It has become common practice among young women, primarily from poor homes with bleak prospects for the future, to get pregnant intentionally. A cornucopia of entitlement programs await them, plus the prospect of receiving regular child support payments.

Not only in Texas.

It is not only rational economic thinking. There is behind the old sneaky Darwin too. When the relationship is unstable but the young woman thinks that the male is about the best she can ever attract, Darwin whispers to her ear that by becoming pregnant she can fix the relationship. It is a nice lie: 60% of husbands think about divorce during the first year after having a baby.

-- Let your prophets run and sell the suckers!

that one base assumption in all this seems to be specious. The way I
see this issue is: if the men are so damned scared at the prospect of
having to be responsible for their sperm, why can they not simply
either use a condom or zip their fly?

As for me, I wouldn't care if she was the most attractive female I'd ever seen....if I don't want to be a father (and I don't gamble), I'd be wearing the raincoat, for sure.

So, I'm shaking my head over all this, and am not supporting the men behind the suit....I don't think in the end that it'll get anywhere.

-5.75,-4.05 "The invisible hand of Adam Smith seems to offer an extended middle finger to an awful lot of people"---George Carlin

You must have missed the "One Way" sign when you headed down this alley...it was also issued in a memo, a very long time ago, to all Y-chromosome bearers: "You wanna play? You're gonna pay--either way."

Reporting live from the Cistercian monastery...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4789090.stm

US men fight child support laws

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.

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.

National Center for Men

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.

more

The child grows in the Womans body, never the man's. It also has, even if aborted, serious long term hormonal, physiological, health and psychological effects on her.

Apart from the the effects on the wallet of the man, it has no effect on the Man.

So the situation is fundamentally and hugely asymmetric and the Woman should have far more rights in this matter than the Man, since her life is hugely more affected.

Sorry Mate, so if you don't like it, keep yer pecker in your pocket because that is the one and only choice you have and deserve in the matter.

It seems to me that people forget that we all were a mass of reproducing cells at one time. I beleive we call that mass a person. With rights come responsibilities. Grow up!

For more simplicity visit http://www.gils3ps.blogspot.com

Eagleeye2010

As a counterpoint to Don's question, there is a case going through the courts in Europe at the moment of a woman who, before undergoing treatment for a pre-cancerous condition which left her infertile, had six of her eggs fertilized by her husband through the 'in vitro' process. The embryos were then frozen so that the couple stood a chance of having a child at a later date.
They then split up, and the ex husband has withdrawn his consent for his now infertile wife to use the embryos.

My question is, does a frozen embryo have as much right to life as a non-frozen one?

Once the husband gave his consent for his sperm to be used to fertilize his wife's eggs and start the process of 'a mass of reproducing cells', should he have the right to withdraw that consent just because the embryo was frozen for long enough for him to change his mind?

Surely, in a normal situation, once the egg is fertilized, there is going to be a baby. As far as I'm aware, a husband is not allowed to force his wife to terminate a pregnancy.

What difference does it make whether the embryos are in a womb or in a vat of liquid nitrogen?

rights to choose parenthood. But, I do have to point out, what do you think the Judge's decision would be in the case of minors or women with undersized IQ's or mental disease/instability? It would not be an easy law to administer if legislation were passed because there would be many exceptions and circumstances that would necessarily favour the woman.

Men's rights

My own personal view on this leans toward increased (if not equal) say for the man in the matter. There should be a limit to (at least) financial liability, when the child is not desired by the father, given that:

A. The father is aware of the pregnancy within the first trimester (or a period which is deemed appropriate by state legislatures which aren't banning already...)
B. The father expresses his wish to terminate the pregnancy within the same period.

If (A) is not fulfilled due to negligence on the mother's part, then (A) should be considered fulfilled (this will require documentation of attempts to contact the father, naturally). If (B) is not fulfilled, given that (A) is fulfilled, then full liability exists.

Naturally, exceptions will occur, and lawyers in abundance will be required. Sigh.

My wife and I have been debating this for the last couple days, and the whole discussion is out of whack.

Firstly, the main assumption is that people conflate a woman's right to choose with some sort of right to not have a child. The argument, then, is that if women have this right, why don't men?

The problem with this argument is that there is no such right. What the women have is a right to control the processes of their own bodies, part of the right to privacy implicated in the bill of rights. Should we do something like external fertilization, this wouldn't even be a question- either parent would have equal right to get rid of lab-baby.

But, I hear you say, why can the government control certain aspects of abortion (late-term abortions, methods, etc)? Why can't that be expanded to protect men?

Because the state has more interest in a fetus than the boyfriend does. A consequence of our long-held belief that there is no duty to aid is that we have no actual, constitutional interest in our fellow man, aside from any family relations we have. The state, on the other hand, has an interest in the health of all of their citizens, which applies to the unborn past the stage of viability. This interest is compelling, and outweighs the woman's right of privacy as the pregnancy progresses. So, from a rights standpoint, the man isn't even part of the equation.

Now, is this right? I would argue that it is. People talk about women can ignore the consequences of their actions, while the poor men are stuck with theirs. The fundamental difference is that the man has so few duties compared to the woman. Women are presumptively responsible for the child's rearing and well-being. She bears the burden of carrying the child, any medical fees that result from state-required hospital visits to diagnose the child and eventually give birth. So, the worst the man goes through when he doesn't want the child is to pay child support for 18 years, which is far less than what the woman is legally responsible (and can be prosecuted if she fails) to do. If you look at the child as a contract, there's no way for a man to "waive" his duty to support the child without some sort of consideration from the woman in exchange (it's happened before), but he cannot unilaterally have any sort of right to say "I don't want this child, so I don't want to pay child support." His actions already created this contract-like obligation, and since the woman assumes the vast majority of the risk and burden, only she (or the state) can relieve him of it.

