New Lawsuit Over "men's Rights"

[Myself]

Yahoo - "Men's Rights" Lawsuit

The gist of the argument: 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. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

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. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.

I think this is a pretty interesting development. It's interesting that the liberals that back Roe vs. Wade would reject this - they seem to favor less governmental interference in some areas and favor it in others. Typical really.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Myself

[Scott_Connery]

This would be a great development. No way in hell that it will happen though.

[JordanLand]

This would be a great development. No way in hell that it will happen though.

Maybe eventaully, but I don't think yet.

[Groovenstein]

"'The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support,'" she said."

Here's a novel idea. Stop assuming that "society" has to pay the support. Maybe it should be, oh, I don't know, the mother?

[JMeganSnow]

Good for them! I've been in favor of this for years.

[session]

This is my first post to this forum; hello all.

As for the issue at hand, I'm not convinced that abolishing the father's financial responsibility is the right thing.

This argument hinges on a single point: the father was mislead as to the chances of pregnancy. In my view, this is a moot point, as intent is irrelevant in this matter. Clearly the only foolproof way to avoid pregnancy is to not engage in sex. If you do otherwise, you are assuming the risk of having a child, no matter how small the probability is. Furthermore, a man chooses to have sex with a woman within the context of knowledge that ultimately it is her decision and her decision alone to abort or birth the child. As such, your intent to have a child or not is outweighed by this obvious, and understood, assumption of risk.

In my view, the real problem with the child support law is that it seems to favor the female in all situations. If the father chooses to be absent from the child's life, he was still responsible for creating the child and as such has made a decision, intentionally or not, to support it during childhood. On the other hand, if the father wants to raise a child that its mother does not, typically the custody is simply handed to the father and the mother walks away. The mother could have aborted the child, but chose not to and I believe should be required to support it in the same manner that the law requires the father.

[dondigitalia]

Under the circumstances of this particular case, I completely and truly hope Dubay is absolved of any legal obligation to this child. As for a blanket "man's right" to refuse financial support for the product of any unwanted pregnancy, I am totally and completely against it.

I think that there should be laws protecting men from such deceitful action on the part of some women, but what about these circumstances: He knows his girlfriend isn't on the pill. He knows she is fertile. They both choose not to use any other form of birth control (the reason they make that decision is irrelevant), and then OMG, there's a bun in the oven--and of course everyone is SO shocked that this could have happened.

In my (second-hand) experience--and granted, I haven't known all that many people who've ended up with an unwanted pregnancy on their hands--this type of scenario is FAR more common than Dubay's. Under these circumstances, I hold a man 100% responsible for the product of his irresponsible actions.

And yeah, he doesn't get a say in what happens after that initial act, but you know what--that's just our (men's) tough luck.

Edited March 11, 2006 by dondigitalia

[Myself]

Dondigitalia-

If a woman becomes pregnant it is her (and only her) decision to abort, or have that baby put up for adoption. Therefore it is her (and only her) responsibility to care for that child based on the consequences of her choice. There is no moral principle that obligates the man who impregnated her to support any child that he did not choose to care for. By your logic any woman who decides to impregnate herself in vitro would have the "right" to expropriate money from the person who donated the sperm. After all he "knew" that his sperm would be used to impregnate someone, so he should bear the consequences of his "actions". Do you see the logical fallacy in your argument now? Do you also recognize that the government has no moral authority to expropriate a man's wealth for an unchosen obligation? When all choices are left to the woman, it no longer becomes a chosen obligation for the man.

Edited March 11, 2006 by Myself

[JMeganSnow]

Myself is absolutely correct.

Let's look at this argument from the other direction:

"The woman knew she was fertile. She knew she had a chance to get pregnant. She chose to have sex. She's now obligated to bear the child and raise it to maturity. That's just her tough luck."

The issue of men's rights (and obligations) in this situation, as well as the woman's rights and obligations, are determined by a metaphysical difference between the sexes. The woman has an automatic physical involvement with any child she carries and she is also automatically in custody when the child is born. The man's involvement ends at the moment of conception unless the woman chooses to inform him of her condition and allow his involvement to continue.

Parenthood, for men, is something they are offered, not something they should be forced into. Children should not be horrible liabilities that you have to force people to take responsibility for, but under any form of enforced child support, this is what they become--just like women who are denied the ablity to opt out of an unwanted pregnancy.

The dishonest women who lie to their partners and then force them to pay for the results are not exceptional cases that can be disregarded: they become the RULE when FORCE is used against men in order to subdue them to the yoke of parenthood. That honest women still exist at all is frankly amazing.

