Men and unplanned pregnancies
 

Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/LAW/03/0...t.dubay.ap.jpg

Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

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.

Read The Rest Here

So what do you think?

hijack/
I know this is a serious topic but that cat has me ROFTL!
end hijack/

Absolutely

-Rudey

I don't think that this is going to bring about any change in the way these things work. He should have pulled out, no glove no love, etc...

I don't think he will win, but I think its a good argument.

The man can't force her to have an abortion, nor can he easily stop her, I know there are cases where he has, but they are rare.

Nor can he force her to put the child up for adoption. In fact, there is an economic incentive for her not to put the child up for adoption if she can get him to pay.

I hope they win. I think that a man should have the right to choose whether or not he wants to be involved in his offsprings life, the way a woman does. I think this decision should be at birth, not if a man is getting a divorce or if he has previously supported and shown interest in the child. I'm sorry women, but there are too many of us that oops a man into a baby, those that list men that aren't the father on the birth certificate, and those that look on child support as a punishment for their ex. If we are going to truely be equal, we need to stop having the law "protect" us and "punish" them.

Likewise, I don't think it is just when a man seeks an injunction against a woman to stop her from aborting his child. Basically it all boils down to this:

The right to be or not to be a parent is a personal choice, and no one should be able to force that decision on anyone else.

I do the personnel stuff for my office, and I'm also a mom, and trust me, there's absolutly NO economic incentive. The child support that the women recieve probably barely covers the cost of food for the child (especially infants when you have to buy formula). Unless the father is a doctor or lawyer - your statement is absolutely not true. If anything, adoption is a bigger economic incentive - many couples would pay a lot of $ for a child, especially a newborn.

Personally, I agree that a man should be able to decline responsibility for a child he doesn't want to have. That said, I don't think it will ever happen.

What man regardless of if he wants it or not should deny his own seed? I do agree that the man should have equal rights as the female but would a man really want to deny or "disown" his own seed?

Maybe I'm starting an argument that I don't really have the energy to partake in but... a woman does not have the choice to be involved in the life of her offspring. She IS involved, whether she chooses to parent, abort, or place through adoption. Abortion often has long-term physical, emotional, and mental consequences, that the father will usually not experience. Once you're pregnant, you are officially involved.

However, it's comforting to hear that you all see the unborn child as a unique biological individual comprised of DNA from both the mother and father, thus giving the father an equal choice in your minds. I frequently hear the argument that the unborn child is simply a part of the woman's body, thus giving her the right to do what she chooses with it.

I'm rather torn here. I'm staunchly pro-life, yet I know of a psycho woman who swears that an acquaintance of mine is the father of her unborn baby. She's demanding marriage or maintenance. I think he's crazy to consider either without a paternity test.

So, I suppose the best I could say is that I'm with the man - IF he signs away all visitation or other rights to the child.

Maybe - and that's a big maybe! - maybe women who try to trap a guy into marriage will have second thoughts, if they know he can walk away, free and clear. Yet, I worry about the further povertization of still more women - those who had a oops! experience and don't believe in abortion. One can only hope that they would see the light and give the child up for adoption.

If a woman chooses to have an abortion, is she not doing the same thing? If she aborts a pregnancy, is she not denying or disowning her own offspring/potential offspring? Why is the man any different from the woman here? She gets to choose but he doesn't. I agree that the well-being of the child is important, but if the mother knew she wouldn't be able to provide all on her own, and knew the father didn't want anything to do with the child, why would she keep the pregnancy and keep the child?

This is an interesting debate and very similar to one I was having with a coworker yesterday! We were discussing whether or not a man should have a say in an unwanted pregnancy. I know of a couple who had an unexpected pregnancy last summer. He wanted to have the baby, she didn't. She had the abortion. If the man is willing to raise the child, and the sex was consensual, why does he have no rights? I guess it all goes back to the question of whether or not the embryo/fetus/unborn child is just a part of the woman's body or something that is actually alive.

I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it with the new laws in South Dakota.

I'm not excusing abortion at all... i'm a strong supporter of pro life... My only problem is at some point someone has to step up and accept responsibility. If you know you cant take care of a kid, then dont have sex... PERIOD. Stop populating the world if you cant provide for those you bring into the world. Its that simple.

