I was in a discussion a while back with some others and this very issue came up. I'm interested in everyone's views.
quote:
Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy
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 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."
******************************************************** 03-09-06, 02:35 PM juanruiz Responsibility applies to the man as well as the woman. If he had kept Mr. Man in his pants instead of somewhere else he'd have no complaint now.
03-09-06, 02:46 PM aminator2002 No womb = no say.
It very simply isn't the man's body and he has no right to say what any woman does with her body.
03-09-06, 02:47 PM Momma Angel Hi JuanRuiz,
Well, I cannot disagree with that statement at all. However, I am very curious about the man's right to choice in this situation. It seems he has none once the pregnancy occurs and yet the woman does have a choice once the pregnancy occurs. I realize that's probably because the woman is the one that carries the child, but for those that advocate choice so strongly, what about the man's choice?
03-09-06, 02:49 PM aminator2002 Two things:
If I could give men who want to have a say about pregnancy cramps every month for 40 years that would almost qualify them for having a say.
And I think that the answer to all our problems is a global birth control in the water supply. This birth control would be only inactive when pills were taken by both male and female partners as an antidote.
03-09-06, 02:59 PM juanruiz
quote: I am very curious about the man's right to choice in this situation. It seems he has none once the pregnancy occurs and yet the woman does have a choice once the pregnancy occurs.
That's sort of analogous to an athlete who gets nailed for steroid use and complains about being suspended. Those are the rules of sports. Similarly, those have been the rules vis-à-vis men, women, and babies in the US for some time now. He should have known that from the outset.
03-09-06, 03:07 PM Momma Angel Juan,
That seems a bit of a double standard to me. I have made pretty much the same statement about a woman should have known better than to get pregnant so she should be willing to be responsible for the consequences.
Now, it seems you feel the man should know better in the first place but the woman............? I'm confused. Perhaps I am misunderstanding?
03-09-06, 03:14 PM juanruiz
quote: Perhaps I am misunderstanding?
Seems that way. I have made no value judgement on this. I am simply stating that the man should have known that under current law he has no standing in regard to the fate of the baby, be it abortion or not. Whether he likes it or not, that is the way it is. In creating the life, though, it is now his responsibility to support it. 18 years for a moment of pleasure...that's the way it is.
03-09-06, 03:24 PM Momma Angel Ah! Yes, I was missing the part about where you were stating the legality of the issue. Thanx for clearing it up, Juan.
03-09-06, 03:26 PM frankvan
quote: "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."
What part of that do Messrs Feit and Dubay not understand? Man fathers child. Man wants someone else to take any action necessary to spare him from having to clean up his own mess. Roll Eyes
03-09-06, 03:42 PM Momma Angel And this is where I'm confused. Mother becomes pregnant. Mother wants someone else to take responsibility by getting rid of the child? I don't get it?
03-09-06, 04:13 PM aminator2002 It isn't that confusing. When you go through all the possible iterations of how a pregnancy can be contended and who might possibly have claim to a fetus, you come back to the only sensible thing being that the woman who is the vessel for the baby's growth and nurturing has the right to make all decisions about the pregnancy. Anything else denies rights to the woman and causes legal chaos.
Imagine all the possible lawsuits if a woman is downgraded to baby receptacle. It's a slippery slope and I think you know it but you won't admit it.
03-09-06, 04:23 PM Momma Angel animator,
I won't disagree with you one bit about this being a slippery slope. Actually, it's a slope I think needs to be just roped off for awhile and leave things as status quo. I don't see this case getting anywhere in court NOW. But, in the future? I'm not so sure.
I understand that there are very few people that are actually pro-abortion and they are actually pro-choice. In another conversation I was having about this the discussion got down to whose choice is more important.
And I can see all sides. The woman's is important because it is her body and she is the one that carries the child, etc. The man's is important because you are talking about his life being changed drastically either monetarily or both monetarily and relationship wise. Then, there are those that say the child has rights from the moment it is in the womb.
