Men's-Rights Activists Want a "Roe v. Wade for Men"

[LiberalHeart]

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 US District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

Much more to the story here:
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4603850

[electron_blue]

1. uh, for *his* daughter, rather.

LOL

[Inland]

2. Didn't take long to get past THAT spin, did it?

"Why should I support my ex girlfriend's kid? We're not even together anymore."

[LostinVA]

127. HIS flesh and blood -- Jerk

[sui generis]

3. go for it

nothing says crazy as much as crazy does.

For a couple of bucks a guy can actually buy a dozen "bullet proof" chances to opt out of a pregnancy. It should be Roe v. Condom Sense.

[thinkingwoman]

8. Not be a buzzkill but...

condoms aren't 100% effective.

I am the proud mother of a 17 year old condom baby.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with your statemtn that nothing says crazy as much as crazy does.

[Yupster]

119. My superbaby is eight

Actually I'm bragging. He wasn't that super. The condom slipped off. Nah - he's super anyway.

[thinkingwoman]

121. I had 4 pregnancies

all 4 involved a birth control failure.

I've been telling my two wonderful kids that for years now. I want to make sure they understand to take precautions yes, but understand that accidents do still happen. If they're not ready to deal with that, they should not do the deed.

[Critters2]

265. Wow! That is some bad luck!

Or not...two good kids. And a lesson for them.

You sound like a great parent, either way!

[thinkingwoman]

268. aw, shucks, thanks!

I'm just very fertile I guess. :shrug:

Or it could be that the universe/fates/whatever knew how badly I wanted to be a parent and helped me a little too much? :evilgrin:

[JuniorPlankton]

9. Is it really much more effective than the pill?

(it is a lot "invasive", that's for sure)

So, the woman gets to decide whether or not to keep the child, the man should be happy to accept whatever comes his way after a (hopefully consensual) one night stand. That's equality, indeed!

[Caoimhe]

14. a condom is invasive? Try pushing an 8 lb baby out your

penis and we will talk about what's invasive. What you fail to address is the child. If it is born, it has two parents, no matter what. Biology isn't fair, agreed, but do you wish to change places? Would you rather be the one to give birth? If not, then keep your pecker in your pants until you are ready to accept the fact that if your sperm find her egg, you just might be held responsible.

[sui generis]

21. yeah wasn't sure if my caffeine had run out when I read that

or if that's what it really said.

:shrug:

And what about the kid - my goodness. How could any father even try to claim a child was not his responsibility? From the kid's point of view - wow.

it boggles the mind.

[adriennui]

44. what if the man is not the biological father?

or the woman said she was on the pill?

i agree that a man cannot stop a woman from having an abortion, but some man are deceived into think the baby is their own. why should he support a child not his own.

[sui generis]

47. we're only talking about biological fathers

but in the case of child support for all dependents of a marriage, the reasoning is more complex than biology alone.

Still not any less irresponsible to try to wriggle out of it.

If I had a child by a woman who I could prove had "tricked" me into having a child with her, I wouldn't want my child around that woman. I would sue for custody, so just the opposite of trying to get out of it, I'd try to raise the child.

With today's state of the art there is no earthly reason that a baby couldn't be genetically typed if there was a question.

No matter what, you are relying on somebody's word that they won't or can't have a baby. If sex with that person is THAT important to you that is clouds your judgement, it's still your judgement and the responsibility of both parties. I'd hold my horse(s) and get it verified beyond the shadow of a doubt, get my own reliable vasectomy, or find some other way to get my rocks off.

If rubbers fail one in a hundred times and birth control fails 14 in a hundred times, then you're playing russian roulette with a gunbarrel that has a hundred chambers. Think about that. Don't play unless you're prepared to pay, or else pull out of the game before it's over.

I agree if a woman truly does not want to have children, she has equal responsibility to do everything in her power to keep it from happening and equal responsibility for spinning the wrong chamber.

[DarkTirade]

247. That happened to my roommate's cousin...

his girlfriend lied to him and said she was on birth control basically to get pregnant and force him to marry her. (Yeah, just when you think the old cliche doesn't happen anymore in this day and age...) When he found out about her lying and her generally being a bad and manipulative person, he left and got custody of their daughter. And from what I've heard about the woman, making sure the child didn't grow up in her custody was definately the responsible thing to do.

[Orangepeel]

143. maybe that reasoning would have worked years ago

but now, he can be technologically sure. Have doubts, have a test.

[adriennui]

149. i agree, it can be verified by DNA.

[Xithras]

253. There are many men paying support on children verified to not be theirs.

In most states, men are responsible for paying child support for any child borne into a marriage. This has lead to many cases where men have been forced to pay child support for kids resulting from the wifes affairs. There was even one case on TV a while back that talked about this guy who discovered that three of his four kids weren't actually his. Even though his wife left him to move in and marry the actual father of the children, he was forced to pay child support on them because the law doesn't recognize the validity of these tests.

[Katherine Brengle]

373. This is bs--any man could file a paternity suit and then

sue for reparations if this happens to him.

The sad fact is that most child support problems have to do with men taking off from their responsibilities and not contributing to the welfare of their offspring.

(I've lived this--my parents divorced when I was very young and my father stopped pay child support when I was 8 and my sister was 4--there is no excuse for this behavior.)

[smirkymonkey]

245. DNA testing

would be the answer to that, I would think.

[JuniorPlankton]

66. I agree, absolutely

once the child is born, the game is over, take care of the child.

[dave29]

67. I can think of circumstances where the mother might not want the father

to be responsible.

My own for example.

[crikkett]

26. bravo!

If not, then keep your pecker in your pants until you are ready to accept the fact that if your sperm find her egg, you just might be held responsible.

:applause:

[Yupster]

120. Hear that women...

If you're not ready to accept the responsibility of being a mother then keep your legs crossed and your panties on.

[BoneDaddy]

222. Why is that any different

than telling men to do the same?

[CTLawGuy]

357. didn't you get the message?

women are not capable of handling responsibility...

:eyes:

[BoneDaddy]

223. Does the same thing apply to the woman?

I mean let's be intellectually honest here. If we are talking abou equality, why isn't the statement
"if she doesn't want to get pregnant, she should just shut her legs"
I wouldn't say that, but it seems that if it workds for men, the same should apply to women.

[pokercat999]

290. Same reason for both uncontrollable LUST ah yes just lust

divine, sweet, fine lust.......ok I'm over it. me and jimmy carter

[Evergreen Emerald]

335. It has been the standard for women since the beginning of time

Men have never had the same consequences for having sex. It is the woman's fault in our society when she gets pregnant--and the woman who has the significant consequences. It is time for men to be responsible for birthcontrol.

[BoneDaddy]

338. true

I am in total agreement with you about what you said about men needing to be responsible when they choose to have sex. It is what I teach the young men whom I work with and what I plan on teaching my sons when they get old enough to understand. I will not accept anything less.
But your point furthers buttresses my argument. Because the burden of pregnancy falls primarily on the women, she SHOULDN'T depend on a man to be primarily responsible.

Let me clarify. I think both should be primarily responsible if we are talking about a perfect world, but the reality is that the woman suffers more by becoming pregnant, so SHE NEEDS to ensure her safety and her choice to plan families. The bottom line needs to be her and not him. Ideally, I think both should be prepared, but if a woman chooses to have sex, she has to be the one who is carrying birth control, whether for him or her own.

You may not like my answer, but it doesn't matter whether you approve.
In a nutshell, men NEED to be responsible for birth control, but wishing it or wanting doesn't really matter if the current reality does not reflect an equality of consequences. Ultimately those consequences will be on her.

[JuniorPlankton]

64. I thought I made it clear

that "invasivenes" of the condom is a joke (that's why it was in quotes.)
Nobody compares a condom to giving birth, god forbid. The comparison was between the condom and the pill.

I agree, once the child is born it's a joint responsibility. The question was who gets to decide whether or not that child is born. Should a man have some say? And yes, the situation is not symmetric, as you pointed out, because of biology.

[Caoimhe]

82. I understand your point

but even then your comparison falls short. Taking a pill every single day at the same time, is less invasive than putting a condom on right before having sex? Just curious how you come to that, joke or not. Besides that, most health insurance won't cover the cost of a pill, and last I checked, it costs more to get a doctors appt and prescription than a box of rubbers. Also, to keep your birth control pill prescription, you have to go in for an annual exam (pap smear and checkup), or the doc will pull the prescription. Nothing invasive about that, right? :D Not that I think it's a bad idea, it helps prevent and screen for potential problems, but it is a royal pain. Especially if one doesn't have health insurance. I guess I just want to explain that it isn't just a simple thing. As convenient as the commercials try to make it seem, it is still far more of a hassle than just wearing a condom when the actual "event" takes place. Maybe the difference is that the hassle is hers, not yours?

If one pill is missed all bets are off. The pill also does nothing to protect against STDs. It's ALWAYS better to protect yourself, male or female, by wrapping it up, or saying no condom, no nookie! We have to be adamant about educating people to PROTECT THEMSELVES NO MATTER WHAT!

[JuniorPlankton]

204. Look, it has really gotten out of hand

I am not sure it is a promising course of this discussion with you saying I can't judge the matter because I have not been on the other side. (I could also point out that you have not tried wearing one those rubbers either. Plus, the old joke that having sex in a condom is like smelling flowers in a gas mask. And for avoidance of doubt I will repeat that it is a joke :))

Then the issue of health insurance is certainly outside of the scope of this thread.

The whole point was that the decision to have sex is a joint one. There is a certain asymmetry with the woman having a complete control over the birth/abortion decision, and the man not having any say at all. (Clearly, that asshole that wanted to get rid of his alimony payments doesn't address this issue. No matter what you and I will agree on, he would remain an asshole.) I can point out to a few cases where the man's rights were disregarded in an obvious way. How about this one: a guy's wife has an affair, gets pregnant on the side, and has a baby. They divorce. Even though it is proved that the guy is not the father of the child, the judge rules that he still has to pay child support. (because it is better for the child.)

And yes, before the flaming begins, I will say the injustice in the direction is probably more common. All I am trying to say is that there are two parties involved with their rights and responsibilities.

I really meant no harm or offense, just trying to discuss something.

:hi:

[sui generis]

20. you take chances when you have sex

both together, whether married or not.

Chance that a baby might result, or that HPV or chlamydia or HIV or some other hootch cooty was transmitted, even with rubbers.

In each case your responsibility varies but in the case of a human life both parties have the greatest responsibility, if the mother decides to bring that pregnancy to term.

Gents if you want to cover yourself, buy a child-birthin' and rearin' insurance policy. If she gets pregnant and you don't want to have anything to do with the natural genetic offspring of your loins, you forfeit your policy.

I'll bet it's an insurance product worth developing.

If you WANT to get someone pregnant and raise the child with her, I highly recommend marriage and the mutual goals for the sake of the kid(s).

This is just another irresponsible whiney selfish self-interested dishonest human. These are the people that end up in jail for being deadbeat genetic parents, and would probably have made lousy fathers anyway, since fatherhoold implies a level of responsibility.

[MindPilot]

30. Why is the woman always portrayed as a victim?

She was the one who chose to have unprotected sex with deadbeat. She was the one who chose to take the pregnancy to term. Granted she may not have known he was a deadbeat that first night, but it would be pretty obvious by the time she had to tell him about the baby.

BTW, I think that insurance policy is a GREAT idea. If they are going to make abortion and birth control difficult or impossible to obtain. I should be able to buy a policy that will pay all bills if I should accidentally become a parent.

[Mountainman]

37. What about taking responsibility for your actions? It takes two to make a

baby. If you don't want to support a kid, don't have sex with the woman. The victim here is the kid in my opinion. Imagine growing up knowing your father doesn't want to take responsibility for you. I am glad everyday that I am not a single mother. They have to struggle all their lives yet are blamed for getting pregnant. Remember it takes two to tango.

[MindPilot]

46. That's exactly what I'm saying--it takes two.

The woman allowed a man to have unprotected sex with her. Then she carried a pregnancy to term knowing full well the man was not father material. You're right, it takes two to tango, but the woman--since she has clearly more to lose than the man--needs to be responsible for avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

What I hear you saying is that is perfectly OK for a woman to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior because she can always make the man pay.

[Mountainman]

49. Hold the hell on here! If it takes two both have responsibility to not get

pregnant! She may be the one carrying the baby but both of you made it happen. You cannot say you take no responsibility for birth control. You can wear a condom, you can have yourself fixed, you can not have sex. You cannot walk away from taking responsibility for your actions.

[MindPilot]

55. I did not say that!!

No where did I say "{I}take no responsibility for birth control". I said the woman allowed a man to have unprotected sex with her. It is her responsibility when dealing with an obviously irresponsible man--as evidenced by his lack of a condom--to say "NO".

[LostinVA]

131. Then put a condom on, insist on spermicide -- whatever

[StuckinKS]

56. If the woman has more to lose than the man

with the current situation, imagine the disparity if this wanker gets his way.

[CTyankee]

59. Uh, how do you prove it was accidental?

I mean, how can you prove the condom broke. Just askin...

[LostinVA]

128. That's right, Junior -- it's her body

And, it takes two to tango.

[Bassic]

184. This is the meat of the subject.

I think the point that the association is making is that in the end, women decide if they are going to have the baby or not and men seldom have anything to do with the decision. Hence, the men involved are quite forced to accept whatever the woman decides they should do.

Therefore their perception is that women's rights are systematicaly made more important than thier own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but I can see where their reasoning comes from.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Well, isn't that special...

Outlaw abortion, make it more difficult to obtain contraceptives (emergency or otherwise) AND be off the hook from any financial or emotional support for the offspring.

[China_cat]

31. 1950 all over again.

[rodeodance]

350. yup. you said it.

[renaissanceguy]

5. That's right. Knock them up and then run away,

just like in the good ol' days.

[wicket]

16. 'Cept now they can't claim that all of their friends slept with her too

Like the good ol' days. Of course they still *can* claim this, but with DNA testing they can't get away with it anymore.

[dave29]

90. I thought DNA stood for "Dad's Not Around"

maybe I was right

[UpInArms]

45. maybe Shotgun Weddings will return to vogue.

:eyes:

[wordpix2]

6. sorry but once the baby's born, you're a father & obligated to pay support

[sui generis]

23. with one exception ONLY

the case of medically supervised sperm donor -

for which this guy and his fleshy little turkey baster don't apply.

[Caoimhe]

7. When men start dying in childbirth, they get a choice nt

[JuniorPlankton]

11. Please...

Is abortion rights really about a life threat to the mother?
No, it's about choice. It's just that hald the population wants to have while claiming that the other half should be happy with whatever they decide.

[Caoimhe]

15. Biology isn't fair, and yes autonomy over my body is about

protecting it from anything I deem as a threat. Until you are pregnant and give birth, you don't get to decide that. Sorry.

[mondo joe]

205. I don't think you'll like it when antichoicers use your "biology isn't

fair" argument when they outlaw abortion.

"____ isn't fair" is a really really lousy principle on which to argue rights and law.

[sarcasmo]

227. So when a Man's sperm leaves his body he no longer has any rights.

Nice thought process their.

[RazzleDazzle]

314. Actually, the reverse, which is apparently what you propose,

is far more hilarious and bizarre:

So when a Man's sperm leaves his body he has perennial rights over it.

VERY interesting through processes there. That kimd of thinking could eqsily qualify you as a fundie or fundie wannabe, actually.

