"Roe v. Wade for men"

[trustwomen]

I wanted to start a new thread about this topic. The abortion training thread is getting far too long and hijacked to boot.

This is a copy of an email I sent to some pro-choice friends who wanted to know my opinion on this case (for details of the case, see the links in the abortion thread).

"I don't agree that this is a reproductive rights issue, nor a gender equality issue. First, a statement, then I'll explain.

Statement: I recognize and agree that forcing someone to be a parent against their wishes is morally wrong. I do feel sympathy for most people who were "trapped" into parenthood. If I were a man, I'd probably be much more conservative in my sex life, knowing that I had so much less control over the outcome (just like I would be if abortion weren't an option, due to its availability OR my personal beliefs). It is indeed unfair that parents (men and women) have to support, financially or otherwise, children they didn't want and weren't ready for. But it is not a reproductive rights issue. When people exercise reproductive rights (as we currently know them to be, i.e. contraception and abortion), no child is born. If the "right" these men seek becomes law, the consequence will be this: thousands (possibly millions) of born, living children growing up in poverty and pain. This, to me, goes against what we in the pro-choice movement strive for.

Many people are seeking to expand the term "reproductive rights", in many ways; most of them involve issues that, to me, are secondary to the main issue of abortion rights, which is the bodily autonomy of pregnant women. Some believe that welfare caps are a reproductive rights issue, because they coerce poor people into having fewer children than they would have liked. Some believe that insurance coverage of infertility treatments is a reproductive rights issue, because the lack of it "prevents" them from having (biological) children. I believe that these are indeed worthy issues with interesting arguments on both sides, but neither compares to the moral intensity of abortion rights on the basic level of bodily autonomy.

What this is, is a child support issue, and the question is not "should men have reproductive rights" but "who should financially support unwanted children when their primary caretaker cannot or does not". Somebody has to or you have starving kids, which is unacceptable to us (when they're in the same country as us, that is). Or you could take kids from poor families and shove them in state-run orphanages, which we also stopped a while ago. Or, there's what we have chosen; the kid stays with the parent that does want him (or a foster home) and somebody else foots the bill. We as a society want to avoid footing it if possible, so we make it the responsibility of the biological parent(s). Right or wrong, THAT'S what we're debating.

It's not a gender equality issue either. Women can and do get taken to court to pay child support to custodial fathers for children the women never wanted to have. Men can block an adoption, gain custody, and trap women in this same way. Just because it doesn't happen as often doesn't mean that this is a men's issue; it's a non-custodial parents' issue, which is not the same thing as a gender issue. I also know *women* whose unwanted children are in foster care and they have to pay support to the foster parents. And we all know that she can't always "just have an abortion"; there are so many ways that women who would have liked to get an abortion cannot. She finds out when she's too far along; her state lacks Medicaid ab. funding and she can't afford it (what is it? 1/3 according to Alan Guttmacher Institute have to carry to term against their wishes?); she's a minor and mom&dad disagree; there is no provider nearby.(I was in a radio debate where the dummy from the Center for Men actually said "women are never prevented from having an abortion by any laws", after which I tore him a new one with the facts). And even if she faces none of these legal barriers, but simply doesn't want an abortion, we as pro-choice people cannot possibly support forcing her into one - bodily autonomy, remember?

But the simple fact that not all women can have abortions in reality, whereas under this proposed legislation every man can opt out of parenthood, makes it unequal to start with. And by framing this as a gender issue, they also prevent women from availing themselves of the same "refusal" option when similarly trapped by men (or foster parents?). So this legislation, in my opinion, actually tries to reinforce gender INequality.

So let's call this what it is: a debate on who is responsible for the support of children. Is it the collective, or the biological parents? Does this equation change when the children are unwanted, and how? We all agree that it is a really crappy choice to have a kid under these circumstances, and these women are acting immorally, etc...(as do men that block adoptions to piss off their girlfriends) But that doesn't change the basic LEGAL debate at all. I, for one, believe that either or both parents should be able to relinquish parental rights at will and anytime, but ONLY if: 1) it is permanent and irreversible and 2) the state ADEQUATELY supports all children so that they are not punished for having a crappy parent.

The thing is, I'm REALLY peeved that they call this "Roe for men". The analogy is so deeply flawed, and IMO greatly diminishes the true strength and purpose of our hard-fought reproductive rights."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OzDDS]

It's not a gender equality issue either. Women can and do get taken to court to pay child support to custodial fathers for children the women never wanted to have. Men can block an adoption, gain custody, and trap women in this same way. Just because it doesn't happen as often doesn't mean that this is a men's issue; it's a non-custodial parents' issue, which is not the same thing as a gender issue.

But the simple fact that not all women can have abortions in reality, whereas under this proposed legislation every man can opt out of parenthood,

As for the 1st underlined section: It is Very rare that the courts allow this or take these men's opinion into consideration.

2nd underlined: I do not believe this is the case.. Not every man. Men who wish to do this must prove that they were mislead and lied to about birth control and "duped" into being fathers by their partners. And I think there has to be proof that they from the beginning made clear their intentions that they never wished to be a father.

 

[OzDDS]

Also, what about in paternity fraud. Where the wife/girlfriend has children and tells her partner that they are his.. and he financially supports the children. Only later to find out that they are not even his.

Should he have the right to sue for full re-imbursement and/or damages?

 

[OzDDS]

The thing is, I'm REALLY peeved that they call this "Roe for men". The analogy is so deeply flawed, and IMO greatly diminishes the true strength and purpose of our hard-fought reproductive rights."

