Roe v Wade for Men?? What do you think?

Question

Found this online. It's nearly a year old but it still caused quite a stir. You're thoughts?

"The state of Michigan had forced Dubay to pay support for a child he never intended to bring into the world. Dubay had insisted that the child’s mother assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, that she knew he did not want to have a child with her."

http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page10.shtml

What do you think? Should he pay child support even though he made it clear to the mother beforehand he did not want one? And according to him, the mother told him she couldn't get pregnant.

Answer 1

Look, if you don't want children with random strangers, don't have s*x with them.

Once there is a child in the picture, both parents have a moral and ethical obligation to support it.

Edit: There is an answer above me that describes a man hypothetically "stealing" a woman's egg without her consent, using it to make a baby, and then suing the "egg donor" for child support. That is a well thought out argument. It is also the product of flawed logic. If a man has s*x with a woman without a condom, he is voluntarily giving up his sperm while full well knowing what the consequences could be. In the "egg stealing" scenario, the woman is not giving the man her egg, he is taking it without her knowledge or consent.

Answer 2

Men should not be forced to pay child support unless they want a relationship with the child, or unless proof of a marriage or long-term relationship between parents can be established. That is the fairest solution.

Answer 3

It's a fine line, and any law would be difficult in its application.....

but in my opinion, if the woman somehow tricked the man, or lied about her ability to conceive, the man shouldn't have to pay.  

Now if she beleived she could not have children, and told him that, and she got pregnant anyways, then it is his responsibility to help with the child, whether he wanted it or not.

Answer 4

No he should not.

Its call cheating on part of the partner and most probably entrapment in the hope of getting material gain.

A woman gives birth but a man sires the child, its equal rights or no play! And what the h**l will be the life of that unwanted child?

P.S. To Dame sans, has she gone off the logic or its always like this?   "when he didn't wear a condom, he gave up his right of conception"  How about she gave up the right too, when she spread it?

Answer 5

It's too limited to look at this as an issue between the man and the woman.  Once the child is born, it has needs, and the courts have consistently found that both parents are responsible to address them.  If you were a child living in poverty, and your mom said your dad wouldn't help because he never wanted you, would that make you feel better?  Would you doom the child to poverty?  Make the taxpayers take care of him?

Roe vs Wade established a woman's right to control her own body.  You're suggesting that men should have the right to control, not their own body, but someone else's.

Answer 6

Men always tell me they are disease free, but I STILL make them wear a condom.  

Forethought prevents after-regret.

I do not see the legal basis.  By ejaculating without a condom, he voluntarily gave away his reproductive rights.  This is NOT the issue "Roe v.Wade" addressed.  I've read it.  It addressed the right to privacy for a medical procedure.

That in mind, you are saying that you are willing to pay extra tax dollars out of your own pocket to support another man's children.  This is the state filing suit, not the women.  Also, how many times are you going to let a man make b******s and not pay for them.  I had a neighbor one time (in a rent house) who had four illegitimate children that he did not support.  If the man doesn't pay child support, the taxpayer takes the burden.  Will you also agree then for the women to get tax help to have an abortion?  Why support taxes to help the man, when you do not support taxes to help the women avoid the expense.

Answer 7

First of all he gets his story confused I think.  He said in an interview with abc (link provided below) that she couldn't get pregnant and then later said she also was on birth control.  Shouldn't that draw a red flag?  Why would a sterile women worry about birth control? So you know they were dating and they broke up.  No where have I seen her say that she told him she couldn't have kids, so that is heresay.  As for him saying he didn't want kids; well I don't want a car accident so does that mean that I get out of paying for one if I am in it?

Of course this is a good article (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellm... the author Steve is completely on Dubay's side of course his theory would take rights away from all men for their children as he clearly states that Mr. Dubay shouldn't pay child support because "For years, we have been taught that Americans don't understand science, and Ms. Gandy is demonstrating that ignorance in spades. s*x does not create children. Gestation does. Only women gestate. Thus, only women create children. Thus, only women have responsibilities towards children." He maybe attempting to use pro-choice words against women but he then opens a door to remove all mens rights from their children just to save a few men from financially supporting those that are brought into the world. (hmmm might give a women ideas!).

