Reproductive Rights

[Darkdale]

Reproductive Rights and Equity

NEW YORK — 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. 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."

This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Reproductive Rights: Should men have any? Well I say YES, they should. If you accept the logic that having a child is a woman's choice, and that the man has no say whatsoever in the decision, then you must conclude that the man has literally no responsibility in the consequences of that choice. If a woman chooses to have an abortion or chooses to have a child, in neither case should the man be legally or financially responsible for a decision in which he has no legal input. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit prevails, though I’m not optimistic. What do you think?

 

[Mister Emu]

While I personally would never intentionally leave a child of mine broke as long as I had the ability to... I think this is legally fair, if not right.

 

[Engyo]

Interesting contrast to the recent British decision about the woman whose ex-husband refused to let her implant one of their stored embryos and birth it.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Reproductive Rights: Should men have any? Well I say YES...

I say 'YES', and the only way to exercise that right is to not have sex, particularly unprotected sex, until/unless you are ready to be a parent.

There is clearly an unfair double standard in the realm of reproductive rights. Some women refer to a baby as 'my body my choice my reproductive rights' until they want money from the sperm donor.

While the legal theory certainly sounds logical, the courts will ultimately rule that society has an interest in making both parents financially responsible for the care of the child so that burden will not fall on society at large.

Here's my prediction of the proceedings...remember, I play a lawyer on the internet.

US Attorney - 'Allowing men to refuse paying child support is not in the best interest of children or the public interest.'

Judge - Case dismissed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you get a woman pregnant, you have a responsibility for the results - the rest is rhetoric.

 

[BUDDY]

It is certainly more fair from a secular and purely legal standpoint, as the law stands now. But to be consistent that the man has two options only, he can either avoid spreading his seed, or take responsibility for the child that may develop if he does. This really is a question of personal responsibility.

In my opinion, I think a reason there are so many abortions today is because there are not enough real men willing to step up and take care of children that they help to create. This just confirms that theory. Men need to step up and be men. Take care of their responsibilities, and let women know that they are there to help out and be fathers if that is what they want.

 

[kevmicsmi]

Reproductive Rights and Equity




This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Reproductive Rights: Should men have any? Well I say YES, they should. If you accept the logic that having a child is a woman's choice, and that the man has no say whatsoever in the decision, then you must conclude that the man has literally no responsibility in the consequences of that choice. If a woman chooses to have an abortion or chooses to have a child, in neither case should the man be legally or financially responsible for a decision in which he has no legal input. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit prevails, though I’m not optimistic. What do you think?

Completely agree!

 

[dawny0826]

Looks like I'm the first gal to comment...

I agree whole heartedly with this statement...

I say 'YES', and the only way to exercise that right is to not have sex, particularly unprotected sex, until/unless you are ready to be a parent.

 

[retrorich]

If you get a woman pregnant, you have a responsibility for the results - the rest is rhetoric.

I agree 100%

 

[WeAreAllOne]

Reproductive Rights and Equity




This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Reproductive Rights: Should men have any? Well I say YES, they should. If you accept the logic that having a child is a woman's choice, and that the man has no say whatsoever in the decision, then you must conclude that the man has literally no responsibility in the consequences of that choice. If a woman chooses to have an abortion or chooses to have a child, in neither case should the man be legally or financially responsible for a decision in which he has no legal input. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit prevails, though I’m not optimistic. What do you think?

I Agree as Well )(

 

[Smoke]

This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Reproductive Rights: Should men have any? Well I say YES, they should. If you accept the logic that having a child is a woman's choice, and that the man has no say whatsoever in the decision, then you must conclude that the man has literally no responsibility in the consequences of that choice. If a woman chooses to have an abortion or chooses to have a child, in neither case should the man be legally or financially responsible for a decision in which he has no legal input. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit prevails, though I’m not optimistic. What do you think?

I think your reasoning is impeccable. I also think you'd be interested to read up on paternity fraud. It's estimated that as many as one in ten children are not the biological children of their putative fathers, and one study found that in about a third of DNA tests to determine paternity, the putative father was not the biological father.

