Friday, March 10, 2006
MEN'S RIGHTS GROUP SEEKS TO TERMINATE DUTY OF CHILD SUPPORT
The gist of the argument being advanced by the group is that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
While we generally applaud efforts to achieve equality in the parent's rights area, the approach taken in this case seems destined both to fail and to undermine the efforts of other groups with legitimate reform agendas. As a friend of ours said, the plaintiff could have prevented the risk of having to support an unwanted child by either "keeping it in his pants or by having a vasectomy." Under the circumstances, this case looks more like an attempt to avoid responsibility than an attempt to achieve justice. And the pursuit of this type of case is the kind of thing that results in the enactment of laws that limit access to the courts for people with legitimate claims. Hopefully, the plaintiff's lawyers will be sacnctioned a hefty sum and this group will take its harebrained idea to the legislature rather than trying to seek legislation from the bench.
An advocacy group calling itself The National Center for Men has filed a a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit, nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men," raises the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument being advanced by the group is that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
While we generally applaud efforts to achieve equality in the parent's rights area, the approach taken in this case seems destined both to fail and to undermine the efforts of other groups with legitimate reform agendas. As a friend of ours said, the plaintiff could have prevented the risk of having to support an unwanted child by either "keeping it in his pants or by having a vasectomy." Under the circumstances, this case looks more like an attempt to avoid responsibility than an attempt to achieve justice. And the pursuit of this type of case is the kind of thing that results in the enactment of laws that limit access to the courts for people with legitimate claims. Hopefully, the plaintiff's lawyers will be sacnctioned a hefty sum and this group will take its harebrained idea to the legislature rather than trying to seek legislation from the bench.
Comments:
<< Home
I disagree. While the suit on its surface may seem outlandish the pendulum has swung so far in the direction of a woman's right to choose, it may take this type of action to get attention to begin the swing back.
Having a vasectomy or "keeping it in your pants" may avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but the same could be said for tubal ligations and the aspirin between the knees method of birth control. However, in the latter case an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated in the first trimester with an abortion and the future dad has no say so.
In reading some of the comments of the suit's author on other sites I believe one of the remedies he is seeking is to offer the man the right to opt out of the pregnancy and give up all rights to the child in the same period that the future mom has to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. If he does so, she, then may not be looking at a paycheck each month, but still has the right to keep the child, raise it herself or put the child up for adoption.
The state's position for the man is simply "you played so you pay" and don't put the burden on us. But where is it written that a woman who does not want the unborn child shall. if the father wants the child, carry it to term, give it up to the father who will raise it and then mom pays him child support? This would never happen because the state has decided that women, rightfully so, are not simply breeders. Likewise, men are not simply paychecks.
As for the attorney's involved and the Plaintiff, it seems to me that it takes quite a bit of courage to pursue this type of lawsuit and if they prevail in any manner it may be one step closer for some equality in reproductive rights.
Having a vasectomy or "keeping it in your pants" may avoid an unwanted pregnancy, but the same could be said for tubal ligations and the aspirin between the knees method of birth control. However, in the latter case an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated in the first trimester with an abortion and the future dad has no say so.
In reading some of the comments of the suit's author on other sites I believe one of the remedies he is seeking is to offer the man the right to opt out of the pregnancy and give up all rights to the child in the same period that the future mom has to terminate the pregnancy for any reason. If he does so, she, then may not be looking at a paycheck each month, but still has the right to keep the child, raise it herself or put the child up for adoption.
The state's position for the man is simply "you played so you pay" and don't put the burden on us. But where is it written that a woman who does not want the unborn child shall. if the father wants the child, carry it to term, give it up to the father who will raise it and then mom pays him child support? This would never happen because the state has decided that women, rightfully so, are not simply breeders. Likewise, men are not simply paychecks.
As for the attorney's involved and the Plaintiff, it seems to me that it takes quite a bit of courage to pursue this type of lawsuit and if they prevail in any manner it may be one step closer for some equality in reproductive rights.
# posted by 
: 8:52 AM
: 8:52 AM
The fallacy in the father's position, one may argue, is that the child's rights to support from both parents is being ignored. The mother may oppose abortion, be willing to provide the sole financial and emotional support for the child, and be willing to agree to termination of the father's parental rights--along with the corresponding duty of support. But, in South Carolina, the duty of support will not be terminated unless the Court concludes that such a waiver of the duty of support is in the best interests of the child.
Perhaps our friend was a bit harsh in her comments. But,the mother in the Dubay case does appear to be willing to accept the consequences of engaging in intercourse with someone to whom she was not married. The father just seems to want to avoid responsibility.
On a related matter, if the father winns the case, how are we to determine which fathers have to support the child and which don't? Will husbands be allowed to opt out of supporting their biological children? What if the child has disabilities that increase the cost of raising the child, but decrease the liklihood of a successful adoption? Should the father be allowed to opt out under those circumstances? How much would you be willing to increase your taxes in order to support all those children whose fathers do not want to support them?
Post a Comment
Perhaps our friend was a bit harsh in her comments. But,the mother in the Dubay case does appear to be willing to accept the consequences of engaging in intercourse with someone to whom she was not married. The father just seems to want to avoid responsibility.
On a related matter, if the father winns the case, how are we to determine which fathers have to support the child and which don't? Will husbands be allowed to opt out of supporting their biological children? What if the child has disabilities that increase the cost of raising the child, but decrease the liklihood of a successful adoption? Should the father be allowed to opt out under those circumstances? How much would you be willing to increase your taxes in order to support all those children whose fathers do not want to support them?
<< Home