That or all you half assed men who sleep with anything that spreads should get fixed so you cant reproduce. My focus is on men, i cant really speak on the female side of things... other than if you know your not ready then dont lay down.

There will never be an answer to the debate, because of the fact that women are the only ones who can carry a child. This would all be a lot easier if a woman who didn't want to have the child could somehow "give" the fetus to the man who did want the child....sci-fi I know...

Since we have a situation where only the woman is responsible for the fetus for 9 months, and the man can decide at any time during thost 9 months that he doesn't want the child after all and walk away, we have quite a dilemma. I personally feel that the woman has a bigger say, because she has a greater responsibility in the matter, in terms of having to go through with the pregnancy, alter her lifestyle (no smoking, drinking, etc.), and then may end up being the sole provider for the child.

A friend of mine once said "Maybe men should make their potential sexual partners sign a waiver before sex saying that if she ends up pregnant he is not responsible for the child in any way." I wonder how that would affect things.

Then again, both sexes could be more discriminating in their choice of a sexual partner.

I think I said this on anther thread at some point but, again, there are definitely inequities in how men and women are treated when it comes to children. The initial inequity came about, of course, when women were deemed the only ones to be able to have children. In society, though, we have to develop some way to allow for men to have a say in what happens with his child also to counteract this imbalance. It is just unfair that men, as someone else pointed out, can't force a woman either to have a baby or abort it. Once its born, she can go after him for all kinds of money, even if she AND the guy were both irresponsible in protecting themself and preventing the pregnancy. If the society is unwilling/unable or incapable to prevent people from engaging in unprotected sex, then accommodations must be made to each person when it comes to how a pregnancy and subsequent childbirth should be handled. I think if the guy really wants an abortion or does not want the child, he should not be forced to participate, financially or otherwise. If the government's position is that forcing a man to pay for an unwanted child is protecting the interests of the child, I don't buy it because the child can be even more damaged if its father reluctantly pays money and does nothing else for him or resents its mother and beats her AND THE CHILD up. I'd rather take the chance of the woman finding another father for the child (stepfather, for example) and bringing the kid up in love and peacefulness than forcing a bad father to stay in the picture. That is an extreme example, but the point mainly is that men should have their say, not only for the sake of his equal rights protection under the Constitution, but also for the best interest of the child.

**BIG STANDING OVATION**

I'm pretty much in agreement here.

On the subject of father's rights, NPR had a story this monring about a state (I don't remember which, but think it was in the NE) that is looking at a law which would allow fathers to decrease their child support if they took more responsibility in the raising of the child.

The overly simplistic argument is that if the dad has the child half of the time (let's say every other week) -- rather than every other weekend -- why should he pay as much as the weekend dad?

A number of states are supposed to be looking at this kind of bill.

No. I'm so sick of hearing this "if you don't want to/can't take care of a kid, don't have sex." You know, there are people who don't want to have kids, EVER. Saying that they shouldn't have sex is ridiculous.

The getting fixed idea is nice but not so easy. An oops is still possible, and do you have any idea how difficult it is for a woman without kids to find a doctor who will perform a tubal ligation?

OK i'll REPEAT what i said... i cant really speak on the WOMAN'S SIDE of the matter... all i can speak for is the men's side of things. No i dont know how difficult it is, and dammit who said having sex is what makes the world go around... it may seem ridiculous but its realistic. If you cant take the heat get the hell out the kitchen. People that cant handle the car shouldnt drive it... ride the bus or for those of you who feel you just have to have sex buy a dildo or stick to oral sex... you still get off and there are no freakin OOPS or UH OH or whatever you wanna call it.

Get your mind right... sex isnt life but when you create life you have to take care of it. God gave you a hand use it if u dont want to have an oops!

My apologies if thats too upfront or vulgar for you but hey thats life!

I think I agree with this.

Agree, Agree, Agree. And I don't think this example is that extreme. It is quite a common situation that I've seen many times. Unfortunately, there are women out there who put their own financial wants above the needs of their children.

