Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Men's-Rights Activists to Sue for Right to Decline Fatherhood

What an interesting twist .. not sure how to take this view.. Guys? Have any comments on this?


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:01 am (UTC)
Wow. You know? If they're going to continue to allow "abortions of convenience" - then I guess it makes sense?

However.... with abortion, a woman chooses not just not to financially support a child, but for there to not BE a child TO support. With the father getting to choose - there's still a child to be supported, whether he opts out or not - so he's harming an actually born, living person by refusing to support it.

I don't know, that's a rough one. But I don't think it translates to Roe v. Wade at all.
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:20 am (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing but you know I need to read everything on that case to see what all it really covered.

Granted some females are very sneeky and get knocked up by lieing to thier partner in fear of losing them or for the money I just feel they male partner has every bit more responsablity to the child. If they are that Stupid not to know the risk in sex then maybe they should not breed and have them sniped. Who knows, I just feel the story lends to a selfsih asepct of thier plight I would like to under more about this before really putting a strong opinon on the situation that they are fighting for
Mar. 9th, 2006 02:58 am (UTC)

And there are men who would keep their women under lock and key, force them into having children whether they want to or not, and impose their will for natural (unmedicated) home childbirth upon them...

I guess there are going to be fuckers everywhere, male AND female, and we can't outlaw being an asshole.

Though I wish we could, because maybe THEN we could get an impeachment ;D
Mar. 9th, 2006 04:28 am (UTC)
So much to say.
I agree with Redwing that there is a huge line between a woman terminating a pregnancy and a man getting out of financial responsibility. I don't think the two should even be compared.

If I understand their purpose correctly, the law would help men who fall into traps like Phoenix mentions. Some women do use children to keep control of men or cash in from them. But at the same time, this would make it too easy for other men who SHOULD support the child to bail out.

I think it's bit sad that we live in a country where the serious consequences of sex are so lost on people that laws are made so people can walk away from them. Don't get me wrong, sex is great. But if you're a man and you get a girl pregnant then BE A MAN and be responsible.

*double sigh*
I'm all about fighting for equal rights on both sides, but pregnancy women should be considered first because it honestly has such a global effect on their lives.

Not sure what conclusion to draw from this. But I'm glad you pointed it out Phoenix. Thanks.
Mar. 9th, 2006 01:43 pm (UTC)
on the cynical side... this will be a moot point in 2-3 years when the Supreme Court gets to re-hear the Roe/Wade arguments and rules in favor of banning abortion outright. this is hardly surprising given the major conservative shift in the court justices over the past 15 years. just how politics work, like chess, you set everything up and the rest of the game takes care of itself.

as for men's rights... this will never get through. mainly due to the overarching economic threads tied to it. If anything, New Hampshire is pioneering to get other sources of support to step into the spotlight, which i think is pivotal. http://www.nhbar.org/pdfs/AO92-93-3.pdf <-- legal document, but it basically says that fathers who spend more time with their kids should not be finacially penalized paying what is essentially double child support (CS). Thus, a father who is one of those weekend dads stays the same in terms of CS, but those dads who split time would pay substantially less... which seems to be common sense, but once you add politics, well common sense seems to vanish... For me, time spent with dear old dad should mean a lot more than a signed monthly check. talk about wittling a kid's identity in the family realm to a price tag...

back to point, in terms of abortion: men's rights are and should continue to be secondary, on a biological basis as well as financial. If we decide to give this serious consideration, developments would be horrible. Men could claim they promoted abortion from the get go and get a free pass in the responsibility dept. CS payments too much, "well i told the woman not to have the child and i have the right to opt out of the child's life at that point." It all still boils down to the female and her choice. If the New Hampshire legislation takes hold, then the father would have the option to be more involved in the kid's life to reduce payments which in turn would be beneficial in the long run in terms of family upbringing which a conservative gov't as well as the liberal position should champion.
Mar. 9th, 2006 03:34 pm (UTC)
I understand the men's view, but there are soooo many fathers that I hear about that want to spend time with their children, but don't want to provide for them, and skip out on payment checks.

On the other hand, I heard about a recent case where a man and a woman divorced and got exactly equal time (every other week) with their children. But, the man was paying something like 85% of his paycheck to child support, and wanted the court to revisit that because he had the children half of the time. He couldn't afford to do the things he wanted to with the children. Basically, the case is that child support should be just that - support of the children, not of the other spouse as well.

I dunno... my dream is that there are only honest and responsible parents in the world... but that will never happen. And meanwhile, millions of children around the world are pushed through a welfare system without parents.

I understand this guy's point, but I just don't know.
Mar. 9th, 2006 05:36 pm (UTC)
So I typed up a really long reply to this, and then LJ ate it.
Now I type up another long reply, that's actually better than the first.

I'm going to start off with this: I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion. That does not mean I believe abortion is the right decision in most cases.

Starting with the issue of reproductive freedom:

Couple A bumps uglies. She gets pregnant. He is not willing to be a man and buck up. She decides she can't do it alone and terminates the pregnancy.

Couple B does the wild thang. She gets pregnant. He wants the child. She doesn't. She terminates. Dude gets the shaft again.

Couple C f$cks like crazed weasels. She gets pregnant. Neither one wants the child. She gives it up for adoption.

Couple D gets their groove on. She gets pregnant. She doesn't want a child. He wants to be a man and accept responsibility. She has the baby and gives it up to him. Does she pay Child-Support to him? Probably not. Dude sort-of gets the shaft.

Couple E makes the beast with two backs. She gets pregnant. He wants no part of it. She has decides to keep the baby. He is ordered to pay child support. Dude gets the shaft.

In all of these situations, ultimate responsibility for the choice of how to handle the preganancy falls to the woman. This is not necessarily a bad thing, except in couple B's situation.

How many single fathers have a court order for child-support from their ex-spouse? Not many. Usually the woman has to make more money than the man for that to happen. Yet pretty much every single mother has a court-order for child support from their ex.

All the power resides with the woman. Now, aside from it being an interesting role reversal, why is that? Ine 80% of the examples above, the mother essentially walks away from the baby with zero responsibility. Why should a man not have the right to make that same choice? If couple E both knew he didn't want to have a child, and they took reasonable precautions, and still end up with one, why should he not be able, legally, to absolve himself of any tie to the child? Because whether we like it or not, as a country, our laws do, in fact, legislate morality. There is no natural law that requires a father be present. There are cultures (admittedly considered 'uncivilized' by most of the modern world) in Africa and South America where children are the responsibility of the community, and the parents have no greater or lesser say in raising the child than anyone else.

So, yes. The man should have the right to disavow so long as the woman does. That doesn't mean I think it's the right decision in most cases.
Mar. 9th, 2006 06:04 pm (UTC)
Further Response
As I was encroaching on Word Count...

There have to be limitations on it.
You can't be part of your child's life for 10 years, then suddenly decide you don't want to any more.
The decision has to be made before birth.
And there must be counseling involved.
And there must be legalese involved.
And it can't be reversible. You can't come back after 10 years and say 'I know I've been absent for 10 years and wanted nothing to do with the child, but I've changed my mind...' Once the choice is made, it's permanent.

I'd like to say that the woman must sign at least acknowledging your intent, even if she doesn't agree with it or condone it, but that may be asking a bit much, as a hurt young woman may be stupidly unwilling to sign such paperwork.

In short, it should be as regulated as abortion is. Which hurts me to say, being as I'm all for less-government.

The problem of unwanted pregnancies can't be legislated away. That, however, is a rant of an entirely different flavor.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )