http://www.thedenverchannel.com/irresistible/7842356/detail.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Father's Rights? Men Want Right To Turn Down Fatherhood
Group Wants Same Rights As Women

POSTED: 5:46 am MST March 9, 2006

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."


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, Mich.

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.

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."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Opinions? It's tough to decide. It takes 2 to tango and you can't always go by what the other partner says in response to you can't get me pregnant, etc. In college my ex and I had a scare but turned out she wasn't pregnant. I was ready to take responsibility though, but I also loved her very much. Situations where the woman wants a baby and 'tricks' the man into providing DNA then coming back and saying you owe me $XXX amount of money because you knocked me up I can see this as a good thing. What do you guys think?

ViperDragon

 

Meh, sounds like a bunch of deadbeats to me. Just my opinion.

 

On one hand, jerks! On the other, right on! I'm conflicted.

 

Why can't most men or women in these times take responsibility for their actions?  

 

Society, thanks to lawyers, now can have what they want and not take any repsonsibility for their stupidity. We have come to terms with 'I may have done it but why the hell should it be my fault?' :-(

ViperDragon

 

I have no sympathy for men or women that get into all this without marriage.

 

It does make sense in a deadbeat dad kind of way. I'm also of mixed feelings on this.

 

It's an interesting idea.

Anyway, if you leave abortion out of this discussion, I will keep the thread open. Don't make me regret it.

 

I agree.. On one hand they are deadbeats, but the other it does make sense..

 

Hmmm his specific case is kinda weird. I mean if the women is not supposed to be able to have children you can't really expect her to get an abortion or to give it up for adoption.

 

My thoughts in the case for, is that Mothers have way more rights than fathers. Which is wrong, on many levels. There are thousands of Dads out there denied access to their children. Denied the right to take part in their upbringing, all because the Mother wishes it. This at least gives them a somewhat more even footing. Of course it's open to all kinds of terrible abuse, so... it's still "eh".

 

I can see that an divorced father should pay child support.It's his duty to do so.This being a different situation as well. My sis was recently divorced,and has a daughter and a son and her ex still doesn't pay here half the child support she should be getting.As fo unwed fathers, I'm still undecided on it.
It seems to me, that more women today should consider using contreceptives more and wise up a bit.But, also, men should follow suit and wise up as well.If you want to have sex and not have an unwanted pregnancy,then take measures for it not to happen.

 

oh fuck this shit, you got to kidding me.

 

Why?

 

woah....

Ill just say you are responsible for your actions. even if you dont want to.

granted its true the father.... should have some sort of say in such thing.

In my honest opinion I have mixed feelings about this.Im kinda in the middle

I just think that giving your back to your problems is just not rigth.

 

If they want to deny all financial responsibility for the good then they should give up ALL responsibility for the kid. Completely.

They should be banned ALL access to the kid until the kids 18 and can make up their own mind about wanting to find their dad.

There is no way in hell that they should be able to shirk payments but still be in their kids life. If you wanna take this course of action, then in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

I saw this on tv and the guy that was selling the idea made a pretty good example:

Say a man and woman are dating and they decide it is time for sex. They sit down, talk about what kind of protection they are going to use and then discuss the possibly reactions they would take to an unwanted pregnancy. At that point they are saying the guy should have the right to tell the girl that if there is an unwanted pregnancy that you have no interest in fathering a child and will not pay child support if there is an unwanted pregnancy and the girl decides to keep the child. If both sides can't agree to the same terms then they shouldn't have sex.

Granted not all situations are going to be like that, but I think if all of that is agreed upon before going at it the guy should have every right to not pay child support since he made it clear before the child was even conceived that he had no intent of raising or paying for the child.

There are bad things (i.e. could be abused by deadbeats) about this law though, the only way I would feel comfortable with it is if there were some kind of written contract between the two people, but that would be taking it too far.

 

Equal Rights!

 

Once again common sense is out the window. I may get the strap for this, but here I go. Deep breath...Men and women are not equal. It is a fallacy and a farce to really believe that women and men are equal for some inherit reasons, mostly biological. Example, Women have babies, men don't. I think during the big equal rights thing (which is a great thing IMO, as there is no reason why men and women cannot have the same rights, goes for racial, religious and sexual preference differences) everything got muddled together into saying, We are all the same, so treat us the same. It was a mistake. In the past, to give a women power (or rights) would limit the power that the men have, and because all the men have held the power in society most women would like to have there share of that power. And even though there is still 'equal rights' it is still a male based society, based around the values of the forefathers. This article is a good example of it. A woman is finally given the right to choose what to do with a pregnancy, but because we live in such a male focused world, we instinctively think 'why do they get (women) to choose, I want a choice too!' Well we had a choice, it was made right after the smooth sounds of Isaac Hayes were on the stereo and you had the last sip of the glass of wine.
By all rights women should have more power in society, we as men don't want to admit it because then we wouldn't have the power.
There is more on the line for women than a man. As previously shown in society, men can walk away, for women it is harder.
Now when it comes after the child is borne there is not reason why both parents should have an equal right to the child and during a divorce, men should have the full right to the child, baring he helps provide for it, not just when he feels like it. Face it men, we do not have the greatest track record for fulfilling our obligations to our children (as a sex, not individually) and for this jerk-off who wants the same right to not have a child is a glaring example of what is wrong with north America as a whole.

 

Just for the record, don't show this article to your girlfriend/spouse.

My ears are still ringing from the shrill screams she let out upon reading it.