| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Opt-Out |
| 2006-03-09 |
| 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." 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. Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail. "What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started." State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case. "The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said. Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said. Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion. "Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized." Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt. "Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say." "The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility." 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." The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter. "None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child." |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #29 Al Bundy: And as we all know, affection is just a hammerlock away from sex... |
| Posted by: badanov 2006-03-09 23:28 |
| #28 I'm so confused. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-09 23:27 |
| #27 fair enuf - although we're talking MUCH different circumstances. I've taught my boys - don't believe she's got protection - do it yourself. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-09 23:11 |
| #26 Frank G, of course you are right, in the case of a cuckoo's egg. I read somewhere that as many as 1/4 to 1/3 of all children aren't the natural offspring of Mommy's husband -- although I have no idea whether or not that's actually a true fact. So the gentleman in this particular case, and probably in all cases of unedesired offspring, should have a DNA test done before discussing child support. Nontheless, for all of you waxing moral in this thread, remember that you are also saddling women who didn't have the opportunity to say "No" with the results -- the victims of rape and incest, f'r instance. Women have historically borne the burden, while men have historically walked away scot free... and there were lots of bastard kids, lots of throwaway kids, and lots of back alley abortions. The behaviour isn't going to change until the men know that each time they unzip it could cost them, a lot and for a long time. I feel for Frank G's friend, whose honour was taken advantage of. But not for the man who is indignant that what he thought was free turns out to have a cost. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-09 22:56 |
| #25 Interesting comments. Good point about the IUD. Q) So what do they call people who practice the 'Rhythm method' of bith control? (i.e. following a schedule) A) Parents! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-03-09 21:46 |
| #24 Ex-lib, the rub is when you find out via DNA that the child you were paying support for - is someone else's - yet the state says you have to continue. The wife/woman was a whore, and if you can't get that she f*&ked his lfe up via the courts and support, then I'd like to meet you personally too to tell you what I really think. I have a friend who's still paying for someone else's f*&k 15 yrs later, so if you think I'm misogynist, I just picture you |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-09 21:22 |
| #23 "Mama told me not to come ... He did and he is now a daddy. |
| Posted by: anon 2006-03-09 20:26 |
| #22 Crusader-I understood your paraphrasing of Rush's position on this issue in your first post-no clarification is needed. I simply don't share his views or yours. I don't have two different views of sexuality-one for men that excuses them of all and one for women which blames them for all. We'll just have to disagree on this issue. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-03-09 20:14 |
| #21 Jules: Another way of rephrasing Rush's argument is in terms of what would we tell our daughters? Would we say "If you're not careful and a baby results from your dalliances, you AND YOUR DATE are responsible"? Or are we much more likely to point out all of the negative ways in which HER life will be impacted, irrespective of the male's part? In that regard, the promise of a government check and/or a child-support check undermines the message we tell our daughters: that women and women-alone are responsible for their bodies. We're in effect providing a safety-net for a tight-rope act that should be saved for committed and mature adults. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2006-03-09 19:49 |
| #20 "...if women were adamant about making correct choices... men would have no "high ground" from which to complain." Crusader-Who was it who said "Where men are weak, there women fall?" You want women to be stronger, to choose for men. Fair enough. At least your acknowledgement about the logical reduction in sex matches your position on moral behavior. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-03-09 19:04 |
| #19 Not to beat a dead horse, but IUD's cause perforation of the uterus and instantaneous abortion, and scarring which prevents wanted pregnancies in the future, and the pill has so many adverse side effects hormonally, cancer link, etc. So no easy answers. But "honey, I promise you won't get me pregnant" in a non-committed relationship gets the stupid award in my book. The guy should've known better. And maybe the girl was trying to trick him, or maybe she thought she couldn't get pregnant. Who knows. But what we DO know is he took his chances, and in his mind, lost. Oh well. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-03-09 18:49 |
| #18 Actually I don't support any sort of 'abortion' myself (except perhaps in case if rape or incest) but I think that choice is between a person and his/her God(s) / conscious / whatever... I do, however think the responsiblity goes both ways. Its called C-O-N-D-O-M or P-I-L-L or I-U-D or A-B-S-T-A-I-N. If you choose not to take precautions you also accept the responsibilty for that choice regardless of your gender. Of course it's not the guys who have suffer the pregnacy and they can try to 'leave' (which is irresponsible!) - so I kind of see your point. But it seems that only woman have a 'legal' way to escape their choice. Of course, like they say, life isn't fair - never has been and never will be. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-03-09 18:42 |