Roe vs. Wade for men or more correctly (Dubay vs. Wells) (if passed) would not infringe upon any of the current rights given to you by the original roe vs wade.. it simply seeks to grant equal equivilent rights (only) to men who have been mislead and lied to by their partners.. by allowing them to permanently relenquish rights and responsibilties of the child.

 

[Shredder]

? I would love it if guys could force abortions. I don't see why they can't. It takes two to tango--and more.

 

[dnw826]

I think that the idea of "misleading" can turn into a slippery slope, though. What if the condom fails, or the pill didn't work (has happened to at least 10 people I know), etc.

My EX was 18.5 when I gave birth to our daughter. I had just turned 17. He doesn't want anything to do with our 2 kids (I had ds 13 months after dd even though I was told there was NO WAY I could get pregnant-even before dd, and I was bf and on the minipill). He says that "he is too young to deal with this, blah blah blah". Hello? I was younger. He certainly wasn't forced. I am a great mother and my kids have great lives with their stepfather who they think is their real father. You see, my ex gets around his court sanctioned child support by quitting his job every time his wages get garnished, and by working under the table, or selling drugs, or whatever he does nowadays.

So do you think that he should have the right to lose paternity willingly? I think that more like, he should have the right IF I AGREE TO IT. My husband WANTS to adopt my kids, it is just too expensive right now. I don't want anyone in their lives who wishes they weren't in their lives. I don't care about child support. I care about my kids having a good life. Unfortunately MANY men (most of the ones that I know barring my dh, cousin, stepfather, and my "father"(not genetic)) would happily give up custody and not think twice about impregnating anything that walks and running away. Like my ex, his father, my father, my grandfather, 4 of my cousins, 6 of my friend's ex's, 3 of their fathers, and so on and so on...

It is really quite disgusting. Not that women are entirely innocent, but it's harder (emotionally and legally) for women to give up their kids, in my experience. Not that they shouldn't be made to. But in our society, women are still, in many ways, the sole parent. Even when you work full time, you come home and do all the house work, take care of the kids, and take the time off work/school for the kids 90% of the time. And if you are a man who is an equal parent, then, by Jove, reproduce like rabbits and teach all of your kids to be like you, because we need more of you around!

Something has to change before all of us women snap.

 

[dnw826]

? I would love it if guys could force abortions. I don't see why they can't. It takes two to tango--and more.

I don't think that any man should have the right to force anything on my body, whether it's an abortion, a penis, or their mind numbing football/boobs blabber. How would you feel if women suddenly were given the power to force men into castration or...

I can think of worse, but it's too gruesome for this conversation.

 

[dnw826]

Also, what about in paternity fraud. Where the wife/girlfriend has children and tells her partner that they are his.. and he financially supports the children. Only later to find out that they are not even his.

Should he have the right to sue for full re-imbursement and/or damages?

You see, that's just wrong. Maybe automatic paternity testing as an option at birth? They can maybe take some of the DNA from the umbilical blood? If you decide you don't want to then, you waive the right until the child is old enough to consent to blood testing. I don't think suing would be in order, because then you would just be punishing the child, really, from any financially stable future.

 

[OzDDS]

I think that the idea of "misleading" can turn into a slippery slope, though. What if the condom fails, or the pill didn't work (has happened to at least 10 people I know), etc.

My EX was 18.5 when I gave birth to our daughter. I had just turned 17. He doesn't want anything to do with our 2 kids (I had ds 13 months after dd even though I was told there was NO WAY I could get pregnant-even before dd, and I was bf and on the minipill). He says that "he is too young to deal with this, blah blah blah". Hello? I was younger. He certainly wasn't forced. I am a great mother and my kids have great lives with their stepfather who they think is their real father. You see, my ex gets around his court sanctioned child support by quitting his job every time his wages get garnished, and by working under the table, or selling drugs, or whatever he does nowadays.

So do you think that he should have the right to lose paternity willingly? I think that more like, he should have the right IF I AGREE TO IT. My husband WANTS to adopt my kids, it is just too expensive right now. I don't want anyone in their lives who wishes they weren't in their lives. I don't care about child support. I care about my kids having a good life. Unfortunately MANY men (most of the ones that I know barring my dh, cousin, stepfather, and my "father"(not genetic)) would happily give up custody and not think twice about impregnating anything that walks and running away. Like my ex, his father, my father, my grandfather, 4 of my cousins, 6 of my friend's ex's, 3 of their fathers, and so on and so on...

It is really quite disgusting. Not that women are entirely innocent, but it's harder (emotionally and legally) for women to give up their kids, in my experience. Not that they shouldn't be made to. But in our society, women are still, in many ways, the sole parent. Even when you work full time, you come home and do all the house work, take care of the kids, and take the time off work/school for the kids 90% of the time. And if you are a man who is an equal parent, then, by Jove, reproduce like rabbits and teach all of your kids to be like you, because we need more of you around!

Something has to change before all of us women snap.

You were both obviously very young and had an accident.. look. I think the main objective of this case is to give men who were "duped" into being father's at least some form of leverage equal to what women have in form of choice to opt out of being a parent.

This would not affect the majority of real dead beat dads out there.. Everyone continues to seem to think that if this goes through .. every guy in the country who has kids will be able to just stop writing their child support payments.. and this is NOT THE CASE!

Each case is different and would be handled accordingly.

 

[OzDDS]

You see, that's just wrong. Maybe automatic paternity testing as an option at birth? They can maybe take some of the DNA from the umbilical blood? If you decide you don't want to then, you waive the right until the child is old enough to consent to blood testing. I don't think suing would be in order, because then you would just be punishing the child, really, from any financially stable future.

