Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men'

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous.

Dubay, 25, had said ex-girlfriend Lauren Wells knew he didn't want to have a child and assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition.

He argued that 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.

more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/06/fatherhood.ap/index.html

* Modified to meet DU criteria.

And I can't find much fault with it.

I definitely wouldn't support such a stand, but I can't say I disagree with the sentiment.

Once the semen leaves his body, he is responsible for the damages it causes, physical and financial, to the person he deposits it into.

The fallacy is that he has no choice in the matter. He had the choice when he refused to don a condom to protect himself. He left himself open to being sued for damages, the cost incurred in raising the resulting child.

Bottom line, guys, if you want to duck child support, protect yourself and your partner with a condom to make sure the issue (no pun) never comes up.

And no form of birth control works 100% of the time.

White I would agree that there is a compelling state interest in the child having proper financial support, it really is an interesting line of reasoning.

seems to you to be an interesting line of reasoning as a defense against paying child support?

having proper financial support, then the state should pony up and pay for the child's support.

The child after-all is all of our responsibility, not just some guys because he got drunk one night at a bar.

I agree that just like there shuld be a woman's right to choose whether she becomes a parent or not, there should also be a man's right to choose whether he becomes a parent or not.

And no I don't believe a man is agreeing to parenthood with the act of sex any more than I would argue a woman is agreeing to parenthood by having sex.

And no I don't believe a man is agreeing to parenthood with the act of sex any more than I would argue a woman is agreeing to parenthood by having sex.

No man and no woman should agree to sex if they aren't willing to deal with the ramifications of a pregnancy.

It's the states' job to create the non-custodial parent. To support this effort are a battery of federal laws that permit states to assign "paternity" to whomever they choose.

The backlash is paternity fraud organizations.

Once the semen leaves his body, he is responsible for the damages it causes, physical and financial, to the person he deposits it into.

This is a valid viewpoint... if all sex is rape.

Would you extend your argument two ways? What if the man catches an STD from the woman? Is she "responsible for all the damages it causes, physical and financial" Let's take it a step further - what if he knew, beforehand, that she had an STD, and in fact assured her that there was no risk of his catching it?

What if he told her that with a fraudulent motivation? - to take advantage of the financial responsibility she would assume for having infected him?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Semen is a substance that packs the potential to cause damage to a woman into whom it is deposited. Whether or not the act is consensual, the potential for damage is there.

It is up to the male to protect himself from liability.

It's called a condom. You'll get used to the idea.

I'll wait.

You just didn't like the answer.

Men usually don't.

Unlike you, I don't feel justified making generalizations about women based on that observation.

which presumably has people more aware than most of sexism, we still get these blanket insults at men in general.

I think it's just that you're allowed to take random sexist shots at men, all men, any men, just generically as a group.

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race*, gender*, sexual orientation*, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race*, gender*, sexual orientation*, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

* By "race", "gender" and "sexual preference", we don't mean, "White" "male" and "straight" - you're fair game.

One can either wear out mice clicking the alert button, or one can be a man about it.

You can't make an analogy with STDs, because STDs can be transmitted both ways. It is not the same as the case with pregnancy, where the burden is much greater on the mother.

Should individual "A" be held to be financially responsible for the harm caused to individual "B" through consensual sex, given that "B" knew (s)he was unprotected from catching the disease which "B" knew that "A" carried?

Could the financial reward that "B" knew was waiting if (s)he caught the STD from "A" provide a perverse incentive?

... Not that I'm buying in to the OP's view that children are "harm" that women can choose, yet men should be punished for.

Wow, sperm as a weapon...I have seen it all on DU. Even our DNA is considered a threat by the victim culture.

How bout LADIES, don't let anyone fuck you unless you are protected as the "damages" will occur to your life and body.

or they will learn it quickly.

It's called a CONDOM.

As to damages, I don't suppose you've ever much concerned yourself with what happens to us when those damages have been caused, have you? As long as you get off, everything's just peachy.

Well, until those papers get served.

I don't get the sense from you that you feel any indignation, outrage, or even annoyance that you, as a guy, have two birth control optins open to you (sterilization and condoms). Am I wrong?

If you are so concerned about protecting men from the dangers of unintended pregnancies, I ask you to take a good look at these folks: http://www.newmalecontraception.org/ I'd love to know what you think of the options for men discussed there.

She told him it was impossible to become pregnant. She LIED, that is fraud. Why should the guy be held responsible for behavior that was predicated on fraud?

I'm afraid he'd have a hard time proving fraud, while the damages caused by his not wearing a condom are quite apparent.

It's called a CONDOM. Protect yourself from liability by wearing one unless you fully intend a pregnancy to result.

Perhaps he can sue her for damages for fraud, if he can prove that she intentionally defrauded him and he suffered damage as a result. But that's a separate issue from his own legal or financial responsibilities in the situation.

It is a logical argument and I do support such a stand. The man has zero options, all the decisions are left to the woman, including proper use of birth control or lying about birth control all together.

:popcorn:

we're basically devalued and ridiculed in society. It's just another shitty case of institutionalized sexism.

this place is often toxic to men.

that people will post anti-men sexist crap that would never be permitted against women.

Jokes are made about men in general.

It's pretty unenlightened for supposedly an enlightened place.

at least, that's what they think of nature's failure to let them get pregnant ---!!!

Is this the full article?

and it's a fantastically stupid argument. under the equal protection clause, the state simply has to show a legitimate interest and that the means used to achieve the goal are rationally related to that interest.

it's not a male/female issue, it's the interest of the child. what a fantastically stupid argument. no wonder the trial court dismissed it for failure to state a claim.

If you father a child, it's your responsibility. The fact that the woman has the right to control her own body during the pregnancy; to decide to continue the pregnancy or not as per Roe v. Wade, doesn't enter into it.

Sounds like this guy was lied to repeatedly; maybe that should be the basis of a separate lawsuit on the terms of being deliberately deceived. But saying that men should have the right to disavow any financial responsibility for kids they sire across the board is simply wrong- and wrong-headed.