[Avalux]

10. "his ex-girlfriend's daugher" - is he the sperm donor?

Doesn't say in the article.

There's something to be said about taking responsibility for a child, wanting to do it without being forced into it; I'd think regardless of the relationship with the mother, a man would want to provide for his child and make sure it had a good life.

Sounds to me as if this case is more about the man and the woman and whatever went on between them, not the child.

[ihaveaquestion]

12. Why is is always about the money for these jerks?

That's the thing that burns me up about men who complain about their ex-wives. Their complaints always seem to be about MONEY! They won't see their kids sometimes because if they do their ex will bug them about child support. My ex stopped calling his kids when he couldn't pay support (he was unemployeed a lot). They didn't know why, he just stopped calling. Broke their hearts!

[SaveElmer]

19. Well if you read the article...

That is not entirely true...they are focusing on the money in this case because that is the only avenue by which this can be addressed. They do say they are primarily doing this to stimulate a debate. Having said that I do not think being able top avoid supporting your child is the way to address this...but there are alot of inequities in the child support system, and it could use a healthy dose of reform!

[Darth_Kitten]

104. with these characters though it's almost ALWAYS about the money.....

:(

[AnneD]

51. AMEN, Sister....

(No offense to the real men out there, but we have to wade through a lot of scum to find you great guys). Real easy to see why THAT relationship didn't work out. And now that Roe vs Wade is under attack these guys are going to feel a lot of pain. If the girl wises up and can't get an abortion, these scum are going to be stuck with child support. Takes two to tango so you have to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Yeh, my ex didn't pay support for five years (and it is always about the money with these jerks). I was such a bitch that I didn't request back support in the first round.

So what did that get me...I remarried, daughter got upset and wanted to go to be with party Dad instead of responsible Mom, he sued AND GOT custody...all while still marginally self employed and living with his mom. Almost half of my money goes to support and court ordered expenses. My Mom (Conservative)summed it up best. She said our crime was that my new hubby was not white (honestly, it never crossed my mind). Mercifully I have 2 years of support as of next month and daughter knows full well that she is on her own for college as court cost etc have come close to bankrupting me, but I am living proof that women get screwed figuratively and literally.

If men had the babies, what a diffrent tune would be sung.

[BoneDaddy]

224. Clarify

YOU had to wade through YOUR choices of MEN. Plenty of women have wonderful relationships with great men.

[AnneD]

240. There are a lot of jerks out there, BoneDaddy,

good men are few and far between. If you were of the other gender (I am assuming you are a great guy), you would understand our dilema. Part of the dating process is winnowing out the undesirables (and sometimes that is not as easy as it sounds). If you start out with a kind and trusting nature, it is easy to be duped in a variety of ways.

Examples I have learned the hard way:

I have learned to look for a white mark around the ring finger. They will lie to you. If they say they are divorced, ask to see the papers. I was duped and as soon as I found out the truth, I called his wife and apologized.

I have learned not to state my profession, and I always ask if they are employed. I don't care about how much they make, but I have been used as a meal ticket.

I do not invite them over to my place, I have had them try and move in when they got kicked out of their place.

I have learned to kick their asses to the curb the first time they raise a hand to me, it doesn't get better. The same goes for drug and alcohol use.

I have learned to tell them pretty early that I had a child. It seperates the men from the boys. A classic example of this type of jerk is the guy that said he really loved me and thought we could have a great life togather but said I had to give up my daughter (yes, he said that). I had to choose between him or my daughter. My response was to the effect of "Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split ya". He was actually surprised at my response.:eyes:

It took a while, in fact I stopped dating for years, it was just not worth it. I started casually going out with a friend. It was like "When Harry Met Sally" with out the salad;). It took a while for both of us to get on the same page, but once we were...we have had a very happy marriage so far. I would never have guessed that I would marry the love of my life at 48.

[BoneDaddy]

241. I hear ya

I have met some women in the distant past,whom I have dated who initially presented a heck of alot better than the reality.

I think you are correct and do have to be careful, no doubt there. I think it begs a larger question of taking our time throughout the dating process, but even then there are no guarantee's. It is always a risk, but we should be making educated risks at best.

People get into relationships for many reasons. For some it is a life raft they cling to. That is very dangerous as those type of folks often attract people who will take advantage of them.

Glad you found a good guy. Take care.

[LafayetteTGR]

246. What an Awful story!

I'm really sorry to hear about your situation. I had a baby with a deadbeat woman beater. He was my first boyfriend so it took me too long to wise up. Before I knew it, I was pregnant at 19. I had a son and we soon broke up, but his dad gets paid cash at his job so I basically get whatever child support he deems necessary. This man has done unspeakable things to me while I was in college and working trying to provide for my son. Basically, he has put me through hell, but my son loves going with him because my ex is like a big kid and he lets my son do whatever he wants. I fear that my son will eventually decide, like your daughter did, to go live with his dad because he can do whatever he wants. Meanwhile, my new husband and I are the ones that take care of my son's needs and discipline him.

My fundy anti-choice mom can't believe that I have become pro-choice in my adult years. She thought that having a baby would firmly ground me against abortion. I just tell her that I love my son with all my heart and don't regret my decision, but I wouldn't wish the hell that I have to put up with on any woman.

[AnneD]

254. If I had a do over...

I would have raised her myself and not made him spend time with her (I really didn't have the heart to deprive his parents of their only grandchild), I pretty much did it anyway. The good news is that she is beginning to figure things out. I can't wait till she turns 18, he no longer gets support and he kicks her out. If his Mom dies before then, it will get even more interesting. He has only lived and supported himself for 2 years out of his entire adult life, and he is 48 (I put myself through college and have been self sufficient since I was 19)! All of my friends and my attorney STILL can't believe he got custody. Two years and 1 month, 2 years and 1 month.

[LafayetteTGR]

264. My ex and your ex sound very similar

I feel for you, I really do. I would hate to have to hand over a dime to my low life ex. I never went to court with him because I watched too many of my friends get the screw job. I definitely don't trust the courts to do the right thing. I'm sorry for your ordeal. I hope in the next two years your daughter sees him for what he truly is!

[AnneD]

272. One of the things that I have come to believe, with all my heart....

is that sometimes thing happen in you life that are unfair and you can't understand the reason at the time.
Our time is not God's time and God's understanding is not our understanding, but given time we come to understand God's reason.

For years I sacrificed much to give my child what she needed. I placed my needs on the back burner. I bit my tongue when she came home telling me thing that her dad told her. I never told her that the reason I left her dad was because he said, in her presence (she was 8 mos old), that he didn't love her and never wanted her. No child of mine would ever feel unwanted or unloved or have such words spoken to them, whether they could understand or not.

It was very painful to lose custody to him. It was not about the money for me, it was about the child and what was best for the child (even if she didn't think so). I spent much (remember, this was my second time to do this, I won the first time and he never forgave that) fighting this.

I still do not understand, and I still pray for her safety, but this is what has happened in the 2 years since.

I see my 16yo daughter has HAD to become responsible for herself. She comes to me and asks advice (and listens). When she is in trouble, I know I will be the first phone call she makes. She knows I am the make it happen parent that won't steer her wrong.

And as I am no longer dealing with the day to day of raising her, I am gradually able to take care of myself, something I had not done in 16 years. My ex could take me back to court 1 more time for more support (I pay all told almost $900 for one child), so I have to be careful with my income and part time work. I am a School Nurse so I am paid like a teacher (now you see the pain). I am paying off debts and living cheaply but had to stop contributing to my 403B just to make ends meet. Once she turns 17, I will go to a higher paying job because it will not be worth it for him to take me to court for less than 1 yr of support. At that point I will be saving for retirement and a house.

I have had to let my daughter know that sadly, I will not be able to help her with college as I had hoped. Bless her little trusting heart, she said Dad had saved up money for her (on the stand, he told my lawyer that he had not save anything-which knowing him, I believe). I have no way of knowing what he is doing with that much support, but he lives free at home and is just out groceries and gas (he does not help his Mom to any great extent-big surprise hey). I know she has a large cell phone bill and soon she will be driving, so I am sure that will hit his personal pocketbook (I had her long enough to know how much it truly takes to raise a child).

And the rainbow at the end of all of this sad stormy tale my cher Lafayette......I will be able to retire, at 57, with full defined benefit pension check (with health benefits)from the State of Texas. I contributed the max number of quarters for SS years ago so I have some supplemental there. I have a 403b also. My new hubby, though making less, but still a hard worker, will retire with a similar full defined benefit pension check, SS, etc, etc, too.

Meanwhile, ex, who is 'self employed' (and from his wage statements-it is barely a paying hobby ;) ), will be drawing next to nothing IF he even qualifies. When his mother dies, the house will be forced into sale and be split 3 ways. He will get a bit of money, but he will not have a house. He will be over 50 and out on the street, unless he can find another woman he can sucker (don't think my daughter will be it though). I envision him being a 65 yr greeter at WalMart because from all I can extrapolate, he WON'T be able to retire...

I usually don't post something this personal, but I could not pm you. I really thought you could learn from my experiences as I think you may indeed be dealing with the same problem. I hope it goes better for you but document document and be prepared. I am always happy to share my little bit of life's wisdom gleaned from experience.

[LafayetteTGR]

303. Thank you for sharing!

Your story brought tears to my eyes! I see a lot of similarities in our stories. I hope your daughter chooses the right path; sounds like she has a great mother to guide her. :)

I don't know why you couldn't PM me. I checked my preferences and I thought they were set, but of course I am a newbie and kind of an internet dummy!!

[sandnsea]

286. Sounds like it's all about money with YOU

You're living proof that women get screwed?? Because child support taking half your income and court costs have come close to bankrupting you??? I can't figure out what you're bitching about. It's called financial responsibility, just like for men.

[RazzleDazzle]

316. I love these little anti-woman outbursts

they're always so telling. The resentment. It's always the resentment.

[sandnsea]

319. It's pro-woman actually

This is anti-woman, whining when she has to take the same financial responsibilities for a child as a man does:

"Almost half of my money goes to support and court ordered expenses... Mercifully I have 2 years of support as of next month and daughter knows full well that she is on her own for college as court cost etc have come close to bankrupting me, but I am living proof that women get screwed figuratively and literally."

Disgusting, and hypocritical, and the side of women that most women refuse to acknowledge exists.

That coming from a woman who doesn't choose to base my life on blaming men for everything that goes wrong in the world.

[Katherine Brengle]

374. Women should absolutely be required to pay child support if...

the child resides with the father--anything else is a vicious and ridiculous double-standard.

Anyone, any parent, who shirks his/her responsibility for maintaining the well-being of his/her child is a worthless human being.

[xmas74]

13. I just received a link to this via Yahoo from my ex.

He wants nothing to do w/ our daughter, even though he wanted a child (things quickly changed when it was a girl). He hates having to pay child support since he didn't want a girl and stated that I should have had an abortion when we found it the sex.

This is the ultimate cop out. I hope it fails or there will be even more deadbeat dads out there.

[Caoimhe]

17. Wow what a pig

Your daughter deserves so much more in a father. I just can't believe people like this still exist.

[xmas74]

24. He is a pig.

And he's hoping for a favorable ruling in this case, as are quite a few other men.

I'm sorry but if he helps make it he should help the support, whether he wanted it or not. If you run up a debt you have to pay it off, even if you don't want to. Financially, what is the difference? It's another bill.

The difference is emotional and social. If this passes, we are dooming an entire generation of children into poverty. Children born to single mothers are more likely to live in poverty. If the man can get away w/ claiming he didn't want the child and doesn't have to give financial support we are damning these children into further poverty and not demanding that men take responsibility for their actions.

[TankLV]

42. Yes - what a pig.

They BOTH made their bed - they BOTH now have to "lie in it".

If the woman decides to have the baby - it's his daughter - it's not "fair" in the sense that only a woman CAN have a baby - but life is not always "fair".

He can "get his rocks off" - but it is "tad" more complicated for the woman - duh!

God, what a jerk to boot - that poor kid and what he/she will think if he/she ever finds out how his/her "father"/turkey baster felt about him/her at the time of his/her impending birth.

SEX is serious business folks - it's not to be entered into lightly - no matter what the composition of the partners is!

[Darth_Kitten]

107. that's terrible.

:hug:

[xmas74]

150. He's an ass.

I was hoping it was another excuse as to why he didn't want to see his daughter. Instead it was this link.

Fuck him. We're better off.

[LostinVA]

133. Good god.... what a tool

[xmas74]

151. I pick winners,

don't I.

I pity the woman he's married to now.

[RazzleDazzle]

312. IMO there are worse things than deadbeat dads

and that's "dads" who aren't really, who don't want to be and who basically refuse to be.

I know the money of child support can be really, really important. But my sentiment is: wash that man (who doesn't WANT to be involved) right out of your hair and never look back. You and your daughter will both bet better off without him. The money keeps you tied to him.

[xmas74]

341. I don't have a choice right now.

I have no health insurace options for my daughter so I have to use the state assisted insurance. If you accept the state insurance you have to allow them the opportunity to "go after" the natural father.

When she was a newborn I had decent insurance and didn't have anything to do w/ him. After my position was cut back and I had to get a different job(w/ extremely expensive insurance and none offered for dependents) I applied for state assistance for her insurance. Now the state gets to make decisions about his involvement, not me.

[atommom]

18. "Pre-Roe ethic," my ass.

"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.

[Sivafae]

113. And this should be done before the 12 weeks are up when woman can get an

abortion.
I absolutely think that there is a double standard going on here. I don't think I have all the answers, and situations like this get real messy real fast. Perhaps this dilemma has more to do with the fact that there is just not enough education happening for all involved.

[atommom]

154. More education is always a good thing.

But I do still believe that the man has the obligation to help care for his child, whether it was a planned pregnancy or not.

[MindPilot]

22. how come in all these discussions, nobody mentions the v-word?

Boyz, if you get a vasectomy before your first sexual encounter, you will never ever have to worry about that tearful phone call, that middle of the night move, that trip to someplace where abortion is still legal, becoming a parent against your will, DNA tests or support payments.

Now here's a question I really don't know the answer to: If a 15-year-old boy wants a vasectomy, can he get one?

If yes why aren't there lines around the block for young men signing up for a simple ten-minute procedure that will guarantee them years of (almost) worry-free sex?

If no, why isn't that a big part of the reproductive rights debate?

[raifield]

27. Nope

Now here's a question I really don't know the answer to: If a 15-year-old boy wants a vasectomy, can he get one?

I don't think so. Hell, it's actually quite difficult for an adult male to get a vasectomy, as doctors want to be absolutely sure you know what you want, since there is no going back once it's done. Usually, men with several children find it a lot easier to get a vasectomy than a younger, single man.

That being said, a vasectomy is really the equivalent of a hysterectomy rather than an abortion.

[Shakespeare]

28. No, a vasectomy is the equivalent of having your tubes tied.

To be equivalent to a hysterectomy, castration would have to be involved. I think if more men were aware of the REAL biological equivalents of some of the procedures women go through, they might have a tad more compassion.

[MindPilot]

33. Its nowhere close to a tubal ligation

I had mine the day after my son was born in 1978. The only question the Dr asked was "Are you sure?" It's a quick procedure that I would equate with having my teeth cleaned as far as a discomfort level.

And I understand now there are methods that can make it reversible.

[Shakespeare]

36. So is a vasectomy.

Quick procedure, that is. Usually done on an outpatient basis. And some vasectomies are reversible, as well.

A vasectomy is NOT equivalent to a hysterectomy.

