Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

legacy.signonsandiego.com

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 fina

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Men's reproductive rights and responsibilities revisited

I am glad to see this case being brought. I think the rationale for the justification of the current system by courts is a spurious one:

“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.”

The "rights of the child" certainly don't override the reproductive rights of females. Clearly a blatant disregard for equal protection. And exactly what are the "rights of the child," anyway? Does a child have and inherent right to the financial support of its biological parents? If so, why does this not also apply to women? I believe the recent tendency to blithely decide one "right" is overridden by another right, or "overwhelming social costs," is dangerous and contrary to the spirit of "rights" themselves.

I'd like to add that I included an earlier post of mine on the subject, but I can't recommend it. I t quickly degenerated into calls for castration and emotional nonsense. Hopefully we can keep this discussion focused on law.

The source article is from March 2006.

While this could lead to a good discussion, it is not suitable for Breaking Alternative News.

This post will be moved to a different more appropriate forum... let's say "Social Issues"

Men already have reproductive rights.

They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.
They also have the right to get the snot kicked out of them by other guys if they fail to exercise their first right.

well if you want to be fair then men should have the right to decline fathering a child. The ladies would be keeping their pants on if they knew that a man could decline financial responsibility. That would take the wind right out of gold digger sails.

reply to post by Maxmars


Thank you. Mods please move. My bad.
I got overly excited and failed to notice the date.
And while you're at it could you please remove the post right under yours, as it is against the spirit of the discussion, which is a legal one, and inflammatory.

www.nationalcenterformen.org... thats the website linked from the 2008 story peeked around at it a bit but didnt do any digging but others might want to do such a thing

oh i lied i dug a bit www.nationalcenterformen.org... thats the results of the guys case that they were basing there movement on

Men should have the same rights as women in this situation. As much as I believe men should take responsibility for their actions, I also believe they are mistreated when it comes to fatherhood rights.

Abortion and adoption, for starters, should be a mutual decision that should HAVE to be agreed upon by both parents unless parental negligence was apparent.

Actually, I would never have posted this to begin with had I realized it was so dated. I apologize and will be more careful in the future. Can it just be done away with, please? I'd like to discuss the topic, but only in the context of a current case in court. Otherwise, I believe it will prove unproductive, unfocused on the law at issue, and forum for intolerance and threatening language. I don't care for that again. Again, my apologies.

HAHA I BEEN ADVOCATING THIS CONCEPT FOR YEARS!!! not really, but how cool would that be? oh you're pregnant? no thanks.

I agree and disagree with the idea, but I'm struggling with how to put it so that it makes sense without sounding like I'm dumping all over men... So if this can be taken two ways, and one of those offends you, I probably meant it the other way.

In my job I deal with a lot of families where the children are being neglected. Each case is different. Sometimes it's mom who's only concerned about herself. Sometimes it's dad. And sometimes it's both. In all of these cases, we know who mom is. Mom has no choice but to be responsible or lose her kids. Dad on the other hand is often absent. He knocks mom up and is never heard from again. He's already given up his rights as a parent without having to do a thing beside walk away and not look back. Yeah, it's partially mom's fault since she was sleeping around, but the kids are the ones who suffer and I care a heck of a lot more about an innocent child than I care about whether mom and dad can go party it up every night.

You create a life, you take care of it. If you don't want to take care of it, sign away your rights legally (which both parents can already do), or don't have kids. It's not difficult really. If a man is willing to create a life, why shouldn't he be responsible for taking care of it? Why should a child have to suffer because daddy doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions?

When it comes to abortions, there are some instances where I agree both parents should have a say and others where I don't. If it's a case of rape, than absolutely not. No way in a hell should a guy have a say in whether the woman he raped can have an abortion. If it's a couple who are in a loving relationship, then yeah the guy should have some say in the decision since it affects them both. Should he be able to force the woman to have one or not? Hell no. But he should get to voice his opinion and be included in the decision making process.

Originally posted by joechip
Otherwise, I believe it will prove unproductive, unfocused on the law at issue, and forum for intolerance and threatening language.