If this is that bothersome, get a vasectomy or don't put your sperm in any situation where it might fertilize an egg. Otherwise, tough shit. Maybe it sounds unfair but that's the price we pay for not being the ones who get pregnant and have to deal with it in OUR bodies.

:woohoo: :applause: BRAVO :applause: :woohoo:

"If this is that bothersome, get a vasectomy or don't put your sperm in any situation where it might fertilize an egg."

He thought that was the case. She lied. He shouldn't owe a single red cent. SHE should bear the brunt of the full brunt of childcare, or give him full custody.

I'd be just as angry as he is.

As I posted downthread, how do we know the woman lied?

I have two friends in my immediate circle - close friends - who were both told by doctors they could NOT get pregnant and both eventually did.

It's stupid on both her part AND HIS to assume she could not.

Be mad with your bad self - nature finds a way.

the logic that sets forth the idea of:

"I refuse to contribute to the support of this child. I so vehemently refuse to contribute to the support of this child, that if I don't win my case where I absolutely refuse to contribute to the support of this child... then I will take her from you and never let her see you again."

i'm sure these are the same kind of guys who, back before the days of DNA testing, were yelling "HOW DO I KNOW IT'S MINE?" the loudest.

now that that little game is over for them, they have only two cards left to play: "B!tch set me up!" or "I'll take the kid and you'll never see it again". the guy in the OP's post tried Card One. you are suggesting trying Card Two since Card One didn't win.

sheesh :eyes:

who use DNA tests to prove the kid isn't theirs and are forced to pay child support anyway.

Very famous case near me that was featured on was of those Dateline type shows five years ago or so.

Guy had three kids. Wife ran off with boyfriend. The guy had to send child support payments to his cheating ex and boyfriend. Then wife told ex that the kids weren't his anyway. He had DNA tests and sure enough two of the three kids were the boyfriend's. So the guy was supposed to send child support payments to the real father and his cheating ex. He refused, was declared a deadbeat dad and had his wages garnished.

Then he did the real no-no. He told the two kids he was not their biological dad. That violated the judge's orders and then he was hauled in to jail.

It became quite a story around here. Don't know how it eventually ended up.

A lot of states are changing these laws, but for years it has been routine that men would be forced to pay child support to their cheating exes after proving the kids weren't theirs. The general theory was either that there was a time limit to challenge paternity, or biology wasn't important, if the guy acted like a dad.

Of course, logically the opposite would apply then too, but it doesn't. The guy who had a one night stand and has no intention of acting like a dad, must pay too.

Giving custody to a father who wants nothing to do with him or her, who is in fact angry about the child's very existence, may satisfy some principle but it would be an awful thing to do to that child.

you do realize it has nothing to do with the child, its welfare and well-being. it has everything to do with OWNERSHIP.

"If I'm stuck paying for this thing, then by damn, I'll just outright own it."

We guarantee a woman the right to decide whether she's going to become a mother or not, and provide dozens of tools to assure that she has full control of the situation. We then transfer the responsibility for financially supporting this decision onto the man. (and in fact society isn't really very picky about which man - whomever mom says is fine with us)

On the off chance that he hasn't picked up the hints, and demonstrates such bad form as to petition the court for custody of his child, we then deny him a fair hearing on the basis that we assume him (with some justification) to be angry about his child's very existence, and rationalize that he is only doing it for the money.

... something moms never do, of course.

You lost me after that. According to my calendar it's 2007, not 1957. Believe it or not, a lot of women are financially supporting their families these days. Fathers are expected to contribute to the support of children they help create. Because once the baby is born, he or she is no longer a decision, but a child. The system we have today isn't perfect but it's the best possible scenario for the support of children.

How many MRAs (more than a few of whom are anti-abortion I've noticed) are willing to pay substantially increased taxes to help the government support the millions of offspring of men who decide not to support them? Not too many, I'm guessing.

This is absolutely true, for the last three years, my wife was one of these.

Now that our youngest is in full-time school and I've finished building our house, I'm working again so the finances are contributed more or less equally.

I disagree in strong terms that this is the best possible scenario. Many children are born today to serve the purpose of meal ticket for mom. Men don't take the concept of fatherhood any more seriously than society expects them to; kids are kind of like cars that you don't get to see, and the 216 payments for which are garnished and sent to someone in a distant state who hates your guts.

The system serves kids not at all.

Those who are truly interested in equality contemplate "choice" in non gender-specific ways. Those who are truly interested in children are motivated to include both parents in children's upbringing.

As for the rest of your post, what solution would you propose that would (a) maintain women's sovereignty over their bodies and (b) ensure that children are provided for by both parents?

Given these social values;
a) women must be sovereign over their bodies and
b) children should be provided (and nurtured) by (two) parents
c) compulsory parenthood is counterproductive

... then the answer is simple. Unmarried parents would have the option of terminating their parental rights before the child reaches age 2 or in the case of men, within 6 months of being informed of paternity, whichever comes later. If the other parent does not have the skills, inclination or resources to assume the responsibilities of parenthood individually, there are lots of people out there who would love to adopt.

But this raises the very real situation of single moms being stripped of their children because they're too poor to care for them. The fact that we won't do this does shatter the facade; kids wellbeing is a secondary consideration, and not really the point of "child" support.

We already have enough problems without giving men carte blanche to impregnate women and skedaddle. A friend of mine who practices family law tells me the horror stories of trying to get $1000s of child support in arrears from men who father multiple children with several women and refuse to support any of them. What's really creepy is that according to her, some of these guys are proud of it! In your scenario, men like that would be able to father an unlimited number of children while severing any financial obligation to all of them.

Absent rape, it can't happen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

edited to elaborate:
Absent rape, a man can't independently choose to impregnate a woman. Sex resulting in pregnancy is outside his control.

"Men are the gas pedal, women are the brakes." Same old shit. Shouldn't have expected any different from someone who uses MRA arguments.

Bye.

Given the array of birth control available, unplanned pregnancy should be diminishingly rare.

I will correct what I said - actual unplanned pregnancy can still happen, but (assuming freedom of action) unwanted motherhood should not.

Men ought to take advantage of that for themselves, dontcha think?

I know of two, of which abstinence is one.

"Given the array of birth control available, unplanned pregnancy should be diminishingly rare."

