Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

This comes from cnn.com

Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 9:23 p.m. EST (02:23 GMT)


NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.

Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.

'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.

"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."

Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.

"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."

The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.

"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."

barfly467

Any one else listen to the Tom Leykis show? He had the lawyer for this guy a couple of days ago. Sounds pretty good.

We should have a say in the as long as both partners at the beginning of the relationship agree to not have any kids.

It's bullshit if a woman gets pregnant and then decides to have the baby and not get an abortion or give it up for adoption to have the baby just because she feels like it. That totally destroys the man's life. He didn't want the baby. No he has to pay for this baby for the next 18 years with a woman he does not want to be with.

I hope they win.

Any thoughts?

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

I see your point but the question is if the guy does not take financial responsibility for the kid and the woman cannot, who is going to?

Tax payers.

So should that burden be passed on to us? I don't think that is a good idea.

The man will have to take equal responsibility for the kid.

Miakal

Yeah, hahahahah I agree with Dak.

Ultimately the woman carries the baby around and it's literally living within her. A man doesn't have any rights to that.

It would be great if the man could have a say and whatnot but legally there's no way you could ever do it. This whole issue is going to be dropped in about .000003 seconds.

barfly467

But the man did not want to have the child. Say the man took every precaution necesary, ie had on a condom, and she still got pregnant, why can't he say no?

Inogenius

It's the risk you take when you do the deed. When you decide to do sexual intercourse, you do it fully knowing of what the outcome could be.

barfly467

So the woman has a right to change her mind about having a baby after she said she does not want to have one? That is bullshit, the guy does not want to have a kid, and he made that clear to her. Why should she bring a kid into this world when the father wants nothing to do with them? Don't you think that will screw the kid up? Why doesn't she just wait and have the kid with a person who actually wants to be father? All that will end up happening is that the father will never she the kid, play money every month (most of which won't even go toward the child) and that's it. Another unwanted child in this world. Statistics have shown that children brought up by two parents in the same household are much better off than in one, espically when the dad wants nothing to do with them.

Miakal

The woman can do whatever she wants with the unborn child, have it or not, because it's living inside of her. The man doesn't have any say in that.

If he fucked her and got her pregnant he just has to accept the responsibility of raising it.

You can't force women into having an abortion. How the fuck is that going to work? Homicide rates are going to soar between ex-lovers.

And don't kid yourself, that's really what this is about. Men want women to have an abortion. "I won't pay for the baby so you better have an abortion" that's shit. This is one of the few things that is offensive to both pro-choice and pro-life people.

barfly467

This guy will not be raising this baby, all he will be doing is paying for the baby. That's all.

Congrats lady, you have someone paying for you for the next 18 years.

Mr. Kennedy

The guy who started this lawsuit has a good reason, his ex-girlfriend is trying to make him pay child support even though she told him she couldn't have a child.

I have to say that a man should have every right to not be a father(as long as they do it before the child is born, afterwards they are just deadbeats). I just think that if a woman can choose not to be a mother(by either having an abortion or giving the child up) while a man is screwed unless the mother doesn't want him involved.

Terry, that whole arguement about the man taking that risk when he has sex might not work. That's the same arguement that used on women to try and stop Roe V. Wade from passing and it didn't work, of coarse the Supreme Court is much different now.

Visit and shop for video games at my Amazon-based store, also get discounted HD DVDs while they last.