I'll behave, I promise. Scout's honor!

reply to post by joechip


Never happen.

The entire State apparatus is designed to loot as much money from men as possible.

It was created and designed by trial lawyers seeking maximum profit.

Because men are typically the top earners in a house hold, the trial lawyers set about crafting laws that gave them an easy way to target the deepest pockets. The State also takes its cut of this gambit. The system of child support enforcement is a huge mix of bureaucrats and private lawyers.

If men were allowed to get out of this, many lawyers would lose an important revenue stream.

Lawyers never lose.

Ever.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Men already have reproductive rights.

They have the right to keep their pants zipped if they can't step up to the plate.
They also have the right to get the snot kicked out of them by other guys if they fail to exercise their first right.

edit on 9/16/10 by Hefficide because: missed a few words in all the excitement

You would have a point if no protection was used.

But they should have the right to decline fatherhood if the woman was on the pill and/or a condom was used and a pregnancy still resulted.

Women have the right to decline mother hood if she chooses to spread her legs. Why must the father be held responsible if a one night fling ended up with a pregnancy and the mother chooses to keep the child?

men should have just as much of a say in an abortion as the women. it may be growing inside of the woman, but it is just as much the mans child. if a woman wants to abort her child and the father does not, then she should just have the baby and let the father take care of it. i don't see the problem with this concept...

Birth control is nice, and it will even be nicer when its safe, so more than a percentage of women can take it, and or is something men can take. Abortion and adoption are not alternatives to having a child, as in, adoption is something only a very very few would consider, it means something wrong with the picture, ie. not mature enough to have a child, or some kind of defect, it should never have to do with income as children need biological parent and vice versa. I only bleieve in abortion in the first trimester, but I don't believe anyone can force anyone to have one, and many consider it murder. You can't force someone to murder another human to save money.]

In the end, if you participate in making a child, then you can't opt out of responsiblity. Nor can you try and demand things the things you menitoned. By the way, I believe in abortion i the the first trimester but don't believe in adoption unless its a danger to the child in any way shape or form, ie. parenting will be abusive. I don't believe anyone can force anything on anyone however. Except the reality of producing a child, which takes both sex's. That doesnt go away.

This is ridiculous. Abortion should be illegal, period. If the scumbags don't want the baby then they can hand it over to foster care. Just because the child is not running around the room smiling like an idiot doesn't mean it is not alive... Nor does it mean that he or she does not have a future. Imho, abortion is a testament to the psychotic animalistic tendencies of the human race and should be the ultimate of taboos. And what is all this murder for? The sanctity of our egos? **** that BS, I am 110% against this half baked proposition.

Originally posted by 2weird2live2rare2die
if a woman wants to abort her child and the father does not, then she should just have the baby and let the father take care of it. i don't see the problem with this concept...

The problem I have with that is you would be forcing a woman to carry the child for 9-10 months. That's a lot of time for her to resent the baby, go out drinking which can harm the baby, and do heaven knows what just because she doesn't care if the baby is born healthy or not. If I can't force a man to carry another living being inside him for 9-10 months, why should he be able to force me to do so? Is it not easier for both parties to go their separate ways and the man to have a child with someone who does want to have a baby?

Originally posted by Becoming

You would have a point if no protection was used.

But they should have the right to decline fatherhood if the woman was on the pill and/or a condom was used and a pregnancy still resulted.

Under these circumstances both of the parties took a gamble upon the chances of pregnancy - as no form of birth control, other than abstinence is 100% effective. The use of a condom or believing a woman who says she is on the pill does not absolve either party of the consequences of their actions.

Originally posted by Becoming

Women have the right to decline mother hood if she chooses to spread her legs. Why must the father be held responsible if a one night fling ended up with a pregnancy and the mother chooses to keep the child?

I don't agree with this logic at all. A one night stand or not, if you're man enough to play, you are man enough to pay. Any man who has sex does so understanding the risks and chooses to run them.

reply to post by Hefficide


I agree with this member.If you want to play
adult games,then you have to pay the adult
price!