Roe v. Wade for Men: National Center For Men Files Suit

[RVBuckeye]

I saw this on the news today and just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. I don't know what to make of it yet, but at first glance, I can see their point.

On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man's right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. TM

More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow... that is actually something interesting. I'm also not really sure what to think of it. I mean one of the major ideas behind Roe V. Wade supporters is that the government shouldn't just force you to take care of a kid. Seems like such a point can equally be mirrored to men.

 

[franzbear!]

Logicaly its a pretty sound case. I don't know how popular it will be, most people will probably view at a simple excuse for dad's to weasel out of child-support. A pity, since it is a logical conclusion of Roe-v-Wade. Oh well, that's the problems that arise from physical procreation. These are the times that I am glad I'll never have to worry about problems of the body.

 

[AngelShare]

Sounds logical at first glance but upon thinking about it, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. The father doesn't want to be present-- okay, we'll allow that. Now the father doesn't want to pay...yeah, just keep poppin' 'em out and abandoning them boys.

 

[franzbear!]

Lets say two umarried people get together, and the women gets pregnant. The mother doesn't want to have the baby: she can get an abortion. The father doesn't want to have a baby: well tough, there's nothing he can do about it. See the point? Either have equality for both sexes, or none at all. Right now under Roe-v-Wade a woman can, as you put, pop'em out becuase she can just have an abortion. The guy can't, he's screwed.

 

[Pengwuino]

Sounds logical at first glance but upon thinking about it, it sounds absolutely ridiculous. The father doesn't want to be present-- okay, we'll allow that. Now the father doesn't want to pay...yeah, just keep poppin' 'em out and abandoning them boys.

Well that's exactly what a woman can do. Bout ready to pop em out... oh screw it, just kill it. To me its just rediculous... but i do think this can be a sound legal base. You really need to determine a sound legal reason why this shouldn't be the case. I mean if you can pull so far out of left field the idea of unreasonable search and seizure being a basis to protect a woman's right to an abortion... that should be reason enough to protect a guy too. If the supreme court was forced to do this, i don't see how they can really say no to it...

 

[AngelShare]

I see that but, in the end, it's another way for little boys to get out of being men. It isn't always about choice-- the difference between a woman aborting a fetus and a man abandoning his kid is that pretty much everyone agrees that the baby is a baby, a person, not a clump of cells. That's the problem with the abortion debate-- some think the fetus is a person, others don't. However, in this case, it's clear that the baby is a person. What's better for the baby? The guy can already get out of even being present in his child's life but now it's too much to ask that he at least give some money to his kid?

About the "poppin' 'em out" comment that seems to be getting rather noticed:rofl: , think about it. A woman gets pregant, that's it for at least nine months. A guy gets one girl pregnant one week, he can do it again the next. Maybe he should watch how far he spreads his "seeds", yeah?:tongue:

 

[Pengwuino]

That's not a legal basis though. If you can say its about choice in one case, it is verrrrry hard to say it's not about choice in the second case when they're so closely related.

 

[AngelShare]

Well that's exactly what a woman can do. Bout ready to pop em out... oh screw it, just kill it.

Actually, you're wrong there. Most abortions are conducted before the fetus has even reached the three/four month mark so it isn't "bout read to pop em out" time when most pregnancies are aborted.

You really need to determine a sound legal reason why this shouldn't be the case.

I know that already. Think about it this way-- the man can already exit his kid's life without even seeing it once, the only thing tieing him to the kid is his having to pay for his "half" of it (Weird way to put it but you get the point.:rofl: ). If that's gotten rid of, that means men everywhere can just start sleeping around knowing that they don't have to stay or pay. At least the woman isn't putting a kid into the world and ignoring it, figuring, "Ah, it'll live...hey, let's go grab a beer!" Even adoption is better than just throwing the kid into some hell hole to starve.

 

[AngelShare]

That's not a legal basis though. If you can say its about choice in one case, it is verrrrry hard to say it's not about choice in the second case when they're so closely related.

Common sense, a kid is involved in one scenario, a clump of cells in another. What's best for the kid is always the case, not whether the father wants to do what's best.

 

[Pengwuino]

Common sense, a kid is involved in one scenario, a clump of cells in another. What's best for the kid is always the case, not whether the father wants to do what's best.

Wrong. The law's don't care about common sense.

Actually, you're wrong there. Most abortions are conducted before the fetus has even reached the three/four month mark so it isn't "bout read to pop em out" time when most pregnancies are aborted.

As with most of your argument (not to be taken as offense), that is irrelevant. We're looking at legal basis. If an abortion CAN be done legally at such a point, that is all that matters legally. This is a case of law. Roe v. Wade was based solely on law, not morality or what's "right" or "wrong".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I see that but, in the end, it's another way for little boys to get out of being men.

And what is abortion but another way for little girls to get out of being women? In both cases (aside from instances of rape or medical reasons) we're talking about someone (male or female) being irresponsible and not wanting to deal with the consequences.

