Mar 8, 8:29 PM EST Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer 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. http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-20-29-30 thoughts? Should men have the right to opt out of responsibility for unwanted pregnancies?
If the MAN was taking the up-front responsibility of using some form of contraception (condom, vasectomy) and it somehow failed to work, then I would say yes. At that point, he had taken clear measures NOT to father an unwanted child, and if the woman wants the child, then I cannot see why the man should be held *legally* responsible for a child he CLEARLY didn't want to produce. Moral responsibility is another matter, however...
Also, the man would need to make sure he knows what his partner's views are regarding abortion. If he is sleeping with a woman that he knows is against having an abortion then he should either be ready to support an unwanted pregnancy, or he should not be sleeping with her at all. It would also be necessary for the man to make his decision in enough time to let the woman decide if she should keep the baby or not. Making her wait until 2nd or 3rd trimester then saying "know what, i dont want anythiing to do with baby" would put her in a poor position, because her options were just severly reduced. The man would only have about as long as a woman has to decide on abortion (even less) in order for this type of thing to work. I'm all for men having some form of reproductive rights as long as they are willing to be responsible for contraception as well - to show theat they were taking steps to prevent pregnancy in thier partner (therefore showing that they did not want a child, and that their partner understood this). No condom, no getting out of it... Men would need to understand that this would be a lifetime thing. "opting out" would mean your name is not on the birth certificate, you can't come back in 5 years and change your mind, you wouldn't exist to that child. I see a mess of legislation and huge tie-ups in the legal system on this one. Men opting out wanting back in later, long court battles over wether or not dad can opt out. Seems like it would be a mess - but what isn't when it comes to the courts...
I don't really think that the woman's stand on abortion really matters here. If the MAN was taking the responsibility for contraception alone, with the woman not willing to provide her own "insurance policy" by using a second form of birth control, then why should she have the right to make the man LEGALLY responsible for HER decision? If she CHOOSES not to abort, and CHOOSES to raise the child (rather than placing it for adoption), then the responsibility for doing so should legally be HERS. I agree, this would open up all kinds of sticky legal situations. But at the core of it is whether a person (male OR female) should be FORCED to be a parent against his or her will. Especially in a situation where that parent would be hit with the RESPONSIBILITIES (child support payments), but none of the RIGHTS (custody of the child).
If men don't want to take responsibility...it's really easy...sign over rights. *shrugs* easy as that.
um, no it is not as easy as that. Men can be forced to pay child support until the kid is 18. there would be a lot of sticky legal issues...and i do agree, if a guy does not accept financial responsibility from the get go, he should have no parental rights EVER unless the mother wants him to.
You make good points here. My line of thought on it was that birth control fails, even though two forms would fail rarely. If two people are sleeping together - an act they both know can cause pregnancy - and they know that abortion is not an option if a pregnancy arises, then the man is obviously conscenting to that when he continues to take the risk and sleep with the woman. Of course on the flip side of that you cound have the coniving woman that sabotages the birth control to get pregnant and entrap the man, so eh. It is something I honestly never thought about until Megara posted about it, so I really don't know where I stand. Annie...Your point is good too. Men can sign over their rights...I always thought that meant the mother couldn't get child support (or at least that's the case with the women I know personally).
can you imagine the legal wrangling over whether a guy was wearing a condom or if a woman disclosed her view on abortion? talk about a bad case of he said-she said. I dont think i'd want to see the evidence brought forth in that case. my god! it gives a new meaning to the 'if glove don't fit...'
ROFL That's what I am thinking about this whole thing.. I imagine the defense now... "Well she told me she was on birth control!!" "He said he was wearing a condom!" "I was wearing a condom! I was just so excited it must've broke!!" Might be good for daytime TV. Sex Court with Judge Candy!
This is a tricky one...In the case of this man in particular, the woman alleged that she could NOT get pregnant. So, I can see where he has a point. I would be pissed if my lover assured me he had a vasectomy and then I ended up pregnant. It is going to hard to enforce, though. Very he said/she said. I can definitely see both sides. It's sad, because a child is being hurt no matter which way it goes. Think long and hard before you have sex. And always use protection-no matter what the other party says.
