Bunch of men whine about having to pay child "support"

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."


To be honest, I'm 100% in favor of this. It is about time that womens rights took vastly more prevalence over anything else. Women want equality? Well then fine, allow men to have equality and we'll let you out of the damn kitchen.


Caution: reading the above paragraph without a sense of humor or pre-knowledge of the subtle technique of "sarcasm" may result in ignorant, biased, or wrongly-based replies by you or others around you.

 

It's difficult because an abortion to a woman is a serious and very unplesant thing, whereas to a man it means nothing (effectively), however, if he doesnt want a child and she does and decides to keep it it's unfair if he has to then pay for that child. However, the fact could be argued that he was a concenting adult during sexual intercourse, but then it depends on whether they were using protection and what type. If a condom then it's "on him" (in more ways than one) for the protection, whereas if it's the pill, it's then "on her". But pills dont stop STIs etcetcetc

As with everything I'd say it isnt black or white and there are a lot of levels to relationships, sex and children. Iirc in Japan the woman has to get the man to sign that he wanted the child and that it's his in order to pay child support otherwise she's out on her own. Dont quote me on that though.

I think this is one of MANY things that needs to be address when it comes to mens rights towards children. We basically get stuffed either way: if a man doesnt want a child he still has to pay support, yet, if he wants his children to live with him rather than their mother he's at an automatic disadvantage, just because he's male and somehow that makes him an inferior parent. THAT's what pisses me off no end.

 

Good for them, I really hope they win.

 

I'm not sure about this - here in the US there is a lot of murmers of roe v wade being overturned. Now i dont want to shift the whole discussion here, but several states are COMPLETELY banning abortion except for LIFESAVING measures only. You cannot get one for rape, incest, accidents, etc. Now between two of the states that did it there are only like 3 clinics that perform them, but the government is actuallly standing up and doing the Christian thing, banning abortion. I am pro-liife, and i believe that a baby is a baby shortly after or even at conception. That ball of cells is a life, and noone has business to end it, whether for convenience, cash, or other issues.

I think that men should have some rights as the current laws are in the US. However, if things change and abortion is banned, then men can choose either no more sex outside of marriage or paying the child support.

 

Heh, I was just wondering when someone would start a men's rights movement. You just had to know it would be someone who works with computers all day long.

 

I just have to say i disagree. You're saying if a woman gets raped she should be forced to have the baby that she really, really doesn't what? That might be pro-life but it's anti-people. Projecting your own religious point of view upon other people without consideration of their point of view is so incredibly rude.

 

That's what the law says in SOuth Dakota, and if the religious right gets their way, that will be the law in many other states as well.

The good news about the SD law is that they have probably shot themselves in the foot by trying to go for too much too soon. The most lilkley end result of this is that when it hits the Supreme Court the law will be struck down in it's entirety and when the dust settles a woman's right to an abortion will in fact be strengthened. Between now and then it's going to be one hell of a battle though.

 

I coudln't agree more with the above point. And i think if a man gets a woman pregnant then it is his responsibility to be involved in the childs upbringing. Something that i think should be changed though, but a bit off topic is the rights that a father has over his child if he isn't married to the mother.

 

Absoutely.

Its down to everyone to make their own choice. If you are pro-life, then be pro-life, but dont subject your beliefs on others.
What the hell happened to the US constitution stating that the government is indifferent from religion??

If a MAN gets a WOMAN pregnent, like, she had no part of it herself? If they were using contraception then, why should he?? If they were there to concieve a child and wanted it, then he turned around and said no, that's a different matter. Sex is not only for procreation, it's for many other reasons between people too.

As for "a bundle of cells alive", dont ever pee, crap, blow your nose, pop a spot, cause by your definition you're throwing away "life" that you helped create. Even if it's your own cells or others that grow in you, it's still the same. What about an ovarian cancer? Should that be removed, even though it's a mutant of "cells" growing inside a woman? I agree with the governments definition of "conciousness" rather than a benine object referred to as a featus.

 

That makes me feel physically disgusted.. to force someone to carry around, give birth to and bring up the child of a man who rapes her is completely abhorrent, this is a clear example of why religion has no place in goverment.

I really do not have any more words for just how sickening that concept is.

 

I think men should stop whining and pay more attention to where they put their wang, to be honest. I'm tired of this denial of personal responsibility.

I have managed to never accidentally made a woman pregnant. I did not sleep around, and I didn't have sex in toilet cubicles while drunk. I always used condoms (correctly). It is not rocket science. There is no way you "accidentally" make a woman pregnant if you act halfway sensibly.

You make it, you own it.

 

How is having the right to abort a child you don't want the same as having the right to not pay child support for a child you don't want? In the first case, nobody is left with the responsibility of raising a child. In the second case, one person is left with all the responsibility. Doesn't sound very "equal" to me.

 

If it were my daughter the guy better run fast and hide very well for his sake. You are not a man if you won't take responsibility for your actions.

 

Well, for sure, there is obviously the line of sensible sexual activity. But it still takes 2 to tango.
You're all acting like it's his "fault" when last time I checked, sex was about TWO people. All im saying is that it's not black or white and whether he ejaculates inside her or wears contraception or not or if they do it with or without thinking of the consequences. Indeed, she has to carry it and it's her body to choose but you cant treat an unwanted pregnancy like a rape if both parties are concenting.

 

That is quite frankly disgusting

 

It does take two to tango, but that means it takes two to share the responsibility.

What I am reading however is that some men feel that they should be able to escape that responsibility on the grounds that the woman could do so by having an abortion. They argue that by not taking that option she not only chooses to take on that responsibility, but forces the man to do so as well, so they want an opt-out clause. That is fallacious reasoning. The responsibility is towards the child, not the woman, and the child has no choice whatsoever in whether it gets to exist or not. Moreover, whether the woman choses "abort" or "not abort", that decision branch has only come possible because of the action of both adults, so that is where the (chance of) responsibility begins. You don't like those odds, you keep your pants on.

"a man is measured not by what he starts, but how he finishes it" --Hellboy

 

Lets look at the options that i can think of to make it fairer:

1. An abortion can be called for by either parent and only requires one parent for it to have to happen, man or woman. Issue: Women are the people who actually have the abortion.

2. If the father doesnt agree to the pregnancy the state should supply the funding. Issue:Open to abuse.

Neither of these is very practical but i'm finding it hard to think outside the box on this. At least not without a total change to how society and the state is run, for example what if a means tested tax was levied against any parent and from this all parents got a set amount that was enough to fund a child each year (ie enough for food, care, education, housing, everything)

Also, what happens if a woman lies to a man that she is on the pill? Does he still have to pay, becuase if this situation were to be proved that would be unfair on the man i feel.

 

Substitute 'state' for 'citizens'. The 'state' has no money...I have a hard time wanting to pay for some prick to transfer responsibility over to the tax payers.

 

Im not saying that there solutions we should use, i'm just saying they are (as i see it) fair (on gender grounds) ways of dealing with the problem.

Allowing a father to not pay just becuase he doesnt want to is clearly unfair

 

The pill is not 100% reliable in any case. The man should accept that when he has sex with a woman, pregnancy is always a risk. If he proceeds, he accepts that risk. The same applies for the woman, of course.

The whole thing boils down for the man to: if I sleep with this woman, and she gets pregnant, then how will I know whether she will decide to have the baby? Well, depends on how well you (think you) know her, right? Perhaps better not go around shagging every willing stranger you come across.

Sex. Enjoy responsibly.