Interesting Article

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fathe ... index.html

Male activists want 'say' in unplanned pregnancy
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Wednesday, March 8, 2006; Posted: 9:23 p.m. EST (02:23 GMT)

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.

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, Michigan.

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.
'This is so politically incorrect'

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."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

:keep it non political or I will lock it:

You can lock it, its cool. It was more of an informal post then a 'debate this' post. I jus thought it was interesting.

just zip it up.

FRANKS N BEANS!!

I've heard alot about this on the radio recently. Traditionally speaking I don't like it, but it would make things fair under law.

I was in the same situation as this guy.
Some of this theory is good and bad. There has to be some responability in your actions no matter what you do. My biggest fear with this is spreading of more diseases with men going around thinking they can screw any woman they want because they don't have to stick around to be a father. I think its unfair to make(i dont believe in abortion at all) the mother carry a child for 9 months then say 'hey thanks for the lay but im not gonna pay so put the child up for adoption'.


I think the laws should be addressed and changed to be fair to all mother/father/child instead of most of the laws leaning towards womens rights.

I agree 100% Zero. BOTH people are resposible when this happens. But thats what they are taught........gratification first, resposibility some where WAY down the list. Then, they teach kids to get rid of the "problem" (child) instead of learning to take responsibility for their actions. There's no "pay if you play" here.
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

I agree as well

if you plant the seed, you gotta water it - that means BOTH mother & father!!

If only it were that easy.

It's the womans body, she has full control over it and more responsability. if she's letting the man plant the seed she should damn well know she could get a flower in nine months.

Women don't have to let a unprotected peter inside them. It's their body!

I'm not saying men should be scot free. By all means I'm not saying that. However I am saying the laws are geared to assist women and short straw men.

thats why i only put it in the girls butt

TMI, trom...TMI!!!!! uke:

wtf, zero?!? the woman should have MORE responsibility?? thought you didn't want to make this a "debate thread" but those are fightin words, my friend!

men don't have to put an unprotected peter in women - it's THEIR peter!!!

if a man sticks his unprotected peter in a woman, HE better damn well know HE could have a "flower" in 9 months as well!!!

the responsibility is on BOTH people equally. let's not forget the children in this mess either. they are TRULY the ones who suffer from their irresponsible parents. nuff said.

If they sleep with someone who is a loser that is their choice to do so. Most men are dogs I know that and ya women ain't much better. A lot of women use getting pregnant as a way to latch a man. The laws support that for women.

This wasn't meant for debate, it was a simple article that I found interesting. Until you've been in a situation anywhere near this you will not understand. You will not understand what it is like to be man asking the child support agency/family court what you have to do to get your child living with you and they reply trying to not laugh over the phone saying 'how ... hah how do u plan on making that happen'.

The child. The most important person in this triangle. Is it fair for the mother to decide for the child to not have a father? Is it fair for the mother to decide to force a man to be in the childs life? If I were a child again I would much rather been born into a family where I had two parents instead of one.

Nevermind. You can not possibly understand and I don't want any hurt feelings from this. You have your opinions and I have mine, enough said.

sent you a PM, zero. :thumbsup: