Roe vs. Wade... for men.

[FireFly]

Oooh... this is a good one. I hope the man wins.

Called the Roe vs. Wade for men, a man is suing his girlfriend in order to refuse to pay child support for his 8 month old baby. Story goes like this: He says 'I don't want to be a father,' she says, 'it's okay, I can't get pregnant anyways.' Then gets pregnant. He doesn't want to be forced to take responsibility. She could have put the baby up for adoption, had an abortion, etc., but since she refused, he is now forced to accept the baby.

Now, they've already said that this fight is not going to allow men who use no protection during a one night stand or something to revoke their rights, but rather allow men who have spoken their intentions to a female partner to refuse to be responsible if she decides to keep the baby.

What do you think? In my opinion, if a woman has the right to choose, a man should also be able to choose.

There's a video at this site. It's on the right hand side.

[Weiser Wonder]

He should have the choice, but he should do it for the kid's sake.

[Wookie]

Yeah this has always bothered me, women get all the support from men, when they get to chose and the man has essentially no choice. He has to take whatever she decides.

And I do think men should be responsible for their actions. I'm jsut amazed I've mentioned this to women and some have never considered that the man has zero choice in the matter.

[Patek23]

The right thing to do would be to sue for the right to not pay child support because its not fair to be stuck in the situation as well as to set a standard for this kind of case for the next guy who gets mislead, and than pay the child support wether win or lose because its unfair for the child to suffer from it's mothers mistakes.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

and than pay the child support wether win or lose because its unfair for the child to suffer from it's mothers mistakes.

I suppose the question is this: is it more fair for the father to pay for the mother's mistakes?

I mean, it's one thing if I happen to slip one past the goalie. In that case I would have to pay the price. It is quite another to have a girl claim to be on birth control when she isn't; with the intention of getting pregnant.

It is very unfortunate that a child would be directly impacted, but what is a guy to do? Can you imagine telling your girlfriend that you want to wear a condom even though she is on the pill- because you don't trust her?

Also, please don't take what I'm saying as me thinking men should have no responsibility; I'm just saying that if a man is going to have to pay for the next 18 years of his life; he should have some say in the matter.

[ericschand]

As a single dad, I have 2 questions.

First, if you get nasty with your gf, aren't you responsible for the outcome?
Whether or not she claims she can't get pregnant, you wanted something,
you got it, oops, now you make your amends with it.

Second, he doesn't want anything to do with the child? Wow. I think
that just sums up his demeanor right there. Even if you didn't want a
son or daughter, you got one, deal with it. Stop running away and
crying about it, you got life to live, and someone to raise.

Seems to me he wants all the fun, but no responsiblity afterwards.
If he didn't want the responsibility, perhaps he should have practiced
abstinance?

"Can you imagine telling your girlfriend that you want to wear a condom even though she is on the pill- because you don't trust her?"

Yes. Not those words, you'll never get any putting it that way,
but yeah, "I don't want kids, so I am using a condom too, just in
case." Further, neither the pill nor a condom are 100%, so you
are still taking a chance. (FWIW, 100% is you getting snipped.
Not her, *you*)

ers

[edited: The web-print version makes it clear that she claimed
health reasons would stop pregnancy. However, my
comments still stand.]

[FireFly]

And yet a woman can get an abortion because she wants all the fun but no responsibilities....?

[jimmy11]

This is a tough one, and I actually had a debate with my girl friend about this last night.

Basically, the conclusion was that this is a big time no win situation, with no right answers.

My argument was like a lot of yours... why should women get to make a life time decision for a man on the premise that it is her body (for nine months)

[NuclearFart]

I agree with Ericschand. People just dont seem to accept the responsibility that comes with having sex in the first place. Everyone with an elementary level education knows how babies are made, and its a risk you take every time you have sex, irregardless of contraception (even Vasectomies are not considered totally 100%). By engaging in intercourse with someone, you are automatically accepting this responsibility whether you like it or not. It takes 2 to get someone pregnant, so that conniving girlfriend of yours couldnt have done it without your conscious decision. You gave her the sperm, so deal with it!

That said, she is the one physically going through pregnancy, and there's not much you can do to stop it without harming her body, so ultimately the decision has to be with her. Tough luck, but you knew and accepted the risks, so pay the damn child support.
________
Lovely Wendie99

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I agree with Ericschand. People just dont seem to accept the responsibility that comes with having sex in the first place.

I suppose it's all about doing things to limit the risks. For example a risk of getting into a car is that you might be involved in a crash. If you get into a car with a friend, and that friend says "don't worry, I'm an excellent driver- I always drive safe." then you have a little reassurance that the likelyhood of getting into a crash are low.

If your friend says that, and then does everything possible to cause a crash, should you just accept that as part of the risk of getting into a car?

We aren't talking about accidental or unplanned pregnancy; which is a risk involved even with birth control. We are talking about the girl saying she is under some form of prevention when she really isn't.

Let's take abortion out of the picture for a moment because that can bring up a whole new set of issues. Let's look at full term delivery and adoption. We will assume there's a waiting list of parents wanting to adopt babies. If the mother wants to keep the baby, but the father wants to adopt it out, why does the choice default to what the mother wants? And why does the father have to pay for her choice?

I know it takes two to tango, but then why is it only one person making the choice as to what happens?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I know it takes two to tango, but then why is it only one person making the choice as to what happens?