Which is it, post 119 or 123?

explaining how men should avail themselves of that vast array.

I doubt that any of the formularies of the pill, diaphragms, foam, sponges, norplant, IUD's, patches, injections, plan B or vaginal ring would do them much good.

I read you as saying that birth control is a woman's responsibility. Am I right or not?

1) the forms of birth control available to men are woefully inadequate.
2) compulsory parenthood is more than a medical problem.
3) children's interests are not the overriding consideration in the way that family law is implemented. The belief that they are is a facade which obscures the primary modern manifestation of patriarchy.

... but I thought that would have been fairly clear when I answered the question: "so the responsibility rests with women?" with "No"

puts all the responsibility squarely on women. So, in effect, that is exactly what you are saying when you make the argument that a man should not have to pay child support if a woman chose not to have an abortion.

Look, child support isn't the only kind of financial obligation that comes about involuntarily. Yes, it is true that if you get a woman pregnant and she has an abortion you're off the hook. But that's only because there's no child that needs that support. If everyone in your community decided not to have children, you'd be off the hook to pay for their education, too. But, people continue to have children, so you and I have to fulfill our obligation to society by pitching in for their education. We can scream all we want and say say "I didn't make the choice to have those children, why should I have to pay?" In fact, people do scream that all the time. But, they still have to pay, because the alternative is a gutted educational system. Some people yell "She didn't have an abortion, why should I have to pay?" But, they still have to pay because the alternative is an increase of children living in poverty.

I'm sorry, but the belief that the children's interests are the overriding consideration is a facade? Are you serious? Because if so, that is absolutely preposterous. So, it doesn't cost money to raise children? They don't require food, and clothing, and shelter? If that isn't what is compelling the state to oblige people to pay for the costs associated with their offspring, then what is it, exactly? Are you making the argument that if child support is eliminated - and make no mistake, that's what happens if child support becomes voluntary - then there wouldn't be an increase in the amount of children living in poverty? That that is just a facade?

Just as much as a man's.

Does that answer your concerns.

It's certainly more fair than the current sysem in my opinion.

The article states that our defendant knew he never wanted to father a child. Yet rather than obtain a vasectomy, he depended on the words and actions of another (or perhaps she gave him more than her word. Perhaps (and this is just a perhaps) her medical condition changed. We can't tell from this article) to assure his childless status. That seems irresponsible. Why depend on the actions of another to assure your own safety?

That's not the gist of the arguments being made, here. The arguments are "since women have the right under Roe v. Wade to control their own bodies, men should have the right to disown any children produced by their sperm". It's a bullshit equivalence, and a bullshit argument. Not fair? The situation is intrinsically unbalanced in that women are the ones who get pregnant and bear the children- that's why the choice to continue the pregnancy or not belongs to THEM- it's THEIR body.

The idea of letting biological fathers off the hook because they don't really want to support their kids is noxious, to say the least.

I'm saying, specifically in cases in which one sexual parter told another they were physically incapable of having children, knowing this was a false statement, should have to bear to the full consequences of bringing a child into the world absent the person they lied to. If the other person wants full, sole custody, they should automatically get it after being lied to about their partner's ability to produce children in the first place.

This makes me angry. This woman lied about her capacity to have children- for whatever reason. HE should bear no punishment, and should be able to have full, sole custody if he wants it. She's already demonstrated she's not a fit parent, by lying to produce a child in the first place.

It's as bad as saying you don't have an STD when you bloody damn well know you do, and it's just as long lasting as if a child results.

Frankly, this woman doesn't deserve a child, now or ever, if she has to lie to someone to get one. If she wanted a kid so badly, she should get implanted with sperm from a bank. I certainly wouldn't want to be entangled with someone like her- and, hopefully, other guys will hear about this and stay the hell away from her.

People seem to be treating children as man-traps on this thread, and it makes me a little sick to see. It's always wrong to lie about whether you can have a child or not, in order to trick someone into fathering a child. I shouldn't have to point that out.

why not take the simple step of a vasectomy? What about his responsibilities to himself? Why no chastisement from you on that count?

"why not take the simple step of a vasectomy? What about his responsibilities to himself?"

So, you're saying that having a vasectomy is the answer to his dilemma?

Wouldn't that mean putting a woman in the same situation as he's in now- having to trust that he really had a vasectomy, and it didn't reverse itself?

It seems what she was telling him could have easily led him to believe it was an irreversible, congenital condition, and not the result of a voluntary surgery (which are known to reverse themselves). My impression (and it very well may be wrong, I don't know the exact words she used and the article doesn't say) is, she led him to believe she was sterile from birth.

Why is the onus suddenly on him, when she's the liar?

Wouldn't that mean putting a woman in the same situation as he's in now- having to trust that he really had a vasectomy, and it didn't reverse itself?

Well, sort of--she doesn't have to trust him; but if she does, she will have to deal with the consequential pregnancy if it turns out he was wrong/lying. The man in the news story, too, had to deal with the consequential pregnancy when it turned out his girlfriend was wrong/lying.

He took no responsibility for birth control at all. My position is that he is negligent in that respect. Birth control is an onus on all sexually active persons, including this guy.

His (and yours too, actually) dilemma is that birth control options for men are very limited. Rather than spill invective at this woman who may or may not have lied (I assume that you saw the post below where it is stated that earlier in this trial, both the woman and her doctor testified as to the veracity of her medical condition), why not turn a little of that anger around at the man who failed to protect himself?

There is no civil penalty for lying. People do it all the time with no legal consequences

But you're right about everything else. These men are such losers

At at least that would be based on trying to prove and receive compensation for one dubious point; i.e. he was deliberately deceived. I don't think it would fly, but he could try it. Instead, his lawyer seems to be trying to make an across the board case about men having the "right" to disavow responsibility for children they father.

Careful what you stick your business into...

I had a college roomate with a thing for unintelligent and irresponsible women. She got pregnant (bible thumping baptist who didn't have the sense to consider an abortion...her parents chose for her...) and they broke up after the baby was born. I saw him recently. Damned if he isn't taking care of the kid more than she is. I'm glad he is responsible and he has no regrets, but I think he would have been more cautious if he knew what he was doing.

