If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Man: If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
updated 4:58 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 6, 2007
LANSING, Mich. - 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. U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Bay City disagreed, rejecting Dubay’s argument that Michigan’s paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause because it didn’t extend reproductive rights to men. The suit was prepared for Dubay by the National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, N.Y., which dubbed it “Roe v. Wade for Men.” The nickname drew objections from women’s rights organizations. State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society’s interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Dubay sued the Saginaw County prosecutor and Wells in March, contesting an order to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born to Wells in 2005. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal. So, there you have it. The Choice For Men is to practice no sex until marriage, or have sex and accept responsibility. -- Message posted via http://www.familykb.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message news:7af475cc9ea50@uwe... So, there you have it. The Choice For Men is to practice no sex until marriage, or have sex and accept responsibility. Now Clairol will have to change their men's haircoloring ad campaign. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
"Illiana via FamilyKB.com" u38194@uwe wrote in message news:7af475cc9ea50@uwe... updated 4:58 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 6, 2007 LANSING, Mich. - 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. If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman, he should have chosen to 1. use a condum 2. put his penis elsewhere U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Bay City disagreed, rejecting Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it didn't extend reproductive rights to men. The suit was prepared for Dubay by the National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, N.Y., which dubbed it "Roe v. Wade for Men." The nickname drew objections from women's rights organizations. State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Dubay sued the Saginaw County prosecutor and Wells in March, contesting an order to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born to Wells in 2005. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox intervened in the case and argued for its dismissal. So, there you have it. The Choice For Men is to practice no sex until marriage, or have sex and accept responsibility. -- Message posted via http://www.familykb.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
snip 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. If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman, he should have chosen to obvious advice snipped If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men, rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort. Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush to the Supreme Court (and later confirmed), was criticized ruling in favor of a spousal notification law in Pennsylvania. He was overruled, but polls show that both men and women, by large margins, support such laws http://people-press.org/commentary/pdf/122.pdf . I have 3 kids with my wife and won't be fathering any more, having been "fixed". If our marriage did dissolve, I would still feel responsible for my kids. I am not trying to rationalize past or future cases of abandonment on my part. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
In article . com, Beliavsky
says... On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote: snip 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. If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman, he should have chosen to obvious advice snipped If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men, rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort. A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a kidney to anyone, even an aunt. I *do* think the mother has a responsibility to her unborn child, just as the father does, and that removes much of the dilemma. The law disagrees with me (currently). But "choice for men" only helps out the guys who want to walk away. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a proposal - it only gets certain people off scott free. The woman has consequences to herself *whatever* she does. The father who wants to raise the child still loses. Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush to the Supreme Court (and later confirmed), was criticized ruling in favor of a spousal notification law in Pennsylvania. He was overruled, but polls show that both men and women, by large margins, support such laws http://people-press.org/commentary/pdf/122.pdf . I have 3 kids with my wife and won't be fathering any more, having been "fixed". If our marriage did dissolve, I would still feel responsible for my kids. I am not trying to rationalize past or future cases of abandonment on my part. Oh, it's clear you're a responsible person; that's been clear all along. Banty |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to denysupport-DAILOL
Beliavsky wrote:
On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote: snip 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. If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman, he should have chosen to obvious advice snipped If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men, rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort. Two wrongs don't make a right. Regardless of whether one likes the laws of the land or think they're fair, that doesn't absolve one of the responsibility one has to one's children. In fact, if one's position is that there should be no abortion, it is entirely inconsistent morally to frame an argument that one has no responsibility for the children because abortion is legal or because there isn't a spousal notification law. Best wishes, Ericka |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote:
In article . com, Beliavsky says... On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote: snip 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. If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman, he should have chosen to obvious advice snipped If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men, rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort. A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a kidney to anyone, even an aunt. Agreed. I *do* think the mother has a responsibility to her unborn child, just as the father does, and that removes much of the dilemma. The law disagrees with me (currently). But "choice for men" only helps out the guys who want to walk away. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a proposal - it only gets certain people off scott free. The woman has consequences to herself *whatever* she does. The father who wants to raise the child still loses. This contradicts your first point, which I agree with. A man earns his living with his body, therefore any taking of the fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to decide what is done with his body. That used to be called "slavery." snip -Tom Enright Banty |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
