Thursday, March 09, 2006

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

I have to say that I agree with this idea in theory. I do think that men are afforded little choice other than to react to the choice of the woman. And as noted in the article, bringing a child into the world will have a huge impact on the future of both parents. It seems reasonable to assert that where the woman has a choice there should be a comparable opportunity for the male in the equation.

However, the possibility for this to actually work seems extremely unlikely. Truthfully, to me it looks like just another reason to take a he said/she said argument into court and allow judges to further intrude into family life.

My advice: If you are male and have absolutely no desire to procreate - irrespective of what a woman tells you about being on birth control, physically unable, etc.... PROTECT YOURSELF. I have a feeling that "loss of sensation" will be much preferred to fathering an unintended child.

Does this position do anything about the inequity in reproductive rights? NO. Are most of the women you know truthful when they say they are protected? Most likely. Does this make the gamble of protecting yourself not worth it? Absolutely not. Think about it, is the one who would lie about her reproductive capabilities really the one you want to have a child with?

I hate to say it this way but be a man, make the adult decision and ALWAYS, ALWAYS PROTECT YOURSELF.


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."

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 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."

Labels: ,


Blogger John Doe said...

I agree with just about everything you say in this posting, but I have to admit that the phrase "be a man..." bothers me. More here.

5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can always reverse a vasectomy.

4:52 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on Blogwise Blogarama - The Blog Directory Blog Directory