The whole thing just boosted the appeal of women with 120+ IQ and the social skills to pay the bills to me.

There are a good deal of men who are just irresponsible as the woman my ex-roomate impregnated. The guy in the story sounds like one of them.

He's had a rough go of it in recent decades, but one thing he always tried to do was be a decent dad to his kid. It was one of those situations where these two people really, truly didn't belong together--- (think of your high school and college hookups.. I can imagine there are more than a few you wouldn't have a ton in common with today. For sure that's the case with me) --all the more argument for easily available and effective birth control options, and argument against bullshit "abstinence only" educations which tells kids they should marry the first person they screw.

So I agree. The bottom line is, once there's a kid in the picture, if you fathered him or her, you bear some responsibility. Period. It's not about whether the woman lied or didn't get an abortion or whatnot- it's not about her, anymore- because there's a kid there. That's who the responsibility is to.

Both were the holy rollers and both couldn't stand my constant questioning of the faith's doctrines. Truth be told, I'll question any faith as much as I damn well please, but I digress. He got her preggers Senior year. I found out after he exploded on one of my constant questions to our religion teacher (about stigmata...I remember it well after all these years). He screamed "How dare you!!!" to me a couple of times for daring to question why a loving God would cause pain. The teacher hushed my angry retort to my further anger.

Later the teacher (she was an alright sort) explained to me as I asked her why she let him get away with that kind of fire and brimstone in a open-minded (for Catholics) group. She told me that he knocked up his equally religious girlfriend. I was surprised they were together (they were their own clique in a rather clique-less class and seldom socialized outside with us "sinners") as he was butt-ugly and a complete dork (think "the zitfaced teenager from the Simpsons with a bible) and she was kind of cute and rather smart in that good-Irish girl way. I also learned covertly that they went to the school, church, and their parents for advice. Guess what the "authority figures" told them to do?

Saw them in a local mall a few years later over summer vacation pushing a stroller with a cantankerous 2 year old in it. They were miserable. Should have never married. Glad they're taking care of the kid (or more likely their parents were) but Jeeze! They were visibly miserable. I heard they divorced a few years later...don't know for sure. Miserable mess of a situation. I always start to wonder why the f*** they never used birth control...at least the withdrawal method...then I remember just who they were... Sad.

Now I'm a grown man with a wife and child of his own. I can't imagine handling that at 18/19.

:crazy:

or did not say. It is about a child with two biological parents who both willingly participated in a sexual act that brought about her conception. She is now a living human being.

Therefore, leaving the "She lied" part out of it........ (a monumentally stupid argument. ask me why)


Can you demonstrate how he acted responsibly?

If there was a 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 chance that she may become pregnant |I.E. she is a female with all of her organs and he has at least ONE sperm| and he was this diametrically opposed to having a child, he should have undergone a vasectomy and abstained from intercourse until his results could be verified.

Done.

When a person has sex are they agreeing to parenthood?

I guess you could argue yes or no.

I don't think the current law is reasonable, that being that a man is agreeing, but a woman is not.

That doesn't seem to be a reasonable point of law in 2007.

there are two questions

1. Does a woman have a right to decide what happens to her body?

and, unrelated

2. If a child is born, does that child have a right to support from both parents?

The fact that men have no say over #1 is simply a result of biology.

and no to # 2.

No man or woman should be forced into parenthood without his/her consent.

The child has a right to support. That I'd agree with.

In my story they were both initially irresponsible and later he showed responsibility. We touched bases again recently. My friend is really a good guy still. She's still clueless according to all accounts and as I learned when I met her (she was not a student but a local girl at the time) borderline mentally retarded. (That's not an insult, she was and is actually that slow.) She was and still is incapable of living on her own unassisted but my friend loved her for "her sweetness" which I took to be her nine-year-oldesque fascination with the world. (Once again, not an insult but the way things are.) John really is a nice kind-hearted guy (not taking advantage of her) but his taste in women was horrible and has improved from all accounts. Also she was suffering from a severe case of "the Innsmouth look" but I digress (that indeed would be an insult...a true one but still an insult)...

In the OP they were both irresponsible and he is showing severe irresponsibility now. It's always her body in the end. Things happen. Nature find a way. Always be careful.

I hate to sound like a Repug but personal accountability is definitely a strong winner here. Even if she lied about the incapability to become pregnant he should have taken measure to be careful still. Gotta be careful where you stick your "business"... If you can't afford the risk and don't have protection or common sense...wait until you do.

My wife and I had a situation where we were surprised by an unexpected pregnancy. My wife always thought she would have problems conceiving. Nature found a way. Now little miss YOY-ette graces our dinner table with giggles and goos and lots of poos...

if he KNOWS he does not want children he should take responsibility for his sperm--get a vasectomy.

i'm so sick of whiney men playing the victim card!

Sounds like this guy was lied to repeatedly; maybe that should be the basis of a separate lawsuit on the terms of being deliberately deceived.

Had he taken the issue to court on the grounds that he was lied to, I think this would go completely differently. Being lied into a situation absolves the legal responsibility.

"If this is that bothersome, get a vasectomy or don't put your sperm in any situation where it might fertilize an egg. Otherwise, tough shit. Maybe it sounds unfair but that's the price we pay for not being the ones who get pregnant and have to deal with it in OUR bodies."

especially given the woman's misrepresentations. He had no reason to believe that he was agreeing to enter into a potential child-raising contract of sorts.

On the other hand, I can't say that I would like the precedent this case would set. Child support is a good thing, and allowing men to say, "oh, well, I don't want to pay it, I didn't think she'd get pregnant" would be stupid. The law as it stands is a bit unfair, but it's better than the alternative. So I'd have to go along with this ruling.

Dude, I was joking with my above post (hence the popcorn).

Disclaimer: I do not seriously believe that an establishment created by white men and utterly dominated by white men for its entire existence is not going to benefit white men. Thank you.

I mean "the system of child support, in which women have reproductive choice after conception but men do not (regardless of the circumstances of conception), despite both having a financial interest in the situation." There is no way to balance this injustice, because changing things around would lead to a far greater injustice.

I was agreeing with part of his case, not with your post.

