(no subject)
Mar. 9th, 2006 04:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
desertvixenhttp://wcco.com/politics/politicsnational_story_067174943.html
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.
Let's see, why do women have more options? Oh yes, because it happens in OUR bodies. Because we bear the risks of being pregnant, of giving birth.
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."
Well, here's a start. Use birth control. Yes, I do realize it doesn't always work. I realize there are accidents. Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be having sex if you aren't ready for the possible consequences. This goes for men and women alike.
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."
DV
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.
Let's see, why do women have more options? Oh yes, because it happens in OUR bodies. Because we bear the risks of being pregnant, of giving birth.
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."
Well, here's a start. Use birth control. Yes, I do realize it doesn't always work. I realize there are accidents. Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be having sex if you aren't ready for the possible consequences. This goes for men and women alike.
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."
DV
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-09 02:29 pm (UTC)Essentially, it's saying that sex is a contract that exists in potentia, to be enacted only in the accident of conception over which the woman has full control to nullify or force compliance. Is this de facto surrender of legal say outweighed by the pain, risk, and expense of pregnancy? I don't know, and that's certainly the crux of the gist, so to speak.
Personally, an ex of mine tried to manipulate me with the spectre of pregnancy and I know I appreciated it not at all.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-09 02:50 pm (UTC)If we had URs, and if the cost of a UR transfer & gestation was low enough that any pregnant woman who wanted could get the kid out of her body, then I'd be quite willing to agree that men and women should have equal right (or lack of right) to opt out of parenthood post-conception. In that scenario, women could still end a pregnancy that they didn't want; the decision about whether to remain pregnant is decoupled from the decision over whether to remain a parent.
Right now, women indeed get a greater say in what happens with the pregnancy because, yes indeedy, it's HER body. Even if she agrees with the father that an abortion's the best decision, it's HER body that undergoes the procedure, HER health that's at risk if there's a complication. And right now, if a woman can't in good conscience abort, she doesn't have an option besides bearing it to term, which also means that all those maternal bonding hormones make adoption a much more painful experience. (If Feit says that adoption doesn't put high costs on a mother, he's never met women who gave up a child for adoption and are still traumatized about it years later. I've known two such women.)
(That said, I'm actually theoretically in favor of people being able to make a pre-conception legal agreement that in case of accidental pregnancy, one or both partners waive all responsibilities and rights towards any resulting child, but I can see plenty of problems with the idea in practice.)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-09 04:20 pm (UTC)Not to say the female isn't wrong in her own way for continually saying the she could not physically have a child and then get pregnant.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 12:35 am (UTC)It's sad that we can't take people for their word, but that's the way it is. I wouldn't go without protection with any man who told me that he was infertile for whatever reason. You never know, even if it is the case that he has a low sperm count or whatever. (Note that I don't believe the majority of women would stoop so low as to lie about their fertility, poke holes in condoms, lie about taking birth control, etc. Not to say they don't exist, but I don't think that it happens nearly as often as some men would like everyone to believe.)
It's a tough situation, however, I think this could have all been prevented had he actually used the head on his shoulders instead of the one between his legs.
It's always going to be unfair, as women are the ones who are pregnant. This is just something that men will have to deal with.
Ultimately, it's a very bad idea. Men are going to use this as a way to get out of paying child support.