Because it was never one person making the choice. Pregnancy begins at conception, in which the male played 50% of the choice. To plead ignorance over the risks involved doesnt cut it. You can choose complete abstinence if you arent willing to accept those risks. You can choose a condom or a vasectomy if you want to reduce those risks.

After conception the choice becomes exclusively hers, because it's her body. You had all the tools in your power to prevent it from getting to this stage. Thats just one of the recognized risks of having sex in the first place.
________
Mercedes-benz w211

[ken0042]

Please re-read my post, rather than just one line of it. I'm not talking about during the term of the pregancy, but rather the period of time after birth.

If the father has no rights to decide what happens with the child, why is he forced to pay for it.

Once again, I am talking about a very limited scope here; where the girl made assurances of taking measures to prevent pregancy, but lied about taking such measures. As a general rule the scares that some of us may have had in our past do not apply, as that falls into my "slipping one past the goalie" theory. If the girl decides to pull the goalie all together, that's different.

[NuclearFart]

Yes, I too was refering to period after birth, the one that would never happen if you didnt choose to have sex.

You cannot make the statement that the father was never given the rights to decide on the child, because he did in the very begining. To say that a woman broke your trust is upon you as well, as you made the choice of trusting her in the first place. She didnt force you into ejaculating.
________
Bond Insurance Advice

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Yes, I too was refering to period after birth, the one that would never happen if you didnt choose to have sex.

You cannot make the statement that the father was never given the rights to decide on the child, because he did in the very begining. To say that a woman broke your trust is upon you as well, as you made the choice of trusting her in the first place. She didnt force you into ejaculating.

So it's okay for her to not face the repercussions if she decides she wants an abortion or to put it up for adoption without the man's consent, but the man will 'just have to live with it'? Not really fair, is it? That's quite the power a woman holds.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So it's okay for her to not face the repercussions if she decides she wants an abortion or to put it up for adoption without the man's consent, but the man will 'just have to live with it'? Not really fair, is it? That's quite the power a woman holds.

Um, I highly doubt that she does not face "repercussions" in doing either of those, but I will leave the topic of psychosocial impact as an aside.

And I agree that it is not even, but it was never even from a biological perspective. Her body bears the child, and the child is considered part of her own body until birth, and thus she has control over her own body and its contents. I am sure if the father alone wanted to adopt it, he is free to do so, pending child welfare approval.
________
LovelyWendie

[FireFly]

But if she aborts he, he doesn't have that chance, does he? And if she doesn't and wants to raise it, he has NO CHOICE but to 'raise it' with her. Why is it 'fair' that he can adopt it by himself, but she can force him to pay for it? Why can't she be forced to 'adopt' it on her own as well?

[Resolute 14]

This kinda strikes me as being similar to a person with an STD lying before having sex.

If you have AIDS and you tell your partner that you are healthy, you have sex, they contract AIDS, you are legally responsible for the consequences. In fact, you can be charged with sexual assault/rape, and I think even murder because the victim obviously would not have given consent had they known the risks.

This is basically the same situation, except that it is fraud and theft rather than sexual assault. Consent was given to have sex when one partner was clearly lying about her physical state.

Honestly, I hope the man wins. Let the bitch and her family deal with HER decision. Unfortunately, there is not a chance in hell that any North American court even listens to the mans side, let alone agree with it.

[NuclearFart]

To Firefly:

You ask very thoughtful questions, to which there is no concrete ethical black and white. It is not "fair" in the purest of context, nor will it ever be possible to attain a solution that appeases both sides in all scenarios, given the inherent biological differences. Thus, we are left only with shades of grey.

The only "correct" solution is a synthesis of biology, psychology and sociology, manifest in the forms of laws. In other words, all things considered, this is the "best" solution.

You are however quite justified in not agreeing with it, because it is based upon the subjectivity of words such as correct or best. My own opinion of such, is different from yours, and I respect that. Many others obviously agree with you, and this is why it has gone to court.
________
Dilaudid rehab dicussion

[FireFly]

Interesting points in the argument brought out....

Indeed? What child would that be, Ms. Gandy? According to the National Organization of Women, the decision to have sex is not a decision to have a child. There is no child at the moment of conception. There is no child, really, until birth. How can Matt Dubay be responsible for a child he didn≠t create?

According to the most modern, cutting-edge definitions of sexual responsibility, pregnancy and personhood, Mr. Dubay most emphatically did not create a child nor had he anything to do with the creation of a child.

Abortion supporters insist the act of sex does not create responsibility towards a future child. If it did, no one could support abortion. Legal abortion is grounded in the idea that something which does not yet have its own existence does not yet have any rights. Thus, abortion supporters take great pains to explain why the tissue mass in the womb is not really a child....

So, we ask again, Ms. Gandy, how can Matt Dubay have any responsibility towards a child he didn≠t create? A child is created through the act of gestation, but what has that got to do with a man? Men don≠t have wombs! Men don≠t gestate. Remember?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/13134.html

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

This kinda strikes me as being similar to a person with an STD lying before having sex.

If you have AIDS and you tell your partner that you are healthy, you have sex, they contract AIDS, you are legally responsible for the consequences. In fact, you can be charged with sexual assault/rape, and I think even murder because the victim obviously would not have given consent had they known the risks.

This is basically the same situation, except that it is fraud and theft rather than sexual assault. Consent was given to have sex when one partner was clearly lying about her physical state.

I disagree completely, as this is not a valid comparison. Simply put, AIDS will kill you, while paying child support will not. This is why you are charged with manslaughter when the person finally succumbs to AIDS.
You are comparing apples with oranges here.
________
Motorcycle tires