Being adult means taking responsibility for the fact that there may not be someone there to support you and waive the consequences of your actions for you. For women, this means accepting that, because of the nature of your body, all responsibility for a pregnancy comes down squarely on your shoulders.

It also means that all the power comes down squarely on you as well; you can get rid of a man you no longer want if you haven't tried to enslave him with chains of money. As with all other attempts to enslave, it is the MASTER who is truly dependant and incompetant to lead their own life.

I say to you, if you are a man and you support this ghastly child support insanity, what you are really supporting is the helplessness and dependance of women. In psychology, this is known as being an enabler. How many of you want to meet and fall in love with capable, independant women? Well, you're destroying them and yourselves.

[dondigitalia]

Dondigitalia-

If a woman becomes pregnant it is her (and only her) decision to abort, or have that baby put up for adoption. Therefore it is her (and only her) responsibility to care for that child based on the consequences of her choice. There is no moral principle that obligates the man who impregnated her to support any child that he did not choose to care for. By your logic any woman who decides to impregnate herself in vitro would have the "right" to expropriate money from the person who donated the sperm. After all he "knew" that his sperm would be used to impregnate someone, so he should bear the consequences of his "actions". Do you see the logical fallacy in your argument now? Do you also recognize that the government has no moral authority to expropriate a man's wealth for an unchosen obligation? When all choices are left to the woman, it no longer becomes a chosen obligation for the man.

There is no fallacy in my argument.

There is a fallacy involved in the misapplication of my principle to the context of an in vitro fertilization. In that context, when the man is donating the sperm, it is with the understanding that he is not accepting responsibility for the child. That understanding changes the context hugely. The fallacy involved in misapplying that principle is context-dropping, and its the same fallacy that would be involved in attempting to universally absolve men of any obligation toward any unwanted pregnancy.

The government doesn't have the authority to expropriate a man's wealth for an unchosen obligation, but my whole point is that acting irresponsibly is a choice, which any reasonable man knows might lead to a pregnancy. All choices are not left up to the woman in the scenario I described--only the final one. The man's choice is that he can wear a condom or not have sex at all.

[session]

Being adult means taking responsibility for the fact that there may not be someone there to support you and waive the consequences of your actions for you. For women, this means accepting that, because of the nature of your body, all responsibility for a pregnancy comes down squarely on your shoulders.

This seems to be dropping context. Does this mean that when a man and woman cooperatively choose to have kids, the man can simply change his mind during the child's birth and walk away, as the responsibility is supposedly entirely upon the woman?

You do make an interesting point that I'd like to discuss further.

[dondigitalia]

The dishonest women who lie to their partners and then force them to pay for the results are not exceptional cases that can be disregarded: they become the RULE when FORCE is used against men in order to subdue them to the yoke of parenthood. That honest women still exist at all is frankly amazing.

I don't find it amazing at all that honest women still exist. I find it completely expected. What I find amazing is that there are so many men out there who are willing to, entirely of their own accord, in full knowledge of the consequences of their actions, create a child and then not carry through with their obligation to that child.

Being adult means taking responsibility for the fact that there may not be someone there to support you and waive the consequences of your actions for you. For women, this means accepting that, because of the nature of your body, all responsibility for a pregnancy comes down squarely on your shoulders.

And for a man, it means that knowingly participating in actions that might lead to the creation of another person, brings all the responsibility for that person's care squarely down on his shoulders. All of the responsibility lies with both the man and the woman. It is a shared responsibility--excepting, of course, unique contexts in which there was some type of force involved, or an explicit agreement to the contrary beforehand.

I say to you, if you are a man and you support this ghastly child support insanity, what you are really supporting is the helplessness and dependance of women. In psychology, this is known as being an enabler. How many of you want to meet and fall in love with capable, independant women? Well, you're destroying them and yourselves.

That's not true at all. What I'm supporting is the helplessness and dependance of children. I don't believe that women are incapable of caring for children on their own anymore than I think men are incapable of the same thing (apart from the pregnancy part).

I'm also supporting any individual's obligation toward a life they create. This obligation can be (and often is) transferred to other people, but that doesn't wipe it out of existence.

[JMeganSnow]

This seems to be dropping context. Does this mean that when a man and woman cooperatively choose to have kids, the man can simply change his mind during the child's birth and walk away, as the responsibility is supposedly entirely upon the woman?

You do make an interesting point that I'd like to discuss further.

Absolutely, although they're only having ONE kid unless she has twins .

Parenthood is a benefit you enjoy: like all benefits it comes with certain requirements. It is not a chain around your neck. If he wants to leave, that's his choice: he's giving up the benefits along with avoiding the requirements. It is a truism in Objectivism that you cannot FORCE a benefit on someone. Even if he would profit tremendously from being a parent, he won't unless he discovers that fact for himself via his own choice, meaning he has to be able to walk away.

