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

reply to post by Aeons

My knowledge about women might seem limited in your mind, but at least I have the ability to empathise with some of the struggles faced by members of the opposite sex. A quality which seems to be severely lacking in many of those who call themselves Feminists.

I haven't read through this thread, but it's hard to argue against the case that is being brought in the OP.

People can argue about the moral or philosophical rights and wrongs of the abortion issue all they like, but that doesn't alter the fact that abortion is legal.

With the above in mind, then it's illogical and unfair for men to pay child support towards children they do not want, because the decision to have the child is no longer in their hands.

The decision on whether the child is born or not, is 100% in the woman's hands, so it is unfair that the a man should have to pay for the woman's decision.

If abortion wasn't legal, then it would be fair for the father to pay child support, because the decision on whether to have a child or not would once again be taken when the sexual intercourse takes place.

The truth is, that abortion and child support are incompatible. One can only exist without the other.


The current situation is another example of feminism going too far, and discriminating against men. Some women want to have their cake and eat it.

Women can have risk-free sex, but men can't.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

the unfairness is the result of unfairness though....
is it really fair that women who work the same job as men, are more skilled at that job, more reliable, more experienced, should get a few dollars less in the workplace just because she has kids, and the boss knows that those kids are gonna be demanding on her?
is it fair that hey, she works the same amount as hours, maybe more, and yet she comes home, has kids to tend to, homework to help out with, food to cook, house to clean, while hubby sits and enjoys the tv, maybe takes out the trash every week, maybe has to fix the car a couple of times a year?
is it fair that she's the only on in the house that never gets a day off? if she isn't at work, she is working in the house, weekends come and she is playing catchup....meanwhile hubby has played his millionth hour of fantasy football for the month???
is it fair that just about every religion teaches that she should be subservient, obedient to the men? and well....if he doesn't want her working, she shouldn't but if he does, well she should....thus, well, sometimes making her an unwelcomed candidate for a job simply because the danged guy can't make up his mind???

if you don't think that doesn't play into her future potential to earn a living, well, then you are delusional!!!

women often get custody of the child, because mothers are less likely to earn a significant amount of money to pay anything meaningful in child support with! abortion is tolerated because at least partial support from the state is often needed!

oh, is it really fair that amoung those who are living in proverty in this country are predominantly women and children???
fairness in family court isn't gonna happen till there is fairness in the home, and in the workplace... There is no way it can!

reply to post by joechip

Originally posted by joechip

Thanks for that. It does indeed show the tendency of courts to devalue the "privacy" of men, while holding a different standard for women.

The court addressed both of these concepts in the brief:

3Despite Dubay’s protestations to the contrary, our holding in Hedges is consistent with the right to abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973). The woman’s right to abortion is not solely, or even primarily, based upon her right to choose not to be a mother after engaging in consensual sexual intercourse. Rather, the right to abortion, as articulated in Roe, derives from the woman’s right to bodily integrity and her privacy interest in protecting her own physical and mental health. See id. (focusing on the negative mental and physical health effects that would follow from denying a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy). Moreover, Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support. See Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 98 (1978); Clark, 486 U.S. at 462 (noting the state’s interest in “ensuring that genuine claims for child support are satisfied”). When a woman exercises her right to abortion, the pregnancy does not result in a live birth and there remains no child for the state to have an interest in supporting. If the state allowed a mother to unilaterally disclaim the legal rights and obligations incident to motherhood after the child was born, then the law would be extending a right to mothers which it does not afford to fathers. However, the Michigan Paternity Act is clear that both “parents” of a child must provide support to the child once it is born. Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.712(1).

and, as to privacy:

Dubay cannot prevail under any of these equal protection theories. First, strict scrutiny does not apply because the Michigan Paternity Act does not affect any of Dubay’s fundamental rights. In N.E. v. Hedges, we found that the right to privacy, articulated in the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, does not encompass a right to decide not to become a parent after conception and birth. 391 F.3d 832, 835 (6th Cir. 2004). See also Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 580 (1987) (finding that a “putative father has no legitimate right and certainly no liberty interest in avoiding financial obligations to his natural child that are validly imposed by state law”).

Originally posted by joechip

The argument that such laws do not violate either the "due process" or "equal protection" clauses of the 14th amendment requires a kind of doublethink that judges are certainly not immune from. This includes the Supreme Court as well, of course.

That is a statement of opinion or emotion and not of fact. One cannot seek to discuss law, in an unemotional and rational way, and then dismiss legal precedent, off hand, when it doesn't agree with ones preconceptions.

Originally posted by joechip

Here's an interesting link that describes the interesting political timing of the two cases Roe v. Wade and Gomez v. Perez, which set the legal framework for the child support statutes concerning illegitimate children.

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

edit to add: This article in counterpoint:

www.alternet.org...

Joe, please, if you truly wish to have an in depth analysis of law and constitutionality you'll have to do better than responding to legal briefs and court summaries with a conspiracy site and a blog.

reply to post by Annee


Annee while I respect your opinion you are dead wrong.

First you are geneeralizing men based on a select few. If I was to do that it would be misogyny.

Second. you bring up deadbeat dad. If there was a law in place where a man could legally not be responsible, would he be a deadbeat by the "legal definition"?

Next what of the deadbeat mothers. Which happen to have a higher non-payment rate then their male counterparts? Now yes I know there are alot more noncustodial dads who do not pay than women. But is this not because until very recently women were given custody approx 82% of the time so the population is just bigger. But when you look at percentages you can plainly see women are bigger deadbeats as men. If you would like I can get you a federal source on that.

reply to post by Annee

Actually to be fair its a select population from both genders. Men for not recognizing the problem until it smacks them dead upside the head. And then for the females sides who do not want to lose that control they have or their special privledges that comes with it. That want to push the "deadbeat dad" issue while masking the "deadbeat mom" issue so they can play the victim and increase support for their position.

reply to post by Aeons

Really so you know how a mind thinks? Are you actually saying that men enjoy being labeled a deadbeat when they never wanted a child in the first place. Holy cow batman you are out there. BTW still waiting on the answer to my question.

reply to post by dawnstar

If they were truly doing the same work working the same hours and making the sacrifices for the job nope not in the least bit. As it stands numerous studies have shown for the most part men make more sacrifices for their jobs than women do. Plain and simple. If two people are making money for a company and have the same competency level, and one needs to leave early every day to go to a probation meeting or something. Who would get more money and be more valuable to the company. The one who stays. Now usually the woman is the one to leave to go take care of her children. That is her choice. Yea her husband or partner should be able to do that also but fact of the matter is its both.

And speaking of equal pay for equal work, please read this: glennsacks.com... and tell me if that is equal pay for equal work?

You are making an awful lot of assumptions about men in general arent you. I for one work a full time job, help watch my kids, cook dinners, do laundry, and do the majority of the house cleaning. My wife works the same amount of hours.

I personally feel its unfair that anyone is living in poverty. But that is just me. Now as to your reasoning that women get custody more than men. Wrong. It is because until just recently women were thought to be better caretakers than men. Especially in the first months of life if the child is breast fed. If that happened then it was said that the child had a greater bond with the mother than the father. Please get your facts straight.

reply to post by Hefficide

And this may be the rub: "In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."

What if he opts out before the "child is in existence? Has anyone taken it to court on that premise?

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Hefficide

 

And this may be the rub: "In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."

What if he opts out before the "child is in existence? Has anyone taken it to court on that premise?

Yes, the gentleman who brought the suit in question. He used exactly that argument.

ok here is a proposal. Although I think its just as ridiculous as the consent forms that were talked about a couple of years back. But if it evens the reproductive rights field more then I am all for it.

So before sex a form is made and signed by both parties stating its just for recreational sex and not to produce a child. On this form the types of BC are used.

Now if the woman gets pregnant than she has a certain time limit to notify the guy. This would also be signed (kinda of like being served court paperwork), Once notified that guy has some time to decide if he wants the responsibility or not. If not he promplty signs away all rights and responsibility and the female if she decides to keep it acknowledges she is "doing this on her own". Now of course the timing is going to be the tricky issue since there are time limits on how long into a pregnancy you can abort (so as to not infringe on her rights).

Now is it ridiculous to go to these lengths and would probably take some of the enjoyment out of sex. YES on probably both counts. But once again it would even the filed more and give both parties a choice and have both parties responsible for their decisions.