| #17 Jules: I assure you that I had already thought the "less sex" angle through and believe that such a scenario is a win/win one. Moral behavior is moral behavior--if women were adament about making correct choices (and knew that the incorrect choice might lead to economic hardship if a pregnancy developed), men would have no "high ground" from which to complain. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2006-03-09 18:39 |
| #16 I rent. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-09 18:28 |
| #15 Crusader-That philosophy provides men with the "incentive" to "behave" irresponsibly-there would be no downside. It would follow that men would get sex less-women would have to live by your "behaving responsibly" dictate. Unless, of course, those men didn't limit themselves to having sex with WOMEN... If that logical consequence is contained within your argument-that men will have to put up with having sex MUCH MUCH less often-then at least your position is consistent. If not, then your position is primarily about double standards. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-03-09 18:08 |
| #14 Don't want to be a Daddy? Put a condom on it. Every time. Or don't do screw. Simple choice - big responsibility. Can't be bothered? Your choice and your responsibility equally. It's your tool. Use it wisely. No sperm. No baby. |
| Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827 2006-03-09 17:58 |
| #13 My rough paraphrase won't do the subject justice, but I'll always remember what Rush Limbaugh had to say on this subject more than a decade ago. Try as we might to *pretend* that men and women are "equal" in regard to the outcome of a pregnancy, the simple truth of the matter is that WOMEN will be disproportionately burdened with a child--both in the 9 months that it takes to bring them into the world and in regard to the toll it will take to raise them. As a result, Rush believed that any effort to artificially "even-out" the "costs" involved actually served as a DISINCENTIVE for women to behave responsibly and limit their sexual partnering to only those with whom they wished to have children. He further pointed out that we could pass all of the "support" laws we wished, but there would always be men who simply picked up and left or beat the system by hiding their income. The short summary was that women have 100 percent control over their bodies already--if they are not absolutely certain that they are ready for a child and not 100 percent certain that the man they are coupling with is a good and decent person that will support her and her child, they should decline sexual activity that might produce a pregnancy. (The current system provides almost an incentive for the unwed to have kids--the government rushes in with a check to make a crappy moral decision bearable.) |
| Posted by: Crusader 2006-03-09 17:37 |
| #12 I do think its unfair that the woman has the decision to keep the child and the father has little say but to pay up and support the child. Still nobody said life was fair and you can't change the rules after the fact. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-03-09 17:07 |
| #11 Made a deposit at the bank? Don't be surprised that your balance has changed. Birth control is EVERY person's responsibility, man AND woman. And a condom alone ain't gonna quite cut it-better add spermicide to make extra sure, if you don't want an abortion to happen or an obligation to pay child support for little kidlets. That kinda puts the damper on things, doesn't it. If he was lied to, that is wrong. I do feel for men who don't want to raise children and did everything forseeable to avoid impregnating their sex partner, or men who have been manipulated. But no birth control is 100% safe and this isn't the first time a partner might have lied to get laid. It is a hardship to owe child support for 18 years; it is more of a hardship to put your body through pregnancy and labor and struggle raising a child without a father to help. Maybe raising this issue is a good thing. Everyone needs to understand that unwanted pregnancies are not an "inconvenience", as the buzz has it lately-they are life changing events. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-03-09 16:58 |
| #10 Sigh. Too bad the old days when her daddy and brothers would shoot him in the leg and take escort him to the altar are over. Dubay (I won't call him Mr.) thinks $500 a month unfair to help raise a daughter he made. Yet he does nothing to take custody of his daughter and get his ex-F-buddy to pay that amount. Take half his paycheck and place it the daughters welfare and education account. Same for the mother. If either makes another baby, take the other half. Is there any way citizens can force both of them to get their tubes tied until they grow up? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-03-09 16:55 |
| #9 Great answer, tw. Some of you guys sound like idiot, misogenist Moslems. Really. "Very stupid on his part, given how many girls historically have deliberately attempted to trap men into marriage this way." My point, as well, CrazyFool. BTW, which method of abortion do you support? Can you describe it for us? Look, he took his chances and got burned. But he didn't have to. It's spelled C-O-N-D-O-M or A-B-S-T-A-I-N. It was his choice. Men have been wanting to blame women for the consequences of their sexual decisions for centuries. It's too bad what happened to him, but maybe now he should step up and be a man about it. It's not the baby's fault, right? Both PARENTS have responsibility here, not just one. Generally, responsibility is a good thing. Guess they're gonna have to grow up now, right along with junior. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-03-09 16:39 |
