Trojan Man Part Deux

On Wednesday, March 8th I blogged an entry about the "Roe v Wade For Men" suit.
Their stance:

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 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.

Their argument has been rolling around in my head ever since I first read the article because A) There are already thousands of dead beat dad's out there, and B) It is just another excuse to get away from one's responsibilities. I've also been considering some issues that the founders of this suit may not have considered. Here is just one example...

Let's say both parties approached their sexual relationship as one that pregnancy was not the desirable outcome. Let's say all precautions were taken on both parties parts in the way of birth control, and still a pregnancy occurs. Let's also say that the woman has decided on the option of adoption as opposed to abortion, because anyday abortion is avoided is a good day (we pro-choice liberals aren't the baby killers Ann Coulter would have you believe we are). And, just for arguments sake, let's say the woman is uninsured.

Now there is the cost of a pregnancy to contend with. What is the man's financial obligation? The suit outlines the right to decline the financial responsibility of raising a child. But what if the woman isn't keeping the child, nor raising it? What if she is simply (okay, not simply) a vehicle that delivers that child to the adoptive parents? Is the man responsible for any cost of the pre-natal care? The hospital bill? Any pay from her employment that she might lose from days missed as a result of possible complications of said pregnancy?

Then, of course, there is the possibility of the child being born with complications that require surgery, and a lengthly hospital stay. What portion of the cost is he responsible for then, when the cost could be upwards of several hundred thousand dollars?

Is he even responsible at all, legally, if they are an unmarried couple? Would the woman have to formally sue him for his fair share should this scenario take place? Much in the same way she would to obtain child support if she were keeping the child to raise?

In my opinion, it is women who, overwhelmingly, get the short end of the stick... and men just dip their stick.

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay


Pregnancy & Birth Cost