Regarding avoiding sex altogether if you can't take care of a kid. That's a great theory, but unfortunately it is just not reality. Abstinence programs are under fire in some school systems. Most people who engage in responsible sexual activity or abstinence do so because they were properly educated at school AND at home. When I was in high school and college, the people who were having unprotected sex were either products of lazy parenting or waaaay overprotective parenting where anything related to sex (including MTV) was absolutely off-limits. Most of these people ended up pregnant or with diseases.

So abstinence can be a goal, but it can't be the only option to discuss in this day and age. We can sit here as adults and say "No, sex doesn't make the world go 'round." But will horny teenagers stop and think about it? No. Will drunken college students stop and think about it? No. We just have to hope that we've educated them enough before these situations that some of what they learned will kick in and they'll find a condom.

Please don't think I'm advocating teaching 5-year-olds how to put a condom on the banana in their lunchbox. But children are getting more and more sexually active at younger ages. And if we stop to think about human history, we really aren't that far removed from when girls were married at 14 and started churning out kids at 15. So now all of the sudden we expect people to just forget what their natural instincts are and to forget what quite possibly their own grandparents and great-grandparents did. It's still pretty common in my family to be married VEEERY young. I'm 31, and I have a cousin who is 2 years older than me whose son is graduating high school next year. I haven't even had a kid yet. 14-year-olds don't need to be getting married, but we have to come to terms with the fact that biologically they are sexually mature mammals and may engage in sex.

Wow. Way off on a tangent there. Sorry. :D

I'm sorry that your experiences have been so bad that you think masturbation, dildos, or oral sex are acceptable substitutes for actual sex.

Moving on, what point are you trying to make, exactly? You've said that you don't support abortion and are "a strong supporter of pro life." You've said that people who don't want to take care of kids shouldn't have sex. It's great that you have your opinions, but what do they mean to anybody else? Do you think your opinions (and I'm assuming your pro-life views are based at least in part on this "God" that you mention) warrant laws prohibiting abortion, or are you just talking smack?

Also, I'll thank you to refrain from telling me to get my mind right, young man. Why in the hell should a grown woman who doesn't want to have children stop having sex? Because you said so?

Your making excuses for people who participate in sex and cant handle what happens when you have sex. Its just that easy. There is a consequence for EVERYTHING you do, so if your so afraid of popping kids out dont do what it takes to create them. Your saying "oh its so difficult to get fixed so i'll just use the fact that i dont want any as an excuse to keep doing what i know will one day cause me to have kids if i'm not careful and even if i'm careful it could still happen". And dont let my AGE fool you dear. Just because you may be twice or 3 times my age doesnt make you exempt from the fact that if you dont want kids dont do what it takes to have them. If you are going to do it know that you may have kids its just that plain and simple.

And i'll laugh at your meager attempt to talk about MY experiences... but hey if thats how you feel then so be it... MY WHOLE arguement is people should not use what they want as an excuse to continue to do what they know will cause them what they dont want. If you dont want lung cancer dont smoke... yes its true you may get it from being around those that smoke but those are circumstances you can NOT control... You may not feel what i'm saying and thats all well and good, i didnt respond to the thread to get your stamp of approval, nor will it stop my flow so there is that tidbit for ya.


I'm not directly telling you to not have sex... just dont complain and kill a child because you got what you deserved for having sex.

Sorry, that doesnt fly.

1. Word of Mouth from other doctors, patients
2. Internet
3. State board of medicine

No i'm saying people who complain they dont want kids but do what it takes to make them are wrong. Thats what i'm saying. If i dont want to get drunk i dont drink. How hard is that to comprehend? the problem that gets me fired up is there are children who grow up with parents who make those mistakes, and are left to their own devices in life... thats why adoption agencies are begging people to adopt, and why social services are overwhelmed with cases... can you not see the problem with that? its extreme and i admit that fully but how else can you stop all of these pregnancies and abandoned kids???

I can speak with such emotion because i've lived that. I know what its like to have to piece of shit parents who did the deed then didnt want to take responsibility so when i say just dont have sex thats what i mean. You can take the advice or not its up to you... its an extreme solution but this problem doesnt need to be sugar coated because its dealing with the lives of OTHER PEOPLE. Its not just the man and the woman who are affected... its the child or children they produce and the social workers the foster and adoptive parents or the wardens of the state

Your time would be better spend dealing with the REALITY of the world, which is that folks aren't going to stop having sex. Hell, knowing that you could DIE from having sex didn't stop folks, so why do you think that people are going to wake up tomorrow and say "I'm not ready to have a child, I better stop having sex and start masturbating." Nope, not gonna happen. And if you really feel that abstinence is the key, then you should be an example of that. Don't talk about it, be about it.

