http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4789090.stm
US men fight child support laws.
Men's rights activists in the US are to argue in court that fathers do not have an obligation to pay money towards raising a child they did not want.
The National Center for Men is fighting the case on a behalf of a man who says his ex-girlfriend had his child after telling him she could not get pregnant.
Activists say men should have the same rights as women in dealing with the consequences of unintended pregnancy.
Women's and children's groups have criticised the planned legal challenge.
Leslie Sorkhe, of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, said a child "needs the emotional and financial support of both parents".
"The child is entitled to his or her equal protection under the law," the website of The Detroit News quotes her as saying.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly
Mel Feit
National Center for Men
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Matt Dubay, the man at the centre of the case, said he did not expect the court to rule in his favour.
"What I expect to hear is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he told the Associated Press news agency.
"Just to create awareness would be enough to at least get a debate started."
'Roe v Wade for men'
Mr Dubay says that his former girlfriend became pregnant with his child after assuring him she had a physical condition that prevented her from conceiving.
He says she went on have the baby, despite knowing that he did not want to have a child with her.
Mr Dubay says his constitutional rights are being violated
He now wants the court to free him from his obligation to pay $500 (£287) in child support every month.
The National Center for Men is filing a case on behalf of Mr Dubay at a court in the US city of Detroit.
The centre's director, Mel Feit, told the Associated Press news agency: "There's such a spectrum of choice that women have - it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions.
"I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly," he said.
The centre has dubbed the case "Roe v Wade for men" - after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that gave women the right to have abortions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What do you think ? Should men have the "right" to refuse to support their children on the basis they were not "intended" ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat kind of "assurances" did she give him that she would not be impregnated? It sounds like he doesn't have much of a chance in hell of winning his case which is probably a good thing.
...Mr Dubay says that his former girlfriend became pregnant with his child after assuring him she had a physical condition that prevented her from conceiving.
He says she went on have the baby, despite knowing that he did not want to have a child with her...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...What do you think ? Sh ...[text shortened]... have the "right" to refuse to support their children on the basis they were not "intended" ?
If it can be proven that the woman deceived the man into having a child with her then I suppose it could be argued that he should not have to pay child support. But how can such a thing be proven?
The nightly news tonight left off the part about her assuring him that she couldn't conceive. Really, that is a little on the pertinent side!
My main opinion is that we know what the leading cause of pregnancy is and how to prevent it. When to people choose to partake in that which leads to pregnancy, of their own free will, I believe they need to either take the steps to prevent pregnancy or not act surprised that it happens (unless the preventative measures failed, not being 100% effective). If a man doesn't want to be a father, he should take the steps necessary to prevent conception. If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, she should take the steps necessary to prevent conception.
That said, if the woman lies, she shouldn't get diddly squat. He should've done his part to prevent conception and was a fool to believe her, but he shouldn't have to pay child support. If mom chose to not prevent the pregnancy AND lied to the man so that he didn't think he needed to THINK!!!!!! and make good choices, then she chose to accept full responsibility for the child forever.
IMHO
of course
Originally posted by WulebgrIt is for precisely this reason that we are starting a paternity insurance company. You pay a nominal monthly fee, and if you knock up some poor girl we'll pay the child support. Everybody wins!
When things are wrong, we fix them by making them wrong another way. That's the basis of this particular "men's rights" agenda.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf he didn't want the child he shouldn't have stuck his wanger in the hole...he should be a man and pay child support....the decent thing to do...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4789090.stm
US men fight child support laws.
Men's rights activists in the US are to argue in court that fathers do not have an obligation to pay money towards raising a child they did not want.
The National Center for Men is fighting the case on a behalf of a man who says his ex-girlfriend had his child after t ...[text shortened]... se to support their children on the basis they were not "intended" ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo.
What do you think ? Should men have the "right" to refuse to support their children on the basis they were not "intended" ?
Rights cannot be considered in isolation without examining the effects they have on other people. That's like saying "I have the right to shoot a gun" without considering the rights of the individual who has to take the bullet.
In this case, the father's "right to refuse" has a grave implication on the child's right to life and support. So, such a "right to refuse" is untenable.
All of this could be more easily explained in terms of 'responsibility' or 'obligation' - but those terms are not very popular these days.
Originally posted by AmauroteAgreed. And they also should be fighting for a larger role in determining how the money they send gets spent.
The focus of this is all wrong. They should be concentrating on acquiring paternal rights and equality over residency orders (as F4J did to great effect) for the children they do have, not whining about having to take responsibility for their own seed.
Originally posted by WulebgrThat'll be the day. In today's court system, rule number one: the man is a dirtbag until proven otherwise. Rule number two: it is not possible to prove the man is not a dirtbag.
Agreed. And they also should be fighting for a larger role in determining how the money they send gets spent.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDivorce orders routinely grant the father a voice in "major decisions." The absence of consequences for ignoring this prescription is the problem--there are no "wages" to attach.
That'll be the day. In today's court system, rule number one: the man is a dirtbag until proven otherwise. Rule number two: it is not possible to prove the man is not a dirtbag.
Originally posted by chancremechanicWell isn't that precisely his point in the case???? Why isn't it thought of as "If she didn't want to raise a child herself then why did she let a guy who she knowingly did not want a child stick his wanger in her""?
If he didn't want the child he shouldn't have stuck his wanger in the hole...he should be a man and pay child support....the decent thing to do...
The days of the burning bra are now far gone, but the system is still biased genderly. It's a shame that all of the financial responsibility is placed on the male after the fact, and if he doesn't he's viewed as a dead beat while the female gets all of the sympathy.
I myself pay upwards of $600 / months. The mother doesn't work at all, and guess who the court appoints tax liability to? The poor female.........
Originally posted by whats good phaedrusI see your point about men getting the raw deal in child custody case, and I agree with you. His point was the "point" he used to deposit sperm into her vagina. As two adults not using contraceptives, they played the "wheel" and lost, or won depending on whom you ask, so now they both have to be equally responsible for the upbringing of this child. I sowed my oats when I was younger, and if I had happened to get a young lady pregnant, regardless if I wanted a child or not, I would have "stepped uo to the plate" and been man enough to be that child's father and financial supporter, but I was lucky...or was I?...there could be bastards from Virginia to California to England to Spain looking similar to me for all I know....no phone call is "good news", but if I did receive a phone call from someone claiming to be my son or daughter, I would be delighted and definitely form a relationship as a Father to that person...better late than never....so far, in my case, it is still never.....
Well isn't that precisely his point in the case???? Why isn't it thought of as "If she didn't want to raise a child herself then why did she let a guy who she knowingly did not want a child stick his wanger in her""?
The days of the burning bra are now far gone, but the system is still biased genderly. It's a shame that all of the financial ...[text shortened]... k at all, and guess who the court appoints tax liability to? The poor female.........