True, right now, LEGALLY, the woman has the rights in this issue and no one else does. But how long will it take for countless men in this situation across the country and the world to jump on the bandwagon because they now feel that their civil rights are being infringed on?
Yes, a slippery slope indeed, coated with black ice and about three feet of snow!
03-09-06, 04:37 PM juanruiz
quote: But how long will it take for countless men in this situation across the country and the world to jump on the bandwagon because they now feel that their civil rights are being infringed on?
How long will it take countless men to keep their pipiu stashed or wear a "glove"?
03-09-06, 04:49 PM Momma Angel Probably about as long as it is going to take women to keep their legs crossed? Smile
03-09-06, 04:53 PM juanruiz
quote: Originally posted by Momma Angel: Probably about as long as it is going to take women to keep their legs crossed? Smile
At the risk of sounding crude, that doesn't have to be an impediment.
03-09-06, 04:56 PM Sarai The point, as you surely know, Juan, is that when a woman gets pregnant, it is generally both the man AND the woman that made the decision to have relations. Yes, we all know that rape and such happens, but most abortions don't happen because of a rape. To act as if it is only men who behave in sexually irresponsible ways is to completely ignore reality.
I'm pro-choice, but I must admit that this one has me stumped.
03-09-06, 04:59 PM juanruiz
quote: The point, as you surely know, Juan, is that when a woman gets pregnant, it is generally both the man AND the woman that made the decision to have relations.
Lo sé, sarai. I argued that rather strenuously on another thread here.
03-09-06, 05:10 PM Momma Angel Understood JuanRuiz. Actually, I'm very pleased to see you advocate strongly for the man to take responsibility in the situation as you are.
This is such a complex issue. So many things to consider.
03-09-06, 06:39 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Momma Angel: And this is where I'm confused. Mother becomes pregnant. Mother wants someone else to take responsibility by getting rid of the child? I don't get it?
How do you figure? Mother is taking the responsibility. She can't escape taking responsibility, whether by abortion, giving child up for adoption, or raising it with or without help. Sounds like taking responsibility to me.
03-09-06, 06:48 PM Momma Angel FrankVan,
We will have to just agree to disagree on this point. I do not see aborting the child as taking responsibility. Maybe it's the woman taking responsibility for herself. I'm more concerned about her taking responsibility for the child. Peace! Smile
03-09-06, 06:54 PM Rakuchild Even though the man says he was assured by his partner that she couldn't get pregnant, he could have used "just in case" protection. For all he knew, her "condition" could have been caused by an STD. He says he knew the woman was aware he didn't want to have a child with her but it sounds he did nothing to eliminate the possibility.
Feit from the men's center claims there is still the "pre-Roe ethic" concerning men's responsibility to contribute to a child's support- Newsflash, there are still a ton of pre-Roe attitudes toward woman even engaging in sex, such as they should learn to keep their legs crossed! Why is there still SUCH a belief that if a woman gets pregnant, it's her "fault"? Why is there still the belief that women are solely responsible for birth control? Dubay could have shown some responsibility for the whereabouts of his own damn sperm but he chose not to. Cruel nature demands a guy put a bit of forethought into his actions and gives woman time for afterthought.
As for his wish for an "opt-out" clause, it already exists. All he has to do is go to a state that doesn't have much interest in enforcing child support orders across state lines. I suggest Florida. At the rate they collect, I'll be supplementing my retirement with back child support checks. Roll Eyes
Men who don't want to pay support have an issue with the mother and don't think about the child's care at all. Perhaps this attitude is a clue to why the courts feel a man needs to pay support.
