Choice for Men FAQ

Q: What is "Choice for Men"?

A: Choice for Men is a proposal to improve the law so it protects men's
right to plan their families.


Q: Would Choice for Men force women to have abortions?

A: No.


Q: What exactly is Choice for Men?

A: Choice for Men would give men a recourse, remedy or relief from being
tricked or trapped into parenthood, perhaps by allowing them to relinquish
their parental rights and responsibilities, like in an adoption, via
financial compensation or by forcing an actual adoption. Some proposals
would limit the time during which the choice can be made, make the choice
irrevocable, only apply when men are lied to about birth control or when
boys are statutorially raped. One proposal even allows women to relinquish
their parental rights and responsibilities. Choice for Men isn't a medical
procedure.


Q: How many men are tricked or trapped into parenthood?

A: No one knows the exact number, but we can estimate from the following
statistics:

* Preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be unintended
according to fathers[0].

* Paternities are established in U.S. courts at the rate of one or two
per minute.


Q: Isn't Choice for Men simply a way for men to get out of paying child
support?

A: No, it's more. Choice for Men is about fairness and family planning.


Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by just using condoms?

A: Proponents of legalizing choice for men generally support
contraception, but keep in mind that condoms are unreliable. They have a
16% annual failure rate [1]. After just four years you can bet on having
an accidental pregnancy and after 20 years of using condoms, the chances
are that a man will most likely experience not one, not two, but three
accidental pregnancies!


Q: Can't men avoid paying child support by not consenting to sex?

A: Many people are surprised to learn that men can't legally avoid
parenthood by not consenting to sex. It's true! Here's a quote from a court
case in Kansas:

"The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
and for support of a minor child born of such activity." [3]

Similar cases have happened in other states.


Q: Aren't all children entitled to support from both parents?

A: No. A common exception is single parent adoptions, which are fully legal
and looked upon favorably by the various social service agencies.


Q: Wouldn't Choice for Men impoverish children?

A: It's not yet clear whether legalizing choice for men would affect how
many fathers choose to be absent. The simple reason is that the current
paternity laws reward women with child support for forcing men into
fatherhood and may well result in more absent fathers. Even if legalizing
choice for men did result in more single parent families, adoption and
sperm donorship are already legal for single parents and looked upon
favorably by various social service agencies. One can also show that the
economic benefits of a second parent's income don't rise to the level of a
"compelling state interest" which justifies the state forcing men into
legal parenthood. [4]


Q: Where can I find out more about Choice for Men?

A: 1. Email list servers dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men
(www.choiceformen.com/list_servers.html)
2. www.choiceformen.com
3. National Center for Men. Call (503) 224-9477
4. Men's Rights Inc. Call (916) 484-7333


References

0 - Abma, Joyce and Linda Piccinino, 1994 "Unintended Births: Women's
Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990", paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
August 3, 1994, Los Angeles, CA. NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD
20782, (301) 436-8731

1 - Facts in Brief, Contraceptive Use, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York
City, New York, (212) 248-1111.

2 - Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

3 - State of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen Hermesmann, Appellee, v. Shane Seyer,
a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.

4 - See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct. 1011,
1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.

I agree with the idea in principle... However the praticle aplications
of this idea are far different.. as there is a nuetral 3rd party that
has come into play... the Child.

You can say all the legal arguments you want here... and Yes
Accidents happen.. I am a classic Example of this.. However it's not my
Sons Fault that he was created.. so I will live up to my Obligations as
a parent..

I do agree with the idea that Men should have more control over their
lives... and the idea of men having Unconsenting Sex is hard to phathom
for most people.. as if the guy didn't really want to have Sex the
physical aspects would not be able to happen in order to deposit the
sperm into the Women...

The argument of Oops.. I tripped on a Log.. and presto I ended up
having Sex.. doesn't seem to fly to well.. Law of Nature pretty much
dictates 99% of the time that in order for a Man to have Sex.. and
release Sperm into a women... they have to first be erect.