As for your "kill a child" comment....Lots of folks don't believe that abortion is murder, so how are you gonna convince them to not have abortions?

So since you're pro-life, that means that you are or will be a foster parent and/or adoptive parent right?

Being pro-life or pro-choice really isn't the issue here - its PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions, which seems to be in lack nowadays.

I think everyone on earth knows that if you have sex, there is a possibility that you will get pregnant or inpregnate someone. If you do not want to become pregnant (or inpregnate someone) there are things you can do to reduce or eliminate this from happening. That's not a point of view or political belief, that's life.

The question is (and point of the article) should men be allowed to simply "walk away" from this responsibility or have a "say" in the outcome, regardless if the pregnancy was on purpose or accidential? Should father's be allowed to shirk that responsibility? Because you know, sometimes life isn't fair and you do have to take responsibility for your actions - regardless as to what your initial intentions were (ie. serious relationship vs. booty call).

It doesn't look to me that OhioCentaur is suggesting that abstinence is the answer...rather that if you ARE going to have sex then you SHOULD be responsible for the consequences. If this were the case, we wouldn't even have situations in which people are trying to divorce themselves from the pregnancy/child rearing through abortion or not paying child support.

His point makes sense to me but I know people are not that responsible nor mature.

You got what you deserved? Oh wow. So an unwanted child is punishment? Is that what your God teaches?

The reason I'm really missing your point is that you seem to think that you get to tell women not to have abortions. You don't. Your authority over the female population = 0.

Also, since when is having an abortion not handling the consequences of having sex? It is. It's just handling it in a manner of which you don't approve. You're really saying that people must deal with the consequences of sex in a way you consider acceptable. Do you see why people might have a problem with that?

You're right on this point. I am personally totally against abortion, but that stems from my religious beliefs - and that's why I wouldn't attempt to ban abortions. Still to me, abortion is irresponsible and selfish.

I think the pendulum has swung so far into the favor of women on this issue that their needs to be some balance restored.

Here are a couple of extreme examples of men being held responsible for children. I'm using extreme examples to show how biased the legal system is in these cases.

Here the man is paying 800 dollars a month for a child the woman conceived by saving his sperm from oral sex.

http://greekchat.com/gcforums/showth...=child+support

Here a sperm donor is forced to pay 1500 dollars a month.

http://greekchat.com/gcforums/showth...=child+support

If I were to engage in sexual activity and produce an offspring against my best efforts to the opposite, I will certainly take personal responsibility - I will personally hand over money to have it purged from the uterus.

Didn't something similiar happen to a player in the NFL/NBA? Him and a buddy had sex with a girl and she dug the condoms out the trash and "inpregnated" herself?

Hell no... regardless if a woman can or cant a man should be a man and step the hell up. Now the only problem with that is good guys get caught by chicks who want to trap them with babies... but if you stay zipped up you wont slip up!

valid point... i did overlook that in my heat of rage excuse me

LOL no problem -- it's a hot issue.

Deadbeat birth fathers did exist and will continue to do so even after paternity is proven true. It's only recently that women have been exercising their rights to sue for financial support. The women aren't getting much money after the state takes their cut.

Prior to Roe v. Wade and the widespread distribution of birth control for women,there were "homes" set up across the country where unwed pregnant women and girls were sent off to give birth and give up the baby for adoption. The birth father was either out of the picture or marriage was not a option. The stigma was that they had "loose" morals. They certainly didn't get that way by themselves.

If we are going to be "pro-life" then more than abstinence needs to be included in sex education. An unwanted pregmancy isn't the only thing that can result in unprotected sex. It's not like mr. happy changes colors if he has a std.

hahah it does if you get the right one! lmao... well i apologize if i've offended anyone with my statements but i take deadbeat fathers serious because thats a serious issue... i hate just hate to see that.