It is also wrong that a woman can lie to a man about kids that arent' even his, and then basically make him pay to support her and her kids. How evil is that?

A lot of women want to complain about all the "deadbeat dads" out there.. but what about these upstanding men who are hard working loving fathers who are lied, cheated, and have their lives ruined.

But that seems to be ok.. appeantly.. as long as the kids are affected.. nobody cares what happens to the man.

2 victims:
I agree that something needs to be done about the children. But also something needs to be done about the man.. they are both innocent in cases like this where the woman lies about paternity. Who should pay? What do we do? The answer is not do nothing either.

* I agree that manditory dna testing at birth before the "father" can put his name on the kids birth certs would be an interesting option. This would eliminate a lot of problems.

 

[dnw826]

It is also wrong that a woman can lie to a man about kids that arent' even his, and then basically make him pay to support her and her kids. How evil is that?

A lot of women want to complain about all the "deadbeat dads" out there.. but what about these upstanding men who are hard working loving fathers who are lied, cheated, and have their lives ruined.

But that seems to be ok.. appeantly.. as long as the kids are affected.. nobody cares what happens to the man.

2 victims:
I agree that something needs to be done about the children. But also something needs to be done about the man.. they are both innocent in cases like this where the woman lies about paternity. Who should pay? What do we do? The answer is not do nothing either.

* I agree that manditory dna testing at birth before the "father" can put his name on the kids birth certs would be an interesting option. This would eliminate a lot of problems.

I never said that it was right for that to happen to a man. But I don't think that suing is almost ever the answer. I think that our country is too sue happy. My "father" isn't really my dad. They split up when she got pregnant. He pretty much knew that I "wasn't his", but he didn't care. He was raised without his father and wanted to be there for me. You couldn't ask for a better guy even though my mom was worthless. Who knows what would have happened to me without him.

 

[OzDDS]

I never said that it was right for that to happen to a man. But I don't think that suing is almost ever the answer. I think that our country is too sue happy. My "father" isn't really my dad. They split up when she got pregnant. He pretty much knew that I "wasn't his", but he didn't care. He was raised without his father and wanted to be there for me. You couldn't ask for a better guy even though my mom was worthless. Who knows what would have happened to me without him.

1) I agree that our country is too sue happy.. and generally I'm against it. But I do feel there should be some way for someone to recoup money and damages if they were cheated out of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. (ie. paternity fraud)

2) Did you mom try to pretend you were his (your stepfather)? I agree.. you are lucky to have such a man in your life. But what I was talking about with regard to having manditory dna testing at birth, and allowing men who were "duped" into supporting children the ability to relinquish rights and responsibilities of the child.. this would have no effect on your situation and would not have deprived you of that man in your life if as you claim.. that he knew you weren't his but stuck around anyway by choice.
You don't want someone who isn't intersted in being a father sticking around anyways. I know this for the most part makes things worse and can sometimes leads to abuse and domestic violence.

 

[trustwomen]

Men who wish to do this must prove that they were mislead and lied to about birth control and "duped" into being fathers by their partners. And I think there has to be proof that they from the beginning made clear their intentions that they never wished to be a father.

How the heck could they prove this?

And even if they did, who will then support these kids? I'm not OK with letting innocent kids starve because their mother is stupid or scheming, are you? That would be us (society) supporting them, then? Would you be OK with the ensuing tax hike to support all the kids that fathers don't want to support?

 

[trustwomen]

Roe vs. Wade for men or more correctly (Dubay vs. Wells) (if passed) would not infringe upon any of the current rights given to you by the original roe vs wade.. it simply seeks to grant equal equivilent rights (only) to men who have been mislead and lied to by their partners.. by allowing them to permanently relenquish rights and responsibilties of the child.

The right they seek is not equal, nor is it equivalent, nor is it a gender issue. Did you not even read my post? Sheesh.

 

[trustwomen]

I think the main objective of this case is to give men who were "duped" into being father's at least some form of leverage equal to what women have in form of choice to opt out of being a parent.

This would not affect the majority of real dead beat dads out there.. Everyone continues to seem to think that if this goes through .. every guy in the country who has kids will be able to just stop writing their child support payments.. and this is NOT THE CASE!

Women have far less "leverage" than you think. Especially if they are poor, young, or unwise (and gee, do ya think those are the women who are likely to get unplanned pregnancies?). Abortion is not nearly as accessible as you seem to believe, unless you live in New York or California.

And read my post: when women use their "leverage", no child is born. If men used this "leverage", millions of children grow up in poverty and pain. NOT the same thing. NOT "comparable".

And the fact that the horrific full effect would be delayed by 15 years or so, as it only affects children being born about now (i.e. the second part of your post) tempers it not at all.

You seem to think that women would choose abortion (or would be more careful with birth control) if paternal support were not assured. That is just wrong. Not everyone is comfortable with abortion and I would NEVER try to force anyone to have one. And women in places where paternal/social support is even MORE assured (Canada, Western Europe) have fewer babies, not more. And fewer unplanned pregnancies as a whole. Unplanned pregnancies and ill-timed babies are the result of other, separate factors - not availability of child support.

U.S. men don't realize that in some places (Quebec, for instance) the burden of proof is on HIM to prove he isn't the father (he has to pay for the paternity test). And in countries where the state ensures that the children are adequately provided for, the government goes after the fathers even MORE than in the U.S., because it is trying to reimburse itself at that point.

 

[OzDDS]

How the heck could they prove this?