Think about it this way-- the man can already exit his kid's life without even seeing it once, the only thing tieing him to the kid is his having to pay for his "half" of it (Weird way to put it but you get the point. ). If that's gotten rid of, that means men everywhere can just start sleeping around knowing that they don't have to stay or pay. At least the woman isn't putting a kid into the world and ignoring it, figuring, "Ah, it'll live...hey, let's go grab a beer!" Even adoption is better than just throwing the kid into some hell hole to starve.

A woman can get an abortion, put her child up for adoption, sometimes she can give the child up to a family member or even leave the child with the father (and I have never heard of a woman paying child support either). Men have NO CHOICE what so ever of whether or not they are to be responsable for the child. NONE. The only choice they have is to stay or go and then either pay child support or hope that the courts don't catch up to them and have their wages garnished.

Yes, a man getting a woman pregnant and then walking away from the situation is irresponsible but so is a woman who has a child that she can not take care of.

 

[Gale]

for the record, there have been plenty of women who've paid child support for their children that the father's have raised. you can google it. i just read that about 15% of the people who pay child support are the mothers. while still a low percentage, you have to consider that most single parents are mothers, and that the number of women paying child support has also been on the rise.

 

[Pengwuino]

Source gale!??! muhahahaha

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

for the record, there have been plenty of women who've paid child support for their children that the father's have raised. you can google it. i just read that about 15% of the people who pay child support are the mothers. while still a low percentage, you have to consider that most single parents are mothers, and that the number of women paying child support has also been on the rise.

Thank you Gale. I just said that I have never heard of it. All of the single fathers I have known are going it on their own.

 

[BobG]

Thank you Gale. I just said that I have never heard of it. All of the single fathers I have known are going it on their own.

This is most likely due to the 'traditional roles' defined by society. It's harder socially for women to give up custody than men just because that's not the way it's been done in the past. If a couple got divorced and decided the kids would be better off with the father because of the woman's professional requirements (long hours, frequent travel, whatever), most people used to assume that custody was given to the father because of problems with the mother (child abuse, alcohol abuse, whatever).

When the traditional roles did more or less apply, the same problems that resulted in the father getting custody usually meant the woman wasn't the type that was likely to have enough money to pay child support. Even in situations where the father 'won' custody, he wasn't too likely to press the matter of child support if he thought it would provide extra motivation for the woman to fight harder for custody.

Nowadays, with more women having demanding professions, it's more common for men to wind up with custody. Plus a lot of states have laws that make child support non-negotiable. Regardless of how the rest of the finances are settled, the last step is for the state to look at how things were divided and decide how much child support one or the other should pay.

 

[Jelfish]

There are a lot of sides to the abortion debate. A woman who has an abortion and was not impregnated by rape is not necessarily irresponsible. Some would say that bringing a child into the world and neglecting it due to poor living conditions is worse. But that's a different topic.

Back to the OT: You can argue all you want about what is fair or double standards. However, the fact of the matter is that the court will rule in favor of what is best for the child. Therefore, men will have to pay child support. In this case, abortion is irrelevant.

 

[franzbear!]

This entire thing hinges on when the ruling about childsupport is. For example, a guy can't decide to cop out after the child is born. If this is used as a mirror of abortion then it should only be used in the same windo of time as an abortion can. Say a guy gets his girlfriend pregnant, decides he doesn't want the baby but she refuses to get an abortion. He could file a simple claim, sometime during the pregnancy, that he does not want the child and waives all rights concerning it, ergo waiving all duties concerning it. Surely this is logical and could be ruled in favor of at court.

 

[Jelfish]

It seems like it might work, but again, the court will rule in favor for what's best for the child. And regardless of the fact that the woman might still have the choice to abort or not during this agreement, if she does give birth to the child, the child, regardless of when the agreement was made, will need monetary support, and I think that's enough for a court to rule in favor of the child.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Ruling in the favor of the child is in stark contrast to the laws now (if you're anti-abortion). Why would this change anything?

 

[RVBuckeye]

It always boils down to who's responsible for birth control. Wouldn't this now put equal pressure on the woman to speak up and insist on birth control? I'm not trying to start a fight here, so sorry if it's a controversial question. The way I see it now is there are a dis-proportionate amount of consequences on the male if he has unprotected sex and a pregnancy ensues. A woman has just as much culpability in the decision to have sex as the man. I need a woman's perspective on why a man should have no say on what happens afterward.

 

[Pengwuino]

It seems like it might work, but again, the court will rule in favor for what's best for the child. And regardless of the fact that the woman might still have the choice to abort or not during this agreement, if she does give birth to the child, the child, regardless of when the agreement was made, will need monetary support, and I think that's enough for a court to rule in favor of the child.

They can't logically rule based on what's best for the child, it does not follow precedent. It would be an extraordinarily tough sell for a court to uphold the idea of killing a child and then turning around and saying that we need to do what's best for a child in my opinion.

No matter what side of the abortion issue you are on, it's clear that the child's interests are not considered before pregnancy. This makes it fairly odd if a court were to say that the next day a child's interests are #1 priority as per this idea of child-care.

 

[Jelfish]

They can't logically rule based on what's best for the child, it does not follow precedent. It would be an extraordinarily tough sell for a court to uphold the idea of killing a child and then turning around and saying that we need to do what's best for a child in my opinion.

No matter what side of the abortion issue you are on, it's clear that the child's interests are not considered before pregnancy. This makes it fairly odd if a court were to say that the next day a child's interests are #1 priority as per this idea of child-care.

You're right, but what I mean is that the matter of pre-birth is irrelevant. If there is a viable and born child sitting in the court room, the court will rule in its favor - that is what I was trying to convey. The mother's choice to abort or not might still exist before birth, but after birth, there is no ambiguity as to whether the child is separate or part of another person. The case of abortion is completely separate because, especially before viability, some people don't consider it alive and separate from its mother and therefore cannot enforce actions to her own body. However, a born child is a completely different issue. It is much more clear cut. The child is without a doubt a separate person and needs support. The court is not going to favor in fairness and equality for men of what some view as irresponsibility in the part of women. At that point, the issue is kind of childish (no pun intended).

 

[Pengwuino]

Still not a legal basis. If you say "choice" in one case, you really can't say "no choice" in the 2nd case since the father did make the pregnancy happen and it will be his kid so he has to have a choice as well based on the legal precedent Roe v. wade and subsequent cases presented. It is alllllllllll about precedent. It's the reasoning they used to confirm roe v. wade that makes the idea of forced child payments vulnerable to the idea of "choice".

 

[Jelfish]

Yes, but legal precedence only works if you're comparing two very similar situations. The woman choosing abortion is different because the claim is that she has control over her own body. If abortion were not a legal medical procedure, she could technically use a coat hanger and achieve the same effect and no one would be there to arrest her (though I would be interested to know if there are any cases of men suing their formerly pregnant partners because of an abortion and also winning). However, if you go to your girlfriend and stick a coat hanger in her to kill her baby, then that would be obviously illegal.

The choice to pay child support is not an analogue to a woman's choice to have an abortion. Child support is a different issue because an alternative is that the child goes to an orphanage - so taxpayers pay. There is a gov't responsibility in protecting the child, but not an unborn fetus. In fact, the precedence is that the father has to pay child support regardless of whether or not he wanted the baby. By the time the child exists as an individual, it no longer matters.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are a lot of sides to the abortion debate. A woman who has an abortion and was not impregnated by rape is not necessarily irresponsible. Some would say that bringing a child into the world and neglecting it due to poor living conditions is worse. But that's a different topic.

I don't think anyone has argued (not here at any rate) that a woman having an abortion is irresponsable. If this were a comment in regards to what I have said then I'd like to clarify that I stated a woman who keeps a child that she can not care for is as irresponsable as a father who skips out on his child.

The choice to pay child support is not an analogue to a woman's choice to have an abortion. Child support is a different issue because an alternative is that the child goes to an orphanage - so taxpayers pay. There is a gov't responsibility in protecting the child, but not an unborn fetus. In fact, the precedence is that the father has to pay child support regardless of whether or not he wanted the baby. By the time the child exists as an individual, it no longer matters.

Tax payers won't have to pay so long as the woman makes responsable decisions. She can have an abortion and neither she, the father, or the tax payers must pay. Putting the child up for adoption before she gives birth or even shortly there after will more than likely result in the child never entering the custody of the state. It's the women who keep children that they can't take care of that wind up filling orphanages once they finally give up the child or it is taken from them. Once the child is no longer an infant it's chances of being adopted have dropped dramatically. Considering the possible psychological issues that such a child may develope due to the environment it grew up in only compounds the issue of how difficult it will be for it to be adopted.

The argument here then is that while the mother has choices, at least two if not more, the father has none. While the approach of citing Roe v Wade makes it seem like calling abortion into issue the real point is about the options of a person who is not yet ready to be a parent, whether female or male.

 

[Smasherman]

This entire thing hinges on when the ruling about childsupport is. For example, a guy can't decide to cop out after the child is born. If this is used as a mirror of abortion then it should only be used in the same windo of time as an abortion can. Say a guy gets his girlfriend pregnant, decides he doesn't want the baby but she refuses to get an abortion. He could file a simple claim, sometime during the pregnancy, that he does not want the child and waives all rights concerning it, ergo waiving all duties concerning it. Surely this is logical and could be ruled in favor of at court.

Oddly enough, it never occurred to me that the male could opt out of child support after birth.

As for the topic directly, I really don't know. I think what franzbear! has said is a decent proposal. It does irk me a bit that, legally, women have more rights/power than men, though women have less power elsewhere than men, due to the culture itself.

[total_side_note]Of course, no law we pass nor treaty we sign will change anything permanently (meaning for a long time, not the absolute) if the culture itself remains the same. We must shape ourself to change our history! Governance, in all forms, including Sovereign and Economic, have showed a failure to make cultural change in favor of humanity (in terms of humane-ness).[/total_side_note]

 

[KingNothing]

In general, courts tend to have a lot more sympathy for mothers and women than for men and fathers. This is true at pretty much any level - I took a law class a few months ago, and one of the recurring things was how women are viewed in a court.

My dad had to pay a lot of child support for a child from his previous marriage. After a custody battle, my dad got full control over the kid and the mom was legally obligated to pay. My dad never got a dime (over 4 years).