[MindPilot]

39. When I said "I had mine done"

I meant vasectomy. :D

I sometimes forget we don't always know gender in here.

[Shakespeare]

41. AH....then we're in agreement!

And you're right; gender is often a mystery around here. ;-)

[Inland]

Easy to do, but I think it's hard to reverse.

To reverse, you need to line up the itty bitty tubes just right and fuse them without blocking. It's microsurgery.

But Steve Dahl had his done while on-air. No problem.

[Katherine Brengle]

376. Exactly--a tubal ligation is a far more invasive procedure than a...

vasectomy--but I love how so many men like to yet again throw all of the responsibility into the woman in this case as well...

Vasectomies are certainly unpleasant--most medical procedures are--and I would imagine a reversal is much more complicated than the original procedure--but nothing even close to "getting your tubes tied."

[AnneD]

57. Thanks the comparison is on target...

some women report lack of sexual enjoyment after a hysterectomy, but this is always glossed over when they do the possible side effects of surgery and women are embarassed to report this so some think this may be an under reported phenomenom. Now, tell a guy he won't have sexual pleasure after a vasectomy and how many do you think will have one. God forbid you damage the joy stick, but feel free to hack away on women. Women just have more complicated plumbing. Tubals are closer to vasectomies in nature.

[superconnected]

38. Many vasectomys can be reversed.

That said,

I don't agree with getting a vasectomy for men. It's to extreme. What if they live passed 15 and want a kid. The idea of having a vasectomy at that age is ridiculous IMO.

Condoms, developing male BC, ect. is a far better answer.

Teaching boys that it isn't the girls responsibility to be on birth control, it is 100% his, if its he who doesn't want to get someone pregnant, is the way.

Too many guys think it's the womans responsibility. Nearly every guy I know had a kid he didn't plan on. Really, they should have been smarter. She' can take care of her own BC to meet her own demands. He needs to take care of his.

Teach boys they are at fault if they don't protect their end. After they dumbly impregnate her, it's too late to moan over it being her body and how she gets to choose what happens to her body.

[MindPilot]

54. Birth control is 100% men's responsibility?!

:eyes:
Apparently you see women as helpless hapless victims incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions. No wonder you have such a tough time achieving equality; you don't seem to have any idea what it means.

[superconnected]

97. Nope

If you impregnate someone it's 100 percent your fault for putting yourself there. You screwed yourself up. These men are blaming women for screwing them up. Only they could make the bad decisions that got them(the men) pregnant. You ARE 100 percent responsible for your actions. Not %50.

That doesn't mean I'm not saying she is 100 percent responsible for the situation she put herself in. Her responsibility does not cancel or subtract from yours though. And it's the men here, complaining and trying to get out of responsiblity.

[RazzleDazzle]

317. You're the one I'm worried about on that issue

In something as desperately important as avoiding pregnancy, having 2 people take responsibility for contraception is really important, but having one person absolutely assume full responsibility no matter what the other person is doing is ideal. If I were male, I'd never, never leave that to my partner alone. Never.

But then, I happen to have the advantage of knowing first-hand what it's like to carry and bear a child and be a parent for the rest of my life, the first 18 years of which is a bit too much like slavery for my taste (or, put another way, I can really see why the wealthy have nannies).

[Boojatta]

334. What would Darwin say?

Nearly every guy I know had a kid he didn't plan on. Really, they should have been smarter.

What effect does that particular kind of lack of smarts have on their Darwinian "fitness" level?

How many of them had lots and lots of kids who were very expensive to take care of and who died before themselves producing offspring?

[HuffleClaw]

48. it is difficult in the US i hear, far more so than in canada

i've heard that some guys in the US have to go to three or more doctors before they find one willing to do a vasectomy. i've heard of doctors who simply refuse 'on principle' of doing a vasectomy on a guy unless he already has children, some who won't do one unless the guy is over a certain age, doctors who demand a consultation with the guys wife...

[MissMillie]

197. not the equivalent of a hysterectomy

the equivalent of a tubal ligation... though much less invasive, much less risk and much shorter recuperation.

[superconnected]

29. It comes down to financial cop out and not taking responsibility.

They think they can shoot their cock off but get upset if the obvious happens -she gets pregnant. As if it's all her fault.

They get mad saying the women should have been on BC but where was theirs.

They scream because she can get an abortion, and then they scream if she refuses to get one.

These guys don't want to pay for a child either way.

But they still want to shoot their cock off without protection, and knock her up.

You bet it's her choice to have the kid, and they hate that.

They really hate that.

But those idiots should have figured out from the beginning that her body would be carrying the kid.

This artical states it nicely, no responsibility, financial or otherwise(mental responsibility)(culpability).

You have to almost laugh, they aren't smart enough NOT to knock up a woman. And they act like it would be the worst thing that could happen to them. But yet, they just aren't smart enough NOT to PUT THEMSELVES THERE.

Disclaimer, I know there are a lot of men NOT like this. I'm targeting this particularly section of the gene pool - the men in the article.

[China_cat]

34. No, a 15 year old can't consent to ANY medical procedure

on his/her own with the exception of abortion in some states.

[Blue_Tires]

75. i plan to get one once i get the $$$$

for the uninsured, i was quoted a fee of $900 (!)

[Yupster]

123. Yeah nobody mentions the h word either

I guess most people think that you should have a right to choose without ending your chances to ever be a natural parent.

[Shakespeare]

238. Do you understand what a hysterectomy involves?

And what its physical repercussions are for a woman? It's not even on the same PLANET as a vasectomy, so no, it's not comparable, and a woman should have the right to choose PERIOD.

You go get your dick and balls cut off, and then come talk to me about elective hysterectomies.

[SaveElmer]

25. The tone of this thread shows me reform is needed...

The child support system is broken in many places...

You have fathers who refuse to take responsibilty for their kids, and who avoid paying. In many places it is the mothers responsibility to track them down. nd often they will try to hide their income to avoid paying.

On the other side, fathers have no say whatsoever in the status of the child before it is born, in a divorce situation, or where there is no marriage, the mother is generally automatically considered to be the fitter parent, and in particularly bitter situations access to the child is used as a weapon. Also, in many states some fathers are practically forced into bankruptcy because of rigid rules regarding support amounts that take no notice of economic situation.

I have seen proposals for state run child support pools etc. It does need to be talked about because kids are the ones being harmed by this process.

[Yupster]

124. State run child support pools are

a wonderful idea.

A kid is a kid and equally worthy of support as any other kid. It's not fair that one kid should get $ 4,000 a month and another $ 200 just because of who his mother slept with that night.

[Megahurtz]

32. LOL!!! Good Luck On That One Dudes!!!

:rofl:

[poverlay]

35. Having a friend who was thoroughly tricked into fathering a child,

(She lied to him about being on the pill and the timing of her cycle, etc.)and a brother whose wife outright lied to get sole custody of kids who adore him, I'm a bit torn on this debate.

That being said,

There are a lot of assholes with no self control or sense of responsibility out there. That fact doesn't mean all men should be denied the right to a say in how their children are raised. There are also a lot of truly selfish and irresponsible women out there who don't deserve a say let alone a monthly check.

[Mountainman]

40. The monthly check is for the kid not the mother!

I don't see how you can be for having sex but not take responsibility for the outcome. Wear a condom or don't have sex! If that fails support your kid like a man should.

We all know that there is a chance that the woman's birth control will fail. Even if she tells the truth and has no intention of getting pregnant, it could happen if you have sex with her. There is no difference in the risk if she is honest or not. You take the risk you need to face the consequences.

[MissMillie]

202. Thank you!

when I saw the line that women didn't deserve the check I thought I was going to throw something at my computer screen.

Child support is for the kids. It's about a roof over their heads, food in their tummies, shoes on their feet and the occasional movie night--for the kids!

[fishwax]

284. theoretically ... it doesn't always get to the kid

:grr:

But I agree with everything that you've said.

Both the man and the woman have the financial responsibility for the baby that potentially results from pregnancy. But biologically, the physical responsibility for pregnancy and childbirth is exclusive to the woman which is why (duh) it should be her choice to take the pregnancy to term. Whatever she decides, neither the man's nor the woman's financial responsibility disappears (barring some mutual arrangement, adoption, etc.).

[superconnected]

43. and he 100 percent deserved to be hit with a child support bill over it

I call it a stupidity tax. Women always see to birth control to meet their needs, not the guys. The guy needs to do the due dilligence on his end if he doesn't want to impregnate her. IT's 100 percent his fault that he fathered a kid he didn't want no matter WHAT she said to him.

Thats the biggest problem with guys getting women pregnant that they didn't want to. They claim no responsibility and blame her. Dumbasses.

Stupidity tax deserved.

[mongo]

50. Wow.

So, if a woman lies about being on BC in order to get pregnant, the pregnancy is the guy's fault?

Isn't that like saying that if a woman in a bar leaves a drink unattended that it is her fault if she is slipped a pill and is raped?

(Note: I'm not saying anything about support here -- It isn't always fair or right, but both parents are responsible for the support of any child created).

[Caoimhe]

53. Take personal responsibility for your reproduction

that being said, no birth control is 100% effective. But I've known so many guys who've fell into this situation "well she said she was on birth control"... sorry. Too bad. Even birth control fails. Unless you are willing to deal with consequences, don't stick it anything but your own palm.

[MindPilot]

58. Didn't you know? Pregnancy is ALWAYS the man's fault.

[sui generis]

63. it's BOTH

not just one or the other. Both at the same time every time. It's pretty simple. No men are being persecuted here.

If you play russian roulette often enough at some point you're going to have to bite a bullet.

Relying on somebody else's word for your half of the responsibility is russian roulette.

[Caoimhe]

78. EXACTLY! n/t

[kitkatrose]

89. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

Relying on somebody else's word for your half of the responsibility is russian roulette.

:applause:

[sui generis]

61. yeah - I wouldn't want my child raised by that mother

if I were going to have to pay, I'd rather raise the child away from that kind of scammery. Just one of those things - you're on your own when trusting someone's word.

It's much less of a problem now, but way back when in the gay community you didn't dare take your chances on someone claiming to be "clean". You just assume the worst (this works with all cooties by the way), take responsibility for yourself and put on your raincoat.

You suit up no matter what - always assume she's fertile and wants a baby and you'll probably be better off for taking the appropriate precautions on your own.

[bettyellen]

71. so lying to someone is equivalent to drugging and the raping someone?

that's fucked up.

[superconnected]

369. everything they're saying is fucked up

abortion is the equivelent of getting your teeth cleaned to these guys.

They haven't figured out there is an huge emotional burden and most women opt out of one.

They're for forced abortions if they can get it.

So sick.

And now we're seeing the pack mentality with them on this thread.

Few guys believe what these guys are saying. Most guys will take responsibility.

The kind of guy that does what these guys are saying is okay, is the type that prey on women, blame the victim, and have no conscience for their actions -sex offenders.

[LincolnMcGrath]

371. Calling members pedos and sex offenders is what is fucked up here.

[MissMillie]

206. I hate to say this, but yes.... on both counts

If a woman leaves her drink unattended at a bar and then comes back and drinks it, she's an idiot. And while no one except the rapist can be blamed for a rape, rape victims need to behave in a manner that will protect themselves. (Don't drink a beverage that has been unattended, don't get into a car with someone you don't know,....)

Now, if you're sleeping w/ someone, the conventional wisdom is that you will know that person and their character and that you'll be able to trust them, but this is often not the case. So the smart thing to do is to cover your ass.... er... penis.

[Kailassa]

352. MissMillie, don't assume it's that easy to stay safe

from date rape drugs.

My daughter was drugged and raped by a "man" who first spent 6 months gaining her trust, by putting something in a coffee he made her when she was about to go to sleep alone. This was in a house she shared with a girl who she though was her friend, but she had never understood how jealous her flatmate was of her good reputation, and how eager she was to help this guy damage it.

A favourite trick in Melbourne night-clubs these days is for the guy to get a girl an unopened beer, as she has requested, but to take a tool with him to both remove and then replace the lid, so she cannot tell it's been tampered with. Another trick is, when the girl has opened a drink, to pop a straw into it for her, a preprepared drug-coated straw the guy has brought with him. And, of course, if the girl gets too tipsy to watch things carefully, she'd better hope she can trust the people she is with.

I completely agree with you, MissMillie, that a girl does need to be very careful about her behaviour to keep herself safe, but, if we don't recognize how difficult this can be, it's all too easy to harshly judge girls for falling into the traps that others have dug for them. Even wearing purdah and staying in ones own home will never completely keep one safe, and our societies acknowledge a girl's right to go out and have a bit of fun, and take part in society.

[Caoimhe]

52. very well said!

whoop whoop!

[Solon]

60. What about the reverse?

I have a neighbor who has two great kids, his wife abandoned them all for another man, and he has NO legal recourse for child support from HER. How is that to be resolved, who is the irresponsible one there?

[sui generis]

62. well that's not right, as you've noted

How is it he has no legal recourse? She is irresponsible. Both parents get their clocks cleaned for child support, according to their resources - how is it that she is not? Does she have some waiver or legal agreement with him?

Did he remarry? Sometimes that plays into how much he's entitled to continue collecting.

[Solon]

68. No, still single...

He is a Union worker who makes good money(Child care is hard to find though), her, she lives off the guy she lives with now. In other words, no job, no reportable income. She's not married to the guy either.

This reminds me of a Widower I knew, he has three young kids, and all those programs for single parents that are low income in my state apparently only apply if you are a mother, not a father, not to mention he HATES Matt Blunt, one of the few programs he was on he was cut off from too.

[sui generis]

76. I'd keep pulling credit reports on her

visible means and all that.

If she's not poor as a church mouse, not working, and spending or driving a nice car and if she's evil enough he can report her to the IRS for not reporting more than 50% of her unmarried support as personal income, which will force her to file.

Those are broken things in the system. They need to be fixed - it's not right and it's not fair to him or his kids as you've noted, and with three kids he certainly has a case to challenge those programs to expand their criteria.

No battle is won without a fight - he's going to have find others in the same situation, then walk into a newsroom with his delegate or a state representative and ask to be interviewed. Heck, call Oprah.

[Caoimhe]

80. Yes they can put a lien on her property

or garnish her wages if she DOES get employment. It is really up to the custodial parent to keep after it. Find someone who will fight for you in the child support services and keep on them. You are right, it is a fight. So many people just let it go, but complain about the nonpaying parent and continually bring it up around the kids, while not being pro-active about it. It is easier to be a victim than a pain in the ass, sometimes.

[Solon]

86. She has no property, and no income...

Her boyfriend isn't rich, in fact he is a loser in many ways, in and out of jail, etc. Anyways, so he has an old clunker that she drives around, with no insurance in her name, at least, he buys the food, he has the bank accounts, etc. In other words, she is off the radar, so to speak, from anyone doing any sniffing around her financials. He tried pursuing her for child support, but considering that she doesn't work, and he can't garnish her BFs wages, he's in bind. Even last year, her boyfriend didn't even claim her as an dependent, so I don't really know what he can do.

[happyslug]

74. Remarry or having more children has not effect in most states

This is called the First in Line, First in Right rule (This is the rule in Pennsylvania, other states may have other rules). The rule is who gets the first court order get the most. I.e. if he had filed against her and she had no other children at that time, then he would get the whole amount of child support. If she has subsequent children (Or if we talking about a male, he would have additional children) those children would get the difference between what the first child received and what she or he had to pay for the additional children.