Nevertheless, many men who can prove that they are not the biological fathers of children they have been ordered to support, still have no recourse. In most states, there is a narrow window of time to challenge paternity. If you don't challenge in time, too bad for you. In every state, paternity can be "established" without DNA testing. In many states, paternity can be "established" in absentia, and even without the putative father's knowledge. If the mother names you as the father, and you don't challenge in time, you'll be writing checks till the child is an adult.

Men simply don't have the legal and reproductive rights that women do. I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't. (And although I'm a man, I don't really have a dog in this race; the last time I had sex with a woman was seventeen years ago.)

 

[kevmicsmi]

U.S. Newswire
DENVER, Jan. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On New Year's Day the children and fathers of Colorado got a present courtesy of the state legislature. Effective January 1, a man's right to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring was restricted to the duration of the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child support action.
Once a final order is entered in that proceeding, a new state law says, the putative father is barred from presenting newly discovered evidence of non-paternity -- ever. State Senate Bill 181, enacted in Colorado's 2005 legislative session, requires that any evidence from genetic testing of parent and child be introduced before the entry of final orders. The new law applies to divorce, child support establishment and enforcement and parentage.
Source: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58918
http://www.divorcenet.com/Members/p...ections-against-paternity-fraud-press-releasehttp://www.divorcenet.com/Members/p...ections-against-paternity-fraud-press-release

Ithink this goes right along with this thread. In Colorado If you find out your ex-wife cheated on you, and defrauded you into thinking they were your kids, youbetter find out before the divorce is final, or you are stuck with child support.this is insanity

 

[michel]

If you get a woman pregnant, you have a responsibility for the results - the rest is rhetoric.

I say 'YES', and the only way to exercise that right is to not have sex, particularly unprotected sex, until/unless you are ready to be a parent.

Yes, yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[kevmicsmi]

I think your reasoning is impeccable. I also think you'd be interested to read up on paternity fraud. It's estimated that as many as one in ten children are not the biological children of their putative fathers, and one study found that in about a third of DNA tests to determine paternity, the putative father was not the biological father.

Nevertheless, many men who can prove that they are not the biological fathers of children they have been ordered to support, still have no recourse. In most states, there is a narrow window of time to challenge paternity. If you don't challenge in time, too bad for you. In every state, paternity can be "established" without DNA testing. In many states, paternity can be "established" in absentia, and even without the putative father's knowledge. If the mother names you as the father, and you don't challenge in time, you'll be writing checks till the child is an adult.

Men simply don't have the legal and reproductive rights that women do. I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't. (And although I'm a man, I don't really have a dog in this race; the last time I had sex with a woman was seventeen years ago.)

I guess great minds post alike

 

[Pah]

I don't see where intended/unintended results are pertainent. This would allow a father to not support a child of his marriage.

 

[drekmed]

i agree, men deserve better reproductive rights. if a man doesnt want the child, he should be able to give up any and all parental obligations. the woman is able to do this, the man should be able to also.
those laws need to be overturned immediately, they are insane and put far too many men in financial difficulties.

 

[Yerda]

What do you think?

Who will benefit?

 

[Darkdale]

If you get a woman pregnant, you have a responsibility for the results - the rest is rhetoric.

You are the last person I thought would take such an... um... position. For once, I think I'll ask you to explain why you think that is the case.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Hmm. The whole business of "my body, my choice" has to do with what happens before the kid is born. It makes some sense that women would have rights in terms pregnancy that men don't.

But once the child is born, that situation changes. Both people need to be responsible at that point, and I think that the parent who raises the kids (if we're talking single parent here) should get support from the other person. So...I'm all for it being fair, but I don't think this is really the right way to go about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you get a woman pregnant, you have a responsibility for the results - the rest is rhetoric.

You are the last person I thought would take such an... um... position. For once, I think I'll ask you to explain why you think that is the case.

You need me to explain to you that you are responsible for what you do? Talk to your mommy and daddy.