Could we maybe come up with ways to make it more fair perhaps?

Here's one idea for unmarried couples. I think a marriage contract assumes an acceptance of responsibility for kids within the contract.

1. Woman finds out she's pregnant.
2. She has a reasonable amount of time to attempt to notify any or all potential fathers.
3. Father has reasonable amount of time to sign an agreement accepting responsibility for child or declining it.
4. Woman is given man's decision and then makes her reproductive choice solely by herself armed with the information of whether she will have a partner helping her with the kid or not.

That's not completely fair as the man could still have his wanted child terminated, but it's a lot more fair than the current system of "My body, My choice, Our responsibility."

Other ideas to make the system at least closer to fair?

why don;t you come back and talk about fair after a man has walked around incubating that baby for nine months.
fair, my ass.
get a vacectomy and stop your whining.

My opinion doesn't count because I'm a man.

If the system is unfair, then just shut up and stop complaining.

Not a very good solution to unfairness in the year 2007 in my opinion.

I have two friends in my immediate circle who were told they couldn't get pregnant and... did.

As Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park said, "Nature finds a way."

It's STUPID to assume that you're never going to get pregnant/get someone pregnant and fore-go birth control. Heck, both my kids were conceived on birth control, but I digress... my hubby was snipped over the summer and I STILL avoid relations during ovulation.

Every man in the country could allege that he didn't think the woman in question could get pregnant if they let this stand.

or that she misrepresented the situation on purpose. However, what she said was not an accurate representation of the situation, even if she believed it was. He had reason to believe pregnancy was not a possible result of his actions, and I believe virtually any contract he entered into under similar situations would be considered void. In an unexpected pregnancy, the woman has full control over her options going forward. The man has none. That is an unfortunate, minor, and entirely necessary injustice.

I agree he was stupid, and I agree (and stated earlier) that we couldn't allow him to win his case for the reason you stated, among others.

The woman had indeed been told by her doctor that she was considered infertile. Both the woman and her physician attested to that as fact in the court evidence. I do apologize that I don't remember if her exact medical condition was ever publicized in media reports, but it was entered into evidence to show that the woman was not being deceptive when she informed the boyfriend that she had been diagnosed as infertile.

Contracts don't produce babies.

That's the problem right there - thinking that this was a transaction of some sort. It wasn't.

it wasn't a transaction. without the transaction aspect, the analogy makes no sense.

I know. I lived that one. I didn't entrap him into ANYTHING. He was just selfish & vindictive. I paid child support for decades when I couldn't find a job; he's had the same job for nearly 30 years; he just wanted to punish me.

I'm not putting in a crying dime for the child's college, sorry.

The non-custodial parent gets screwn. There's a strong motivation (including financial) to be the custodial parent.

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but family court probably won't let you off the hook for "the child's" college.

The court only can order me to pay child support through the month of the child's high school graduation, presumably sometime at age 18.

And YES I AM A LAWYER. I have a Juris Doctor.

I haven't been able to find a job for years. Not even as a paralegal. The father's just mad because he didn't want a kid and it was an accident, and we were married BEFORE I got pregnant. He sees things only in terms of dollars and cents, and nothing about love and affection.

Thousands of parents would give everything they have to have a healthy, bright child like we did. He just doesn't appreciate how lucky he is.


I'm prochoice and I refused to abort. I don't think it's fair for him to go after me and my parents during the divorce. He spent about $50,000 in legal fees trying to punish me and get my father's law license revoked when he was in his seventies and retired.

When he went after my parents, he destroyed the college fund they set up for their grandchild. My parents' lawyer warned him he was jeopardizing his child's education by going after my parents but he ignored it. They had to liquidate a sizable sum of money to fight him.

"I'm not responsible for my child's college education."
"The father's just mad because he didn't want a kid and it was an accident, and we were married BEFORE I got pregnant. He sees things only in terms of dollars and cents, and nothing about love and affection."
"They had to liquidate a sizable sum of money to fight him."

Tragic, yet unintentionally ironic.

Tragic. Sad. He had a good life, a good wife, a nice house in suburbia, and a beautiful child, but he threw it away and spent tons of money doing so.

His determination to go after my parents destroyed the college fund for their grandchild. Their lawyer told him this explicitly. His need for "revenge" was more important than making sure that our child had a college trust fund. The $50,000 he spent going after me and my parents, raising lots of hell in the divorce, could have well been used to finance her college education. There wasn't that much to fight over.

So now he's paying for it on the cash as you go plan.

I have told our child that he destroyed her grandparents' trust fund they set up for college by making them pay legal fees with it.

This guy is nice to everyone but me. A real psychopath. I never said an unkind word to him. I wonder what he would have done if I'd been mean to him?

Some people just don't understand nice.

He now lives in a big empty yuppie palace down the street from me (no shit) and married our kid's kindergarten teacher (no shit too) who has been described by a friend of our kid's as "she looks like a troll with bad teeth".

I'd gloat, but I'm not that kind of person. I'm glad I didn't call the new wife that.



Living well is the best revenge.

That was quite expensive, as well as the child support.
Started with preschool at age 3.

I'd be more inclined to help pay for college if I had a job and hadn't been drained financially for child support and grade school, not to mention the divorce war he started.

Oh, and my parents bought him a brand new Ford van before we found out how mean he was.

Some people just don't understand nice.

some guy telling me "don't worry, i've had a vasectomy" or "don't worry, i'm sterile" was NOT an excuse to say Hubba Hubba, To Hell With The Rubba!

this MRA's "equal rights" ended when he declined to exercise ordinary care and relied on hearsay to make a potentially life-changing decision.

too bad so sad. now this POS needs to decide to act like the father he decided to be when he didn't protect himself.

It was a first-person assertion.

This is NOT like putting on a condom or having a birth-control implant, no- he was told she was physically incapable of having children due to a medical condition, as in, NOT a voluntary action on her part. She's a liar, and SHE should bear the FULL brunt of the consequences. That means, HE should be off the hook as far as support goes.

His argument in that case wasn't a good one, but he does have a very good argument on other grounds which he failed to pursue.

that she is unable to conceive, THAT is a first-person assertion.

the definition of hearsay is "information which cannot be adequately substantiated".