I do agree full hearted with the idea for the most part Fathers get
pushed through the Coals.. but maybe we as men should simply use the
same term as they use for Drugs.. Just Say No...

If you Don't have Sex. I'm willing to bet you don't get a girl
Pregnant... Pretty simply logic to me... and guess what the entire
problem with having to deal with a child goes away... end of Story...

I may sound a little Simple.. but the Argument you in all your Legal
Mumble Jumble essentially is trying to say that Men need to have Sex...
And therefore we shouldn't be held accountable to our actions.

The same argument can be held that if I drink and drive.. and end up
killing somone... well it's not totally my fault... the Alchol impaired
my judgment... and then that Pesky Meridian on the road failed to stop
me as I drove over it... And well it's not my fault that the person
died as a result.

SpiderHam77

SpiderHam77 wrote:

The same argument can be held that if I drink and drive.. and end up
killing somone... well it's not totally my fault... the Alchol impaired
my judgment... and then that Pesky Meridian on the road failed to stop
me as I drove over it... And well it's not my fault that the person
died as a result.

...................yes, and what's the point?

What the original poster was referring to vis a vis males "consenting to
sex" is a case in Kansas where a woman over 18 commited a statutory rape on
a boy of 12 or 13.

The woman was convicted and sent to prison. The boy, at the age of 14, was
brought to court for child support. That is when the judge, in his infinite
wisdom, said: "The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal
statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
and for support of a minor child born of such activity."

Does that put things in a new light for you?


"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree with the idea in principle... However the praticle aplications
of this idea are far different.. as there is a nuetral 3rd party that
has come into play... the Child.

You can say all the legal arguments you want here... and Yes
Accidents happen.. I am a classic Example of this.. However it's not my
Sons Fault that he was created.. so I will live up to my Obligations as
a parent..

I do agree with the idea that Men should have more control over their
lives... and the idea of men having Unconsenting Sex is hard to phathom
for most people.. as if the guy didn't really want to have Sex the
physical aspects would not be able to happen in order to deposit the
sperm into the Women...

The argument of Oops.. I tripped on a Log.. and presto I ended up
having Sex.. doesn't seem to fly to well.. Law of Nature pretty much
dictates 99% of the time that in order for a Man to have Sex.. and
release Sperm into a women... they have to first be erect.

I do agree full hearted with the idea for the most part Fathers get
pushed through the Coals.. but maybe we as men should simply use the
same term as they use for Drugs.. Just Say No...

If you Don't have Sex. I'm willing to bet you don't get a girl
Pregnant... Pretty simply logic to me... and guess what the entire
problem with having to deal with a child goes away... end of Story...

I may sound a little Simple.. but the Argument you in all your Legal
Mumble Jumble essentially is trying to say that Men need to have Sex...
And therefore we shouldn't be held accountable to our actions.

The same argument can be held that if I drink and drive.. and end up
killing somone... well it's not totally my fault... the Alchol impaired
my judgment... and then that Pesky Meridian on the road failed to stop
me as I drove over it... And well it's not my fault that the person
died as a result.

SpiderHam77

Well that clarifies the whole Consensual Sex.. Cause as a Guy.. I
remember being a teenager.. and well not wanting to have Sex is sorta
out of the Picture...

But that still does not apply to the Vast Majority of cases out
there. I don't see alot of Cases of Statutory Rape Cases out there
involving Boys.. I'm sure they Exsist... but not enough to really
consider this a Normal Occurance in society to really use it as an
Argument.

To me.. and maybe this is the Dumbness in me coming out here.. but I
tend to follow Logic... And well the idea of a Normal Grown Man.
Someone 18 or above.. let me clarify that. Not being able to turn to a
Woman and say.. No I don't want to have Sex with you. Just doesn't fly.

Well I know me.. and if I don't want to have Sex with someone, I aint
gettin Hard, nor producing the Sperm in which to ejuclate even.