03-09-06, 07:06 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by Momma Angel: FrankVan,
We will have to just agree to disagree on this point. I do not see aborting the child as taking responsibility. Maybe it's the woman taking responsibility for herself. I'm more concerned about her taking responsibility for the child. Peace! Smile
In the first place I said the woman has no choice, she has to take responsibility and she makes the decision, whether to give child up for adoption, raise the child, or abort the pregnancy. You assume she makes the decision of abortion and then insist she is not taking responsibility. If she isn't - Who IS ?? I think you're more concerned with her paying a penalty for her SIN? Judge not etc.
03-09-06, 07:22 PM Momma Angel FrankVan,
Punished? No. Not even a thought in my mind. We have differing views on when life begins. I understand how you view her choosing an abortion as taking responsibility. I do understand that. However, if one does not consider the fetus as a child from the moment of conception then, of course, the idea of what is the responsible choice in this matter will be different.
I have no problem with how you or anyone else views this, FrankVan. I may not agree with you on this but that's just part of life.
03-09-06, 07:50 PM Rakuchild A possible senario if a man has the legal right to "opt out" of an unwanted parenthood.
Woman discovers she is pregnant. She informs her partner who says he is opting out. She knows she cannot afford to become a parent alone and pregnancy would further hinder her ability to move ahead in the job market. She lives in South Dakota and doesn't meet the religious raped virgin criteria (see discussion in current events) and cannot afford to travel to a state where she could obtain an abortion.
Her choices are limited to becoming a parent and struggle against raising a child in poverty or putting the child up for adoption. Either way, she has to go through the pregnancy. She develops maternal feelings but decides it's in the child's best interest to put it up for adoption.
Is she punished enough? What if there are complications and she is unable to conceive ever again? Is that enough punishment?
Is it okay if a man Opts out more than once? Twice?
03-09-06, 08:00 PM Momma Angel The word punished seems to be being bandied about a bit here. Funny, but not long ago I was accused of using it for emotional response or something.
So, why is it punishment if the woman has the child but it's not punishment to the child if the woman aborts?
03-09-06, 09:38 PM Rakuchild Because children are born. 03-09-06, 09:57 PM Momma Angel Yes, children are born. Smile But TO ME children die when they are aborted. Smile Just an I agree to disagree issue I guess.
03-09-06, 10:40 PM honilov Since some people think a baby is not a baby until it's born, do they mean that if a woman is 9 months pregnant, and the baby is due next week, that it's not a baby until next week? Confused
As for the man in question, he should have thought about this when he was getting his goody. He knows what makes a baby so why whine now.
03-09-06, 10:41 PM babthrower A famous case – at least here in Canada – involved a man named Jean-Guy Tremblay who in 1989 went to a Quebec court for an injunction against his ex-girlfriend to prevent her form having an abortion. The court decided he had an ‘interest’ in the outcome, and granted it.
Immediately he became the darling of the anti-choice movement. Tearful ladies praised his responsible loving attitude, his gallant defense of the innocent unborn, his manly courage and intelligence in using the law to achieve righteous ends.
Meantime his girlfriend went to Quebec’s supreme court, to get the injunction quashed. She testified the she, aged 21 years, and Jean-Guy Tremblay, age 25 years, began to see one another near the end of November, 1988 and started having sexual relations toward the end of December of that year. In January of 1989 Mr. Tremblay proposed marriage and he requested that she cease using contraceptives. Reluctantly at Mr. Tremblay's insistence she agreed to cease using contraceptive pills. The parties began to live together at the beginning of February, 1989, and arrangements were made for their marriage to take place on July 29, 1989. In March of that year she learned that she was pregnant.
Shortly after commencing cohabitation the parties' relationship began to deteriorate. In her affidavit [she] alleges that Mr. Tremblay became dominant, jealous and possessive and that he abused her physically.
Even though he knew the appellant was pregnant, he pushed her on to the floor, threatening to "bring her into line once and for all". {She] alleges that Mr. Tremblay, during a quarrel, seized her by the throat, and that she found refuge with the landlord, who had to call the police. As a result of this change in their relationship, [she] planned to have an abortion and end her relationship with Mr. Tremblay.