And even if they did, who will then support these kids? I'm not OK with letting innocent kids starve because their mother is stupid or scheming, are you? That would be us (society) supporting them, then? Would you be OK with the ensuing tax hike to support all the kids that fathers don't want to support?

Just as we have pre-nup agreements, maybe we can have law firms write up pre-coital contracts. (nothing beats the massey pre-coit)

Seriously.. I have no clue. But something to think about.

BTW: there is already bonuses for poping out kids and living on welfare.. this happens already. Maybe if some women realise that they might get their sugar daddy funding cut.. they might be more conservative with who and when they sleep with and/or more responsible with birth control.

What do you think about manditory dna testing at birth before the "father" could put his name on the birth cert. This might elimiate a lot of the paternity fraud cases before they begin. no?

 

[OzDDS]

1) when women use their "leverage", no child is born. If men used this "leverage", millions of children grow up in poverty and pain. NOT the same thing. NOT "comparable".

2) You seem to think that women would choose abortion (or would be more careful with birth control) if paternal support were not assured. That is just wrong. Not everyone is comfortable with abortion and I would NEVER try to force anyone to have one.

3) women in places where paternal/social support is even MORE assured (Canada, Western Europe) have fewer babies, not more. And fewer unplanned pregnancies as a whole. Unplanned pregnancies and ill-timed babies are the result of other, separate factors - not availability of child support.

4) U.S. men don't realize that in some places (Quebec, for instance) the burden of proof is on HIM to prove he isn't the father (he has to pay for the paternity test). And in countries where the state ensures that the children are adequately provided for, the government goes after the fathers even MORE than in the U.S., because it is trying to reimburse itself at that point.

1) If men had this "leverage".. then women would be more conservative.. or they would utilise there own "leverage" more often.

2) Before we get the issue of abortion.. why not force the issue of birth control.. makes things easier and less messy.

3) I dont know if I would say paternal.. I dont think that paternal support is any different in europe than it is in the US. Now if your talking about universal health care and greater access to free birth control and abortions.. then yes.. makes sense that there are fewer babies.

4) Why I don't live in Quebec.. they wish they were their own country and/or ceeded to France. They have bigger issues..

 

[trustwomen]

Just as we have pre-nup agreements, maybe we can have law firms write up pre-coital contracts. (nothing beats the massey pre-coit)

Seriously.. I have no clue. But something to think about.

BTW: there is already bonuses for poping out kids and living on welfare.. this happens already. Maybe if some women realise that they might get their sugar daddy funding cut.. they might be more conservative with who and when they sleep with and/or more responsible with birth control.

What do you think about manditory dna testing at birth before the "father" could put his name on the birth cert. This might elimiate a lot of the paternity fraud cases before they begin. no?

Pre-coital contracts... probably wouldn't hold up in court. Even if they did, should I then pay for the support of that child (through my taxes) when I didn't even have the pleasure of sleeping with the lady?

Actually, Clinton instituted "family caps" on welfare in 1996, meaning that if you have a child while on welfare your payment does not go up. The effect of this was not fewer children born on welfare. The effect was more children growing up in misery. "Sugar daddy funding", as you say, is even more prevalent (more generous, and more guaranteed) in Canada and Western Europe, and women there still do not avail themselves of the option. They choose it far less than do U.S. women, actually. So maybe that isn't the reason women are careless with birth control? (by definition, men are just as careless, by the way - and as for lying, I've counseled a lot of women who were assured by supposedly "sterile" partners that there was "no need" to use a condom.)

If you want women to stop trapping men, make it possible for them to find another goal than motherhood. Make it possible for them to "dream bigger", as the megamillions people say. Cheaper education, greater job opportunities, a better leg-up when they come from poor families, all this will help. And stop with the stupid taboo against sex and the even more stupid double standard that makes a woman feel like a slut if she carries condoms around.

Read "Swept Away" by Carol Cassell for an interesting take on why women fail to contracept.

 

[OzDDS]

"Sugar daddy funding", as you say, is even more prevalent (more generous, and more guaranteed) in Canada and Western Europe, and women there still do not avail themselves of the option.

you dont think this anything to do with the greater supply of free healthcare, Birth control, and access to abortion providers available to these same women in canada and western europe?

 

[trustwomen]

1) If men had this "leverage".. then women would be more conservative.. or they would utilise there own "leverage" more often.

2) Before we get the issue of abortion.. why not force the issue of birth control.. makes things easier and less messy.

3) I dont know if I would say paternal.. I dont think that paternal support is any different in europe than it is in the US. Now if your talking about universal health care and greater access to free birth control and abortions.. then yes.. makes sense that there are fewer babies.

1) It didn't work for family caps. It wouldn't work for this. However, just like family caps, it would increase inequality, misery, and child poverty. If you want women to stop having ill-timed babies, there are more humane (not to mention more effective) ways to bring this about.

2) forced birth control? sounds... scary. I don't want to live in China, do you?

3) paternal support is much more generous and much more enforced in Europe. (I don't know about Britain so much, but certainly holds true for France, Germany, all of Scandinavia, Belgium, Netherlands, and Austria). The reasons you state are indeed among the reasons why there are fewer pregnancies/babies, along with greater social mobility and greater sexual equality. The availability of paternal/state support plays little to no role in the choice to get pregnant or have children, as I stated. Hell, in Quebec they have gone radically pro-natalist to try to get the birth rate to replacement levels (ridiculous levels of government support for children and families, and coming from pinko me, that means really ridiculous). It hasn't helped much, women are still choosing no or few children. So the reverse (a state-run "sugar daddy bonus" if you will) doesn't work. So why would a "sugar daddy penalty" work?