Sorry if thats a little to Crude.. but to me it's Simple Logic. I
still can't see how an Adult Male, unless under somekind of Mind
Altering Drug, or Brain Washed to an Extreme point cannot turn to a
Woman and Say Back off and find some other guy to Jiggy With it. Or
whatever Venecular you wish to put in there..

SpiderHam77

SpiderHam77 wrote:
The same argument can be held that if I drink and drive.. and end up
killing somone... well it's not totally my fault... the Alchol impaired
my judgment... and then that Pesky Meridian on the road failed to stop
me as I drove over it... And well it's not my fault that the person
died as a result.


...................yes, and what's the point?

The Point... Well I thought that would be Simple. You cannot use
your own Stupidiy as a Defence.

If you don't understand that having Sex will eventually create
Children, then either you need to re-attend Highschool and take Bio
again, or read Closely.

IF YOU HAVE SEX BE PREPARED THAT A CHILD MAY BE CREADTED AS A RESULT.


Hope that clarifies a bit.

I too like to think that I am a logical thinker, that is why I find it
illogical in the extreme to make the victim of a crime the further victim of
a civil action. Had the rapist been a robber, the boy would have had his
property or money returned, and the story would end there.

In the illogical world of child support, even men that are demonstrably NOT
the father of a particular child are forced to pay child support.

It seems to me that part of the problem is the verbiage used to frame the
discussion; men "get" girls pregnant. That implies that it's the fault of
the man, that somehow the female responsibility in the equation is nil.

This story perfectly illustrates, to me at least, how lopsided the system
is:
Gerardo Flores, 19, was convicted of murder in June in
Lufkin, Texas, in the death of the 5-month-old fetus
of his girlfriend, Erica Basoria. Flores admitted that
he had stood on Basoria's stomach several times at her
request to induce a miscarriage, but Basoria had told
authorities that she had also punched herself in the
stomach several times. Under Texas law, killing a
fetus is a capital offense, and so Flores
automatically received a life sentence, but Basoria
could not be charged because of her constitutional
right to abortion. [Washington Post-AP, 6-6-05]

Where's the logic in that?

The conclusion to be drawn is that WOMEN HAVE CHOICES, MEN HAVE
RESPONSIBILITIES.



"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
Well that clarifies the whole Consensual Sex.. Cause as a Guy.. I
remember being a teenager.. and well not wanting to have Sex is sorta
out of the Picture...

But that still does not apply to the Vast Majority of cases out
there. I don't see alot of Cases of Statutory Rape Cases out there
involving Boys.. I'm sure they Exsist... but not enough to really
consider this a Normal Occurance in society to really use it as an
Argument.

To me.. and maybe this is the Dumbness in me coming out here.. but I
tend to follow Logic... And well the idea of a Normal Grown Man.
Someone 18 or above.. let me clarify that. Not being able to turn to a
Woman and say.. No I don't want to have Sex with you. Just doesn't fly.

Well I know me.. and if I don't want to have Sex with someone, I aint
gettin Hard, nor producing the Sperm in which to ejuclate even.

Sorry if thats a little to Crude.. but to me it's Simple Logic. I
still can't see how an Adult Male, unless under somekind of Mind
Altering Drug, or Brain Washed to an Extreme point cannot turn to a
Woman and Say Back off and find some other guy to Jiggy With it. Or
whatever Venecular you wish to put in there..

SpiderHam77

This story perfectly illustrates, to me at least, how lopsided the
system
is:
Gerardo Flores, 19, was convicted of murder in June in
Lufkin, Texas, in the death of the 5-month-old fetus
of his girlfriend, Erica Basoria. Flores admitted that
he had stood on Basoria's stomach several times at her
request to induce a miscarriage, but Basoria had told
authorities that she had also punched herself in the
stomach several times. Under Texas law, killing a
fetus is a capital offense, and so Flores
automatically received a life sentence, but Basoria
could not be charged because of her constitutional
right to abortion. [Washington Post-AP, 6-6-05]

I don't know the case off hand... But I'll take your word on it...
However again your spouting off single instances... Not the Norm. And
even if the girl did jump on her to create a Miscarriage, he has
commited a Crime Against the State not the Woman.

