A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 10th 06, 07:03 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/189321.html

The right to abandon your child
Mar 10, 2006
by Mona Charen

This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels
and demand, "Well, what did you expect?"

A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are
calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer
programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay
$500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his
ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men --
is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal
protection clause.

Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that
during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to
understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical
condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with
her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him
in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM
website:

- More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their
reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now
have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have
the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced
procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned
conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be
financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced
to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. -
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based
their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it
logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a
woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth.
But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child
support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive
freedom."

Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude
in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the
child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or
to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he
wants to raise the baby himself).

The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a
woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18
years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and
it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men
tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the
overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the
matriarchy?)

But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor
fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children
with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only
frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo
one another in selfishness.

The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is
that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using
birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic
obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been
vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no
surprise that men are inclined to do the same.

Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever
since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of
constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of
those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency
contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and
explain that it's nothing personal.


  #2  
Old March 10th 06, 09:01 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

I think that they are trying to make a point. And that point is not
lost on men, believe me.

I think it is more than fair that if a woman unilaterally decides to
keep a child against the objections of the would-be father, then she
has the right to do so - but not at his expense. My wallet, my choice.

One could always turn the tables in a different way, which would be an
interesting twist: If a woman insists on giving birth against the mans
wishes, then take the baby from her at birth and give full custody to
the father, then make the woman pay 18 years of child support to the
father - or up to 25 years is the child goes to college or university.

And make sure you impose ALL the same penalties on women for
non-payment of child support that are currently imposed upon men.

Give it 10 years or so and then see how women feel about the
situation. THAT would be equality. It is just that it is too bad that
things always have to come down to the "lowest common denominator". We
cannot agree on how to treat people fairly, so the compromise is make
sure everyone gets screwed equally.

What a joke.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:03:40 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/189321.html

The right to abandon your child
Mar 10, 2006
by Mona Charen

This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels
and demand, "Well, what did you expect?"

A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are
calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer
programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay
$500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his
ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men --
is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal
protection clause.

Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that
during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to
understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical
condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with
her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him
in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM
website:

- More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their
reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now
have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have
the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced
procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned
conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be
financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced
to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. -
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based
their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it
logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a
woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth.
But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child
support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive
freedom."

Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude
in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the
child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or
to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he
wants to raise the baby himself).

The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a
woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18
years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and
it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men
tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the
overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the
matriarchy?)

But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor
fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children
with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only
frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo
one another in selfishness.

The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is
that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using
birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic
obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been
vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no
surprise that men are inclined to do the same.

Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever
since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of
constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of
those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency
contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and
explain that it's nothing personal.


  #3  
Old March 10th 06, 10:15 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


As I said before, what we can expect to see from conservative media
darlings on this issue is that they will use it as a tool to attack
feminists while pooh-poohing the idea itself.

C4M is not my battle -- I'm more interested in seeing some sort of
equality and decent treatment for divorced men who are willing to roll
up their sleeves and be fathers to their kids -- but it is interesting
to see how quickly cons will dump men's rights activists with terms like
"whining" and "deadbeats". This doesn't just happen with issues like
C4M, either. They dress themselves up like our friends but only to use
us like tools.

- Ron ^*^


Dusty wrote:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/189321.html

The right to abandon your child
Mar 10, 2006
by Mona Charen

This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels
and demand, "Well, what did you expect?"

A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are
calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer
programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay
$500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his
ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men --
is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal
protection clause.

Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that
during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to
understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical
condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with
her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him
in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM
website:

- More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their
reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now
have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have
the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced
procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned
conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be
financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced
to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. -
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based
their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it
logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a
woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth.
But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child
support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive
freedom."

Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude
in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the
child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or
to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he
wants to raise the baby himself).

The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a
woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18
years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and
it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men
tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the
overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the
matriarchy?)

But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor
fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children
with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only
frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo
one another in selfishness.

The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is
that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using
birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic
obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been
vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no
surprise that men are inclined to do the same.

Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever
since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of
constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of
those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency
contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and
explain that it's nothing personal.



  #4  
Old March 10th 06, 10:38 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women

  #5  
Old March 10th 06, 11:14 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no
women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get
pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the
paternity of the child!

We can only hope.

On 10 Mar 2006 13:38:57 -0800, "tonita"
wrote:

What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women


  #6  
Old March 10th 06, 11:23 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

tonita wrote:
What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women


Where you can still find them today, you mean.


  #7  
Old March 10th 06, 11:24 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

tonita wrote:
What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences.


But that's pretty prevalent today, with this generation. Are you really
THAT surprised?

Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women



  #8  
Old March 11th 06, 01:05 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"NewMan" wrote in message
...
Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no
women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get
pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the
paternity of the child!


I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were on the
pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100% effective, even
when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are medications that
interfere with the pill - for instance, some antibiotics can render it
ineffective or less effective. Third, the mother could get sick - get a
bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for instance - if she can't digest it,
it is much the same as if she hadn't taken it - a few days of the flu at the
wrong time could leave you fertile.


On 10 Mar 2006 13:38:57 -0800, "tonita"
wrote:

What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women




  #9  
Old March 11th 06, 04:19 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)


"tonita" wrote in message
ps.com...
What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women


I don't disagree with you about going back to dating without sex being
involved. That would solve a number of societal problems. I also don't
disagree with you about having some thought for the child produced from an
unintended pregnancy. However, today's child support system in no way
guarantees that the child is considered. It only seeks to transfer money
from one bio parent to the other. Usually from the father to the mother.
Children deserve 2 parents involved in their daily lives and committed to
their welfare. The current child support system does not do that. I don't
blame men for being upset about being roped into paying 18+ years of child
support, while the mother is not forced to pay a penny. I don't blame men
for being upset that a child they fathered is aborted without their
permission. I think that bringing the "consequences" of an unintended child
into some balance for both parents would put women into the position of
taking more thought for what they are doing, rather than expecting the man
to bear the burden of the costs.


  #10  
Old March 11th 06, 04:54 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.mens-rights,alt.support.divorce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:05:53 -0500, "Joy"
wrote:


"NewMan" wrote in message
.. .
Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no
women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get
pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the
paternity of the child!


I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were on the
pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100% effective, even
when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are medications that
interfere with the pill - for instance, some antibiotics can render it
ineffective or less effective. Third, the mother could get sick - get a
bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for instance - if she can't digest it,
it is much the same as if she hadn't taken it - a few days of the flu at the
wrong time could leave you fertile.


Ummmm, how typical.

Did you read what I said??? I was talking about the new birth control
pilll that MEN TAKE. It is, IIRC, still in trials. AFAIK, the possible
side effects have not yet been determined. And I appreciate that it
could well be the case where other medications could cause an
interaction and reduce the effectiveness. However, unlike a woman's
cycle where only one egg is released, and you are not exactly sure
when, men's ejaculate can be examined on a regular basis to determine
the effectiveness of the male birth control pill. Therefore a prudent
doctor and man would have the ejeculate tested regularly to ensure
effectiveness.

As I said, the advent of such a pill on the market, and documented
effectiveness with scientific tests would certainly torpedo a lot of
false paternity claims. I am sure such a possibility has governments
and femminists turning in their graves.


On 10 Mar 2006 13:38:57 -0800, "tonita"
wrote:

What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the
consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become
a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean
real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the
feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything.
I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all
you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives.
Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case Dusty Child Support 1 August 3rd 05 01:07 AM
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children Dusty Child Support 0 May 13th 04 12:46 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
So much for the claims about Sweden Kane Spanking 10 November 5th 03 07:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.