The only time someone can not be force to pay child support is if their are disabled and can not work (and better either be receiving Social Security or in the process of applying for it).

[superconnected]

95. I don't believe you. My own mother paid child support.

You sound like you're saying dead beat dad rhetoric.

Show me the facts on where women don't pay child support in your state.

[Solon]

100. I didn't say they don't, I said it is difficult to get child support...

There is a difference there, I don't really give a flying fuck if you believe me, I'm talking about one case where sexism is a possibility. In fact, it probably has less to do with the fact she was a deadbeat mother and more with the fact that she dropped off the financial radar completely, thanks to her boyfriend.

[superconnected]

103. oooh sexism that favored a woman.

oooooh. Now we all know that's 1000 times worse than the daily sexism doeses thrown on women by men. Ooooh. Bad woman.

Man upset by woman getting sexism on her side.

I can certianly feel for you. not.

BTW, do you hate women?

all kinds of situations are going to happen with all kinds of people. But you seem to have a hang up because it's a woman doing it. Men are just capable of screwing up and doing it as often, if not more.

But, lets go back to your topic, a woman is profiting from reverse sexism, I can tell you are very angry about this.

do you hate women?

[Solon]

105. No, but I'm beginning to think you are one sided here...

Look, all women are angels that do no wrong, and men are assholes that can do no good. Are you happy now, I'm done, you are pathetic.

[superconnected]

111. Have I ever said women can do no wrong?

Have I called all men a-holes.

Nope. Because I don't believe either statement.

I do believe that men need to realize that they put themselves in the positions they are in. Women have to take responsibility, men often assume since they don't have to carry the kid for 9 months, they can walk away.

Look at this artical. They want off scot free. They actually blame the woman for getting pregnant and putting them in the position.

These men chose to put their sperm into women without condoms. They need to own up to the fact that they put them selves there and they now have responsibility over the kid.

When the kids out of the body in 9 months, the woman can no longer terminate so the guy should shut up and take responsiblity for his share.

this whole, men should have control over the womens bodies or no child support is ludicruis. It's patriachial and these men deep down hate women.

[Solon]

117. How many men on this board have you accused of being irresponsible?

Given your WORDS on this issue, which, if you noticed, I didn't say anything for or against these guys on this lawsuit. Personally I think its BS myself, but my opinion doesn't matter to you at all, the fact that you come off as hostile towards all men, even ones who AGREE with you on this issue should tell you something. You are the one talking about forcing medical procedures on ALL men who speak out on any injustice, however, rare against them. Guess what, this isn't some zero-sum game on civil rights. Men can be victims too, I know you probably hate to think of it that way, men are told that to be strong when we are weak, we are told to hold in our emotions, and when we don't we are derided as freaks by this patriarchal society.

You are the one who assumes that men lie, period about any issue that is also percieved as a women's issue. I have yet to see you even speak about such injustices because of what they are, injustices, does it really matter what sex the person is when such things occur?

[superconnected]

122. you poor man.

You must be so opressed. Not.

[Solon]

125. And you prove the point beautifully that men don't have a lock...

on sexism, congratulations!

[Yupster]

134. Do you hate women?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bassic]

186. Yeah cause discrimination is ok if it's against men.

After all, our fathers and grand-fathers did it so we deserve it right? :sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

301. There are times when I really question my commitment to equality

and other ideals, only because on those occasions it seems some who clamor for them don't really want those things. They just want some sort of collective revenge.

[Bassic]

325. Yes there are a lot of people who think like that

They piss me right off. I keep my commitment to quality by reminding myself that every group of people, be they in power or not has it's assholes. Euality also means the assholes have a louder voice.


Every time I hear a woman say something like that, I just put her in the same basket as the chauvenistic macho dingbats we all love to hate.

[Yupster]

130. Then there's the guy whose wife

ran off with her boyfriend, got divorced and hit the guy up for child support.

Then she told him the kids weren't his anyway, which was proven by DNA testing, but the court still ordered him to pay the child support anyway -- to the real parents of the kids.

What a sucker, but he's a man so he deserves it.

[Solon]

137. Be careful Yupster...

She'll report you for calling her on her hypocrisy!

[lastliberalintexas]

233. I've seen that posted here before, but I don't believe it

In every state that I am aware of, parentage during marriage is a *rebuttable* presumption that the father can overcome with DNA testing. If what you say is true, then the judge made a horrendous ruling- but it's wholly irrelevant to whether a parent should pay support for a child which is truly hers/his.

[jberryhill]

326. In PA, it is virtually conclusive...

A lot of people have lost sight of the public policy principle involved in these kinds of decisions.

Here's the deal. The state has a legitimate interest in not spending its resources to support children who are SOMEBODY's. The state also has a legitimate interest in not spending a lot of time and effort digging through all sorts of recriminations about people's personal lives.

So, to the guy who slept with or married a duplicitous woman and now has to pay child support, the answer is "Dude, nobody else made you sleep with or marry that woman." But the bottom line remains - "here is a child, and both parents are obligated to support that child"

And the answer is pretty much the same to the man whose wife bore someone else's child during marriage - "She's YOUR wife, you married her, and we're going to find two people who are responsible for the support of this child. Looks like we have two people right here. Buh-bye."

[jberryhill]

327. A sucker?

Someone held a gun to that guy's head and made him marry her in the first place?

Adam didn't get to choose his wife. That guy did. So the "blame her for my bad judgment" excuse doesn't work as well.

How long was that guy supporting those kids and acting as their father in fact? After you've BEEN the "father" for years, the fact that it was someone else's sperm years ago doesn't really matter in terms of the state's interest in seeing to it that children are supported.

[LostinVA]

225. Of course he has legal recourse -- in all 50 states

He needs to sue her for support.

[poverlay]

69. You just perfectly proved my point. My friend DID take responsibility,

and pays a large amount. So large in fact, he can't afford to get his only means of transportation to the job that pays it fixed. Meanwhile she lives with her parents and takes about a week a month vacation away from the kid~not to mention the two to four days a week my friend has him. Uh, but, uh she's blameless right? From where I'm sitting they're both 100% to "blame".

He is certainly the more responsible parent, but has no say over the child's life, where the money goes, or whether people like you brand him as a stupid dumb ass.

Nothing is ever going to improve for the children involved in these situations until people start seeing all the sides to the story and stop using inanities such as "Stupidity Tax".

[superconnected]

88. I wouldn't be surprised if your friend accidentally does it again.

Nice he's not a dead beat dad. But he obviously hasn't taken responsibility for his impregnating someone yet. Sounds like he's still blaming her.

Nope, wouldn't be surprised at all if he did it again.

I propose a double stupidity tax on this man your honor. He's paying out the ying yang but he still hasn't figured out it was his actions that got him there. I'm sure he'll blame the next woman in an (but she's suppose to have bc or, but she said... yadda yadda yadda).

Wonder how long till he learns. From what you're saying neither of you have yet.

Definitly double stupidity tax.

I'll just assume the state will hit him with it, and you, since you don't see how it's a mans responsibility what he does with his sperm.

Wonder how many times you two will be hit, with it.

[Solon]

91. You seem to have a lot of hostility towards men, period...

I would go so far to say it was sexist. He takes responsiblity, financially at least, yet you still believe he should be punished for the rightfully held belief that he was conned into it. She is a con-woman, period, there is nothing in that that should even allow her to keep the child, much less get money for it.

[superconnected]

99. I have no hostility.

Half of what I'm typing is getting fed to me from a guy sitting here.

Perhaps you have hostility you are projecting...

[superconnected]

101. I'm not making any judgements accept over your blame game.

Your friend is who badly chose the woman to lay. He screwed up. He is 100 percent responsible for putting himself there. Until he figures that out, I'm sure he'll do it again.

[Solon]

102. Your the one who seems to think FORCING men to undergo a medical...

procedure for the decision of WOMEN is somehow fair. Why not the reverse? Why can't women who are shown to be irresponsible, by getting pregnant accidently, be forced to get their tubes tied as well. At least be consistant in your blame game.

[superconnected]

115. because unless they are raped

women know they are fully responsible for their actions. having sex can get them pregnant. they take responsiblity for it.

As we see here, men like yourself are defending an idea that men aren't responsible for where they put their sperm. Hand it to a flaky woman, get a flaky situation.

Obviously since these men are admant they don't want a woman pregnant, yet engage in acts to get them pregnant, not taking the burden of bc to protect themselves, they can't manage their penis'.

I neuter my cat's because they can't manage them. Why not force men to sterilization, when they can't. obviously these men are telling us they can't control their penis's themselves.

[Solon]

118. Since when have all women taken responsibility for pregnancy...

There are kids born with Fetal-Alcohol syndrom, drug addictions, etc. Are these women NOT responsible for the condition and health of the children they bore? If not, then why the double standard? I said be consistant, apparently, in you man hating, you are incapable of intellectual honesty, so in that case, you are a hypocrite.

[superconnected]

129. More

personal attacks will get the alert button pushed. Go for it.

[Solon]

135. So who is the whiner again?

Can't take a little criticism, is that it? I mean, heaven forbid you actually debate any of my points, the cowards way is much braver after all.

[superconnected]

138. odd

it has nothing to do with critism.

you've sunk to personal attacks. You are still sunk to that level.

come on, give us more :)

[Solon]

142. Who is generalizing here?

Your the one who called me a whiner first, remember? You are the one who comes out with broad brushes first, remember that. You are the one who accused me of women hating, so turnabout is fair play. Besides which, you still haven't answered my questions that were put forward. Give answers, or just come up with BS excuses again. Really, given your rhetoric on this thread, I find your hypocrisy to be astounding. So prove me wrong, what about women who have shown themselves to be irresponsible to their own children, those that abandon them, drink alcohol or do drugs during pregnancy, shouldn't they be given the same treatment as men who also are irresponsible?

[Solon]

146. What about men who are raped? n/t

[LostinVA]

226. That isn't even funny -- joking about rape is never okay

[Solon]

242. Tell me, wheres the fucking joke? n/t

[mondo joe]

193. If women are fully responsible for their actions, they won't need

abortion rights or child support payments.

[sarcasmo]

232. Solon, you have entered the Man bashing area of D/U.

Tread lightly or get bashed. I have learned on the last couple of threads that there are many Man haters here at D/U. It appears D/U should start a new section and call it Man Haters.

[poverlay]

114. Actually, I have two children 9 and 11. I have provided for them

financially and been the "stay at home parent" their entire lives. I cook, clean, change diapers(not anymore on that one thank the Gods), do maintenance, school projects, Girl Scouts, karate, baseball soccer, you name it. When I got my girlfriend pregnant I took "responsibility" and married her. My wife is an intelligent businesswoman who completely agrees with my assessment. Your assumptions are offensive. I'll put my sense of responsibility and assumed life duties up against anyone's, anytime.

My friend is engaged to a good, honest, caring woman who isn't pregnant or deceitful.
He's actually never blamed the mother himself. In fact the only thing I've ever heard from him on it regarding responsibility is: "I have no one to blame but myself". I saw it all happen up close. He was clearly taken advantage of. Gee--figured it out all by myself-amazing.

This isn't about taking care of the kid. Taking responsibility for one's behavior and not deserving to get screwed by a deceitful person who then proceeds to use a child to hurt you are two totally different things. If you can't agree on that then I must agree to disagree and respectfully end this discussion with you. Neither I, nor he deserve your derision...

Wonder how many times you're going to trip over yourself before you learn not to paint everyone with the same broad brush?

[Yupster]

126. Women always see to birth control?

Well that settles the abortion debate then. No reason to abortions unless serious medical concerns.

If a woman forgot to use birth control? Well just call the baby a stupidity tax that she justly deserves to pay.

[Coventina]

195. Zing!

:-)

[Blue_Tires]

65. lol

ttt

[happyslug]

70. The BIG Issue should be what is best for the child?

Remember we are talking about THREE people here. Two who, at least biologically, adults, and one that is not (i.e. the baby/infant/child).

The Courts main thrust is to protect the best interest of the CHILD not the Child's parents. Thus if we look at the CHILD's point of view what would do the CHILD the most good?

Before I go on lets look at some biological facts:

1. Women carry the fetus for nine months, the fetus can NOT survive outside the womb. She goes through various hormonal changes during this time period do to the pregnancy (and afterward).

2. When a child is born, a bond develops between the Child and the Child's mother. This is a very strong bond and many Psychologist believe reaches, in the child, to the level that the Child does NOT see him or herself independent of the child's mother till about three years of age (Through such independence in thought seems to start about age 2).

3. Young Children also tend to accept and know other people, but not to the degree as their mother. Till most states adopted a Equal Rights Amendment, this was the basis behind the "Tender Years Doctrine" i.e. young Children were better off with their Mothers then their fathers (With ever thing else is even). When most states adopted an ERA, this doctrine was dropped for it violates treating both sexes the same. While the Tender Year Doctrine is NO longer the law in most states, the reason behind the Doctrine stills exists, i.e. Child under two prefer to be with their mothers over the fathers (in most cases).

4. Only Women can breast feed a baby (Through there are pumps men can use they are NOT the same as breast feeding). Women also have a tendency to carry the child in their left arms (Men tend to carry a child in either arms). This may sound odd, but a child brain development for Language in on the right side of the Child's brain, thus when laying in the Child's mother's left arm the Child's right ear is next to the Child's Mother's month, thus the Child is exposed more sounds when in the arms of the Child's Mother (or any woman) than in a man's arms (This is one of the many little things women do instinctively around infants that we men just do not do).

5. Women are easier to seduce when their are ovulating (i.e. can become pregnant) AND men are attracted to women who are ovulating (Whether the man knows about it or not).

6. Other than do things for a woman (i.e. Dear get me this or that) men have very little impact on the fetus during its development in the womb.

7. It generally takes 18 months for a body to recover from any serious injury including giving birth. Thus a woman is not back to being "Normal" for almost two years after her last child is born).

8. Men earn more money than women (This is probably NOT a biologically difference, but in some ways it is).

Along with the above Biological facts, you have the legal fact that the Courts put the burden of proof on the parent who does NOT have custody to change custody. Given that baby are born to Women, Women tend to have "Custody" at least from that date and thus most men have to fight for custody. This is made more complex in that in most families it is left up to the Women to make all or most of the day to day decisions regarding the children. I know men like to say it is an equal decs ion between both parents, but in the vast majority of households the man's main decision is to support the decision of the mother of his children.

Given the above, how can a man claim he should have the option NOT to support his child? One of the reason he had sex with the mother of his child was because she was ovulating and his instinct detected that she was ovulating (Sorry, most couples do not agree to sex in the form of a "arms length" contract"). Given the sex is NOT a arms length contract (and even with prostitutes the contract is more one of adhesion i.e. they are forced by their pimps to sell their body for sex, then it is a true independent seller of her body for sex) how can the product of that sexual acts be restricted to demand support in the infants tender years from only one of its parents? The Child has no say in its creation, if anything the child is the innocent bystander to the knowing acts of the child's parents. In short the emphasis of the law has been to protect the child over the rights of either parents. As a general rule, women generally take on this burden at birth (See the above biological reasons) but given the less income of single women someone has to help them. That help is either from the Taxpayers or the father of the Child. The Courts will prefer the father over the taxpayers.

Remember Child support is never for the Mother (Except in indirect means for example the house for the Child is often the house for the Mother, thus child support can be used to pay the rent even if the Mother is living in the house with the Children). Child support is for the Innocent "victim" of the sexual act, the child.