When you commit a crime, you are technaclly commiting it against the
People of the State, not the Person. The person is considered the
Victim of the Crime. But the Crime is still the act.

What I'm trying to get at is that in this Case if the Guy did not
know State law, it does not excuse him from the Crime. Ignorance is
not a Defence.

Now your Second point of the the Woman having choices... and Men have
Responsibilities. In a way I agree your right. But you seem to be
missing the point to all of this.

If you are not ready to consider Fathering a Child.. then you as a
Man have Choice ahead of time not to have Sex. No one is forcing you
to take off your Clothes.. insert your Penis into a Woman, and
ejaculate...

And I'd hate to break it to you... But Yes Men do get Women Pregnant.
Unless a woman walks into Sperm Bank, she pretty needs to do it the
old fashion way. And that would involve a Man.

I'm really having trouble following your Line of argument on this
one. You are essentially saying that I as a Man have very Little
Control over my own Bodly Functions. And that Infact need the help of a
woman to ensure she does not become Pregnant.

Now with the little Argument about Child Support.. I'm not quite
clear on how you mean NOT the Father... Are you talking about the Bio
Dad, or say a Step Father....

Now I agree with the idea that of a Second man who becomes involved
in a childs life should be held responsible for Child Support is a
little Sketchy... but in the Same breath if the man has taken the time
to create Home for the child, and then removes himself from it, the new
needs of that child must now be maintained.

One of the keys things I seem to missing from your arguments here is
the right of the Child.

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ups.com...
This story perfectly illustrates, to me at least, how lopsided the
system
is:
Gerardo Flores, 19, was convicted of murder in June in
Lufkin, Texas, in the death of the 5-month-old fetus
of his girlfriend, Erica Basoria. Flores admitted that
he had stood on Basoria's stomach several times at her
request to induce a miscarriage, but Basoria had told
authorities that she had also punched herself in the
stomach several times. Under Texas law, killing a
fetus is a capital offense, and so Flores
automatically received a life sentence, but Basoria
could not be charged because of her constitutional
right to abortion. [Washington Post-AP, 6-6-05]

I don't know the case off hand... But I'll take your word on it...
However again your spouting off single instances... Not the Norm. And
even if the girl did jump on her to create a Miscarriage, he has
commited a Crime Against the State not the Woman.

When you commit a crime, you are technaclly commiting it against the
People of the State, not the Person. The person is considered the
Victim of the Crime. But the Crime is still the act.

What I'm trying to get at is that in this Case if the Guy did not
know State law, it does not excuse him from the Crime. Ignorance is
not a Defence.

Now your Second point of the the Woman having choices... and Men have
Responsibilities. In a way I agree your right. But you seem to be
missing the point to all of this.

If you are not ready to consider Fathering a Child.. then you as a
Man have Choice ahead of time not to have Sex. No one is forcing you
to take off your Clothes.. insert your Penis into a Woman, and
ejaculate...

And I'd hate to break it to you... But Yes Men do get Women Pregnant.
Unless a woman walks into Sperm Bank, she pretty needs to do it the
old fashion way. And that would involve a Man.

I'm really having trouble following your Line of argument on this
one. You are essentially saying that I as a Man have very Little
Control over my own Bodly Functions. And that Infact need the help of a
woman to ensure she does not become Pregnant.

Now with the little Argument about Child Support.. I'm not quite
clear on how you mean NOT the Father... Are you talking about the Bio
Dad, or say a Step Father....