As I said earlier: having the responsibility also means that you have the power. The woman can change her mind as well. He is not taking anything away from her by walking except what she never had in the first place: the right to demand that HE pay for what SHE wants. Calling a baby a "joint" creation and a "joint" responsibility is like saying that someone owns 50% of the business that you've worked 9 months to create because they came up with the name.

Child support legislation is reaching it's logical climax in many places: because the man has an automatic, unchosen obligation to any fetus he engenders, that means that women are REQUIRED to obtain his permission to get an abortion, give the child up for adoption, etc. etc. etc.

Frankly, as a woman, I'd be insulted by any man that imagined he had any rights over my body (and later, my lifestyle) because I decided to have sex with him.

I have never, ever, ever seen child support work out to build a happy, healthy relationship. NEVER. Even if the father is a wonderful guy and he's trying to do right by his child, (and this is like 75% of the time at least!) he winds up getting in vicious fights with the mother over: a.) what she's buying with his money, b.) how often he gets to see his kid, c.) the new guy she's dating that he thinks is a bad influence over his kid, d.) how much money he's paying, e.) the reliability of said payments, f.) the new woman in his life that SHE doesn't like, and on and on and on and on. And, oh, yes, it's SO great for your kids when they're being shuffled around like chips in a game. It's a nightmare even with well-meaning people. Even if they loved and respected each other at the beginning, they no longer will after 5 years of THIS, and if they loved and respected each other, then why the heck did he decide to walk?

Like all altruistic schemes, child support only works out if people are entirely different from what they actually are, namely, selfish. People are selfish for a very good reason: it keeps you alive. Q.E.D.

Edit: (fixed Carriage Returns of DOOM) Not to mention that both members of the couple are getting gypped: the benefit of being a parent isn't that you get to have authority over what school your kid goes to or whatever, it means that you get to enjoy spending time with a brand-new growing human being as he discovers the world, and THAT is what gets taken away from BOTH parents with these schemes.

[dondigitalia]

Child support legislation is reaching it's logical climax in many places: because the man has an automatic, unchosen obligation to any fetus he engenders, that means that women are REQUIRED to obtain his permission to get an abortion, give the child up for adoption, etc. etc. etc.

If a man knowingly chooses actions which might lead to certain consequences (like the birth of a child) he is responsible for those consequences. If he chooses the actions, he is choosing the obligation--not to the mother, but to the child.

This does not mean women are required to get a man's permission before having an abortion, because prior to the birth, it's not a child your dealing with, but a parasite on a woman's body, and the man has no claim on her body, anymore than the woman has a claim on the man's life for supporting the child.

The important distinction between my actual position and the one you are (quite innocently, I'm sure) implicitly painting for me is that I don't say the woman has a claim on any portion of the man's life, but that the child does. The great travesty of the whole child support system is not that it places an obligation on men, but that it obligates the man to the woman, and not to the child. The dysfunction of every bad child-support situation I've observed stems from the parents trying to use it as a power play over each other, rather than a team effort to fulfill an obligation to the child. I have seen one case where the parents kept their heads on straight and it worked out great, but I'll admit that such cases are the minority.

[JMeganSnow]

If a man knowingly chooses actions which might lead to certain consequences (like the birth of a child) he is responsible for those consequences. If he chooses the actions, he is choosing the obligation--not to the mother, but to the child.

I don't see that he has any duty (notice the word) to the child when he has no say over whether there will BE a child or not. Obligations are chosen, and he can assume an obligation, by choice, when there actually IS a child, assuming the mother permits it. He can also choose to reject the obligation, and he may have a VERY good reason for doing so. Or, he may just be a jerk. It is not, nor should it be, illegal to be a jerk; any law that attempts this makes life hell for people that do actually have legitimate reasons.

So he chose to have sex. So what? Pregnancy is not necessarily a result of having sex, nor is it necessarily an injury. Treating it as both under the law is like treating someone that broke your arm the same as someone that gave you a winning lottery ticket. Worse, you're imagining that, after you invited someone to break your arm, that they somehow are responsible for paying for the results.

Whether you like it or not, child support treats a pregnancy as a debt the man owes to the mother. The child doesn't have the ability to decide what to do with his support; the money is turned over to the mother. If I were to accept the premise that he owes the child something, let him put money into a trust fund to pay for the kid's college or pay directly to a day-care service for when the mother is at work. However, I don't. He only owes something to the child if he's going to benefit from the child's existence, same as the mother.

As far as people who have their heads screwed on right making it work, two people can make communism "work", too, as long as they have decided they prefer being a sucker to being a bloodsucker.