Do you know this couple?

Is it not possible that her OB told her she couldn't have children and; therefore, she trusted that assessment only to find out later that, yes, she could?

Again... I repeat... I have TWO CLOSE FRIENDS who both were told... no dice... and ended up getting pregnant. Both are happily married, so it was welcome news to both mothers and fathers, but the point is the same: it's not necessarily a lie, but nature will out.

Geesch.. you have some anger issues with women, don't you?

told I couldn't get pregnant. After 19 years of NO BIRTH CONTROL, Surprise! I found myself pregnant at 37 years of age. I know for a fact that things like this happen.

What is the difference between that girl and a child who's parents both wanted her and split up? Does she require fewer resources? If daddy doesn't pay up, she suffers, too. Changing the rules and allowing for these children to suffer inevitably effects the rest of us as a society as well. We already struggle as a society to provide adequate social safety nets, and those are getting chipped away all the time. Adding millions more to those that already draw from them spreads it even thinner and affects us all. The ruling absolutely was the right call for many reasons.

She shouldn't. Single parent kids should be well supported by all of us, not one person.

You pick out the correct problem. This kid is no less important than any other kid.

So why does one kid get $ 4,000 a month and another gets $ 135 a month? Just because one kid got lucky that when his mom was drunk she laid a rich guy but the other kid's mom got drunk and laid a poor guy.

Screw that.

All kids born into this situation should be treated equally and well resourced by the state.

The daddy lottery is not a fair system to the kids.

"The daddy lottery is not a fair system to the kids."

The PARENT lottery is not fair. Somebody's parents were multimillionaire's, somebody else's worked at WalMart. That's life.

You and I. I'm not discussing it with you again. I've outlined over and over why you are as wrong as it is possible to be. You will never get it. You are determined to believe it is okay and right to throw millions more children on to a shrinking public aid just so some men can legally finagle themselves out of their obligation. And that somehow this would all work itself out in this magical fantasy land, and suddenly everyone would be happy to pay the increase in taxes this would take. Well, I learned my lesson. There's no way to change that kind of thinking, so I'm no longer going to try. Maybe someone else will give it a shot. I wish them all the luck in the world.

:applause:

What's the matter with you? We're living in the age of AIDS and you still don't do it. Not to say that this guy deserves what he got, but everybody takes risks when they have unprotected sex.

This girl lying to him is no different than all those age old lies boys used to tell girls to get them to put out. "I'll call you Tomorrow.", "Blue balls will kill me if you don't." ..."I promise I won't c*..."you know the rest. ;)

This was the right decision. His daughter is entitled to his support, and his not wanting children doesn't change the fact she's his daughter. She's just as entitled to her parents' support as any other child.

Something to the effect of "I release Matthew Dubay from any responsibility to children that may result from copulation on {DATE}."

Romantic? Heck no! But Dubay (which I have repeatedly typed as "Dubya," go figure) doesn't sound like that great a catch in any case.

(incidentally: :sarcasm:)

the contract between the parent wouldn't override the needs of the kid who wasn't party to the contract.

Nicely done!

And yes I am a lawyer.
The best interests of the child are the STANDARD that Family Courts go by. Whatever that is.

is for he/she to be well taken care of financially.

What does the kid care if the check comes from the state or a dad he's never seen?

That's not the best interest of the child.

It's the best interest of the state to get someone to pay whether they should or not. The state doesn't even care if it's the dad or not. As long as some man pays, then the state doesn't have to.

Then the woman is happy, the state is happy, and the man is demonized as a "dead beat dad" if he questions the fairness of the ruling.

Like "Hey wait a minute. I'm not even the dad."

Just shut up and pay up or we'll garnish your wages and put your name in the paper as a deadbeat dad.

Of course, if he could prove that that there was fraud and deception, that should be a different issue.

That's pretty much the pro-life argument in a nutshell.

Except they're consistent applying it to men and women though.

I thought we were talking about whether or not men should have financial responsibilities to their offspring.

Say this 'Roe v Wade for men' succeeded, allowing men to avoid taking responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy. Then next year the unthinkable happens and a Republican is elected President. Roe v Wade gets overturned as soon as they get control of SCOTUS. So we'd have a situation where women (at least those in the states that passed bans on abortion) would have no choice whether or not to bear a child, but the men could refuse to support it. :scared:

"HOW DO I KNOW IT'S MINE?"

then the issue would revert to each state's legislature.

The overturning of Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal.

Or haven't you heard of all those "trigger laws" that have been passed, saying essentially "this law goes into effect in this State as soon as Roe vs. Wade is overturned."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Back in the early 70s the legislature passed a law banning abortion and mandating 5 years in jail, for the woman in her doctor, for even the attempt to get one. The federal case supersedes it but as soon as Roe v Wade is overturned it goes into affect. Given that we have a state lege chock full of religious fanatics who inexplicably get reelected year after year, I don't foresee a successful challenge to the state law for a long time.

That idea that abortion would be turned over to each state's legislature is a myth perpetuated by the right wing to make you think it's no big deal if they reverse the decision. It is. And after Roe v Wade, their next stop is Griswold v Connecticut, which made contraception legal for married couples. Please don't believe anything that wingnuts say. Check the facts for yourself.

Although I am new to this site, I have noticed that when you try to use a fact, like you just did, it does not go over well with some, be careful. I brought up the fact about FICA taxes increasing over the years and was told by a couple posters I was an idiot.

I don't think this legal "argument" is going anywhere.

to have the child.

These men are stupid in that if their views prevailed, they would encourage women to go back to Victorian standards for sex, too. And haven't we been told a zillion times that men need sex more than women? Women in general can easily decide they're not going to take the risk of becoming pregnant at all. Men are back to having to get married to have sex. Now these same men don't want that, do they? All they have to do is protect themselves and take the risk accept the consequences where that protection fails.

Amazes me how so many men will cling to stale old double standards and outdated mores, when they'd probably find a lot more fun and enjoyment in a more egalitarian society.

no sympathy here.

of what an asshole he is.

