|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Choice for Men FAQ
Q: What is "Choice for Men"?
A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
right to plan their families.
Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?
Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?
A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to relinquish
their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to relinquish
their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a medical
Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?
A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
* Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
according to fathers.
* Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.
Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?
A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
16% annual failure rate . After just four years you can bet on having
an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?
A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a court
case in Kansas:
"The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
and for support of a minor child born of such activity." 
Similar cases have happened in other states.
Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?
A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully legal
and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.
Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?
A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of a
"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
legal parenthood. 
Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?
A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333
0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD
20782, (301) 436-8731
1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York
City, New York, (212) 248-1111.
2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane Seyer,
a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.
4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Choice for Men FAQ||Delete the D||Child Support||0||July 16th 04 10:55 AM|
|Choice for Men FAQ||Delete the D||Child Support||0||April 16th 04 10:55 AM|
|Choice for Men FAQ||Delete the D||Child Support||0||December 16th 03 11:55 AM|
|Choice for Men FAQ||Delete the D||Child Support||0||September 16th 03 10:55 AM|
|Choice for Men FAQ||Delete the D||Child Support||0||August 16th 03 10:55 AM|