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

"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.

"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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.