Reasons she stated:
“I do not wish to have Jean-Guy Tremblay's child;
I do not wish to have a child at the present time in light of my age, my social situation as a single person and my moral values as I want to provide for a child in a serene stable family environment in which there is no violence;
I do not want any contact whatsoever with Jean-Guy Tremblay;
I believe that to carry this pregnancy to term would cause me irreparable psychological and moral harm in the future;
In my view, Jean-Guy Tremblay has no reason or interest in the present case except in order to maintain his hold on me.”
The Quebec supreme court upheld the injunction.
The press recorded the victory celebration. Since he was unemployed, how did he plan to raise the child, they asked. Turned out he had no intention of raising the child. That was his girlfriend’s duty. The press zeroed in, asking the hard questions. Finally Jean-guy said that his own father had agreed to raise the child. The press cornered the father at his home. He unequivocally denied that he had any intention of raising his son’s child.
The anti-choicers were understandably deflated. But not for long. Though imperfect, their hero had at least stood up for his fetus’ right to life. Surely that in itself was a noble thing.
Meantime she crossed into the U.S. and had a late abortion: by now it was past the 20th week of gestation.
Then she appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Canada, and won. She no longer had to fear being jailed for contempt of court.
But he is no longer the darling of the anti-choice groups.
On July 5, 2005, Tremblay, then aged 42, was arrested for parole violations. He has served five years for assault, uttering threats and unlawful confinement against two Calgary women, and had 14 previous convictions involving six other women.
At a dangerous offender hearing in the summer of 2000, former girlfriends testified he controlled every aspect of their lives. One testified he would choke her until she passed out. At that time, he was declared a long-term offender, meaning he will be under supervision for 10 years after his release. It was this supervision that he violated.
So it’s really important to know who your friends are.
03-09-06, 10:53 PM Momma Angel Honilov,
This is something someone told me once:
If his wife had wanted to abort his child two seconds before it was born, he would have supported her decision.
Now, he says he doesn't like the thought of abortion at all. So, to some, the right to choice is more imporant it seems than just about anything.
03-11-06, 09:43 AM aminator2002 Men have a responsibility to not let their sperm impregnant any woman unless two conditions are true 1.) they intend to support and contribute to the upbringing of a child that results from having sex with the woman. 2.) that they know, have a relationship of trust with the woman that will result in a meaningful bond that will remain intact for the pregnancy and upbringing of the child.
If a guy isn't sure that what he is doing is the right thing then he just has to wear a condom. If he isn't sure to the extent that a condom isn't enough protection then he should NOT be having sex with the woman or get a vascetomy.
There are guys in the world that will stand up and take care of a child created during a one night stand, but there are more that won't even be found. The woman is left to decide in these situations and her freedom to decide what to do with her body should not be infringed on even if she wasn't the most responsible person in the world... the man can easily just walk away and not be found.
03-11-06, 03:19 PM hassia ugh, if only these people would listen to dr. laura schlessinger!
03-11-06, 03:33 PM juanruiz Hi, Hass! Long time, no see.
03-11-06, 03:35 PM hassia hi juan, i think about you often. i need to come here more often, i'm so out of the loop!
03-11-06, 03:35 PM juanruiz e-mail me and let me know what's happening.
03-11-06, 06:51 PM DorianGreyed We have a loop now? Karrow never tells me anything.
03-11-06, 06:58 PM Momma Angel I have never been in the loop. I want in the loop! Big Grin
03-12-06, 08:39 AM Karrow
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: We have a loop now? Karrow never tells me anything.
The only loop I know of, is the one that will tighten round your neck if you don't behave and stop encouraging off-topic posts! Roll Eyes
Good to see you again hassia. Smile
03-16-06, 03:43 PM Momma Angel Has anyone else heard any more on this issue? I haven't seen a thing.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
AnswerPool.com 