[MasonJar]

72. Time for Lysistrata-like behavior, girls, especially you gals up in

South Dakota.

[pitohui]

73. jeez

what unmarried man would do anything OTHER than "opt out" in that case? even if he wanted to do the right thing, pressure from his parents (if he was young) and pressure from his lawyers (if he was older and had assets) would be too much to resist

women already earn less, already have to carry the child for 9 months, allowing fathers to opt out financially means that women would have to do it all

i don't know why any woman has a child, frankly, while many men are decent, many other men -- and usually the same ones who spread their DNA around the most -- couldn't give one tiny damn about their own kids

this sick dude litigating to get out of supporting his OWN daughter is exhibit A, his daughter won't always be a baby, one day she will know her father hated her and didn't want to pay one tiny dime for one tiny piece of food in her mouth

think of the endless he said she said lawsuits where he claims he said he told her he didn't want a baby, talk is cheap, and anybody can say anything, bill clinton is the only man ever charged w. plagiarism for fibbing abt sex under oath

[lastliberalintexas]

237. Why pitohui, you are such a man hater

Looking at the realities of the situation- how dare you! :)

[The Straight Story]

77. The man's body, the man's choice

Is the message that is being presented.

IE - he is the one that will have to work for the next 18 years to pay the support or face jail, so he should have up until third trimester to 'abort' his share of things.

(At least that is how I have heard it and this story seems based around such)

One could continue on that as well in that he will be risking his life driving to and from work, increased stress levels, etc and so on all relating to having to be a father when he did not want to.

So maybe the message for both IS abstinence :)

[superconnected]

81. Forced Vasectomys is the answer.

Lets not forget the woman also has to raise the kid for 18 years.

Reminds me of all the years my mother paid child support... my dad got the kids in court and she was never an abusive parent, he just had more money.

Here's what I propose. All men who impregnate a woman accidentally(and claim against their will) should get a forced vasectomy, whether they want to support it or not. They aren't smart enough to not get women pregnant. They also should have to support the child they dumbly started, regardless of the fact they aren't able to comprehend how they got someone pregnant and how it's 100 percent their own responsibility to handle their sperm.

Women will continue to take responsiblity by providing birth control only when it suits their needs. Guys will provide it when it suits their needs (they don't want to get someone pregnant.) BUT, if the guy claims it's not his fault when he impregnants someone, instant state forced vascetomy. He's just shown he can't manage his penis.

Also if they whine after getting a woman pregnant, that the woman has rights over her body and whether or not she should abort/keep the kid, they should have their drivers license permanently revoked.

If they can't understand in advance that they put their sperm in someone elses body, they aren't smart enough to drive.

[The Straight Story]

83. Why the seeming hostility? Since when is choice bad?

Shit happens, people want choices to deal with it.

If the woman does not choose to continue the pregnancy, fine, she has an out.

But that is only one half the equation. Both are facing life changing issue with a pregnancy, both were responsible for it occuring.

I could go on and on about my case, losing my 3 kids, over paying child support for almost 2 years because she refused to update child services (a crime), attempting to extort me for 5,000 or she would not hand over the needed paperwork, and on and on.

Sometimes people suck, but that happens on both ends of the gender spectrum. That does not make the issue one we can react to emotionally to solve based on our own personal occurences.

Sex can and does lead to pregnancy. What happens from that moment on can affect the lifes of both parties forever in many, many ways. Maybe the most responsible thing is - if you create a life deal with it and both people act responsibly. But when one or the other party cannot handle that, or desire not to, then both should have a choice. A woman's body, she chooses abortion and leads her life as she wishes, a man's, he chooses not to be the bank and goes and lives his life as he wishes.

Since when is choice bad?

[superconnected]

84. No hostility. Just a suggestion.

Forced vasectomys. Easy answer. If men are so opposed to getting someone pregnant, and yet do not use birth control and do acts that get people pregnant, I don't think they can manage their penis.

Easy answer, halt them. They aren't responsible enough to have a free wheeling penis.

[The Straight Story]

108. Forced deliveries and vasectomys for all :)

Hell, give it time ;)

Me, the government should stay out of the personal decisions people make. But as always, they want to get into our lives more and more because they fear choices and do not trust us. Funny thing is, I thought the constitution and such was to limit their powers, not our freedoms. Someday they may learn that....

[Bassic]

187. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life. nt

[mondo joe]

207. Don't forget forced depo-provera.

You know, for those who can't manage their uterus. :-)

[Megahurtz]

250. Lol! "free wheeling penis! Lol!

:rofl:

[Spinoza]

275. Wonderful suggestion, but too generous to men.

You are on the right track but vasectomies can be reversed. Forced castration, the physical kind, would really do the trick. Punishment not just prevention.

[mondo joe]

308. Really? Do you feel the same way about forced hysterectomies

for welfare moms who make children then can't support?

[Caoimhe]

85. And the child's choice.. not to eat or wear clothing

right? Sorry, someone has to take the responsibility. I'd rather it be the biological parents who created the life, than the taxpayers.

[The Straight Story]

106. Tis not a child until born though, correct?

So they could only opt out in first 2 trimesters.

Now all in all I am not saying it is a grand idea, what I am saying - and have been saying - is that this whole thing surrounds the value judgements of the entire issue. To quote my bro-in-law (yes, a baptist) on this 'if the mother can kill it why shouldn't the man have the right not support it, which is worse' and that is it in a nutshell - that is the reasoning behind the whole suit. To force that very debate.

Either it is a mass of tissues which no one should have to sacrifice years of their lives to support, or it isn't. Either way two lives can change forever, one has a choice (termination) and the other has no say in that choice and no other choice available.

[Megahurtz]

87. Lol! That's funny......

I have to agree!

[Fountain79]

110. That's fine...

As long as any women who got an unwanted pregnacy should have her tubes tied. If she didn't know what was going to happen then she shouldn't have the right to have children....right? BTW...there have been cases of women either claiming infertility, claiming the use of birth control, or even in some cases using a spent condom to get herself pregnant. There have been even cases of a man's frozen sperm used as a way to force child support payments.

[Bassic]

188. Yeah, but it doesen't matter

if the victim is a man. Men deserve that. :sarcasm:

[Yupster]

136. So you think an accidental pregnancy should result in the man

getting a forced vascectomy and the women forcibly getting her tubes tied?

That's a little extreme don't you think?

[Solon]

145. Actually, only the men...

That's what she said, only forced procedures for men only, we are at fault, always, but only if we complain, apparently.

[Bassic]

189. Well that's because we suck.

Like I said earlier, our fathers, grand-fathers and so on were sexists and dominated women, so now our generations deserve to pay. It's only fair :sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

196. Sure - provided there is forced depo-provera for women who

become pregnant and seek abortion or raise their child on welfare.

[NickB79]

252. Why do the women get the easily reversible procedure?

With Depo, you stop recieving the shot and your fertility returns in a few months to a year. A vasectomy, while sometimes reversible, is still generally considered irreversible in most cases.

The equivalent would be forcing women to have their tubes tied.

[mondo joe]

274. Either way it's not a medically equivalent procedure.

But if you want to argue for tubal ligation, it's your dime.

[fleabert]

258. as a pro-choice feminist here, I have to say that this is the most vile

option I have ever read regarding the isssue.

forced vasectomies?

you can't be serious.

the root of choice is dominion over our own bodies, and government not being involved with medical procedures and decisions- privacy. I will NEVER support forced birth control, surgical or otherwise.

That said-

birth control is 100% the woman's responsibility
birth control is 100% the man's responsibility
each person is 100% responsible for their own actions and bodies.

the blame game of 'she said she was on bc' or 'he said he had a vasectomy' just doesn't fly with me. Take care of your own bodily fluids, folks!

Now, when two methods fail - there is a situation to be dealt with: the woman has a right to choose if she continues the pregnancy, and hopefully, she will be able to discuss it with the father and make the best decision for her, but sometimes- women make the decision without doing so. She takes responsibility for her own body.

Once a child is born- both parents are again, 100% responsible for that child.

[arikara]

79. Is this from that group of weird guys

I remember one of them that used to hit the talk show circuit whining about men's rights and how they are so trampled by evil women. He had a big beard and used to wear a skirt on the shows. Not a kilt, but an A-line skirt.

[azureblue]

92. As a former single father

Who was given full custody of my daughter by the mother (my ex), I can testify to the inequalities of the system & how it is biased towards the mother. Just try to get support from the mother. Just try to get a judge to enforce a custody decree. Just try to get a judge to believe a man can rasie a child.
I wanted this child, and no women's rights group or judge was going to stand in the way, even though the mother felt like I could do a better job of raising my daughter, and she was happy to give me custody.
And i have seen women who purposely get pregnant, for any of a bunch of sick reasons, that have nothign to do with raising a child. there is one very thorny issue here: if a pregnancy results from sex, shouldn't both parties have a say so in the decision to terminate the pregnancy?

[superconnected]

93. See above post.

I think you should have your drivers license removed, and a vasectomy.

Sounds like you are whining as if you don't understand how you had total say and you chose to put your sperm in someone elses body, and that someone ill-chosen by YOU, and you can't handle that she has say over her body - keeping or terminating the pregnancy, drinking alcholol or taking crystal meth through it. Who knows what kind of a woman YOU CHOSE. You're blaming her and not taking responsibility for your BAD decisions and ACTIONS. Ie getting someone pregnant.

News flash, the sperm transfers bodies, the person carrying it does have say over what she does with her body.

Since you don't understand how you are 100 percent responsible for your actions, and you are blaming "sinister" women, I don't think you are able to actually handle your sperm. And you definitely shouldn't be making decisions for someone else. Especially women, and especially over things like how they handle their bodies.

You can't handle your own.

[Caoimhe]

94. Nope

Her body, her choice. Biology isn't equal, the choice isn't equal. His choices end after his sperm reach her egg. Life isn't fair. If it were, Cancer wouldn't exist.

[Yupster]

139. AS RFK said

some people look at the world as it is and say Why. Others look at the way it should be and say Why Not.

Hard to see people today looking at unfair situations and just saying "too bad." Used to be people looked at unfair situations and tried to change them.

[Darth_Kitten]

109. How about the inequalities everywhere?

My bio dad never got to pay one penny to my Mom. Oh, maybe for a few months then went to Alberta and the payments stopped.

How are courts biased towards the mother?

[superconnected]

116. My niece and her 6yo live with me.

She's never seen a penny of child support. She's tried.

Her own father never gave my sister 1 penny for her.

[Darth_Kitten]

96. my heart bleeds......

yeah, but when a woman decides to end a pregnancy, doesn't that leave this guys off the hook?

I don't know. I'm tired. :(

[bigjohn16]

98. They can opt out by using a condom.

Other than that they need to except their responsibilities.

[Fountain79]

112. Just pray to god...

that the woman doesn't use the condom to get herself pregnant though.

[bigjohn16]

155. If your looking to avoid 18 years of child support...

... I think you can spend 5 minutes making sure that can't happen. And I'm sure that this is a very rare occurrence.

[Yupster]

140. Good idea

but it didn't work for me. I guess my kid's glad it didn't.

[TheMadMonk]

132. Why is it that only the men who are arseholes in these cases?

Personally I know several fathers who are forced to pay child support for children whith whom they have no contact due entirely to the machinations of the mother. Either through the deliberate alienation of the child, or by moving to a remote location. I have heard one woman proudly proclaim she "got the bastard out of her life" by threatening to report him for molestation. And another who tells how she had each of her five kids by separate fathers in order to maximise the child support payments paid to her.

I am not denying that there are plenty of deadbeat dads out there, I've known a few myself.

What I am saying, is that in many cases the wrongdoing is primarily on the mother's part and yet her ex-partner (and any family he might have subsequently) end up being punished for her actions. Yes the child is deserving of support, but not I believe at the expense of essentially (or entirely) innocent parties.

Looking at the specific case in the OP. He is told that a medical complaint prevents her from having children. He takes her at her word and she subsequently falls pregnant. If the complaint is real then O.K. he should bear some responsibility for the "miracle" child. However, he acted in good faith, so unless he wishes to take up an active parenting role, his financial burden should be significantly reduced.

Now, if the medical complaint did not exist at all, then he acted in good faith whilst she operated under false pretenses (possibly with a deliberate intent to deceive) and yet according to most he should be effectively punished for falling for her con, whilst she gets rewarded for her wrongdoing.

The best that anyone seems to offer is that "He should have taken an active role in preventing the pregnancy." So he has exactly three choices. 1) Forego sexual intercourse altogether. 2) Take a highly significant risk of foregoing all future reproductive rights on his part. (Sterilsation for men might be a simple outpatient procedure. However, reversal is not. It's expensive microsurgery with no guarantee of success) or 3) He wears a condom, which if done in the face of his partner's assurances, is likely to be interpreted as a gesture of mistrust, which will do nothing good for the relationship.

Reproductively, men today are little (if any) better off than women were fifty years ago. In that period there have been huge adances both medical and social that have benefited women enormously. The same can not be said for men. Fair enough that they should (and did) lose "rights" which they should never have possessed in the first place, but it is not fair that their right to be an active parent is now in a large part dependent on the goodwill of their ex-partners.

[superconnected]

141. well, guess men have no control over whether or not the get a woman

pregnant. You obviously found they have no choice.

I suppose we should just tax them the minute they're born. Apparently they can't control their inseminating people so it comes down to the problem is men.

I actually did think the woman had her share in there, but from what you are saying, the guy just can't control these things.

Slap them with the fee. We women can tell them, sorry we can't control it, we must bill you. Out of our control.

[TheMadMonk]

153. Not so. I said that their reproductive choices today

are as limited as a woman's was half a century ago. Nor did I say he can't control these things. I said his ability to exercise control is very limited.

The realities of endocrinology (and advances in medicine over the past half century), mean that women have a far greater and more effective range of choices when it comes to preventing pregnancy. And yet if she choses to forego them, (or is simply careless) the man is automatically assigned "his share of the blame" regardless of any good faith efforts on his part, and even worse, sometimes in the face of deliberate bad faith on hers.

A person who acts in genuine good faith is not normally held responsible when something goes wrong at a later date even if his actions were contributory. And a person who deliberately acts irresonsibly, is generally considered accountable for any untoward results. So why, when it comes to pregnancy, are things suddenly turned on their heads?


It's your body, and your choice whether to let that baby baster anywhere near it, let alone inside it without the appropriate protection(s). If you do so and catch a bloated belly as a result, then you are responsible. You can say "no", or "stop", or "put on a condom". Why didn't you. Unless you are screaming rape, you are implicitly sending the message, "It's all right, I've got it under control" if you told him not to bother, then the message is explicit.

This argument isn't about men absolving themselves of all resposibility. It's asking why a bloke should be held accountable when he acted in good faith and in some cases when there is actual bad faith on the part of the woman. Why he should be forced to meet his "obligations" when what rights he might have regarding the child are partly or entirely removed.


BTW something resembling coherent English would be nice.

[Yupster]

144. This sounds similar to a proposal I've been making

on DU for three years at least now.

My proposal.

Once a woman finds out she is pregnant, she has a certain period of time to make a good faith attempt to inform the potential father.

At that point, the potential father has a short period of time to file a legal document either accepting all legal rights and responsibilities of fatherhood, or declining them.

The potential mother gets this document and then makes her decision on whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy.

The reason I like this plan is that the woman has complete control over whether she becomes a mother or not, as sher must. The man also has control over whether he becomes a parent or not.

