The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/189321.html
The right to abandon your child Mar 10, 2006 by Mona Charen This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay $500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men -- is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM website: - More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. - The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth. But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive freedom." Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he wants to raise the baby himself). The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18 years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the matriarchy?) But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo one another in selfishness. The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same. Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and explain that it's nothing personal. |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
I think that they are trying to make a point. And that point is not
lost on men, believe me. I think it is more than fair that if a woman unilaterally decides to keep a child against the objections of the would-be father, then she has the right to do so - but not at his expense. My wallet, my choice. One could always turn the tables in a different way, which would be an interesting twist: If a woman insists on giving birth against the mans wishes, then take the baby from her at birth and give full custody to the father, then make the woman pay 18 years of child support to the father - or up to 25 years is the child goes to college or university. And make sure you impose ALL the same penalties on women for non-payment of child support that are currently imposed upon men. Give it 10 years or so and then see how women feel about the situation. THAT would be equality. It is just that it is too bad that things always have to come down to the "lowest common denominator". We cannot agree on how to treat people fairly, so the compromise is make sure everyone gets screwed equally. What a joke. On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:03:40 -0500, "Dusty" wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/189321.html The right to abandon your child Mar 10, 2006 by Mona Charen This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay $500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men -- is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM website: - More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. - The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth. But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive freedom." Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he wants to raise the baby himself). The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18 years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the matriarchy?) But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo one another in selfishness. The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same. Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and explain that it's nothing personal. |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
As I said before, what we can expect to see from conservative media darlings on this issue is that they will use it as a tool to attack feminists while pooh-poohing the idea itself. C4M is not my battle -- I'm more interested in seeing some sort of equality and decent treatment for divorced men who are willing to roll up their sleeves and be fathers to their kids -- but it is interesting to see how quickly cons will dump men's rights activists with terms like "whining" and "deadbeats". This doesn't just happen with issues like C4M, either. They dress themselves up like our friends but only to use us like tools. - Ron ^*^ Dusty wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...10/189321.html The right to abandon your child Mar 10, 2006 by Mona Charen This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay $500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men -- is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM website: - More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy. - The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth. But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive freedom." Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he wants to raise the baby himself). The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18 years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the matriarchy?) But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo one another in selfishness. The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same. Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and explain that it's nothing personal. |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic
adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything. I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives. Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things
will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the paternity of the child! :) We can only hope. On 10 Mar 2006 13:38:57 -0800, "tonita" wrote: What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything. I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives. Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
tonita wrote:
What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything. I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives. Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women Where you can still find them today, you mean. |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
tonita wrote:
What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the consequences. But that's pretty prevalent today, with this generation. Are you really THAT surprised? Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything. I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives. Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"NewMan" wrote in message ... Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the paternity of the child! :) I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were on the pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100% effective, even when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are medications that interfere with the pill - for instance, some antibiotics can render it ineffective or less effective. Third, the mother could get sick - get a bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for instance - if she can't digest it, it is much the same as if she hadn't taken it - a few days of the flu at the wrong time could leave you fertile. On 10 Mar 2006 13:38:57 -0800, "tonita" wrote: What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything. I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives. Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
"tonita" wrote in message ps.com... What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything. I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives. Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women I don't disagree with you about going back to dating without sex being involved. That would solve a number of societal problems. I also don't disagree with you about having some thought for the child produced from an unintended pregnancy. However, today's child support system in no way guarantees that the child is considered. It only seeks to transfer money from one bio parent to the other. Usually from the father to the mother. Children deserve 2 parents involved in their daily lives and committed to their welfare. The current child support system does not do that. I don't blame men for being upset about being roped into paying 18+ years of child support, while the mother is not forced to pay a penny. I don't blame men for being upset that a child they fathered is aborted without their permission. I think that bringing the "consequences" of an unintended child into some balance for both parents would put women into the position of taking more thought for what they are doing, rather than expecting the man to bear the burden of the costs. |
The right to abandon your child (aka - Roe v. Wade for Men)
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:05:53 -0500, "Joy"
wrote: "NewMan" wrote in message .. . Well perhaps with the advent of the birth control pill for men things will change too! If men have the option to take "the pill", and no women could "trick him" and get pregnant. Further, if a woman DID get pregnant while he was on the pill, he would immediately challenge the paternity of the child! :) I know several children who were conceived while their mothers were on the pill. Think about it - first of all, the pill isn't 100% effective, even when used absolutely correctly. Second, there are medications that interfere with the pill - for instance, some antibiotics can render it ineffective or less effective. Third, the mother could get sick - get a bout of the stomach/intestinal flu, for instance - if she can't digest it, it is much the same as if she hadn't taken it - a few days of the flu at the wrong time could leave you fertile. Ummmm, how typical. Did you read what I said??? I was talking about the new birth control pilll that MEN TAKE. It is, IIRC, still in trials. AFAIK, the possible side effects have not yet been determined. And I appreciate that it could well be the case where other medications could cause an interaction and reduce the effectiveness. However, unlike a woman's cycle where only one egg is released, and you are not exactly sure when, men's ejaculate can be examined on a regular basis to determine the effectiveness of the male birth control pill. Therefore a prudent doctor and man would have the ejeculate tested regularly to ensure effectiveness. As I said, the advent of such a pill on the market, and documented effectiveness with scientific tests would certainly torpedo a lot of false paternity claims. I am sure such a possibility has governments and femminists turning in their graves. :) On 10 Mar 2006 13:38:57 -0800, "tonita" wrote: What everyone forgets is the child. It's all about the two idiotic adults who want to have sex as recreation without any regard for the consequences. Don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to become a parent with. Why doesn't everyone just start dating again? I mean real dating, not sexual olympics. This situation is what the feminists have pushed for isn't it? They don't need men for anything. I say to all of those sexually active adults - get fixed, have sex all you want. Don't bring an innocent child into your messed up lives. Leave the child rearing to *real* men and women |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com