Here's hoping that information will prove useful, because obviously, he will not. (beyond a few dollars, that is) Piss poor.

with a woman anyway :hide:

The solution is that simple. Men have plenty of advantages over women; they don't need rectification of this only one women have over them. (And it hardly is an advantage, since mothers are equally responsible for child support). You have sex with a woman of child bearing age, take the damn risk. Why should a man's right to consequence-free sex be reassured? At the expense of the child, yet!

If all the women banded together and decided they weren't going to have sex until they were married (as opposed to the third date or whatever other ridiculously early time and without love, intimacy, romance of committment, is declared nowadays to be proper) that it would be TOUGH LUCK. This lawsuit shows a case of a guy so spoiled he thinks there is a right to demand yet more.

" the third date or whatever other ridiculously early time and without love, intimacy, romance of committment, is declared nowadays to be proper"

I agree with you there. That is a ridiculously early time, and without commitment, etc.

IMO, I don't think most women really want to have sex with a guy that soon, especially when they aren't committed to each other. (Of course, if both parties are drinking all bets are off.) I think many times they do because they're afraid they won't see him again, or they think it's expected of them.

It is your sole responsibility dad to guarantee the financial wellbeing of every member of your "family".

... including the woman you met at that bar.

Protection of law is for the women. Buck up and stop sniveling. Be a man.

Seems simple enough to me :shrug:

A woman has sex and an unwanted pregnancy results. Forcing her to bear the consequences because she made a choice is infringing on a basic human right of personal autonomy. A man has sex and a baby results, and he's forced to bear the consequences by making his wallet thinner. No basic human right is being violated, here. It's not entirely fair, no. The argument that "The man played, now he has to pay" is very similar to the argument that anti-choicers make when trying to make abortion illegal. I agree with you. It's just that forcing a man to open his wallet is vastly different than telling a woman what to do with her body.

Not to mention the fact that a woman decides to have an abortion, then there's no child left holding the bag. In effect, she's erasing the consequences of the sex that was had, and then there is no longer a consequence to deny. A man decides he doesn't want face the consequences of a pregnancy that wasn't terminated, he's not erasing the consequences. He's denying the consequences. The consequence still exists, and it still need food, clothing, shelter, etc. He isn't erasing the consequences of the sexual act, the way a woman choosing to have an abortion is. He's simply turning away from it.

should accept the consequence of carrying a fetus to term. I wish to clarify that because I agree with much in the body of your post, but the argument I was making was emphatically NOT the same argument that anti-choice people make.

The way I see it, when man and woman have sex, both should be aware that pregnancy may result and that they might have to accept that as a consequence. But pregnancy does not equal bringing a child into the world and raising it, and whether the woman chooses abortion or to carry the fetus to term, the pregnancy will probably affect her physically and emotionally. Because it affects her body, the woman has the sole right to choose how to respond to the pregnancy, and I agree with you that to eliminate that choice is to infringe on a basic human right.

Or that they are both equally valid. I think the anti-choice argument is complete shit. But, the argument that men should have to pay child support because they need to accept responsibility for the consequences of their sexual encounter is similar to the argument that says that women should accept the responsibility of their sexual encounter and have the baby rather than having an abortion. The RvW for Men supporters say our argument hypocritical, because the two arguments are identical. They're not, of course. The main difference being one consequence is a pregnancy, which is a physical state, and the other is a financial obligation, which isn't. Another big difference is that a woman exercising her right that was reinforced with Roe v Wade leaves no child for anyone to support, while a man exercising his "Roe v Wade right" leaves behind a child missing the support of one of his/her parents.

The whole premise of Men's Roe v Wade is complete shit. They claim it's more fair, but what it amounts to is basically "Hey, women, have an abortion or do it all completely on your own, and bare 100% of the responsibility either way you choose." Nothing even remotely fair about it. It's not as if women don't have that same financial responsibility toward their offspring. It's deeply rooted in misogyny, even if some of its supporters don't see it.

the anti-choice position is that women shouldn't have the right to choose what happens to their own body in the event of a pregnancy. Nothing in my post implied anything of the sort. I said both parties should be prepared to accept the consequence of pregnancy. Because said pregnancy will affect the woman physically, she alone should have the ultimate right to determine how to respond; but whether she chooses to abort or to carry the fetus to term, the pregnancy will affect her both physically and financially, and having an abortion doesn't mean the woman has somehow avoided the consequence of pregnancy.

Hey, fellas…hopefully I averted the eyes of the female gender from reading this. I just wanted to say that the men that are suggesting that they should have some form of “opt out” on support or that should otherwise be able to argue that they shouldn’t be responsible for a woman’s choice to keep a child, having been impregnated by that man…well, fuck those cowards.

Yeah, I said it. Fellas, you need to rise up, and realize that ANY time you have sex with a woman (for you idiots, that means any time you “hit it” or “get knee deep” or “wax that ass like Rain Dance” etc, etc, etc) you stand the chance of becoming a father. “I’m on the pill” is a matter of trust, and it’s still not 100%. Just as if you, looking to “get a little” suggested you knew what you were doing in not impregnating a woman, yet did so because she trusted your well-tested “pull-out” method.

Let me bottom line it…any time YOU put yourself in a situation where your penis is inside a woman, having sex, you stand the chance of her becoming pregnant, and you needing to be a father if she chooses to carry said pregnancy to term.

Dude, you aren’t pregnant. She is. You don’t have to do shit otherwise, unless a court (or your conscience) says so. She’s got all the issues, problems, bills, her future and the future of that child…you just have a few minutes of “downtime” for Mr. Happy.

Okay, okay… so you think that you “got tricked” by her. Tricked into what? Helping create a child you don’t care about? Yeah, bro…that’s her goal. She doesn’t care about that kid. She doesn’t think about that kid not having his/her daddy around. I mean, that’s a mother’s natural tendency, right? Ohhhhh…wait…I forgot. You got tricked because she wanted you to marry her…be there forever. Right. Considering the average woman would want to trick a man into being her husband. Since “tricking” a man into being a father is such a fine way to create a family, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, but puh-lease…to create a movement out of it is just…just…bullshit.

I’ve seen a great number of single moms. I’d never suspect ANY of them to want to somehow create a need for the “father” to be present. The vast majority would rather have a happy relationship with the dad, but wouldn’t force some deadbeat dumbass, not wanting to be responsible, to be an influence on her son (or daughter).

