Roe Vs. Wade For Men

[palefrost]

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men to be filed 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.

What do you think?
Can you agree with the argument? Do you think men are given the same protection of law that woman are?

 

[Brandon]

I heard about this case a while back (maybe 6-8 months ago), I think that it has the potential for men to have their voices heard and be taken seriously. The other side of me thinks the guy (the 25 yr old programmer) filing the lawsuit is a sniveling excuse for a man. I think it's pathetic that he might be representing ALL men in this trial.

He could also damage the voice of men by making it seem as if he is trying to excape his responsiblities. That act could put men back into the "you have absolutely no choice about this child legally" category. I hope that doesn't happen. Men's opinions should be taken seriously and without the whole "don't oppress me" attitude some women have.

 

[palefrost]

I do think that the system tends to be unbalanced in favor of the female of the species at times in this area.
It takes two to tango, but if a woman says "I can't afford to have a kid right now" (whether it be financially, emotionally, psychologically, etc), she can opt to abort her pregnancy or have the baby and offer it up for adoption. If the man says "I can't afford to have a kid right now", he obviously cannot force the woman to have an abortion or give the child up for adoption, so the only recourse left is seeking to absolve him of responsibility.

I would hope that we are beyond the days where a woman would get pregnant by one guy (who is a sleazebag and would never take responsibility for a child) and tell another guy she was bonking that the kid is his, to get him to take responsibility for it (ie, "the paternity trap"). So, I don't think that would be a consideration here, unless the woman intentionally sabotaged the birth control or something.

I would also worry that any attempt to correct this would leave a large loophole for lots of deadbeat dads to get out of responsibility for their kids, so maybe it is an imbalance that just has to be there. It probably wouldn't be an issue if we were all hermaphrodites, then it could apply equally. However, since there is a natural dichotomy, and thus a natural imbalance in responsibility for child care, Perhaps it is necessary.

Now what if he could prove with evidence like a male birth control or condoms, that he practiced measures to insure no babies? Would he have a case you would consider then?

 

[capitalist_junkie]

It's a hard line to draw. One the one hand, I think that since it took both people to create the fetus, they should both have a say in the matter. On the other hand, who has to bear 100% of the physical burden in pregnancy? It does not take equal work to create life, so why do men get an equal say in the matter?

 

[Brandon]

Don't get me wrong, women truly have the harder position but any decent man would look after his pregnant wife or girlfriend. I am sure that can also be difficult.

 

[capitalist_junkie]

I would hope that we are beyond the days where a woman would get pregnant by one guy (who is a sleazebag and would never take responsibility for a child) and tell another guy she was bonking that the kid is his, to get him to take responsibility for it (ie, "the paternity trap"). So, I don't think that would be a consideration here, unless the woman intentionally sabotaged the birth control or something.

Ha. nope. Mothers often still tell their daughters that the only way to get a man to marry you is to get pregnant. It's a really sickening practice, and I pretty much abhorr any woman who would use it.

 

[kokotai]

I think that it would be a good thing for a man to have a choice in the matter especially if he wants to keep a child that the mother wants to abort. I think that women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies but I also feel that if a woman decided to keep an uinexpected child then the guy shouldn't have to pay child support. He didn't ahve a place in the decision so why should he pay for her decision to raise the child on her own?

 

[Paula62]

I think men should be financially responsible for unexpected pregnancies, no matter what, and here's why.
It is true that once one occurs, there is necessarily some degree of unequalness in the decision making. No quesiton about it, and no real way around it. I would rather give the greater decision making power to the woman than the man in this case.
HOWEVER, the fact that there was an unintended pregnancy in the first place with a couple that was not committed to each other, no matter how innocently accidental the pregnancy truly was, requires the parties to be held responsible. The choice to engage in that risk bears a concomitant responsibility. The child needs and deserves to be cared for, and the parties that caused the accident - however accidentally - are the ones that should step up to the plate. If a man truly does not want the risk of a pregnancy, he is certainly able to avoid it. 100%.

 

[sushimonster]

If a man truly does not want the risk of a pregnancy, he is certainly able to avoid it. 100%.

Are you advocating the "keep it in your pants" position? Could you clarify?

 

[sarah]

I think men should be financially responsible for unexpected pregnancies, no matter what, and here's why.
It is true that once one occurs, there is necessarily some degree of unequalness in the decision making. No quesiton about it, and no real way around it. I would rather give the greater decision making power to the woman than the man in this case.
HOWEVER, the fact that there was an unintended pregnancy in the first place with a couple that was not committed to each other, no matter how innocently accidental the pregnancy truly was, requires the parties to be held responsible. The choice to engage in that risk bears a concomitant responsibility. The child needs and deserves to be cared for, and the parties that caused the accident - however accidentally - are the ones that should step up to the plate. If a man truly does not want the risk of a pregnancy, he is certainly able to avoid it. 100%.

I am not intending to push the 'keep it in your pants' philosophy, but it is true. if a man cannot be a MAN and step up if need be, he should not be having sex to begin with. that kind of immaturity means that the person involved is not mature enough to handle the consequences of his actions.

as far as this man representing ALL men in this trial, I can't say that i am comfortable with that. one person can never accurately represent an entire population.

 

[baileym1]

Maybe we should try to teach maturity and responsibility and the absolute sacred nature of having children. Both people need to be ready to face the responsibilities that accompany their actions.

 

[sarah]

But the fact is, that will never happen. Most people today simply lack the ability to think that way.