Just a thought.

reply to post by Hefficide


From my reading of it it was denying for exactly the part I quoted. Now I could of missed where it said that. If I did can you please point it out. Thanks.

reply to post by mayertuck

In N.E. v. Hedges, we found that the right to privacy, articulated in the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, does not encompass a right to decide not to become a parent after conception and birth. 391 F.3d 832, 835 (6th Cir. 2004).

There is a specific intent implied by the inclusion of the term "conception" and not just the term "birth".

reply to post by Hefficide


Got ya thnx I did in fact miss it.

I still wonder how this does not conflict with the equal protection clause.

reply to post by mayertuck


No worries. And, for what it's worth, I did read your story and do have a great deal of compassion for your experiences and empathy for the pain it had to have caused. Life can be one Hell of a thing sometimes.

reply to post by Hefficide


i appreciate that. Life is hard for everyone. I feel its up to you as a person to either let it beat you or to beat it. It takes work and hard work and going through alot of obstacles. But it can be done. I personally have alot of respect for you and definetly respect your position. While I do not agree with placing all the responsibility on one person, I respect you for making your points and actually discussing it like an adult.

Originally posted by Annee
I wish this male pill was already available.

Yes, the reason I laughed when you first posted about it is that, when contraception went into the chemical arena, men were making all the decisions in medicine and in the pharmaceutical industry and decided that it should be the woman who takes a pill, even with its side effects. They didn't even consider making one for the man, too. Well, they may have considered it, but the idea was quickly discarded. That's the kind of thing women are upset about. That for so long, men have made the decisions about everything, including birth control... I understand this completely.

And I usually agree with BH. I don't this time.

And with Annee, I KNOW she will never call me "cowardly scum" or accuse me of many of the terrible things I've been accused of in this thread. She is my friend and we can disagree without either of us taking offense.

What is equal in black & white on paper - - - is often not in reality

I know. And I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I think something needs to be done differently than it's being done now. The male pill would be a GREAT step toward men having more control over the situation and their lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, in the 60s, when women started to rise up and claim our place, we realized that we couldn't wait for men to "allow" us to take our rightful place; we couldn't get their permission... we had to STAKE our claim and we had to do the work to make equality happen.

That's what men need to do now. They need to protect themselves from the situation so many of them get into now... having a child without their consent and being committed to an unintended consequence.

Take control, men! Work in your government to get the male pill! It's hard work, but women (speaking generally) aren't going to see your plight and they aren't going to help you get what you need to stop this deadbeat dad situation. So, instead of trying to get women to change their minds and be sympathetic to your issue (which is clearly not going to happen), take control yourself! It's the only way you're going to fix this.

Good Luck!

reply to post by mayertuck


That federal source please?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes




With the above in mind, then it's illogical and unfair for men to pay child support towards children they do not want, because the decision to have the child is no longer in their hands.

The decision was most certainly in their hands/penis. They decided to release sperm into a baby making machine, what did they expect would happen?

The decision on whether the child is born or not, is 100% in the woman's hands, so it is unfair that the a man should have to pay for the woman's decision.

If the man had kept his "decision" IN his hands he would not be responsible for anything.

If abortion wasn't legal, then it would be fair for the father to pay child support, because the decision on whether to have a child or not would once again be taken when the sexual intercourse takes place.

That is exactly when the man decides the act of sex is worth the potential 18 yr price tag. Nothing to do with abortion everything to do with caring where a mans sperm ends up.

The truth is, that abortion and child support are incompatible. One can only exist without the other.


The current situation is another example of feminism going too far, and discriminating against men. Some women want to have their cake and eat it.

Women can have risk-free sex, but men can't.

Feminism has nothing to do with this topic. Men who do not want to take ownership of where their semen ends up, that does have to do with the topic.

When I bake a cake I always expect to eat it, and usually cut the best slice. What does cake have to do men running away from responsibility?

Women can have risk free sex? How so? They risk the same things as a man (being dumped std etc) except they risk getting pregnant too.

But thank goodness men know the women they have sex with have the right to choose. Thus the mans choice becomes all the more important.

reply to post by bluemirage5


I am digging it up now, in the meantiime here are some articles. Some are kind of old. But take a look anyways.

an abc investigation on it done in 99:

www.abs-comptech.com...

fox news from 02:
www.foxnews.com...

Anyways here you go from 2006 census.

www.census.gov...