Now I agree with the idea that of a Second man who becomes involved
in a childs life should be held responsible for Child Support is a
little Sketchy... but in the Same breath if the man has taken the time
to create Home for the child, and then removes himself from it, the new
needs of that child must now be maintained.

One of the keys things I seem to missing from your arguments here is
the right of the Child.


Hmmmmmmmm....rights of a child. What exact rights would those be? I would
be interested in your thoughts on this. Do all children have the exact same
rights? Are all children equal before the law? Or are some children
entitled to more than other children? Which rights are you referring to
here?

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ups.com...
This story perfectly illustrates, to me at least, how lopsided the
system
is:
Gerardo Flores, 19, was convicted of murder in June in
Lufkin, Texas, in the death of the 5-month-old fetus
of his girlfriend, Erica Basoria. Flores admitted that
he had stood on Basoria's stomach several times at her
request to induce a miscarriage, but Basoria had told
authorities that she had also punched herself in the
stomach several times. Under Texas law, killing a
fetus is a capital offense, and so Flores
automatically received a life sentence, but Basoria
could not be charged because of her constitutional
right to abortion. [Washington Post-AP, 6-6-05]

I don't know the case off hand... But I'll take your word on it...
However again your spouting off single instances... Not the Norm. And
even if the girl did jump on her to create a Miscarriage, he has
commited a Crime Against the State not the Woman.

When you commit a crime, you are technaclly commiting it against the
People of the State, not the Person. The person is considered the
Victim of the Crime. But the Crime is still the act.

What I'm trying to get at is that in this Case if the Guy did not
know State law, it does not excuse him from the Crime. Ignorance is
not a Defence.

Now your Second point of the the Woman having choices... and Men have
Responsibilities. In a way I agree your right. But you seem to be
missing the point to all of this.

If you are not ready to consider Fathering a Child.. then you as a
Man have Choice ahead of time not to have Sex. No one is forcing you
to take off your Clothes.. insert your Penis into a Woman, and
ejaculate...

A good argument against abortion on demand. I may come as a surprise but
some women even encourage men placing their penis into them yet the onus in
your world lies soley with the man as if women are too weak-minded to know
how pregnancy occurs, certainly not wise enough to be held responsible for
results of the choices they make.


And I'd hate to break it to you... But Yes Men do get Women Pregnant.
Unless a woman walks into Sperm Bank, she pretty needs to do it the
old fashion way. And that would involve a Man.

Spoken like a true feminist. Men alone do NOT get women pregnant no matter
how much you want to believe otherwise. Women get pregnant by joining men in
a sexual relationship. Both create the pregnancy, equally. Men provide
sperm, women provide ova. Remove either and no pregnancy occurs.


I'm really having trouble following your Line of argument on this
one. You are essentially saying that I as a Man have very Little
Control over my own Bodly Functions. And that Infact need the help of a
woman to ensure she does not become Pregnant.

What I see is that you are in favor of holding men alone responsible for the
results of a joint action between themselves and another.
It would seem logical that the only one of the two who can become pregnant
should be the one to insure an unwanted pregnancy does not occur.


Now with the little Argument about Child Support.. I'm not quite
clear on how you mean NOT the Father... Are you talking about the Bio
Dad, or say a Step Father....

I'm sure the meaning of "not the father" means someone who is biologically
unrelated to the child. Many men have been forced to support children they
had no part in creating and did not adopt. It's called "paternity fraud" and
it is a fact. Some of these men have never even met the mother yet are held
as responsible for child support to the children of this woman.


Now I agree with the idea that of a Second man who becomes involved
in a childs life should be held responsible for Child Support is a
little Sketchy... but in the Same breath if the man has taken the time
to create Home for the child, and then removes himself from it, the new
needs of that child must now be maintained.

Why?
Who maintains the status quo for children in an intact family where a sole
earner can no longer provide what once was?
Why are children of divorce more worthy than other children?


One of the keys things I seem to missing from your arguments here is
the right of the Child.

What rights do children have?
Phil #3