother won't let him (or somehow due to state legislature she gets sole custody), then I think you might have an argument

I dunno

alkemical
03-10-2006, 03:19 PM
I'm not going to Deny there are guys who will just shirk the responsability.

But what about recourse for women who use kids as a pawn?

Hogan11
03-10-2006, 03:21 PM
what about those situations where a woman has a child but only wants the money from the man, but doesn't want him to see the child, could that be an opt out?

Fat chance in the courts that are already biased against men when it comes to these issues.

This is so ridiculious I can't believe it's even being taken seriously by The National Center for Men. It has zero chance for success. Unless that woman is a total Meth queen, you're gonna be paying that 17% and all medical for 21 years no matter what.

alkemical
03-10-2006, 03:24 PM
Fat chance in the courts that are already biased against men when it comes to these issues.

This is so ridiculious I can't believe it's even being taken seriously by The National Center for Men. It has zero chance for success. Unless that woman is a total Meth queen, you're gonna be paying that 17% and all medical for 21 years no matter what.


If she is a meth queen you still pay her, you have to prove she's feeding drano to the kids in doses that WILL kill them.