[Jensboys]

Look at all the references to adoption in this article ... Dont know if this is the appropriate category, but its not exactly "chit chat" either.
Jen
From CNN.com

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."

[mamacrina]

"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."

That's where it's at for me.

[Jensboys]

Crina ... you NEED TO GO TO BED (this is the warning from your insomniac conscience! )

And yes, it is an interesting idea, and rather dangerous I think in the long term.

Jen

[happygmom]

Originally Posted by Jensboys

It's about the rights of the child."

Mamacrina for president! I agree.

Happy G'Ma

[mamacrina]

LOL...If I could sleep I wouldn't be here...would someone kindly bonk me over the head? I promise not to be mad later...

[Jensboys]

lol Consider this me heaving a brick at the general direction of your head. And I am off to take a Tylenol Cold PM does the trick for me!

Jen

[mamacrina]

LOL. Thanx and I ain't mad atcha! Getting offline to take a loooong hot bath with lavender scented bubbles..hoping that will do it. G'nite!

[manni28]

I was reading this post and it reminded me of an article in the news about men who were being charged child support for children that WEREN"T biologically theirs. They were told that they were the fathers of these child and the mothers had slept with someone else and named the husband or boyfriend as the father. It was only after test were given/or divorces that the men found out the truth-do I think that they should be responsible for someone else's responsibility-NO. Do I think that a woman does have the last say in what she wants to do with her body/child-YES. However, if her decision is based on deception or involves someone else, that person's opinion needs to be heard and respected as well.

The way I see it, if a woman tells a man she's on the pill and she knows she's not, then she ALONE should be financially held responsible for the child, because she’s deceiving someone.

[mimc]

Originally Posted by manni28

The way I see it, if a woman tells a man she's on the pill and she knows she's not, then she ALONE should be financially held responsible for the child, because she’s deceiving someone.

In theory, I'd agree, but how do you prove that in a court of law? How does a woman prove that she wasn't deceitful, that it was an honest mistake? How does a man go about proving that his partner deceived him (assuming the child IS his)?

The plaintiff in this case is making a fairly logical argument, and honestly, I can't say that I blame him for being upset over being forced into parental responsibilities he didn't want. If a woman doesn't want the responsibility for a child, she can have an abortion or place a child for adoption. If a man doesn't want those responsibilities, he doesn't have any options, unless the woman has already made the decision to place the child in an adoptive home. Why not have an option for men to terminate their parental rights even if their partner retains hers?

I understand the argument that a child deserves two parents, but if one parent is totally and completely unwilling to BE a parent, how is forcing him to do so in the child's best interests?

[manni28]

My thoughts exactly.


I don't believe that anyone should be held responsible for something that they have not agreed to especially if it involves deceit. Yes, it's not fair to the child but, is bringing a child into the world that was not wanted by one parent fair either??

[ddhuab]

I just don't see how it would work, at least not until the baby was born and paternity could be established. Yes, a woman has a right to have an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. There is no doubt that she is the mother of the child. That choice is irreversable.

With men, you would have to wait until the child was born (or at least, very late in the pregnancy, I think) to establish paternity. So at that point, the mother's choices, too, are limited.

It would take just one man signing away his rights before pregnancy, and then changing his mind, to make the law reverse.

And would we have men, then, starting to initiate pre-birth adoption matches, which would then pressure the women to give in? Would the law establish such "equal" rights for the man that, even thought he wanted to relinquish rights, he could CHOOSE adoption, forcing the woman to give birth?

This is a very interesting proposition. I think for it to work, it would have to be similar to universities who have very formal "date rape" policies, and make students sign contracts to verbally ask permission to go to the next step, etc. What I mean is, I think to establish on record that you do not want to parent children and would intend on signing your rights away, you would have to register somewhere or sign some kind of contract with that particular partner before conception --- not very romantic, but then, if someone were that serious, I think that is the only way such a decision could be a basis for a judgement of no financial responsibility.

Question: If such a law passed, would young men under 18 be allowed to sign away their rights and responsibilities? This seems very dangerous to me.

Do you think if such a law passed it would decrease the amount of teen and/or unmarried births? Do you thinks teens would avoid unprotected sex if such a law were established?

D.

[redribbonrose]

In the USA it is not a secret to anyone, especially to any man who is not sterile and intends to have sex that there is:

A. The possibility that no matter what the woman says, a pregnancy could happen.
B. No matter what he wants or doesn't want, the woman will have the right to abort or to keep the child.(adoption is a different case- he has some righs there)

That being said, any man who doesn't want to become a father needs to either:


A. Keep it in his pants
B. Get sterilized

The life of the child created is what is most important, not the "she told me she couldn't get pregnant" whine! I can't stand women who lie and play games with their reproductive ability and I can't stand men who are weenies and know in advance that a baby, a precious human life, can be the result of sex, but take that risk anyway, knowing they don't want to deal with any child that might come about.

[AMom2Two]

I believe this is just another excuse for men wanting to get out of their financial responsibilities.


A man can use protection, choose not to have sex, use double protection, whatever. Both have a 50/50 responsibility! Both have a responsibility to protect THEMSELVES!

If you do the crime, you better be willing to do the time!

[bjolly]

hypothetical question: say a woman has an unplanned pregnancy and decides she wants to place the child for adoption. The father of the baby does not agree with the plan and wants custody of the baby. If he succeeds in getting custody, is the mother liable for child support?

if so, then I don't see any unfairness in the law. It's no different for a father who would have preferred the child be placed for adoption but the mother chose to parent.

[ddhuab]

bjolly,

Yes, the mother would have to pay child support if the father got custody. She would not be signing away all rights to her child in that case, though. She can not choose to sign away all rights and responsibilities unless someone is adopting her child... I guess the point is, she has the right to abort but the father does not have the right to make her abort, which, I guess, is why they are linking the case to Roe V. Wade.

With parenting and adopting, the biological parents have equal rights.

I DO agree with some of the previous posters. If a man is that vehement about not parenting, he should be EXTREMELY vehement about preventing pregnancy...

D.