The only other concievable way for a man to get rid of the duty would be to force the woman to abort, or similarly stop her from aborting when he wants the child. As I mentioned above, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The woman has a fundamental right to choose to abort or not, based on the biological nature of the process and the large burden she bears. Any selfish interest the man has is tiny in comparison.

So, in conclusion, this is both a legally and morally indefensible position. Women don't have a "way out" of having a child, they merely have (a complicated and difficult) way to control their body in such a way that pregnancy ends. Men have small duties and burdens compared to the woman and just as much chance to stop the pregnancy at the start. Can women use pregnancy as a trap? Yeah, sure. But the law shouldn't step in and save people from beds of their own making when there isn't any right the person can assert above whatever law. I think this whole "own your uterus" rhetoric is silly and ridiculous, but men simply don't have that sort of right, and if you care about womens' rights at all, they never should.

These days, when a marriage ends and child support would impoverish one partner to the point that any financial support might be lost, a lot of couples in the lower income bracket have agreed to joint custody. They agree to live in the same school district. No payments are exchanged. They just do their best to provide for the child . It can put limits on careers and there are sacrifices. Child care has to be split during the child's early years. It does leave both parents able to live independently and takes some of the sting away. If this was the standard, both men and women might be more responsible before a pregnancy occurs. Prevention is better than a cure. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Meade-

Everyone who engages in sexual intercourse should assume from the outset that pregnancy is possible, no matter what. Ideally, both parties would discuss this beforehand, but even if they don't, if one party really doesn't want a pregnancy to result, it is up to that person to take the appropriate precautions. Reminds me of the interview in the NYT today with the new president of Planned Parenthood, who pointed out that 90 percent of their efforts are aimed at preventing pregnancy, not abortion-related issues.

Having said that, the question posed is a tough one. I lean toward the woman's right to control the situation, as she takes all of the physical risk.

related article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312wrongful.1.html?8hpib

Thanks all for the adult discussion! :)

The current child support system has a negative impact on many other people besides the father. Following a nine year marriage and the birth of my first two children, I found myself in the irreconcilable differences zone called divorce. My ex wife had studied the family court system prior to our separation and concocted a plan to methodically siphons all our resources over the following year. The first task was getting me out of the house, requesting an emergency child support order and demanding half the current mortgage. The irony being told I have the kids next weekend, one still in diapers, with no place to live by the person who cited my lack of help with kids was her greatest concern. The kids and I stayed with several friends until we sold our home. I could now afford a one bedroom apartment.
After both kids no longer required day care services, child support was reduce to 500 per month.
Over the next few years I began dating again. I met this girl who was in a similar single parent life style as me. She told me that she didn't have much time to go out on dates. On our second date she asked me to come over and have sex. I first told her that I wasn't prepared for the encounter but would go to the store. She asked why and I said birth control. She laughed and said no need to worry because she was not able to get pregnant. After a couple weeks she asked me to go out again. I picked her up at 7:00 and went to the club. The bouncer at the door said that I may go in but she was to intoxicated. I took her right back home and as I was leaving vowed not to see her again. Three months later she called and said she was pregnant. I was unsure of her intentions, was she lying? again. I have kids, made it clear I did not want more kids. I was served a paternity suit that required me to have a DNA test. Five days later I'm told by a clerk at child support enforcement that the child is mine. My wages are now garnished to the tune of over 1000 a month plus my prior child support of 500. My take home pay is now at 1800 and my first two kids stay with me 40% of the time. I live in one city, two kids live in a town 20 miles away and the baby lives in yet another city. I am not the worlds greatest dad and have my hands full with a stressful job and raising two kids. My ex wife and 2 kids by her have dealt with the financial stress and "doing with out" because of the actions and lies of another adult. I'll never forget that day in court when I explained to the judge that based on the current garnishment I will loose my home, which I did, and how it affects my current obligation to my kids. It saddens me to say that this baby would be better off adopted. Why would someone living off a child support from her first kid, and a few waitress jobs turn down a 1000 a month and health insurance

I find it kind of interesting that women want equal rights only when it's most convenient for them and have no problem denying equal rights to men when it suits their needs.
I am a pro-lifer and think this man should be responsible for the upbringing of the child he helped create, but I am completely dis-enchanted by the feminist banter about this issue.
A matchbook? That's what you are bringing to the table? If that's the best you can do then you belong back in the day when women could not vote because that is exactly where your kind of thinking took place.
And for those who think that men only suffer financially when it comes to a pregnancy, boy are you mistaken. Don't you think men go through emotional angst, physical suffering, and more when a woman aborts a baby that a man wants? To dismiss this is to completely close your eyes to the realities of mens issues and that puts you back in the dark ages when men did not concern themselves with women's issue.
Also, women are not bound by law to raise a child. That is why we have laws in this country that protect women. She does have to carry the child and go through the 9 months of pregnancy if she decides not to abort, but there are several options for a woman wo disagrees with abortion but does not want a child. How about abortion, how about simply dropping the child off at the local hospitl (which is legal in most states) with no questions asked? Most people seem to think that just because a woman decides to have the child that she is now liable for it's upbringing. As much as that should be the case it simply is not.
Stick to the facts of the case here. The woman wants the child and the man does not. If the woman wants the child that much then she should be willing to do whatever it takes to raise that child on her own. She is responsible for that child according to many posts. And remember, I think the man should pay (it is morally right) but I'm not of the opinion that he should be FORCED to do it (legally).