"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[pgwenthold]

This is a good argument for requiring the decision at this time. While I would prefer that there was an option just post-natal, perhaps the only option there would be for the guy to change his mind and take on parental rights if he had previously rejected him.

Yeah, that's possible. Of course, that means that he has to start paying child support.

OTOH, I think you want to avoid letting this happen indefinately. You don't want someone showing up at age 10 and claiming they are now ready to be a father (perhaps you could make it so that they have to pay retroactive child support if they do that; IOW if the father wants paternal rights, he is required to pay the 18 years of child support, regardless of when he starts)

So add the addendum that if she decides to have the child, he is allowed to regain his paternal rights by agreeing to full child support, regardless of his initial indication.

Actually, another aspect I usually include is that if he refuses to pay child support, he is still responsible for 1/2 the cost of an abortion, regardless of what she decides. He can't get off completely free (although it's not a great cost, granted).

 

[pgwenthold]

Its not about moms rights its about the child. He deserves to have a mom n dad.

Child support is for the child not the mother. If dad has custody of the kid then mom has to pay him. If granma has the kid, then both mom and dad should pay her support.

Under your plan do you know who would end up paying??

If the woman can't afford the kid on her own, then she shouldn't have it.

 

[jj]

Yeah, that's possible. Of course, that means that he has to start paying child support.

Or literally taking in the child, if the mom wants to give up the child to adoption.

OTOH, I think you want to avoid letting this happen indefinately. You don't want someone showing up at age 10 and claiming they are now ready to be a father (perhaps you could make it so that they have to pay retroactive child support if they do that; IOW if the father wants paternal rights, he is required to pay the 18 years of child support, regardless of when he starts)

No, ONLY when the mom has the initial right to decide if she wishes to give up the child for adoption. Once it's adopted, it's adopted. End of discussion. I would require a check-off for the father to allow it to happen, with his option being taking responsibility himself if he does not allow it.

If mom doesn't think dad is fit, dad has to qualify for an adoptive parent like anyone else.

So add the addendum that if she decides to have the child, he is allowed to regain his paternal rights by agreeing to full child support, regardless of his initial indication.

Said option ONLY exercisable before the child is taken in by mom or put up for adoption, say in the first few weeks of post-natal time.

Actually, another aspect I usually include is that if he refuses to pay child support, he is still responsible for 1/2 the cost of an abortion, regardless of what she decides. He can't get off completely free (although it's not a great cost, granted).

I can live with that. It seems equitable. If he objects to abortion, and she wants one, too bad for him. It's her body.

 

[Tmy]

If the woman can't afford the kid on her own, then she shouldn't have it.

If the man cant pay for a kid he shouldnt be f'n.

There are times a women can afford a kid, but then later cant for whatever reason. Dad has a duty just like she does.


How would you feel if there was a law saying that dads who cant afford kids are not allowed to visit them??? You dont pay to see your kid. Hes your son, rich or poor.

 

[jj]

As to why the man ought to have no rights in this regard, because any other solution would require either a) forcing a woman to have an abortion.

Already dismissed.

b) forcing a woman to give up her own child.

Already dismissed.

or c) Forcing a child to live without the support of two parents.

If dad is forced to pay, he's still growing up with one parent, and one hostile, unwilling intruder.

 

[pgwenthold]

If the man cant pay for a kid he shouldnt be f'n.

Why does this not apply to the woman?

 

[Tmy]

No, ONLY when the mom has the initial right to decide if she wishes to give up the child for adoption. Once it's adopted, it's adopted. End of discussion. I would require a check-off for the father to allow it to happen, with his option being taking responsibility himself if he does not allow it.

Thats how it works now.

Once a baby hits point X its a human being. And mom cant overrule that individuals rights. Mom can abort but she doesnt own the child after its born. She cant give it away over dads objection.

 

[Tmy]

Why does this not apply to the woman?

It does. She has a duty to support the kid as well. She just cant thow the baby in he gutter and be done with it.

 

[pgwenthold]

It does. She has a duty to support the kid as well. She just cant thow the baby in he gutter and be done with it.

Unless she has an abortion, in which the doctor throws the baby in the gutter and is done with it.

 

[Tmy]

You understand that child support if a function of mom/dads income. So he can afford to pay. We are talking about a guy who doesnt WANT to pay.

But hey, I didnt vote republican so I shouldnt have to pay taxes to a republican govt.

 

[Tmy]

Unless she has an abortion, in which the doctor throws the baby in the gutter and is done with it.

But it aint a "baby" at that point. We can argue when life is life but thats not the issue in this case.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Now you've added another "fact not in evidence" by stating as a premise that the issue is the child's wellbeing, and that they have to pay for any kid they create.

Well, yeah. I just assumed that the child's wellbeing would trump any concern of the parents about money or legal responsibilities. It's one of those personal priority things.

Obviously if they both AGREE to create the kid, yes. IF neither of them agree, then no.

Well, I think that by doing the nasty without a condom they've either agreed to create a kid, or indicated via demonstration that they don't care if they do.

And all men ought to be allowed the right to a DNA test. Period.

No objections here, although it will probably cause a few arguments about trust. Just like prenuptial agreements, which are another sensible precaution that people flip out over when they're suggested, but wish like hell they'd gotten afterwards when things go bad. I'm talking about you, Jessica Simpson.