It is the fairest system I've been able to think of.

I think eventually something like it will be put into place as the current system of "My Body, My Choice, Our Responsibility," really doesn't pass the fairness test.

[superconnected]

147. I think you're absolutely wrong.

That very much joins the men in the article.

It's your body, and your choice to deliver the sperm to her body. After that, your control was passed. Wake up. Its a biological thing. You made the decision to pass the control when you deliver the sperm. Men willingly give up control for 9 months. If not, wear a condom.

After 9 months it's neithers body but the childs.

I realize you think it's unfair that women get rights over their body. Believe me, if women could make the man bear the child, I think most would. I think most would consider it his body at that point though.

And what you're saying indicates she HAS to get an abortion or support it alone.

That's pretty sick. Most women will always refuse abortion.

I'm glad the system holds men responsible. They certianly won't be held responsible on their own. Not en masse anyway. And yes I know some men do take responsibility for impregnating someone. Responsibility that goes beyond abortion or no support. In other words, no support for the child HE partly created.

[mondo joe]

200. You said women are FULLY RESPONSIBLE for their actions.

This proposal simply respects that.

[Solon]

148. Dude, that's whacked...

Seriously, the problem is if the woman is poor, it puts an unfair burden on her, she would still have to carry a child to term, and while adoption is theoritically an option, its has its own problems, the least of which is that the placement system sucks a lot and not enough people adopt, period. I wouldn't support such a proposal, it sounds reasonable on paper, but in real life its almost extorting some women to have abortions.

[Lars39]

152. Women are particularly vulnerable to being murdered while pregnant.

By their husbands,SO.

[Bridget Burke]

198. If the mother signs the agreement & then gets sick or loses her job....

The kid will suffer. And if she dies, perhaps someone will adopt the kid--if he or she is perfect & not "too old." After all, the father has already signed away his rights forever.

Why don't you run for office on your proposal?

[mondo joe]

309. Same as any parents who loses a job or gets sick.

Whether a kid has one or two parents, unemployment and illness can rob them of home and security.

[jberryhill]

And where do the taxpayers get THEIR choice in your scheme?

So, okay, in your scenario, mom & child go on public support of some kind, and everyone else posting here pays "child support", when there is a father out there who is able to pay?

No, you pin the tail on the parents - both of them - first.

[mondo joe]

336. I haven't presented a scheme, have I?

But let's consider your question -- if a couple surrenders a child for adoption and the adoptive parents get sick or lose their jobs, who pays? Would we then go back to the bio parents and seek support?

I'm not advocating that no one pay support or no no be responsible - but I have to point out some holes in the discourse here. Every day we have people who choose to have children cope with sickness and job loss -- why is this different?

In the scenario presented - and not one my creation - the mother wanted to have a child and the father didn't. Who should be responsible is the question.

Did she choose to have a child and choose to keep it, knowing it was unwanted?

[joshcryer]

278. This is the most reasonable answer to this debate I've ever heard.

I wish I'd thought of that. Wonderful. Too bad it'd never be implemented.

[jberryhill]

328. Fair to Whom?

You seem to think that child support is about the man and the woman.

It's not.

So, in your system, if the mother is unable to support the children, then taxpayers foot the bill, while the guy goes on to make as much as he wants?

Uh, no.

The idea is that both parents are responsible for supporting that child, and that the rest of us are not paying for your bad judgment in sexual partners.

[deadparrot]

156. Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

NEW YORK - 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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_re_us/fatherhood_suit

[NVMojo]

157. this men's group is insance. Google them.

[geomon666]

158. ....there's a Men's Rights group?

For what?

[MGKrebs]

159. BattyDem predicted this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x592700

Sort of.

[Mythsaje]

160. I'm not surprised...

this has been coming for a long, long time. Anyone who's ever heard Tom Leykus rant for five minutes (painful as that might be in any case) could see the argument brewing.

[bleedingheart]

161. So Women can be forced to have children that no one wants to support

what a grand idea...

:sarcasm:

[ugarte]

177. That's pretty much it. No abortions, no child support...

Plenty of child abuse on the horizon, however.

[niyad]

162. Men's rights--"get it snipped, or keep it ZIPPED"

[Crandor]

165. This is the same argument pro-lifers use

"If she didn't want to have a kid she should have kept her legs together".

Why does this stupid argument suddenly become valid when applied to men?

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crandor]

174. what?!

I just don't think it's right for anybody - man or woman - to be forced to have a child against their will.

You're right in that men do have a choice in whether to have sex or not, women raping men is pretty much unheard of. But, I have heard of cases of women sabotaging birth control or otherwise trying to trap men into paying child support.

[NMDemDist2]

175. welcome to DU Crandor,

truly

:hi:

[Crandor]

176. actually

I've been around for over a year, I'm just a fairly sparse poster.

[Th1onein]

178. Why doesn't anybody ever address the issue of birth control?

This is not an era where we women don't have any methods of birth control. We've got plenty of ways to keep from getting pregnant, besides keeping our legs together. I really don't see the need for abortion in this day and age.

[niyad]

180. failed birth control springs to mind immediately. as does rape.

[readmoreoften]

182. A man is going to be forced to have a child against his will.

If his sperm gets her pregnant and she chooses not to abort. And if you don't want a woman to "trap you" into having a baby then put a condom on it. You'll also be doing the world a favor if you don't allow a woman who sees a kid as a meal ticket to reproduce. (Not that I think that this is a normal scenario. Actually, it's a really stupid swindle.)

[Bassic]

192. Hell, I KNOW a woman

who willingly lied to a guy in order to get pregnant.

But hey, it's still his fault right? Cause he's a man, and men suck! :sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

199. I know two women who did it - but I have to say in both cases it led to

pretty unhappy relationships which were probably harder on them emotionally than on their husbands.

[Bassic]

201. The difference is that in this case, it wasn't her husband

or even her boyfriend for that matter. She just invited a guy she casually knows into her bed, told him it's ok not to use a condom because she'd just had her period and had sex with him in order to get pregnant.

[WhiteTara]

171. don't make love

without your glove...taught to our boy at the age of 8 and thereon up.

[eek MD]

261. and if his glove breaks...

tell him to get on his knees and pray......

haven't you heard all of the people on here saying that his only say is keeping his dick in his pants? You should be preaching abstinence only like all those right-wingers, 'ya know...

[WhiteTara]

283. my teachings were somewhere along the line

of self respect, respect for others. Pleasure in the human experience should not be made something to loathe, but to revere and respect. If a baby comes and it's yours, take responsibility.

[BoneDaddy]

234. Womens' rights

Shut your legs and protect those eggs.

[bluestateguy]

163. That strikes me as a weak argument

However, I do think that if the father is paying his child support money and if he is not a violent or abusive man that he should have the right to be a part of the child's life.

[LeftyMom]

168. That's a fairly low standard

What if the non-custodial parent has an addiction, takes the child into unsafe situations, steals from the custodial parent, etc? There are lots of good reasons to deny the non-custodial parent visitation (or restrict them to supervised visits) when violence is not an issue.

Also, not all non-custodial parents are men. I wish people would keep that in mind in this discussion.

[bluestateguy]

169. I forgot all of the "what if's?"

But I think people know what I mean.

Geesh, you really have to watch it with all of the "what if's?" or somebody will come along and bite you in the ass.

[LeftyMom]

173. Just making a point

I'm a bit sensitive since my son's father never hit me but clearly established that he isn't fit company for women and children in other ways. My mother (the non-custodial parent after my folks split) had a habit and really shouldn't have had visitation, either.

I just don't want to see the child custody deal oversimplified, because it really is complicated.

[mondo joe]

210. But we have low standards for custodial parents as well.

It takes a lot before we intervene in a family setting, legally. I don't see why non custodial parents should have a higher standard.

[Faygo Kid]

164. Hilarious and horrid at the same time. Will go nowhere.

I was born during the Truman Administration and Mom raised two boys in the 50s and 60s without a dime from "Dad". Oh yeah, our society will be much better with this one. Something about "best interests of the child" ought to come before this right-wing proposal. Mel Feit can kiss my ass. Excuse my language. I never use it here, but Mel can most certainly do that. Really. Go to hell, Mel.

[TaleWgnDg]

166. This federal lawsuit is stupid . . .

.

This federal lawsuit is stupid and should be dismissed. This issue has been dealt with over and over and over again in state courts across America. And the court's focal is on children not some whiny self-centered parent who refuses to pay for child support! "Father's rights!!" Wha? The kid should be on welfare -- we all pay -- b/c some idiot *forgot* that sperm and egg = child?

[Crandor]

167. you're using anti-abortionist logic

some idiot *forgot* that sperm and egg = child?

This is the exact same argument anti-abortionists use to justify banning abortion in the name of "personal responsibility".

[TaleWgnDg]

170. Uuummm, no. I'm using "best interests of the child" standard. n/t

[mondo joe]

191. Wouldn't that apply to abortion as well?

You need a new argument.

[readmoreoften]

183. How bout this.

Some idiot forgot that sperm+egg= fetus. And if that woman is pro-life or personally against abortion for herself, the fetus will develop into child. That is the PRO-CHOICE argument. Woman's right to choose.

[mom cat]

179. If he doesn't want to support a child he can wear a condom or

hava a vasectomy. Pretty simple.

[mondo joe]

208. If prevention is the simple answer to unwanted pregnancy, is there a

reason your argument would not equally apply to women getting pregnant, therefore eliminating the need for legsl abortion?

[mom cat]

244. I agree. except in cases of rape and incest. When sex is not consentual,

the female cannot be blamed. When it is consentual, the female bears equal responsibility, and usually will bear most of the burden of raising any child.
I do not advicate irresponsibility in either gender.

[mondo joe]

270. Oh - I assumed you were pro-choice. My mistake. n/t

[mom cat]

304. I obviously did not make muself clear. I am Pro choice. The issue was abou

joint financial responsibility for a child. I do believe in shared financial responsibility, although I know of plenty men who evade their share of the expence.

[mondo joe]

306. Wait a minute. You believe if a man doesn't want a child he should use

birth control, and it's as simple as that.

Why not hold women to the same standard? If they don't want a child, use birth control or don't have sex.

Since you feel it's so easy to avoid unwanted pregnancy, what need is there for abortion (other than cases of non consensual sex)?

[happyslug]

181. Duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2153382

[sarcasmo]

185. This has been a long time coming. Kick and Nom

Paying child support for an ex girlfriends daughter now tell me that isn't insane.

[Bridget Burke]

203. Are you paying for an ex-girlfriend's daughter by another man?

Or--are you the father but didn't want further commitment?

You won't have to send off those checks forever. Then you can forget you ever had a daughter.

[sarcasmo]

212. Because I want a Man to have rights you assume I am a bad Father.

[Bridget Burke]

214. How would better "Man rights" have saved you from this dreadful situation?

Please explain the details.

[sarcasmo]

218. See post 217

[Bridget Burke]

219. Did you dump her before or after you knocked her up?

Did she "fool you" or was it a contraceptive failure?

[nodehopper]

190. I sort of see the point in this

I mean, I think it's despicable that they want to do this, but I see the legal argument. If a partner makes it clear that he does not want the child from the get-go, I don't see why he has to support the child, if the woman is making an informed decision to have and raise the child knowing that her partner does not wish to be involved. It's a totally different matter if they agree to have the child together and then then man bails, then he should totally pay child support. But I don't see why he has to if he makes it clear from the get-go that he does not want to raise a child. I mean, if we say "then he shouldn't have sex" that is the same argument pro-lifers use for women, and that's hypocricy.

[Bassic]

194. No it's not

It's not hipocrisy because it goes agains men and men suck :sarcasm:

[MissMillie]

209. The unfortunate reality of all this

is that much of the time, discussions about children are not even part of the equation. I'm willing to bet that the men involved with this "Roe v. Wade for men" are not the victims of manipulation or lies, but instead are men who never bothered to have a discussion about the what the plans would be if their partner got pregnant. (on edit: I should make it clear that the women in the relationships are just as guilty for not starting the conversations that need to take place.)

[sarcasmo]

216. The reality of it is that Men have NO rights when it comes to an Abortion.

If the Women wants to have the baby she will regardless of the Man's opinion, been through that situation and learned that once is enough.
Let the Man bashing continue.

[MissMillie]

220. Certainly you don't think I was doing any man bashing

But here's another reality for you, an abortion is a medical procedure. You don't think we live in a world where one person can order another person to go through a medical procedure that they don't want to... do you?

If the shoe were on the other foot?

[sarcasmo]

228. When a Man's sperm leaves his body according to just about every Women

here the Man no longer has any rights. What a bunch of lovely Women we have here on D/U.

[MissMillie]

260. I won't say that you have no rights

I will say that you have no right to force a woman to have a medical procedure that she does not want to have.

I think there's a saying somewhere that says that posession is 9/10 of the law... and no, that isn't necessarily fair from a moral standpoint, but how, from a legal standpoint, can you argue against it?

[Bridget Burke]

215. Child support is not for the mother....

It's for the child. Even if the mother is an evil bitch & the man is 100% innocent.

I won't say the man "shouldn't have sex." But, he should consider not having unprotected sex with a woman he doesn't really know. Have they exchanged their thoughts on parenthood? (& what about STD's?)

[nodehopper]

266. what I don't like about your argument:

It's the same as the fundie argument about abortion: she shouldn't slut it up without a condom with someone she doesn't know. Condoms break, birth control fails, people find themselves in a situation where they are facing a pregnancy and they didn't want it. Say the mother decides to keep the child. If the father has no say in her decision (as he well shouldn't), I don't see why he should be financially responsible for the child.

[mondo joe]

273. Right. The anti-choicers treat having a child like punishment

for some irresponsibility.

Why is it we can say of a woman that she chose not to have a child for her own private reasons - that it didn't work in her life or whatever - but if a man doesn't want to be a father it's his own dumb fault and he has no right to complain?

I'm a gay man, and I am a father of two daughters by choice, so I'm not exactly the typical male in these equations. But it sure doesn't look right to me.

[nodehopper]

276. I am a woman and if I got pregnant

and it was not a planned pregnancy and my partner made it clear that he did not want to be a parent, I wouldn't expect him to financially support the child.

[mondo joe]

297. I'm not a woman, but I'd like to think if I were I'd do the same.

And certainly I have known women who have taken that course.

[jberryhill]

315. Because as a society...

...we have decided that it is preferable to first require PARENTS to support their offspring before YOU make US pay for the child YOU fathered.

Child support is for children.

The rest of society does not care, as between the father and the mother, who wanted what. THOSE TWO parties are going to be responsible for the financial support of that child.

I am a child-support paying divorced father and I have nothing but utter contempt for men who do not understand the principle here. Do I get along with my children's mother? No, and vice versa. But THAT is not the issue behind child support policy.

Certainly there can be reforms in the way various states determine support, but the issue of child support has NOTHING to do with the issue of abortion.

Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. A child has been born, and we don't care how or why your child was born. YOU are going to have to support that child.

If you don't like it, then go get a vasectomy right now.

How dare ANYONE here criticize Republican policies on social equity issues, education, or any other program designed to benefit children while at the same time trying their dangdest to relieve the people most directly concerned with their direct responsiblity to support their own offspring.

I will tell you something, pal, I am less interested in supporting the child of the woman you slept with than you are.

[kestrel91316]

211. Hey, dude, you already got plenty of rights:

Like, um, the right to keep your pecker in your pants unless you are prepared to risk fatherhood; the right to use a condom; the right to have a vasectomy. Even the right to offor to pay for pregnancy termination if that's what she wants.

Pick your one-night stands a little more carefully next time.

[sarcasmo]

230. "Pecker in your pants" I guess the women could have kept her panties on

too. Then again that's not the case here since you all just love Men.

[Hosnon]

363. I agree...it is amazing how hypocritical most of these arguments are

against this idea.

Men should keep their pants on or assume all of the results.

Women...oh they have a choice after the fact.

[zann725]

213. Our bodies...our RIght! Enough said ol' white men. Grow female organs

yourself, then let's talk, okay?

This is SUCH an old argument...long-since decided. Oh sure, new "spins," but a woman can ALWAYS make that "choice"...even if it is endangered in future by going "back-street" again. And a woman can always be the ONLY ONE to know who the "real" father of her baby is. And that alone is the "our bodies" element that secretly frightens, enrages and makes ALL Men know this trying to "regulate" our birth control, and Abortion rights...that somehow they can "control" Women.

In retrospect, the Equal Rights Amendment was "off-base." Women ARE "equal" and superior in many ways to men...and Men DO know that, no matter all the huffin' and puffin' about Right to Choose. That's REALLY what this continuing age-old ATTEMPT to "control" us by controlling our reproductive systems is about. Fear-based...as most other Repug views. Fear, fear, fear....

[sarcasmo]

217. It takes two to make a baby, but only one gets to choose to have the baby.

[Bridget Burke]

221. Why does your profile say you're female?

Just wondering....

[sarcasmo]

229. What makes you think I am not female.

Because I am not Man bashing?

[Bridget Burke]

251. Because you're complaining about paying support for your daughter....

By your ex-girlfriend.

How about: "Because I want a Man to have rights you assume I am a bad Father."

I don't think any combination of hormone therapy & surgery could make your posts & your profile match up.

[Shakespeare]

239. That's because only one person CARRIES the baby and gives birth.

Yeah, please talk to me about the immense burden of ejaculation, especially as it stacks up against carrying and going through the physical risk of giving birth. :eyes:

[Peanutcat]

231. Figures . . . . .

They want to take away abortion rights like in SD; they want to limit access to contraceptives to prevent pregnancies, like Plan B; and now the motherfuckers don't want to pay for the children they help create. Bastards.

[jberryhill]

235. This Is Beyond Stupid

The obligation to support a child is not about who had what choice and when, and it is not an obligation of a man to a woman or vice versa.

Both parents are obligated to support their children. Period. Whether either or both of those parents wanted to have a child, whether they used birth control, or whether the mother chose an abortion, is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that both parents are obligated to support their children.

This is not about anyone's choice. It is entirely about the state's legitimate interest in having children supported by the people responsible for that child, and the child's interest in being supported.

Yeah, in a typical situation, where a father is paying support, the mother might blow it all on hairstyles, booze or clothing. But that still has nothing to do with the basis of the obligation that BOTH parents have to support their children.

Women do not have the option to avoid child support, and men do not have that option either. There is zero inequality involved in requiring both parents to be obligated to support their children.

[Frank Cannon]

236. Hey, pansy-men, it's called RESPONSIBILITY. DEAL.

No woman holds a gun to a guy's head and says "have sex with me or die". My "macho" friends, you made the choice, knew what the consequences could be, and went ahead with the deed anyway. Any dude that's not prepared to raise a child, marry its mother, or at the very least provide child support shouldn't be having sex, period. That's what they invented Penthouse, Kleenex, and hand lotion for, for crying out loud.

I can't believe what a bunch of infantile, wimpy little boys the American male is turning into. I am absolutely ashamed.

[Contradistinction]

243. I've been wishing for this for years...

I would bet my bottom dollar women wouldn't be oopsing men if this were available. Men should have the choice as well. You want the kid ladies....Good, you pay for it. It's about time men have a choice as well.

[Frank Cannon]

257. A woman HAS to take responsibility whether she...

has the baby or not. The guy doesn't HAVE to do shit.

Again, we're talking about whiny little baby-men here, and they disgust me.

[AnneD]

248. Thank you...

Frank. A woman does not get pregnant on her own. Should this bill go through, the RW nut job pharmicists refusing to dispense BC or BC be made illegal, AND Roe V Wade is overturned, some guys are going to have to prepare for a long, cold winter because hell will freeze over before some guys will see any action. I'll be buying shares in Penthouse, Kimberly Clarke, and Duracell;).

Hubby and I discussed this thread this AM. God bless him, he was shocked that it was even proposed (he is from India and although they are a bit conservative, he said the case would be laughed out of the courts in India)....it is the man's duty period end of story. As he put it, "A woman isn't born pregnant and doesn't get pregnant until she sleeps with a man. It is the man's responsibility." (Did I mention how much I love this guy). You would think an old fashioned conservative guy from a conservative culture would do a macho number but no...He shocked me.

[Megahurtz]

249. Right On Frank! And here's for the Whiners:

:nopity:

[Contradistinction]

255. Here's the solution....

If the man decides he doesn't want to have the kid, he has to pay half the cost of the abortion. If the woman decides to have the kid, then that's what she gets...half the cost of the abortion and the man gives up all rights & obligations to the kid. Or, men will get smart like I did a long time ago & get the clip. :)

[Megahurtz]

285. That idea makes sense,

That is, if you have a good communicative relationship with that person,
otherwise it probably wouldn't work. And probably more men should get vasectomies!

Too bad in our society that they are handing out Viagra to men
instead of some kind of birth control lol!:D

[Xithras]

256. I agree with this in cases of fraud.

I have a friend who just recently had his first child. His girlfriend SWORE that she was using BC, but stopped in the hopes of trapping him into marriage. She got pregnant, and got a heck of a suprise when he walked out on her for it (good for him, IMO). He's now going to be stuck paying child support for a child that he didn't want, that he and the mother had agreed wouldn't be created, and that was the direct result of fraud and deception on the mothers part. Not only does the guy have no interest in being a father, he's about to go to Africa for at least four years and won't have any chance at all to play any kind of role in his daughters life.

As far as he's concerned, he's just a sperm donor. He'll start a family at some point in the future, but has already made it clear that he has no intention of being involved in the girls life at all. The child was the result of a decision made exclusively by the mother, and his only contribution was to provide the semen which she used to make it happen.

[Frank Cannon]

259. Your friend, I'm sorry to tell you, was an idiot

NO guy should assume that the union he's about to enter is free of consequences or danger. He should either "suit up" with plenty of his own protection or, better yet, forget the whole activity if he's not prepared to deal with the worst case scenario.

Like I said in a previous post, any guy who is not prepared to care for a child, marry its mother or, at the very least, pay for child support HAS NO BUSINESS HAVING SEX. This isn't bowling, for for crying out loud. This is an activity that has serious life-changing consequences.

I think we're so bombarded with sexual imagery, etc., in our culture that we just think recreational sex is an everyday fun activity like playing a video game or watching TV. It is not, and that's the huge mistake people like your friend make every day.

[sandnsea]

288. I agree with you completely

But boy howdy, suggest changing sex ed classes to focus on the very serious responsibilities involved, and that one should always consider the reality that a sexual encounter might well equal a baby, and stand back to be shot as a purtianical crusader. Odds are, even with 97% effective birth control, eventual sex WILL equal a baby. We need to be telling our young people the truth. And we need to be telling young men to always take the one step that will protect them, from STD's and pregnancy.

[Runcible Spoon]

262. that's despicable!

so he wants absolutely nothing to do with that girl's life, for the reason that he blames the mother (OK fair enough) but why punish an innocent child here, and then walk around proclaiming how he wants a "real" family of his choosing. Your friend sounds like a piece of shit. If he can't be a father to this girl I see no hope of him being a good father to any child. What happens when he doesn't get a perfect little angel? What happens if his chosen child is severely deformed? We don't get to always choose how our lives go...the best we can do is optimize what's thrown at us. Why wish for a perfect family that may never be, when he could realize the value of what already is. Your friend has an opportunity to redeem himself by stepping up and being there for that little girl. How sad!

[Xithras]

280. What responsibility does a sperm donor have?

I think that's his perspective on the whole thing. If he had gone to a sperm bank and donated semen, very few people would argue that he should have some kind of responsibility for the resulting child. Why not? What makes a sperm donor different from someone who just has a one time fling with someone who later gets pregnant? THE CONTRACT. In the case of sperm donors, there is a contract in place which eliminates his liability, and in which the mother agrees to remove his legal obligations.

The thing is, courts HAVE upheld the legality of verbal contracts in the past, and have even held them to be just as binding as written contracts in some occassions. So when two people agree to have sex and agree that they don't want any children from the union, why doesn't THAT qualify as a contract? If the man says "I will have sex with you, with the understanding that I don't want you to have any babies as a result", and the woman then agrees to it, why isn't THAT legally considered to be a verbal contract? Because we have a double standard in our society, that's why.

That's the way he looks at it. It isn't "his" daughter any more than the child resulting from a sperm donation is "his" child. He thinks he should have no more responsibility for the child than a woman who gives a child up for adoption has to the baby she bore. The simple existence of a genetic link doesn't make him a father.

[RazzleDazzle]

320. Quite a he-man your friend is

VEry effective bit of rationalization too, to avoid any and all responsibility.

Now THIS is the kind of, um, "sperm donor" (to use his own words for himself) that I'm thrilled this little girl will not have to suffer through and pretend she's got a father with. Thank God. It'll be quite lonely for her, and there will be plenty of pain, but not having a father is better, IMO, than having an ass like him pretend to be one. And the girl's mother is immeasurably better off as well. I hope she'll be smart enough to recognize that.

[Runcible Spoon]

361. I'm not saying he's contractually obligated.

I said it would be the sensitive, humane thing to do. Sheesh what a cold world.

[mondo joe]

367. Indeed. Based on so many posts on this topic you'd think

every pregnancy was unwanted, and children are nothing but a burden.

Having kids is the best thing I've ever done - the most fun, the most fulfilling, the most beneficial. I can't think why anyone wouldn't want to be involved in their kid's lives. And though it would be a lot harder, I wouldn't feel any less inclined to have them if I were a single parent without any other support.

[rd_kent]

263. While this is wrong, there DOES need to be some changes!

After conception, Men have ZERO rights and half responsibility. IMHO, if the man does not want to have a child and the woman does and decides to keep it, the man waives any and all parental claim forever and is absolved of any responsibility.

[Bridget Burke]

267. And if the woman's financial situation changes....

Because of job loss or sickness--the fatherless kid can just suck it up. If the mother dies, the kid might get adopted--if he or she is young enough & perfect. (Of course, the kid could have been less than perfect at birth--but that's the mother's fault.)

Meanwhile, the man is free to impregnate as many women as he wishes--until he finds the "right" one. Of course, he needn't mention his past decision to any of his new chickies.

[rd_kent]

269. Wow, you went off in the wrong direction!

While I do not support men impregnating as many women as he can then deciding which one he wants to keep (which is what you suggested), my point was that there is NO choice for a man.
Deciding to keep an unwanted pregnancy should be a decision made by BOTH parties.
It is my opinion that in most cases of deadbeat dads, it was the father who was adamant about KEEPING the baby.
But try responding to my original post and the point I was making.

[Bridget Burke]

277. Well, if men who wanted to keep the baby become Deadbeat Dads....

Are the ones who wanted to abort the only ones who pay support?

Kind of hard to find the "point" in that particular haystack.

[mondo joe]

271. How is he impregnating them?

Are they aware of how babies are made?

Do they not choose abortion?

[Bridget Burke]

279. I believe guys who think this way....

Should be fully honest about their fears of being exploited by Evil Devil Women on the very first date. They should also explain that, even in case of contraceptive failure, the woman is expected to abort or be dumped. No discussion allowed.

I predict that the dumping will occur long before there is any danger of pregnancy. And the man won't be the one doing it.

[rd_kent]

294. Well, thank you for your wonderful insight!

First of all, you fail to cease your emotional rant long enough to step out of your own shoes and see another point of view.
Birth control is the responsibility of BOTH parties should they choose to have sex. If the woman gets pregnant anyway, they should BOTH decide what to do. If they differ, thats where the problem lies.
Under the current system, after conception, the man has NO SAY WHATSOEVER about whether to keep or abort the baby. Sure, he can voice his opinion, but the decision is up to the woman, wher it should be because it is HER body.
My point, as small as it may be, is that the man now has no say, and if he does not want to have a child, is stuck with the decision of the woman and may have to pay support for 18 years for a child he does not want to have. I'm just saying that ther has got to be a better way.
Please dont attack me because my views differ from you. I would love to debate the issue with you, but dont attack me personally please.

[mondo joe]

299. It's interesting that if a woman doesn't want to be a mother it's a

sacred matter that can't be questioned. But if a man doesn't want to be a father, he's a villain.

I'm 100% prochoice, because I believe in personal autonomy.

But it's a funny double standard.

[mondo joe]

296. Not my problem - I'm gay. But please explain how your hypothetical

male is running around impregnating so many women.

You make it sound like something he does TO them that they are helpless to prevent.

Why do you think that?

[lastliberalintexas]

281. Post conception men have numerous rights

In the law, they are called *parental* rights even. The man can sue for custody of the born alive child and even seek support payments from the woman. The man can seek visitation rights if he does not wish to be the custodial parent. And the man already has the option in the law of signing away his parental rights altogether. (methinks this lawsuit and the "debate" they wish to engender is really all about removing the *stigma* of bad parenting from poor widdle men who we all know are trapped and tricked by evil harlot women into having sex against their will)

On the other hand, the man also has the right to step up to the plate and act like an adult, realizing that parenthood is about the child not the ex. He has the right to be an involved father with joint custody or extended visitation, and the right to participate in that child's life in numerous ways. Courts will even limit the geographic area in which the custodial parent can live if a showing is made by the non-custodial parent.

Just wanted to name a few of the many rights than a man has post conception and to show you just how wrong your post was.

[rd_kent]

295. Thats a narrow look at it.

yes, a man has rights on how to raise the child he has to support. But what if he does not want to have a child? What if a woman gets pregnant and does not want to keep it but the man does? THATS the choice men DO NOT have.
My point is not about supporting children, its about choice on whether to have them or not.

[Frank Cannon]

282. Guys who don't want to face the consequences...

of having sex should just keep their flies zipped and stick to playing Unreal Tournament alone on Friday nights, period!

A woman ALWAYS faces the consequences of sex, whether that means having an abortion, keeping the baby, or giving it up for an adoption. The man doesn't HAVE to face JACK! As we see with the sniveling little weasely wimps involved here, they are free (or feel like they SHOULD be free) to shirk any responsibility whatsoever.

Sex, like skydiving, is an activity fraught with risk. Make no mistake about it. And if any guy doesn't understand that and is not fully prepared to face the consequences, he's just stupid and irresponsible.

[rd_kent]

298. Your delusional

Sex is full of risk. But that shouldnt mean every time two consenting adults have sex, only the man is playing 18 year child support roulette.

[RazzleDazzle]

321. Oh, my God in Heaven. Do you HEAR yourself?

But that shouldnt mean every time two consenting adults have sex, only the man is playing 18 year child support roulette.

Like RAISING the child is nothing, amounts to nothing, couldn't possibly be equivalent to the fucking MONEY involved in child support?

Unbelievable. Frickin' unbelievable.