Tom Enright wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote: In article . com, Beliavsky says... On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote: snip 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. If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman, he should have chosen to obvious advice snipped If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men, rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort. A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a kidney to anyone, even an aunt. Agreed. I *do* think the mother has a responsibility to her unborn child, just as the father does, and that removes much of the dilemma. The law disagrees with me (currently). But "choice for men" only helps out the guys who want to walk away. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a proposal - it only gets certain people off scott free. The woman has consequences to herself *whatever* she does. The father who wants to raise the child still loses. This contradicts your first point, which I agree with. A man earns his living with his body, therefore any taking of the fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to decide what is done with his body. No - he decides what kind of work he does with his body, or hopefully with his brain. Deciding what to do with the money he earns by this work is not slavery. It would be slavery if someone told him what work to do. That used to be called "slavery." snip -Tom Enright Banty |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
In article .com, Tom Enright
says... On Nov 9, 9:17 am, Banty wrote: In article . com, Beliavsky says... On Nov 9, 8:00 am, "Stephanie" wrote: snip 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. If the man had any sense, and did not want to have children with this woman, he should have chosen to obvious advice snipped If you create a system where men don't have a say in the decision of whether their children will be aborted, and are not even required to be informed before their unborn children are killed, lots of men, rightly or wrongly, will feel that if they have no rights, they have no responsibilities either if the mother decides not to abort. A man, even the father of a child, should *not* have a say in what someone does to their own body. That's why. For example, I can't tell *you* to give a kidney to anyone, even an aunt. Agreed. I *do* think the mother has a responsibility to her unborn child, just as the father does, and that removes much of the dilemma. The law disagrees with me (currently). But "choice for men" only helps out the guys who want to walk away. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a proposal - it only gets certain people off scott free. The woman has consequences to herself *whatever* she does. The father who wants to raise the child still loses. This contradicts your first point, which I agree with. A man earns his living with his body, therefore any taking of the fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to decide what is done with his body. That used to be called "slavery." Oh phooey. He works to provide for a responsibility. Like most people. A responsibility he set himself up for by choices he made. Banty |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
If women have right to choose, men should have right to deny support-DAILOL
A man earns his living with his body, therefore any taking of the
fruits of his work is exploiting his body. He is denied the right to decide what is done with his body. That used to be called "slavery." Oh phooey. He works to provide for a responsibility. Like most people. A responsibility he set himself up for by choices he made. Banty Well said. In "The Nation," Katha Pollitt wrote in December of 1998: "Just as pregnancy is a risk of sex, people behaving badly is a risk of love. All the more reason for men to protect themselves (with better male birth control). How many women, after all, carry unplanned pregnancies to term because their boyfriends deceptively promise to marry them or otherwise support the child? It's the oldest story in the world! Most of those unwed mothers get no child support, and not much sympathy either. How far would a woman get in court if she charged theft of womb and demanded financial compensation?" She goes on to say that given how, for the last century, women have spent piles of out-of-pocket money they could ill afford, plus jail time (especially before 1970) and even risked death for the sake of better female BC, one has to ask why men's rights' groups aren't exactly loud or angry about the slow pace of the production of new methods of male BC. After all, the question is not whether a wife can trust her husband to use BC, but rather, can HE trust HER? Even the female pill, for those who don't know, has a real-life failure rate of 6% (that includes forgetfulness, of course). Here's one of the best pieces I've ever seen on the subject (from 2002): http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archive...ice-for-men-2/ Excerpts: "But their logic is shaky. According to Sacks and Thompson, 'On average, every day 17 [U.S. workers] die - 16 of them male. Couldn't men who work long hours or do hazardous jobs - and who suffer the concomitant physical ailments and injuries - argue that their bodies are on the line, too? Where is their choice?' "Well, unless they're independently wealthy, they have no choice but to work. But although the news doesn't seem to have reached Sacks and Thompson, nearly everyone in the US has to work. It's not as if unmarried fathers are forced to work while childless or married men (or women for that matter) spend their days drinking brandy by the fire. Sacks and Thompson say that for unmarried fathers to need to work is a injustice, because it violates 'my body, my choice' - but since when is it such a horrible violation of bodily integrity to have a job? And if it is a violation of bodily integrity for unmarried fathers, then why isn't it a violation for all other workers, as well?....... "Any genuine discussion of "fairness" has to consider what's best for all the parties involved - but Sacks and Thompson never consider anyone's rights but the father's. What about the other parties? "For instance, they propose giving fathers a right to cut and run - but they don't propose giving mothers the same right. So let's say I have a one-night stand and learn, eight months later, that the woman is pregnant with our child. Under Sacks and Thompson's proposal, I - as the man - would have the right to sign away all my obligations to the child. But what if I want to keep the child, which the mother wants to give it up for adoption? Well, under the laws of most states, I'd automatically get custody - and the mother would be obligated to pay me child support (although Sacks and Thompson seemingly think only men ever pay child support, the truth is noncustodial parents of both sexes pay). So men get to cut and run, but women don't. How is that fair? "My guess is that Sacks and Thompson would concede this point, and be willing to modify their proposal to give women and men equal rights to flee their obligations. But there's still an important party whose rights haven't been considered: what's fair to the child?......." Lenona. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How many women haters frequent alt.child support | Illiana via FamilyKB.com | Child Support | 19 | October 18th 07 06:13 PM |
Feminists Deny Truth on Domestic Violence | Dusty | Child Support | 14 | June 6th 06 04:58 PM |
alimony and women having to pay child support | Billie | Child Support | 6 | December 20th 04 04:05 AM |
CDC AIMS TO DENY OUTSIDE ACCESS TO VACCINE DATABASE. | john | Kids Health | 0 | August 20th 04 06:33 PM |
should mum be allowed to deny dad contact ? | ChrisScaife | General | 33 | November 21st 03 11:23 PM |