I look forward to the flames I’ll get from my fellow “men” on this, but I’ll stand by this. If you don’t want to be responsible, keep your manhood in check, and your zipper tight.

To the women that might read this...I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect. Sometimes folks just have to have it handed to them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=611066&mesg_id=611066

Perhaps you could explain to me what I think in terms other than bumper-stickerese.

Is equating the fight to end men having to pay child support with the struggle for abortion rights. And that is beyond ludicrous. You brought up the term "choice", which I'm assuming you meant the choice to have an abortion. You brought up "responsibility" which I assume you mean having to pay child support, given the subject of the whole thread. You seem to be making the same argument the "Men's Roe V Wade" proponents are making. If women have "choice", then why can't men? It's not fair that they have responsibility, but women don't". My response to that is what I say to you. The two issues aren't the same. One is about financial obligation. One is about privacy over one's own body. You simply cannot equate the two.

Roe V Wade was the legal mechanism which guarantees women access to one avenue in preventing a bigger injustice; compulsory parenthood.

We, as a society, consider it wrong to compel women to become mothers against their will. To that end, medicine has developed many birth control devices and drugs. If, for whatever reason, an unwanted pregnancy still occurs, a woman can have an abortion. If she chooses not to have an abortion, she can always place the child for adoption. This is as it should be - but they are all in service of one overriding social value - involuntary parenthood is wrong.

Family law is built around the opposite idea. That parenthood is a financial transaction and that non-custodial parents have only a financial obligation to the children who were brought into the world without their choice.

By reducing the issue to one of money, society thus has its cake whilst eating it. We can compel people to become parents often against their will (and sometimes without their knowledge) and simultaneously ridicule them for grumbling about paying "their" bills.

It's not just about medicine.

Ask any coal miner why they spend 40 hours a week in caves. Ask any alaska fisherman why they spend 8 weeks in the Bering sea. Money is what working people trade the hours of their lives for, and often their life itself.

Not about compelling anyone to be parents. The whole issue wasn't women shouldn't be compelled to become a parent. The issue was and still is that women have the same right to privacy over their own bodies as anyone else, and that privacy extends to deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy. People who are compelled to meet their financial obligation toward their offspring aren't being compelled to be parents any more than compelling me to pay my taxes for the local school compels me to be an educator.

The issue wasn't reduced to money. It's a fact of life that raising a child costs money. There's no point to pretending that's not true, and pretending it's not true will only create more children living in poverty. No reduction needed to come to that conclusion. Society has deemed this an obligation because the alternative is more poor children, and that negatively impacts all of society, in the same way that allowing people out of their financial obligation to provide money for the local schools would negatively impact those schools, and society. If anyone is doing any reduction, it's those who view child support as a punitive measure that forces a person to be a parent.

Their body has to work 18 years to pay support, then there is stress as well. If you don't pay, you go to jail - which affects your body and life as well.

It affects my body. I have a right to privacy regarding my body. If women have a choice to have an abortion because their body is private, then I have a right not to pay my taxes. So, if I have to pay my taxes, then women should have their right to have abortion taken away, too, because they shouldn't have choice if I don't. Hell, as long as I have to part with any money at all, my bodily rights are being violated. Therefore, as long as abortion is legal, everyone has to give me everything for free. :crazy:

Now do you see why you can't equate the two? Enforcing a financial obligation is not nearly the same as enforcing a decision about one's physical body. Not even the same.

Are you just ticked that women have the option of an abortion? The woman typically has no "choice" of being responsible financially for the baby, what are you talking about?

Seriously people, if you are having sex with someone you do not want to have a child with...use a condom EVERY FUCKING TIME. The pill is not 100 percent. No method is 100 percent. Hell, I know someone who was born AFTER her mom had her tubes tied. Same for someone who got his wife pregnant after his vasectomay. Not to mention there's all those nasty venereal diseases that only a condom can reduce the spread of. This man was an idiot. So was the woman (just because she thought she couldn't get pregnant was no reason for her to engage in unprotected sex.)

It bears repeating...unless you are having sex with someone you want to have a child with, use a condom every time (and preferably in tandem with another backup method of birth control).

in her life or her child's . . .

Where women can support a child on their own --- that's where they seem to be going --

You cannot just go around spreading your seamen (sic) w/out consequence!

I agree with the court's decision.

Guys, I'm on your side - you need birth control!

If there is any doubt whether she's anti-choice, wear a condom.

Would agree with those who are against other progressive ideals that most of us here at DU support? Because the argument the RvWM movement is making is really no different from those who fight against Universal or Single payer health care. "I didn't choose to smoke/overeat/not exercise, why should I have to pay their bills?" Or the Libertarians who say things like "Those people could have had abortions, but they chose to have kids, so why should I pay for their education? Get rid of the public school system!" Or the people who don't want the government to fund helping those who live in disaster prone areas. "They chose to live near the ocean!" Or the people who want to gut social safety nets like welfare. "They chose to have those kids when they couldn't afford them" Every single quote being followed by "Why should I have to pay?" Hey, why not even include the anti-tax movement nuts who say things like "Tax is theft!" "Why should I have to pay?" It's the same sort of argument. "She could have chose to have an abortion because she has the right!" "He could have chosen not to smoke!" "She could have chosen not to live in New Orleans!" "They decided to have kids when they couldn't afford them". "Why should I have to pay?"

Well, my answer to all of them is "Because you're obligated by society to pay" That is why I'm a progressive, right there. Remove the obligation for any single one of those gripers, and you pave the way for the rest of them to pout and stomp and whine their way into not having to pay either, because the same logic follows. And then we all have to deal with the consequences of that. You have to pay because the consequences to society if you don't are too great. Just like the people who don't want to pay for schools. Just like the people who don't want to pay for the services they use on a daily basis. Just like the people who don't want to pay to help storm victims. If you don't pay, the consequences to society are too great. It's why the Roe v Wade for Men movement is about as far from progressive and fair as you can possibly get. They're no different than any of the other groups who want to finagle their way out of having to pay their obligations to society.