You know, I read these arguments about how "the money shouldn't be used by the mother" for anything other than directly for the child. To my knowledge, there is NO recognition in the law or anywhere else for the endless hours of child care that she alone will provide, even if she's a working mother. And if she's a working mother, there's no recognition let alone compensation for the endless hours of GUILT when her child is a little sick, for example, and whether she should take off work or not, and if she does the guilt there. On and on. None of that ever figures in, especially by these wonderful, lusty young men who are so damned afraid they're going to get "trapped" by women who are just after their offspring, and just find them such desirable potential mates that they can't let them get away.

Let me tell you all something: any woman who deceives a man JUST to get pregnant, thinking that's a way to get money or something else she wouldn't otherwise have, is going to be very, very, very sorry before it's all over with. Pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing are NOT for the feint of heart. They are a physical and emotional strain that few if any men can even begin to comprehend, and the parenting/childrearing part lasts forever. Age 18 is NOT the end of it at all, tho the immediate physical requirements of being there certainly lessen up by then (most of the time).

[rd_kent]

359. If you would calm yourself for just a moment....

You would see that I am NOT talking about child rearing and support. I am talking about the complete LACK OF CHOICE a man has when it comes to deciding whether to have a child or not. At the present time, the ONLY choice a man has is not to have sex. Any other choice after sex is made solely by the woman and that choice will affect the man forever. That is my point.
At this time I am not debating the child care issue, that is another issue all together.

[LincolnMcGrath]

360. "few if any men can even begin to comprehend"

Broad brush much? :eyes:

[Frank Cannon]

358. My delusional?

Dude, if you think that when a man and a woman have a baby, only the man is playing "18-year child support roulette", you have a very poor understanding of where babies come from. Didn't an adult ever have "that talk" with you?

[sandnsea]

287. It can't be that way

Men have to take responsibility for procreation and the only time they can do that is before they have sex. That's just the way it is. Having said that, the child support system is truly screwed up and we do need a different system, and better wages so no kid is in poverty in the first place.

[ECH1969]

289. I really do hate men

They think they are God's gift and think they are above any responsability. Well they can go to hell. It is 100% their fault if a women gets pregent or not.

[mondo joe]

300. It's their fault if a woman gets "pregent" or not?

Interesting.

[Bridget Burke]

330. ECH1969 is male...according to his profile.

He's trying to be sarcastic and not quite making it.

[HockeyMom]

291. Just imagine when Roe is Overturned

The old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it." Who will PAY for all these unwanted kids?

The FUNDIES and their TAX DOLLARS will in the form of ORPHANAGES.

[Megahurtz]

292. I'm almost wondering if this group pushing this

"Roe vs. Wade" for men thing isn't actually using their claim as a backdoor to overturning Roe!
Notice their "women have abortion rights" stance, which almost sounds like they oppose that.
Sounds like if they get what they want women wouldn't have access to abortions at all.
I don't know, it's just a hunch.:shrug:

[superconnected]

302. That may be it. But the group proposing it really do hate women.

These men for it can't concieve that most women will never abort their child, accident or not

They act like having a choice for abortion that some women would use, is reason to make all women have to choose abortion or not get child support if there is a pregnancy.

They create half the child, they are now trying to force abortion on women.

Fuck them.

One guy up there could only figure it out in his brain that it's expensive for women raising a child, who choose not to abort. From a look at some mens opinion I can honestly say they don't sound like they are sentient enough to figure out it is a huge emotion decision and one that fucks a lot of women up.

I swear, THEY are the ones who think abortion is nothing and out to be used if a pregnancy happens.

Very few woman irresponsibly abandon their kids(guys up their are blaming women for it because a few do). Very few choose abortion because they have nothing better to do that day and don't carry any regrets, etc. There are scores of men that abandon their kids- far more than women who do. Apparently men would abort instantly without the psychological issues.

I'm pro abortion and womens rights. These guys should have NO say over a womans body or if a child should be born/not born. Not after seeing their reasoning - which lacks all responsibility and inability to feel emotion over aborting a kid - their own.

I know some guys here are sentient, but geesh the ones that aren't sure are loud. I can only guess they want to have freewheeling sex, damn the consequence and care less about the woman or the child. Thank God I'm a woman and most women aren't like that. I could never have that low of a mentality.

[Canuckistanian]

293. Deadbeat Dads, unite!

Hmm, doesn't have much of a ring as a rallying cry...

[superconnected]

305. how about men who arent capable of sentient feelings unite

They can celebrate their inabilty to comprehend the psychological impact abortion has on women, and why most women refuse to ever have one and when they do it's often (dire circumstances).

What do they care, they carry no emotion burden. They figure having the right to abort means all women should abort or face raising the child financially themselves. They're going to attempt to force women into having an abortion, using financial blackmail. And what do you know, most women will have the child - raising it themselves even when finances are nill- they'll make an emotion choice for their child, over money. SOMETHING MANY MEN CAN'T DO.

Yep, men don't run the risk of guilt or being fucked up mentally for having an abortion that women do even when they seriously need one. These guys just assume ALL women can have one at the drop of a hat.

Just think. If this passed, men could have sex with anyone, without taking responsibility for using a condom or birth control and they can then tell her, she has to get and abortion or live in devestating fincancial poverty with her child if she gets pregnant. (They aren't capable of grapsing an unwantd/accident child that she still just can't abort (it's a sentience issue.))

Don't you all feel proud to be posting right here with these kind of males.

Sorry, it makes me sick.

[mondo joe]

307. Good argument for mandatory depo-provera for women

until they prove they can handle the opptions that result from pregnancy.

It's funny how you say women take full responsibility for their choices then describe them as if they are simpering victims. But if that's how it is, mandatory depo is the answer.

[superconnected]

310. Depro vera was pulled off the market, it caused cysts in women.

The nor plant killed them. The pill causes hysterectomys in a whole lot of long term users.

The answer is for the man to take part of the responsibility if he gets someone pregnant. The woman has to. The guy needs to do his part.

Knocking someone up, believing it's only her responsibilty to provide birth control, giving her the option of abortion or raise a child in poverty, and walking away scott free, shows an incredible swamp character in the men who support it.

[mondo joe]

318. Another solution will become available.

There's always tubal ligation, if it comes down to it - the equivalent of your suggested vasectomies.

And no woman has to raise a child in poverty. There's abortion, there's adoption, there's birth control and there's getting a job.

That's far more choice than you give men.

[superconnected]

339. Men have full choice over thier actions.

Perhaps you should see a therapist.

[mondo joe]

340. Men and women both make choices. We can expect both to be responsible

or we can expect neither to be responsible.

You suggested mandatory vasectomies for men, so the corollary would be forced tubal ligation for women. But I thought mandatory depo or some substitute would be the kinder counterpart to forced vasectomy.

Thank you.

[RazzleDazzle]

322. I worry for your daughters

You've got a lot of anti-woman sentiment going on, I've noticed throughout this thread and elsewhere. I sincerely hope you'll get some help with that, for their sake.

[mondo joe]

324. Only because you're mistaken.

I only reflected back to another poster her own ludicrous ideas.

Too bad you only noticed it in the reflection - not the original. Perhaps you're blind to your own bias.

Of course mandatory depo is abominable --- just like the mandatory vasectomies suggested in this thread.

Whatever you consider anti-woman in my postings is your own projection. If you want to think of women as hapless victims, you may take offense at my posts. If you want to believe men are actors and women are acted upon,, you may take offense at my posts.

But I have never posted anything in sincerity that could be legitimately construed as anti-woman -- the worst I may have done was to parody some of the vile things posted here by simply reversing the sex in question.

[RazzleDazzle]

311. I am 100% in favor of this

or at least from what I've so far read, which is just the OP.

Now, it would be really, really nice if women had something remotely approaching equity in employment and other economic opportunities (and social safety nets which are unfortunately in shreds right now), but I'll take liftime freedom from bad men and pitiful, worthless fathers over that, and we'll work on the rest.

I do have to say, tho, it looks like this attorney is living on some other planet:

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.'"

Men have been just walking away, never to be heard from again for fucking eons -- if that's not control over subsequent consequences I don't know what is. Where has this joker been?

"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."

Oh, is that where the term "double standard" came from? :eyes:

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

313. Is it too late to abort "The National Center for Men"?

Or to conduct an experiment on their ancestors with a contraceptive and a time-machine?

Fucking neanderthals.

/No offense to anyone here who has had an abortion.

[missingthebigdog]

323. Hmmm. . . . The problem is bad faith

Just supposing that this proposal went forward and became law, what is to prevent one party from initially agreeing to a pregnancy, and then changing his mind once it has occurred? Still fair to allow him to opt out? How does the woman go about proving that the pregnancy was consensual? There is no way to prevent injustices due to the bad faith of one of the parties.

The other concern I have is that if the goal of these men is truly equality, the next step is requiring women to bear the child- basically veto power over an abortion decision.

Ideally, adults would behave as adults, and would spend a great deal of time getting to know one another and asking important questions before they decided to have sex and risk a pregnancy. Unfortunately, this is not the reality. By and large, though, people are good, and, this thread notwithstanding, the earth is not entirely populated by women who are out to trick men into impregnating them, nor is it teeming with deadbeat dads. There are always going to be irresponsible people, and no system, rule, or law is going to prevent the havoc they wreak.

[hippiechick]

329. Wonderful - limits on abortion rights, and now this ...

... so women will almost be forced to have a baby should an oops occur, and she's the only one responsible for it - because if this passes, the 'father' doesn't have to pay support, Clinton's 'Welfare Reform' leaves women with nearly no safety net, and individual states pretty much don't do shit anymore either.

We are truly one step away from being a Third World Country with millions more impoverished, uneducated, unparented and unhealthy children running around.

:scared: :( :scared:

[Triana]

331. Men....

...some of them never grow up and will never, ever, take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

I know a few...It's all "me me me me me me me me me me"


...and that's it.

[Bridget Burke]

332. I wonder if all the posters agreeing with the National Center for Men...

Have expressed their beliefs to the women in their lives?

Those still dating should be up front about their convictions. On the very first date, they must proclaim that they won't be fooled by Evil Devil Women who will steal their sperm to get pregnant. (Or, they won't be fooled again.) Even the rare decent woman can fall victim to contraception failure. In that case, she should know that he will expect her to abort. (If he's a sport, he'll pay half.) Due to the the unfair child support laws, he may be forced to pay--but he & his attorney will fight tooth & nail to ensure he pays the absolute minimum. (Of course, a DNA test will be required, first thing.) He will have nothing more to do with the woman--except in court. Aside from the money wrenched from him, he will pretend the little bastard doesn't even exist. And he'll gladly sign over all parental rights to make adoption easier. Can this document include a clause indicating that the adult child should NOT try to locate his or her father?

If these men are truly forthcoming about their beliefs, I'm sure they will stand no risk of being victimized by unwanted pregnancies.

(Of course, men currently in relationships have already settled the matter with their partners. They are NOT behaving meekly at home while they beat their chests online. Anonymously.)

[superconnected]

344. I doubt they have. Most women won't go out with men who don't have

reasonable emotional conscience.

These guys are losers. The bottom of the bucket.

There are men posting here that are totally into taking responsibility, and should not be confused with these other guys.

What it comes down to is, these other ones, hate women. They have all the appeal of sex offenders.

I bet they pursue women relentlessly to get laid. Then take off and damn the consequences.

That's basically what they ARE supporting.

It tells a lot about their character. Bottom of the barrel, clearly.

[RawMaterials]

333. if he dosnt want the child

it should be ether a forced abortion/ or no finacial responsiabilty.
The woman can make the choice as to witch she wants, and if she doesnt want to have an abortion and also cant afford to
raise the child then give it up for adobtion to someone who actualy wants the baby and can afford to have it.

[Name removed]

342. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

343. Who is allowing men to have sex with no birth control?

Earlier in this thread you said women were full responsible for their own choices.

What woman can't see if a man is using a condom or not?

And it seems untoward in the extreme to characterize posters who disagree with you as being like sex offenders.

[Name removed]

345. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

346. Please cease your personal attacks and address the issues.

This is a complex issue, and there is an interest in legal fairness.

If you can't approach the topic without these personal attacks you might be better off looking to other threads.

[Name removed]

347. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

348. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

349. excuse me?

Perhaps you should read the thread.

[Name removed]

351. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

354. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

356. Reality

Personal Attack

Congrats on taking male bashing to a new low!

[Bassic]

362. Which really equates to the exact same thing.

You just did it again. And extended the accusation to me as well. I don't know how your distinction is any distinction at all.

Hell, you don't even know where I stand on the subject and you accuse me of being a pedophile. And that is ok why exactly?

[mondo joe]

365. I also don't know when choice became "victimization".

Simply acknowledging the range of choice available in the event of pregnancy is now framed as supporting "victimization".

[Bassic]

366. Yes I've noticed that.

I certainly don't believe in victimisation. Hell I'm not even sure I agree with these guys. But I do think that in a society that aspires to become equlitarian, they should be heard out.

[LincolnMcGrath]

372. Still at it, above. Sex Offenders NOW

[stepnw1f]

337. P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

[superconnected]

368. and now we're seeing the pack mentality.

Glad most men aren't like this.

[rodeodance]

353. if he could sucessfully argue for deception on part of the women-it might

work for him--it would be only in this particular case--not hit at the Roe v Wade law.



.....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.

[Bridget Burke]

355. Somehow, I doubt that Mr Feit should fear an unwanted pregnancy.

Or a wanted pregnancy.

Or sex...

(If the plaintiff doesn't have any more proof than what he says she said, he may be disappointed.)

[Hosnon]

364. I'm for equal rights:

Either the man or the woman can opt for the abortion. If the woman keeps it against the man's wishes...she does so alone.

[Kailassa]

370. Who could just turn their back on their baby and let it go hungry?

If I buy something in good faith, but it turns out to be stolen, then I lose both the item I bought and the money I paid for it. This is not fair, but it is right, because there is a third person involved, the original owner of the stolen item. And that person's right to the item supercedes mine.

If a man gets a girl pregnant she bears a baby that he does not want, supporting that baby might not always be fair, but it is right. Because, as in the stolen goods case, there is a third person involved, and that persons' rights supercede those of the father.

To suggest that the woman has complete choice in the matter is absurd. Once impregnated, many women have little choice but to have a baby. Abortions are becoming steadily more difficult to obtain as the fundies progress down their path of eroding women's rights, and not all women can bring themselves to have an abortion anyway. I firmly believe abortion should be easily available to any female who chooses it, but I could not have one myself because of a deepseated, if irrational, conviction that I would be murdering my baby. There are similar problems with adoption, it is easy to adopt out a pretty, healthy white baby, but there are many babies put up for adoption who will never find permanent families to call their own. And not every woman who gives birth can give her baby up.

Unwanted pregnancy, single motherhood, adoption, abortion, these are the single pregnant girl's options, if she is lucky. And no-one in their right mind will envy a girl's right to make this sort of choice.

However, all this talk of a girl's choices is a red herring. What it comes down to is that once there is a new life on this planet, someone must have the responsability of providing for it. As it took two people to create it, it is only reasonable to expect those two people to provide for it.

Sorry folks, but you don't have the right to leave your kid to starve just because making it was an accident or something you regretted later.

[Bassic]

375. Now this answer is very level headed.

And, contrary to what "other posters" may believe, very close to my own line of thinking.


Nevertheless these men have to right to be heard. So let them be heard, and let their request be turned down (as it should).

[Moderator]

377. Lock

Lock for: circular arguments, same thing stated over and over, too many flames, off- topic posts, no longer breaking news