| #8 This only proves the classic motherly advice, "Never trust the object of your affections to provide the birth control, unless you want to make a baby." The gentleman's mistake was not using a condom every time, regardless what the woman said. Very stupid on his part, given how many girls historically have deliberately attempted to trap men into marriage this way. Even in these liberated times, there are as many users of both sexes that the basic rules haven't changed. It seems to me that unless the gentleman can show (pharmacy receipts perhaps, or neighbors complaining about used condoms on their lawns?) that he took precautions of his own, he should be stuck paying for his pleasure. After all, the lady has a child to raise, which hopefully will seriously interfere with her ability to have fun for about fifteen years. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-09 16:16 |
| #7 "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." Poor, dumb bastard. Look, here's how it works: 1) She has a vagina. 2) You have a paycheck. 3) Therefore, she gets your paycheck. No exceptions. See how easy that was? Nothin' to it. In the future, try to remember this general rule: if it floats, flies or f*cks, it's usually cheaper to rent. |
| Posted by: Elmater Angoger6598 2006-03-09 13:23 |
| #6 Human cruelty abounds. I knew of a man who married a beautiful woman, who gave birth to their triplets, all male, without ever informing him that males in her family suffered from congenital blindness. In those days, it was said, that people admired and respected him for his willingness to stay with her to raise those boys, and once they were adults, people could not condemn him for strangling her to death. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-09 12:51 |
| #5 So, he told her he "couldn't" father a child, and now she is pregnant. She's an idiot who just wanted to screw him, and now she's screwed and is whining about it. What a great mom, huh? If you play with fire . . . (Sorry - just want to contrast with a different 'viewpoint'... I think I've heard this story before....). Personally I think if the guy can prove that she said she could not get pregnant (or would not hold him responsible) he should have an 'out'. OR perhaps he should have some say ( as in CHOICE...) in the decision to 'abort' since, after all, the child is his as well.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-03-09 12:21 |
| #4 So, she told him she "couldn't" get pregnant, and now she is, with his child. He's an idiot who just wanted to screw her, and now he's screwed and is whining about it. What a great dad, huh? If you play with fire . . . |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-03-09 11:53 |
| #3 Clith Unaick2324: that actually sounds pretty status quo, given most current law. Certainly there are a lot of exceptions, sometimes egregious ones, here and elsewhere. "Child law" is one of the most sensitive issues around, and it is very case-by-case driven. An eye opener as to how irrational it can get is with the degeneracy of divorce law in the US. Perjury is commonplace, even pro-forma, with wild and unsubstatiated accusations often encouraged by attorneys and ignored by judges. Child custody and administration law is almost entirely anecdotally driven. One week there will be a tragedy of children returned to birth parents that promptly kill them; the next, of children taken away from birth parents who are killed by adoptive parents or in their foster home. Most State child welfare agencies are mad houses. Perpetual investigations of "the system" exist in many States. There are no blanket answers. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-09 10:56 |
| #2 I'm getting radical about whole issue. I'm for the government to get out of the marriage business all together. That all contracts are civil which can not obligate any third party to any benefits predicated upon said contract. The state's only interest is to act as impartial third party in the resolution of contract and to protect those unable to protect themselves, i.e. the children. What the state defines as 'husband' and 'wife' is the DNA validation of the child. Therefore, you may have a man or woman with several official mates. Those mates are responsible for the children till; the child comes of age, dies, or are officially relieved of responsibility by others assuming that responsibility. Any benefits are predicated upon the child, not upon the contract or the adults involved. |
| Posted by: Clith Unaick2324 2006-03-09 10:26 |
| #1 I don't think they will have much luck. However, I predict there will eventually be a new regime, one based on the original principals of marriage. That is, males have a biological prerogative to mate with multiple females. Females have both the prerogative to get the best genetic father for their offspring; and the best partner to help raise them. When there are a lot of males, most likely not the same male. Marriage is a contract that for the male promises that the children he raises will be his. For the female, that she will only have his children, if he stays monogamous, using his resources for her children's benefit only. But this only works if the marriage contract is enforced. So, to mimic this contract, legally, would most likely give the most satisfactory results. In some states, when a child is born, the mother is pressed to give the father's name--who must contest parenthood to deny financial responsibility. This idea should be expanded so that when a child is born, a sample of their DNA is kept at the hospital for a set period of time, that being, for the father to assert parenthood. Once it is determined, compared to a paternal blood test, then the child is officialy his or not. 1) If the child is the father's, he is financially responsible. 2) If the child is not his, he can accept financial responsibility for it anyway. 3) If the child is not his, and he declines financial responsibility, he must also sever his relationship with the mother since he cannot support one and not the other. Otherwise he assumes financial responsibility for the child. 4) A male who is the biological father but not the female's partner, may assume financial support for the child besides her partner, but a court must determine if he has any other parental rights. This mimics the prerogatives of marriage, in that, for the female, it legally guarantees that the real father of her children must pay support; for the male, that he only has to support the children that are his, unless he opts to support them anyway. It is not clear-cut, but it does give what I think are the best results for all concerned. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-09 09:22 |