I say use these words against them... Give the men what they want!  They don't want to pay for the chidren they don't have to.  They didn't create them right?  They don't gestate them.  We do... So they are not their kids; right?  Give them the women's last name and no connection to these dead beats.  I think Dubay may change his tone when he sees his little girl (who is already in the world) growing up.  

Or maybe there should be an I don't want to be a father registry.  That would be an interesting one night stand/ even first date conversation.  "Are you registered as not wanting kids?" and then "Do you ever plan on removing your name?".  That is a great idea... Women would really stop having s*x with men unless they got all the information upfront... To make it equal though we should have a I don't want to be a parent registry for both sexes... More interesting conversation and a lot less confussion.  What do you say?  Are you with me?

Answer 8

I think he should quit whining. Lots of women think they can't get pregnant, and are told they can't get pregnant, and do. I have TWO friends who got pregnant on the pill...it happened to one of them twice. There have been cases of pregnancies after tubal ligations and vasectomies.

You have s*x, there is always the possibility that there will be a baby.

Answer 9

No I don't think he should have to.

Women are entitled to 'sexual freedom' so should men be.

He didn't believe pregnancy was possible.

Neither did she apparently.

They both may have agreed to s*x with out a condom. (otherwise this is rape).

They both have responsibilities. She is an independent adult. She chose to carry the child to term. The argument that financial support is needed from 2 people is based on a time when only one could be considered financially independent. That isn't true any more - hard for one parent yes, but still she is capable. He made it clear from the out set. Why should she be treated as not an independent financial authority in her life now on this instance? Why should he not be allowed a male equivalent of abortion?

The arguements against are based on out dated models on society. Either revert society back or carry on with the moment that has carried desire for greater equality.

- in the instance of eggs and sperm - yes its a good point designed to try and show others how exactly that works - the flaw is he had to take the eggs.  However if viewed from the perspective that the two people who engaged in s*x, put themselves in a postion of creating a fetus/child - then she is bound in contractual fashion to be at risk of that, he is simply taking action to further ensure it. (however vulgar in a hypothetical stuation that may be - however vulgar it may be when the shoe is on who evers foot, the disgust felt by those at that example is fine evidence of how they would feel if it were done by them, the point made by they argue the flaw rather than accept the communication).

Answer 10

I think he needs to support his child.  Having said that, I'm not a supporter of abortion either, so I think that about women too.  I do think it's a little hypocritical (a lot, actually) to say a woman can get out of parenting but men can't.

Answer 11

More proof of female double standards. It also proves that women can, do and will lie about anything to get what they want. Amazingly, the courts actually believe this nonsense. Biased.

No, he shouldn't give that ***** one cent.

Answer 12

In this case: I'm generally suspicious of such emotive language. They ignored cases where women have been prosecuted for failing to provide for children (neglect) which is the equivalent. And when it said the woman assured him she couldn't get pregnant - she may have believed that. Many do. And no contraception is 100%.

There's a difference that needs to be addressed here: Roe vs Wade prevents a child from coming into existence despite conception. This prevents a child *in* existance from recieving full support.

They may be able to still do it: if the state is prepared to step in and pay the child support the man would have paid on top of normal child support. Because it is the child's rights that are important. And the child will *need* the finicial support. And the man will then have no rights to ever see his child, no visitation, no say in upbringing, just like a closed adoption. That would be a beneficial solution... if you could get it past the taxpayers...

Answer 13

So why didn't he wear a condom to prevent transmission of any STD's?  Ultimately he made the decision to go without one.  He believed her when she said she could not get pregnant (how well did they know each other?) and thereby "gave up his reproductive freedom."  Baloney.

You guys will have to do better than that.  There is no reason ever to eschew safe s*x, unless you're married and even then . . .

No sympathy.

