Roe V. Wade - For Men

[Cooper]

A couple of disclaimers:

I apologize if this has already been posted. I searched and found nothing but I honestly didn't search that hard.

I also haven't read the South Dakota thread so if this is mentioned in there I apologize.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pmupdate/s_431235.html

I'm kind of torn. On one hand, I think if your going to have sex you should be prepared to deal with the consequences and the man should certainly have to pay support. Afterall, he helped create the baby. However, a man has no rights over his child until it comes out of that stomach and until then the mother can kill/abort/terminate/whatever you prefer the baby and the father has no say. If she didn't want the baby why did she open her legs to a man who wouldn't support her? Of course, not everything is so black and white but it makes for a good starting point of a discussion.

So, what do you guys think?

 

[OvA]

I think we should have an orgy.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It is sensible to end the payments in a continent where contraception is readily avaliable.

I think this could seriously increase the amount of condom use in the US, lowering the rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies and *gasp* abortions.

If you don't use contaception in casual sex, you are an idiot, and you do not deserve a safety net this large.

 

[Max35]

If you don't use contaception in casual sex, you are an idiot, and you do not deserve a safety net this large.

That is true. Although the real challenge is eliminating stupidity from every gene pool in existance, so this is no longer a problem.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

No. It is his responsibility. Efforts by father's rights group should be fighting for the right for father's custody/visitation rights after divorce, not this Zero-Responsibility bullshit.

 

[Kangy]

Yeah, they've really picked the wrong battle to fight in my opinion. As they say, it takes two to tango, so neither can reasonably say "this isn't my responsibility". You had sex. She got pregnant. You help out unless she says you don't. End.of.story.

 

[Gray Fox]

They should try it, if it works, great for men. If it doesn't and put's to much strain on society then simply reverse.

 

[gick]

Yeah, they've really picked the wrong battle to fight in my opinion. As they say, it takes two to tango, so neither can reasonably say "this isn't my responsibility". You had sex. She got pregnant. You help out unless she says you don't. End.of.story.

Exactly. And FFS, its your child. If you dont have any feelings of responsibility towards him/her then, you must have something seriously wrong with you.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well the woman could simply say "no" or "use a condom" if she wants to have sex with someone who she doesn't want to be a father.
She could take the pill etc. etc.

However, there are cases where the father walks out on the woman after both consent to parenthood. In those cases, child support is warranted.

 

[NotATool]

It is sensible to end the payments in a continent where contraception is readily avaliable.

I think this could seriously increase the amount of condom use in the US, lowering the rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies and *gasp* abortions.

If you don't use contaception in casual sex, you are an idiot, and you do not deserve a safety net this large.

I'm going to disagree with you on this.

I think all this will do for most men is make them care less, since they can easily get out of it. If it weren't for child support, why would a guy be concerned at all over a baby he had with an ex girlfriend? The mother would be left to abort it, or to laboriously raise a child by herself.

People who don't use contraception aren't necessary idiots, but are simply uneducated. There's only a 1/8 chance of getting pregnant. If a girl has sex once and doesn't get pregnant, she might not fully realize the significance of the situation unless she is properly educated on the matter. In any case, even if they were idiots, it's not a reason for us not to caer for them.

When a woman aborts a child, she releives financial adversities for both the man and the woman, if a man decides to decline fatherhood, he puts all the pressure on the woman. I don't see the fairness in the situation.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well it might sound harsh, but those are reasons for better sex ed classes, and not for child support.

 

[DreamThrall]

No. It is his responsibility. Efforts by father's rights group should be fighting for the right for father's custody/visitation rights after divorce, not this Zero-Responsibility bullshit.

Agreed. I have several male friends and aquantances who are either divorced with a child or had a child with a girlfriend and didn't realize until after the fact that the mother is a lunatic. Since they aren't legally doing anything wrong (like abusing or neglecting the child), they get custody - or at least that's the way the laws work in louisiana.

 

[NotATool]

Well it might sound harsh, but those are reasons for better sex ed classes, and not for child support.

I'm all for sex ed, but meanwhile, I think making financial responsibility a choice rather than a law will just make things worst.

 

[CptStern]

this proposed law is completely stupid ..take canada for example: one in 6 children live below the poverty line. 84% of single parents are women ..42% of those live below the poverty line. that means that potentially 42% of all single mothers will drop a few notches further to well below the poverty line


http://www.cbc.ca/paidtobepoor/singleparents.html

 

[VictimOfScience]

I can kind of see what they are saying, but even so you can't really make any sort of comparison between abortion for women and opting out of financial responsibility for men. Its fine to get discussion going, but this is a pretty crummy way to get it going IMO.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

this proposed law is completely stupid [...] 84% of single parents are women http://www.cbc.ca/paidtobepoor/singleparents.html

From the link:

"In fact, 84.9 per cent of single parent families in the 1991 census were women, probably because mothers tend to gain custody of children after a divorce or separation."

My argument is that a female parent who becomes a parent consentually deserves support, which most of those 84.9% of families would, as they were married.

In the cases of unmarried pregnancies that didn't have the father's consent, child support is not deserved.

 

[CptStern]

the law provides both parents with equal custody ..however it doesn mean a man cant waive his right to custody or that custody cant be contested ..in the overwhelming majority of cases judges award custody to the mother ..but that's only in the case where it is in dispute.