 

[zakur]

Let's read the statement of facts in the complaint:

...Dubay and Wells were involved in a relationship wherein consensual sexual acts took place between these individuals...Dubay clearly informed Wells that he had no desire to be a parent at that point in his young life...Wells explicitly informed Dubay that she was not only infertile, but also using methods of contraception...In reliance upon these assurances by Wells, Dubay continued the parties’ relationship...Thereafter, after the parties’ relationship began to deteriorate and eventually end, Dubay was shocked to find out that Wells was pregnant...

He made a bad decision based on faulty intelligence before entering into a very risky situation, and now he's refusing to accept responsibility.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

This is less about being "duped" into fatherhood than it is about being "railroaded" into fatherhood. Their argument is not that his fatherhood is the result of deception, but that he has the right to deny that fatherhood because he never wanted to be a father and forcing him to be a father (by paying support per Michigan's Paternity Act) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.

I think it's also important to point out Dubay, the civil rights pioneer that he is, is seeking not just to have the support order rescinded. He is also seeking monetary damages for injuries including "Enduring a loss of liberty and loss of dignity; Sustaining a loss of public esteem; Subjecting himself to embarrassment, public reticule, anger, loss of self-esteem, etc."

First of all, boo-f*cking-hoo. Second of all, reticule?

 

[Tmy]

Let's read the statement of facts in the complaint:
This is less about being "duped" into fatherhood than it is about being "railroaded" into fatherhood. Their argument is not that his fatherhood is the result of deception, but that he has the right to deny that fatherhood because he never wanted to be a father and forcing him to be a father (by paying support per Michigan's Paternity Act) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions.

You know whos equal protection rights are being violated?? The child. Hes being treated differently from other children (ie children of married people) if his dad is allowed to opt out of being his father.

Can you imagine the practical result if dad can bail? People would have kids and then dad would "opt out." He could still be regular dad to the kid, love an visit. But he and mom conspire so that mom and baby live off wellfare while dad has a big house and nice car.

 

[Tmy]

Except that's not quite what happened, is it?

"Can you have babies?"
"I am sterile and I'm on the pill."
"Good enough for me!"

Now, if I were him I might stop and think about what she said.

"Hmmm, if she's sterile then why is she taking the pill? Apparently there's still a chance of pregnancy even if you're 'sterile' and I know the pill is not 100% effective. While the chances are small - very small - I could get her pregnant."

"Hey, I though she was 18!". Another line that just doesnt work.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

The pill is NOT merely used for birth control, many women and young girls use it as hormonal therapy (which it should be called, rather than birth control). Using something called birth control can be used as a moral weapon against a girl who needs it to stop the agony and hemorrhaging.

 

[Meadmaker]

Already dismissed.

Already dismissed.


If dad is forced to pay, he's still growing up with one parent, and one hostile, unwilling intruder.

Yes. There's no way to fix this problem. There's no way to make if "fair" or "equitable" or any other decent outcome. The only way that could possibly happen would be if the two people who created this child were to wake up, become decent people, marry each other, and fulfill the obligations to each other and their child.

It's a safe bet that won't happen, so something else has to be done. Well, we have already dismissed a forced abortion. At least, I hope everyone has dismissed that. We have already dismissed a forced adoption. At least, I hope everyone has dismissed that. We could force a government mandated shotgun wedding. You could convince me of that, but my guess is that few people would go for that, and almost none at JREF. What's left? it seems to me that the best we can hope for is at least force dad to pay some of the bills.

One addendum. I said she should have complete control. I can think of one exception. If she wants to give the baby up for adoption, and he wants it, she should be forced to pay child support. She still gets the choice, but she can't just wash her hands of the affair.

Meanwhile, Pwengthold's solution is to let Dad decide whether he wants it. If he doesn't, he doesn't have to do anything. That's equitable. Mom can abandon the child, or dad can abandon the child. You can't get any fairer than that, can you?

 

[Godmode]

Maybe someday science will advance to the point where if a woman doesn't want to carry a child, the father will have the option to carry it himself. In other words, instead of an abortion, it will be a transfer. At that point we can start making laws where if one or the other parent wants the child and the other doesn't, the other parent will have the right to release all rights an responspilitiy (unless there's an understanding beforehand, such as marriage, or maybe we'll have baby contracts....I don't know) But until that's possable, the law cannot not pretend equality exists where it doesn't.
I just don't feel that sorry for the man. For most of history if a woman has gotten pregnant it's been just "too bad for the woman" and now that women have more personal choices about their bodies, some men are starting to resent it.
Don't forget men, it's the very fact that women have control over conception that has allowed the sexual revolution that allows so many of you to have sex without the "benefit of marriage" Would you really want to go back to the old days of not daring to have sex without marriage because of the fear of conception?

 

[UserGoogol]

I wonder if you could make an argument along the lines of: "When I gave you my sperm, we had an agreement that it was for purely recreational purposes and that you would not use it to fertilize any eggs. You broke that agreement, and thus I prohibit your further use of my genetic material in your womb."

Of course, there are many possible problems with that argument, but I still find it oddly charming.

 

[Whoracle]

The reason behind this is simple, women are absolved of all responsibility while we tell the men hey you know sex is for. I think women know what sex is for too. How come all the people telling the man it's his fault for having unprotected sex don't say to the woman hey wait a minute you too engaged in unprotected sex. She could have said no glove no love. If women don't want deadbeats for fathers of their kids they shouldn't be having sex with deadbeats. Since it takes two to tango as the people who say this guy should pay up say, say it to the woman too. Why are you only asking the man to pay up?