Trojan Man
I'm still chuckling at the lunacy of the following AP report (link below).
Yes, and I have an answer to that "say over decisions" you're looking for...it's called a C-O-N-D-O-M! I know it's a foreign concept for some men to take responsibility for birth control but it is possible to not leave it to the woman to "make a decision that will affect his life profoundly". If pregnancy is not the desired effect of intercourse, it is the responsibility of BOTH parties to make sure all precautions are taken. I realize that accidents happen and nothing is 100% fullproof, so keep this little factoid in mind the next time you're getting ready to get down... pregnancy is a very real possibility no matter how careful you might be. You ARE responsible for that child should the woman decide to give birth. Babies are a consequence of sex. I learned that when I was nine.
Just another attempt by men to skirt their responsibilities.
Mens Rights Group
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."
Yes, and I have an answer to that "say over decisions" you're looking for...it's called a C-O-N-D-O-M! I know it's a foreign concept for some men to take responsibility for birth control but it is possible to not leave it to the woman to "make a decision that will affect his life profoundly". If pregnancy is not the desired effect of intercourse, it is the responsibility of BOTH parties to make sure all precautions are taken. I realize that accidents happen and nothing is 100% fullproof, so keep this little factoid in mind the next time you're getting ready to get down... pregnancy is a very real possibility no matter how careful you might be. You ARE responsible for that child should the woman decide to give birth. Babies are a consequence of sex. I learned that when I was nine.
Just another attempt by men to skirt their responsibilities.
Mens Rights Group
posted by Tootsie Farklepants at 8:38 PM
3 Comments:
No it doesnt force them to share equally in the responsibility of raising the child. It only holds them legally financially responsible. They don't HAVE to do anything else. It still leaves a woman to care for a child alone, which is much bigger responsibility that throwing a few bucks at the kid once a month.
What this law WOULD do is set a precedence that would allow men to walk away from their responsibilites the second they find out their girlfriend is pregnant or after the baby is born. When would the man have to decide if he wanted the child or not in order to skirt the responsibility? When the pregnancy is first known, at some point during the pregnancy, or after the baby is born?
Once he makes the decision to relinquish his title, is it final as is an abortion? Could he at some point decide that he DOES want to be the childs father, years later? Could he let the mother raise the child on her own only to form a reltionship once the child is an adult?
Abortion is final and there is no chance of a relationship ever coming from it. In the case of willingly walking away from your child, I'd imagine that pull to meet your child at some point might be pretty strong...the option is there to have a relationship. Does he then have to pay the mother retroactively for all the years he decided he didn't want to be the daddy?
There must be an answer about choice but this isn't it.
From the article:
~""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.""~
What is a "brief period"?
Don't you just love the cavalier attitude of "hey if she can't afford the kid she could just give it up for adoption"?.... just more proof that some men cannot fathom the decisions women have to make when it comes to pregnancy. If she didn't want the baby and decided to put it up for adoption, as hard as that is, it is easier than ultimately deciding she does want the baby, carry to term, deliver, and at some point realize she can't afford to raise it, and then give it up for adoption.
That is a heartless statement.
Another thing about the current lawsuit. From the article:
~~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.~~
It is not unheard of for a woman who's been told by a doctor that she'll never have children to become pregnant. This boyfriend put his future in the hands of fate by not taking birth control precautions. He is the one who didn't want to have a child and he is laying the responsibility at her feet.
I also find it interesting that Fiet's organization finds Dubay a suitable candidate for the lawsuit considering the following guidelines (from the article):
~~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.~~
I'll repeat that...one is which NEITHER partner had desired a child. I don't see where Dubay states his girlfriend didn't WANT a child, it was that she COULDN'T have a child.
His case doesn't seem to fit the profile of what the organization is going for.
And how do you go about proving that both parties did not desire a child? Do you sign a pledge, preferably before you have sex, just in case?
Post a Comment
<< Home