Deadbeat Dads (American Style)

[Castro]

Men's rights activists in the US are to argue in court that fathers do not have an obligation to pay money towards raising a child they did not want. :rolleyes:

 

The National Center for Men is fighting the case on a behalf of a man who says his ex-girlfriend had his child after telling him she could not get pregnant.

 

Activists say men should have the same rights as women in dealing with the consequences of unintended pregnancy.

 

Women's and children's groups have criticised the planned legal challenge.

 

Leslie Sorkhe, of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, said a child "needs the emotional and financial support of both parents".

 

"The child is entitled to his or her equal protection under the law," the website of The Detroit News quotes her as saying.

 

 

Matt Dubay, the man at the centre of the case, said he did not expect the court to rule in his favour.

 

"What I expect to hear is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he told the Associated Press news agency.

 

"Just to create awareness would be enough to at least get a debate started."

 

'Roe v Wade for men'

 

Mr Dubay says that his former girlfriend became pregnant with his child after assuring him she had a physical condition that prevented her from conceiving.

 

He says she went on have the baby, despite knowing that he did not want to have a child with her.

 

He now wants the court to free him from his obligation to pay $500 (£287) in child support every month.

 

The National Center for Men is filing a case on behalf of Mr Dubay at a court in the US city of Detroit.

 

The centre's director, Mel Feit, told the Associated Press news agency: "There's such a spectrum of choice that women have - it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions.

 

"I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly," he said.

 

The centre has dubbed the case "Roe v Wade for men" - after the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that gave women the right to have abortions.

 

Source

[Naden]

A part of me wants to agree with some of these men (not all). Reproductive rights like contraception and abortion were earned to give women choices on when to start families, how many and with whom. It makes sense that the same rights be extended to men. I think some women want to have their cake and eat it too, especially in the case of the man at the center of the suit. In the absence of an overall societal pressure on men to invest in their progeny outside the institution of marriage, how could they be forced to provide for them?

 

Now with abortion rights being eroded slowly, time to grab those men and siphon off their paychecks. They, too, can't have it both ways.

[ElPunto]

Bad luck for him. But I think they should clarify the situtaion - hopefully that will happen when the court rules. Personally, whether it was accidental, unwanted, unexpected or whatever - when you have unprotected sex, any and all fruits of that act must be borne by both individuals. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Castro:

He says she went on have the baby, despite knowing that he did not want to have a child with her.

Ok that line pisses me off the most. How on earth can you (repeatedly) have unprotected sex with someone without wanting to have a child with them? So if he didn't want to have a child with her, why did he sleep with her? I understand not everyone is after children when in heat but bloody hell the risk of getting pregnant exists.

 

What is the child's fault now? Why should he/she be punished? I'd take the bast@rd to the cleaners if I were that woman.

[- Femme -]

The woman is sick in the head. I would charge her for wasting court time and being selfish and depraved.

[J.Lee]

^but what if she really had that ailment then by the grace of Allah she was able to get pregnant?

 

It's not so far-fetched that it wouldn't likely take place but Alaahu waclam.

 

How on earth can you (repeatedly) have unprotected sex with someone without wanting to have a child with them?

It's called the "bareback" factor but I have a feeling that question wasn't meant to be answered.

[- Femme -]

[Edit].Oops. I was reading some article and I thought this was the same. You know about freezing sperm and impregnating whether the guy is absent or dead. Ewww. Some of my points still stand though.

[Urban]

the guy should support his baby in one way or another. he shoulda thought about the possiblity of a pregnancy before he got his tools out.

[Castro]

Easy now Kooley. Atheer, it's not like the guy was sitting at the curb selling his sperm. They had a relationship.

 

After asking a co-worker what the "bareback factor" meant ( :eek: ), I must say that's something I hadn't thought of. Yet I still maintain knowing the risks invovled is the best deterent. And who on God's green earth does not know what leads to pregnancy? It ain't jogging, I'll tell you that.

[- Femme -]

^Edited it. I was reading the paper about some woman demanding to be impregnanted with her dead/absent husband/fiance/boyfriend's sperm. Ishhh. What is the world coming to.

 

My mistake. .

 

*** Why do I skim over things and come to the wrong conclusions***

[J.Lee]

Castro: You're getting too fond of this " :eek: " smiley horta ma is tidhi?

 

Kooley:

 

and it pleased itself right into her ovaries (her infertile now fertile ovaries).

 

Walaal, I agree with you (about the blackmailing) laakiinse this case has a lying party written all over it: walk with me for a minute. If you have unprotected sex you run the risk of pregnancy, soo ma'aha?

 

Either he is lying or she is:

 

If he lied about her inability to conceive then he should pay.

 

If she lied, then she'll be a single mother (we know how limiting that is) and she fully deserves your contempt: Laakiinse he should still support the child- the innocent party- that resulted in their union.

 

[EDIT: No point, Thank you Kuuley Cali Banjar]

[Naden]

If it is true and they had an understanding (based on information from her) that their sexual relationship could not result in a pregnancy, then she should be solely responsible for the support of the child. This 'the child-is-innocent-argument' is a little manipulative. This case is different than scenarios where a contraceptive fails in any committed relationship. To me, it's akin to a woman claiming she is on the pill when not or a man lying about a prior vasectomy to break an agreement. An agreement on a relationship that is not built for shared parenthood.

 

Women have to resist these manipulation tactics or else they lose the hard-earned reproductive rights like abortion and contraception. Just like she could end a pregnancy for whatever reason, he should not be forced to become a father against his will. We also have to be weary of using the argument that any sexual contact is at risk of leading to a pregnancy to force a man to pay child support. The same argument is used to deny women sexual freedom and abortion rights as they know they could get pregnant every time they have sex. If that is the case, a man should forced to deposit about $100,000.00 in an account for every sexual contact to support a potential kid for 18 years.

 

We all know that not every woman in a sexual relationship wants to become a mother, why can't the same consideration be extended to a man?

[Castro]

Originally posted by naden:

the same argument is used to deny women

sexual freedom

and

abortion

rights as they know they could get pregnant every time they have sex.

And they should be denied sexual freedom for it is haraam (if outside of marriage and more so within a marriage). And abortion is also haraam if it's done for any purpose other than rape (or incest) and the health of the mother. "Hard earned" rights they may be, but that don't make them right.

 

I know, I know. I've gone on a tangent.

[Naden]

if outside of marriage and more so within a marriage

 

 

Originally posted by Castro:

And abortion is also haraam if it's done for any purpose other than rape (or incest) and the health of the mother. "Hard" earned rights they are, but they're not

right

to begin with.

[/QB]

No, abortion is not allowed for cases of rape -a swift gun-barrel at the neck wedding maybe. Incest is a little iffy. I've read of cases where the child-sibling foetus is considered to be an offspring of some married fertile family member. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, another tangent .

[Castro]

^ Glad I could amuse you Naden. But fornication and adultry (the so called freedoms) is what I'm talking about.