http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_on_re_us/fatherhood_suit;_ylt=Ar4XFmh04nKir_sLeTutS2Gs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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."


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




This is a hard one.

As soon as men start carrying babies for nine months, I say cool!

If their lawyers are as bad as their web designers, I don't think this is going anywhere:

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/

And for the record, this dude:



never saw a pair of titties, let alone knocked a woman up.

Interesting take on things. I don't think I agree with the notion, but I look forward to the dialogue it could spark.

This will do wonderful things in the ghetto.

Isn't this what every other episode of Jerry Springer is about?

a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.

WHAT THE FUCK!

I want out of the circus.

I want into some beds.

I think this case has merits. It is really about equality. If woman have the right to make a unilateral decision to walk away from a pregnancy with no financial or legal ramifications, via abortion or adoption, then this same right should be granted to men.

This right is especially important to men when you start to factor in; the sexism the courts have historically displayed in granting custody and visition to men, the fact that mother's are not required to notify the father of a pregnancy, that the father's name is not required to be put on the birth certificate.

I guess I understand the argument and it does kind of suck that men have limited choices. However I'll never understand a man not willing to take care of his kids, regardless of whatever choices he made or didn't make.

I think these guys should spend their time arguing for equal custody for men. Its complete horseshit how men get treated in custody battles.

It's not about that.... though I have I hard tiem believeing anyone will accept their arguments.

Say two people argee to sex, both agree that they don't want kids right now and accept abortion, and agree to always use protection.

So they hit it, the woman gets pregant despite using protection. Now the guy says "good thing we agreed on this beforehand." The woman can say "eat sh*t, I've changed my mind" and the guy is out of luck. She is of course free to change her midn later without even telling the guy.

You don't see some kinda problem with that?

see, I really don't. I agree with B's sentiment that bearing a child is a burden only a female is faced with; a physical burden that I, as a male, will never completely understand. Say all you want about equality, but this can never be equal because of the pure biological differences. Unless the man signed some sort of actual legal contract, I have no problem with a woman going after a man's pocketbook for the next 18 years if he chooses to ditch the child and the mother.

that's not what my example was and I agree with you there.

I'm saying they agree to something and the woman changes her mind after the fact. Why is the woman the only one who gets input into the life long commitment?

I don't think a contract agreeing to have an abortion in the case of unintended pregancy would be enforceable. In fact, I'm certain it would not be.

How's that? (Not that I think it should be enforceable)

I can't site law on the subject, but it seems counter to everything I know about contract enforceability for a person to be able to contract with another to have an unnecessary medical procedure (or if you're extreme, to kill another person). And the unconcionable nature of the contract would seem to make it completely unenforceable, even in the sense that the man could relieve himself of his financial obligations if the woman recinds on the contract.

The general rule on parental obligation is that both parents are equally responsible for the child financially. I think it is simple and fair and you can't ask any more of a law than that. Changing it because some dude doesn't want to be a responsible father will do nothing but muck up the system.

These guys are acting like if a woman doesn't get an abortion, then she's taking the easy way out. Bullshit. They fucked, both of them, and I can guarantee that the man came (I can't say so much for the woman). Unintended consequences happened, that sucks. Now they both have to deal with those unintended consequences. Either she has the child and raises it, and the guy is equally responsible for the child's upbringing, or she gets an abortion, where the guy gets off for the price of the procedure at most, and she gets to have her uterus vacuumed and live with guilt for the rest of her life, or she decides to give up for adoption, with similar guilty feelings being highly likely.

However you slice it, the woman gets the emotional and financial shit end of the stick, and these fucking crybabydaddies who don't want to pay MONEY complain? Shut the fuck up and pay your dues, bitches.

Jesus Christ, I was born in Saginaw, MI!





That is all . . .

Don't parents teach kids anything?

1) Never have sex unless you're prepared for the consequences.
2) Always use a condom.
3) You and your partner MUST get tested.
4) Never trust a God damned woman!

the problem is solved by simply using contraception, is it really that hard people.