 

[trustwomen]

you dont think this anything to do with the greater supply of free healthcare, Birth control, and access to abortion providers available to these same women in canada and western europe?

If a woman wanted to trap a man, what would this matter? The point is, she could trap him better there. She can trap him less efficiently in the U.S., yet she does it more.

If the pregnancy was truly unplanned, then these factors would matter. So are you actually saying that women who "trap" men didn't mean to after all? If that is the case, I agree (for most of them).

And why not institute these things in the U.S. if you want fewer men to be "trapped" by a non-scheming woman who got accidentally pregnant?

 

[OzDDS]

) forced birth control? sounds... scary. I don't want to live in China, do you?

No, but children cost money. If you can't afford them.. then don't have them. If you have someone who is living off the gov already and continues to have 10-15 kids and has no job.. Obviously they are not able to control themselves.

Do you think it would be humane/acceptable to "highly reccomend" that these women have "non-permanent" forms of long term birth control available to them.. such as those implantable rods under the wrist.


If I cannot control myself and max out credit cards when I have no job..spending when I cannot afford it.. the gov and banks come and repo my belongings.

 

[OzDDS]

"trapped" by a non-scheming woman who got accidentally pregnant?

Not sure what you mean by that..

I think this discussion was more regarding men who were the victims of paternity fraud, or who were lied to by their partners about their regularity birth control.

How do you feel about manditory dna testing at birth before the father can put his name on the birth cert?

 

[trustwomen]

No, but children cost money. If you can't afford them.. then don't have them. If you have someone who is living off the gov already and continues to have 10-15 kids and has no job.. Obviously they are not able to control themselves.

Do you think it would be humane/acceptable to "highly reccomend" that these women have "non-permanent" forms of long term birth control available to them.. such as those implantable rods under the wrist.

If I cannot control myself and max out credit cards when I have no job..spending when I cannot afford it.. the gov and banks come and repo my belongings.

Children are not belongings. Your body is not a belonging. You're starting to scare me.

Norplant has been proven quite dangerous to many women, and many women cannot use hormonal methods of birth control. Even those who can sometimes experience wholly unacceptable side effects. There is however, a new device for men that may be on the market in as little as 5 years, called the Intra Vas. You place it in the vas deferens, it blocks sperm to near 100% effectiveness, it is not hormonal and has no side effects. It is easily removable after which fertility comes back quickly and reliably. It is proving to be quite effective in the trials. Some call it a "reversible vasectomy" but that is a misnomer, vasectomy has the "cachet" of being permanent and the Intra Vas carries virtually no risk of permanent sterility. It's being human-tested in Vancouver as we speak.

So, once the Intra Vas is available, would men still be able to fight paternity suits with any credibility?

 

[OzDDS]

So your a man? Why do you trustwomen so much.. trustwomen.

 

[OzDDS]

Children are not belongings. Your body is not a belonging. You're starting to scare me.

There is however, a new device for men that may be on the market in as little as 5 years, called the Intra Vas. You place it in the vas deferens, it blocks sperm to near 100% effectiveness, it is not hormonal and has no side effects. It is easily removable after which fertility comes back quickly and reliably. It is proving to be quite effective in the trials.

No, I agree.. children are not belongings.. but many these days do not claim a fetus to be a child/humanbeing.

Let me know when Intra Vas becomes available and where I can sign up.

Seriously.. I think if at least more safe, reliable, and reversable birth control options were available to men. Then we wouldnt have so many problems.

 

[trustwomen]

Not sure what you mean by that..

I think this discussion was more regarding men who were the victims of paternity fraud, or who were lied to by their partners about their regularity birth control.

How do you feel about manditory dna testing at birth before the father can put his name on the birth cert?

I mean "by that", are women scheming liars or aren't they? If they are, then they would be motivated by "sugar daddy bonuses", wouldn't they? Just as they would be demotivated by lack of paternal funding. But they aren't for the first, and I don't think they would be by the second. Most women who have unplanned pregnancies are just not planning ahead, and of course the men are not planning ahead either. They are not scheming.

Any man could claim his partner said she was on BC. It is unprovable, he said/she said. Even if he was correct, would she ever cop to it knowing her child's support is on the line? So we're back to he said/she said. The contracts you suggest would have little effect but to leave certain men unlaid, IMO. I don't think they could hold up in the face of a needy child that society DOES NOT want to have to support.

I don't like mandatory DNA testing (I'm not a fan of "mandatory anything" medically), but I think DNA testing should be free and available to any man who doubts his paternity or is seeking an "out" from paying child support. The test might not be able to be done prenatally, considering that it might be risky to the mother or the baby, but why not do it at birth and delay putting his name on the cert. until the results come back? I'd be fine with that. Again, for men who request it, not mandatorily. However, that "out" won't work for most men.

 

[OzDDS]

I mean "by that", are women scheming liars or aren't they? If they are, then they would be motivated by "sugar daddy bonuses", wouldn't they? Just as they would be demotivated by lack of paternal funding. But they aren't for the first, and I don't think they would be by the second. Most women who have unplanned pregnancies are just not planning ahead, and of course the men are not planning ahead either. They are not scheming.

Any man could claim his partner said she was on BC. It is unprovable, he said/she said. Even if he was correct, would she ever cop to it knowing her child's support is on the line? So we're back to he said/she said. The contracts you suggest would have little effect but to leave certain men unlaid, IMO. I don't think they could hold up in the face of a needy child that society DOES NOT want to have to support.

I don't like mandatory DNA testing (I'm not a fan of "mandatory anything" medically), but I think DNA testing should be free and available to any man who doubts his paternity or is seeking an "out" from paying child support. The test might not be able to be done prenatally, considering that it might be risky to the mother or the baby, but why not do it at birth and delay putting his name on the cert. until the results come back? I'd be fine with that. Again, for men who request it, not mandatorily. However, that "out" won't work for most men.

agreed.

 

[trustwomen]

It is also wrong that a woman can lie to a man about kids that arent' even his, and then basically make him pay to support her and her kids. How evil is that?

Absolutely evil. I don't disagree with you. The only greater evil, IMO, is having children grow up in poverty due to their mother's actions. And if you eliminate paternal support without simultaneously increasing state support, that is what happens.

So why don't we give both parents the option to opt out of parenthood at any time, while ensuring the adequate support of the children through the state? That was my position in my original post.

 

[OzDDS]

Absolutely evil. I don't disagree with you. The only greater evil, IMO, is having children grow up in poverty due to their mother's actions. And if you eliminate paternal support without simultaneously increasing state support, that is what happens.

So why don't we give both parents the option to opt out of parenthood at any time, while ensuring the adequate support of the children through the state? That was my position in my original post.

So you're for increasing tax dollars to fund state child support? Uncle sam becomes mum and dad for all till your 18.

 

[trustwomen]

No, I agree.. children are not belongings.. but many these days do not claim a fetus to be a child/humanbeing.

Let me know when Intra Vas becomes available and where I can sign up.

Seriously.. I think if at least more safe, reliable, and reversable birth control options were available to men. Then we wouldnt have so many problems.

A fetus is a part of a woman's body, IMO. You can't "claim it" any more than you could claim her kidney or her blood.

You know why there hasn't been a lot of research into male birth control? (Oh, I could go on and on...) Because, in a nutshell, birth control has been viewed as a woman's problem for, like, EVER. Companies said men would never use it, they would never be willing to experience side effects like women do (esp. lack of libido), they would never be responsible enough to use it properly... because it's the woman that is stuck with the pregnancy. She is the one with the motivation. They are not entirely wrong, but I think that the new generation of men is different; raised on "equality", willing to suck it up and go for it.

 

[trustwomen]

So you're for increasing tax dollars to fund state child support? Uncle sam becomes mum and dad for all till your 18.

Well, if your dad doesn't want to support you, and your mum can't, what then? It's Uncle Sam or the poorhouse. If you're NOT for increasing state support, yet you're for this stupid initiative, then you are, by default, FOR increasing child poverty and misery.

 

[OzDDS]

because it's the woman that is stuck with the pregnancy. She is the one with the motivation. They are not entirely wrong, but I think that the new generation of men is different; raised on "equality", willing to suck it up and go for it.

If men are interested in not being dragged into families they are not ready to commit to or cannot afford to have. Then I would think that would be motivation enough. I think men need as many forms of birth control as they can get.. if we can get close to the number of options that women currently have.. that would be a tremendous feat.

 

[OzDDS]

Well, if your dad doesn't want to support you, and your mum can't, what then? It's Uncle Sam or the poorhouse. If you're NOT for increasing state support, yet you're for this stupid initiative, then you are, by default, FOR increasing child poverty and misery.

 

[OzDDS]

"After a vasovasostomy performed within one year of a vasectomy, an average couple has a 50% chance of conceiving. The success rate decreases 10% with each additional year."

http://www.malecontraceptives.org/methods/shug.php

So, in effect if you get a vasectomy within 4 years or so it becomes impossible to reverse and you become permantly sterile with no hope of return.

I know that the intra vas device claims it will have "better" results. But the whole idea is that its completely reversable. If I'm going to undergo a surgical procedure that costs 1,000. Im not going to go back and forth every year to have it done and then reversed. thus making the procedure realistically permanant. no?

Plus, Id be interested in the rates of infection, increasted rate of testicular cancer, as well as exposure of sperm to body and sperm antibody production during placement and reversal.. (which can also carry with it an increase risk of permanant sterility).

Just some thoughts. But otherwise.. looks like a very good product.

 

[trustwomen]

If men are interested in not being dragged into families they are not ready to commit to or cannot afford to have. Then I would think that would be motivation enough. I think men need as many forms of birth control as they can get.. if we can get close to the number of options that women currently have.. that would be a tremendous feat.

You know, I agree with you. I was criticizing the companies, not the contrary. Men do need more contraceptive options. Although, as you say, one would think that the "trapping" aspect would be reason enough to use condoms all the time too. If I were a man, I would never forgo a condom, no matter what she said, for precisely the reasons you state. I find it hard to relate to men who do.

 

[trustwomen]

I know that the intra vas device claims it will have "better" results. But the whole idea is that its completely reversable. If I'm going to undergo a surgical procedure that costs 1,000. Im not going to go back and forth every year to have it done and then reversed. thus making the procedure realistically permanant. no?

Plus, Id be interested in the rates of infection, increasted rate of testicular cancer, as well as exposure of sperm to body and sperm antibody production during placement and reversal.. (which can also carry with it an increase risk of permanant sterility).

Just some thoughts. But otherwise.. looks like a very good product.

Norplant and Depo-provera are far less safe, yet they were tested and used on countless women.

 

[dnw826]

1) I agree that our country is too sue happy.. and generally I'm against it. But I do feel there should be some way for someone to recoup money and damages if they were cheated out of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. (ie. paternity fraud)

2) Did you mom try to pretend you were his (your stepfather)? I agree.. you are lucky to have such a man in your life. But what I was talking about with regard to having manditory dna testing at birth, and allowing men who were "duped" into supporting children the ability to relinquish rights and responsibilities of the child.. this would have no effect on your situation and would not have deprived you of that man in your life if as you claim.. that he knew you weren't his but stuck around anyway by choice.
You don't want someone who isn't intersted in being a father sticking around anyways. I know this for the most part makes things worse and can sometimes leads to abuse and domestic violence.

No she didn't. It never really "came up". He pretty much knew since they were not dating at the time, but got back together when she found out that she was pregnant. I think that he would be truly disgusted if someone even mentioned that he sue.

I like the male birth control idea. Let's promote the heck out of that! Why do women always have to be the ones getting things implanted or taking hormones? Let men take a stab at it.

 

[OzDDS]

No she didn't. It never really "came up". He pretty much knew since they were not dating at the time, but got back together when she found out that she was pregnant. I think that he would be truly disgusted if someone even mentioned that he sue.

I like the male birth control idea. Let's promote the heck out of that! Why do women always have to be the ones getting things implanted or taking hormones? Let men take a stab at it.

I agree.. no reason for him to sue.. unless she did proactivly attempt to convince him that you were his and if he was not interested in being with your mother and you. etc. But that was never an issue in your case. You were very lucky to have a man like that in your life.

I'm with you on male controception.. We definitly need more options than condoms which are not that reliable and do not have that great of a record of compliance among users. I wish we could have 5-6 options that were 100% safe, reversable, and reliable.

*** I'm pretty skeptical how truely reversable these intra vas devices really are if used for more than 1-2 years.. (which is at min what most men would use them for esp. if undergoing a surgical procedure that costs approx 2,000 bucks for placement and removal)..
but it looks like a start in the right direction at least.

 

[flyingbridge]

Just chiming in... this is a much hotter topic than most may think, but the mainstream press doesn't want to touch it. There's a big movement around this matter and others involving men's rights issues. This of course scares the heck out of the gov't because if men had the same rights as women, there's a lot they could no longer be able to make men do (one example: selective service), and in the case of children, the idea of men being able to do what women can do in terms of walking away from newborns (women can drop them off at most hospitals for example, no ?s asked) is utterly terrifying to many people. Yet it doesn't seem to bother people when women do it.

This covers the topic in brief while this site is devoted to "C4M" issues.

 

[dnw826]

Just chiming in... this is a much hotter topic than most may think, but the mainstream press doesn't want to touch it. There's a big movement around this matter and others involving men's rights issues. This of course scares the heck out of the gov't because if men had the same rights as women, there's a lot they could no longer be able to make men do (one example: selective service), and in the case of children, the idea of men being able to do what women can do in terms of walking away from newborns (women can drop them off at most hospitals for example, no ?s asked) is utterly terrifying to many people. Yet it doesn't seem to bother people when women do it.

Doesn't bother people? That's because the service is mainly for people who are otherwise going to abandon the child to (many times) die. Of course people want the child to live! Is this really your argument?

And maybe it would cause a lot of problems! It is only in the last 80-90 years women have started to get any real rights compared to men. Setting a legal precedent that would set back women in many regards. Selective service? You still see MANY people who do not believe that women even have a place in the military, let alone police forces or fire stations.

And women don't have as big of a problem being the ones to abandon their children like a good percentage of men. Not that it doesn't happen with women (and they should be punished, too), but men are the real problem being deadbeats. Have you ever had to get ahold of the child support enforcement people? They are so swamped with cases it is ridiculous. And I can bet you it isn't because most of those men were cheated into having kids or mislead.

 

[OzDDS]

Doesn't bother people? That's because the service is mainly for people who are otherwise going to abandon the child to (many times) die.

Just like abortion is for women who are at risk of dying if they actually give birth to the child they are carrying. Although that may have been the driving force behind the law when it was created.. let’s look at how it is actually practiced. How many newborns do you see getting dropped off at hospitals/or aborted because mommy has cancer and can’t care for it anymore.. and how many do you see getting dropped off/or aborted because mommy can’t afford it, or simply can’t be bothered raising a child since it’s too much trouble.

And maybe it would cause a lot of problems! It is only in the last 80-90 years women have started to get any real rights compared to men. Setting a legal precedent that would set back women in many regards. Selective service? You still see MANY people who do not believe that women even have a place in the military.

1) This would not set women back at all.. ie. They would not be losing any of their rights they currently have. This would only allow men to have the same options women currently have!
2) Regardless of how many people do or do not “like” women to be in the service. That’s not the point. Men HAVE to sign up for the draft to die for their country. Women do not. That in itself is gender inequality. If both sexes had a ‘choice’ in the matter.. or if they both equally HAD to sign up.. and they treated the sexes equally in the first place.. maybe you would see a lot of these other things naturally fade away.

 

[ProReduction]

I recognize and agree that forcing someone to be a parent against their wishes is morally wrong. I do feel sympathy for most people who were "trapped" into parenthood. It is indeed unfair that parents (men and women) have to support, financially or otherwise, children they didn't want and weren't ready for.

What caused the couple to be faced with paternity? THEIR CHOICE TO HAVE SEX. As much as pro-choicers want to equate sex with simple pleasure, the purpose of sex is reproduction. Having sex creates babies. Simple truth. If you can't comprehend the fact that having sex could potentially lead to paternity, don't have sex. No adult that has consetual sex can ever claim that they were "trapped" into parenthood. It was their actions that led them to be a parent. So its not unfair for them to have to support the kids that are the consequences of their actions. It is unfair to the children that they were brought into the world by individuals too stupid to realize that the primary function of sex is reproduction.

Your theory is analogous to someone playing Russian Roulette. The primary function of a gun is the firing of a bullet. Can people playing Russian Roulette for a brief adrenaline rush (pleasure) really be surprised when their head gets blown off? Should we feel sorry for these people? Were they "trapped" into killing themselves? No all they had to do was put the gun down.

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you cannot claim that anyone is ever trapped into paternity. The exception is rape, which is a whole other issue.

 

[Josh L.Ac.]

To paraphrase Bill Maher on the topic of fundamentalist Christians claiming that abstinence is the answer:



"...you know, with the fundamentalists claiming that sex is bad, because sex with them usually is."



"People in the heartland say that the coasts are out of touch with their morals. Well, you're right. See, we actually like sex. It drives our whole economy."



Sure saying that people shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to pay the consequences is a simple answer, but it misses the point of this lawsuit. If women can have an abortion to opt out from being a parent, then men should have the same option [legally speaking - equal protection].

 

[Gut Shot]

If women can have an abortion to opt out from being a parent, then men should have the same option.

In a perfect world, sure. Alas, by virtue of our biology, Mother Nature has not granted us a very equitable situation. There is just no way around it.

Incidentally, men can opt not to be parents. The issue at stake here isn't forcible extraction of parenting, but support money. As long as the babydaddy pays up he can be 100% absent from his child's life, if he so chooses. That's a lot more freedom, IMHO, than the options that a pregnant single woman faces: abortion, adoption or 18+ years of parenting (for real).

 

[OzDDS]

As long as the babydaddy pays up he can be 100% absent from his child's life, if he so chooses. That's a lot more freedom, IMHO, than the options that a pregnant single woman faces: abortion, adoption or 18+ years of parenting

Depends on what you consider freedom?

BTW: interestingly enough the courts often state Financial abuse right along side verbal, physical, emotional etc as ways that men abuse women in relationships.

Let's look at the financial costs of women's options:

Abortion: approx. (Free - $400) http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

Adoption: Free

18+ parenting: Hundreds of thousands of dollars (but an active choice the woman gets to make if she wants)

Men have no options/no choice when it comes to the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy:

His costs regardless: Hundreds of thousands of dollars over 18+ years.


When you look at it IMHO, looks like women have more options: for example adoption and abortion both of which are "practically free".
And adoption can always a good option for someone who doesn't believe in abortion.

I agree that birth control should be Both men and women's responsibility.. BUT women also have a corner in this market as well having way more options.
The options given to men are either less reliable or permanant (condom or vasectomy). Women have all sorts of highly effective reversable birth control currently available to them.

 

[OzDDS]

Sure saying that people shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to pay the consequences is a simple answer, but it misses the point of this lawsuit. If women can have an abortion to opt out from being a parent, then men should have the same option [legally speaking - equal protection].

Or giving the child up for adoption. (I.e. relinquishing all rights and responibilities to the child)


agreed

 

[Gut Shot]

Depends on what you consider freedom?

If the woman decides to keep the child, she incurs both financial and parenting obligations. The male only incurs financial ones. In a strictly relative sense, I'd call that freedom.

BTW: interestingly enough the courts often state Financial abuse right along side verbal, physical, emotional etc as ways that men abuse women in relationships.

Ummm, not sure where this came from, but okay.

Men have no options/no choice when it comes to the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy:

Yes, you're right, they don't. And there's no good way to give them one. That's the point.

His costs regardless: Hundreds of thousands of dollars over 18+ years.

My, getting caught up in a little hyperbole, aren't we? According to the Census Bureau, in 2000 the median and average child support payments were $280 and $300 a month, respectively. Support obligations are also income sensitive, so they shouldn't be sending anyone to the poorhouse.

When you look at it IMHO, looks like women have more options: for example adoption and abortion both of which are "practically free".
And adoption can always a good option for someone who doesn't believe in abortion.

The woman may have the options, but she's also going to bear the brunt of whatever choice she makes. To make matters worse, pregnancy isn't prime time for rational decision making.

But let's talk about the only truly innocent party in all this mess: the baby. Should the baby, who has done nothing wrong, get screwed out of receiving financial support just because his/her Dad happens to be a selfish prick?

 

[dnw826]

Depends on what you consider freedom?

BTW: interestingly enough the courts often state Financial abuse right along side verbal, physical, emotional etc as ways that men abuse women in relationships.

Let's look at the financial costs of women's options:

Abortion: approx. (Free - $400) http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

Adoption: Free

18+ parenting: Hundreds of thousands of dollars (but an active choice the woman gets to make if she wants)

Men have no options/no choice when it comes to the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy:

His costs regardless: Hundreds of thousands of dollars over 18+ years.


When you look at it IMHO, looks like women have more options: for example adoption and abortion both of which are "practically free".
And adoption can always a good option for someone who doesn't believe in abortion.

I agree that birth control should be Both men and women's responsibility.. BUT women also have a corner in this market as well having way more options.
The options given to men are either less reliable or permanant % or vasectomy). Women have all sorts of highly effective reversable birth control currently available to them.

You do realize how expenisve abortion is, right? Not all women have that choice due to cost. Plus what about adoption when you don't have a rich adoptive family lined up? There are methods of male birth control being developed. And this is just the way biology has it, dude. Once you men start having babies then you can complain about us women not sticking around.

And many men do not pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's why our child support system is so backed up. I have only ever received $1000 total. For 2 kids over 5 years. And I'm lucky compared to most women I know.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Im not gonna make a value judgement on this issue though I have discussed it at length with Mrs fetus who is an ethicist and attorney, but at least in chicago there are clinics who will do abortions for free.