Answer 14

I think this is more problematic then the current scenario suggests.  The problem is this in not the same.  Lets just assume that Dubay isn't lying (and the woman truly thought she couldn't get pregnant).  This would be an oops, both didn't take the proper precautions to protect against pregnancy because they didn't think it possible so each is liable.  Now, Dubay told the woman he didn't want kids...does this make him any less liable?  Assuming the pregnancy was an accident, should Dubay's wishes to not have children dictate to the woman to have an abortion?  This is a surgical procedure and Dubay doesn't have the right to dictate what she does with her body.  Simply, Dubay is at fault as well and can't get out of paying child support.  If he didn't want children with her he shouldn't have had unprotected s*x even with her assertions.

This isn't a double standard.  It simply is not the same.

Answer 15

She probably lied, women do that. So what did he tell her? "I love you and want to make beautiful babies with you and be together for ever and ever. What, no kids; what a shame. OK" Imagine being a judge and having to decide this c**p.  Either he's the father or not; end of story.

Answer 16

I'd 100% support paper abortion IF the legislation is practical.

By practical I mean a deadline for filing to terminate parental rights such as 24 weeks, so that any joe schmoe who decides he doesn't want to pay child support can't just abandon his responsiblities, registry's don't work so if he did not know of the pregnancy before the deadline, he'd have to prove that in court in retrospect.  Also that said termination is exactly that.... terminated PERMANENTLY, there are no second chances for women who have abortions, there should be none for men who terminate their parental rights.  That means no visitation, no NOTHING.  Budgeting concerns would also have to come into play, where is the support money supposed to come from? the state? if so, will we raise taxes? Budget from other public works areas? which ones?

Unfortunately on such a high charged issue, I doubt you'd ever get the kind of legislative support needed and that even then it would be a very complicated law to enact.

Answer 17

Of course not.  

Men shouldn't be forced to pay child support, they should however,  have the option of whether or not to pay child support.  Women can use abortion to opt out of parenthood, so it really is only fair that men should have the option that allow them to opt out also

Answer 18

I generally come down on the 'feminist' side of things, but many of the responses here are horrifically double-standardized.

With the right to an abortion, we recognize in this country that if a parent becomes involved in a pregnancy unwillingly, she should be able to opt out of it (provided, of course, that the decision is made quickly enough not to bring about serious ethical concerns).

If we believe this, which I do and I assume most of us here do, it should not depend on the gender of the parent - if I trick you into having a child, you shouldn't have to support it.

For women with double standards who are having trouble understanding this, imagine this situation: imagine a man with whom you are sexually active but not planning to have a child with is a skilled amateur gynecologist and is able to procure one of your eggs without your knowledge (don't ask me about the gross details of such a procedure; let's keep this in the hypothetical).  Suppose then that he manages, also without your knowledge, to acquire a surrogate mother to donate her womb and inseminates the egg with his own sperm, thus producing a child that's biologically yours without your knowledge or input.  Should he be able to sue you for child support?  

If not, let's try not to apply a double standard - I think that we can all agree that he shouldn't.  While it would be unethical to force him to "abort" the child, I think we can all agree that if he did this without your consent, you should not be required to participate in the raising of this child, and you did not "give away your reproductive rights" by being sexually active with him in the first place.

Answer 19

If they found out that the woman blatantly lied about it, she shouldn't pay for it, or at least not be forced too.

If there really is evidence that she was told by a medical exert with a proper analysis, he should pay.

The problem here is that it's actually kinda easy to just lie to him and them make him pay for the baby and have a free life :D.

If i where him i would have still used the pill/condom (actually, if i where him i would have waited until marriage :P)

But still, he should have used it, but since she said she could not get pregnant and the law does not enforce condoms, he should pay(if there was analysis) but not pay too much.

If there was no analysis, honestly it should be his choice.

Answer 20

Should he pay child support - yes.   Why should the child go without support from their male parent.....

She asserts she was on contraception that failed.   I would suggest people not have s*x with people they don't want to have children with- accidents happen.

Answer 21

He had no way of knowing if she was being truthful when she said she couldn't get pregnant, but he still chose not to use a condom.  

The child should not have to suffer for his carelessness.  

The little one's interests outrank his.

Answer 22

I am sorry, but you parked your "willie" in a nice warm place, exchange body fluids with her, now its time to pay for the fun. Both parties have to step up too THEIR responsibility.  Both of you need to think about the child, not he said, she said. END OF STORY.