Fathers opting out of child support


#1

Activists seek to let fathers opt out of child support

By David Crary, Associated Press | March 9, 2006

NEW YORK – Contending that women have more options than men do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men’s rights activists are mounting a long-shot legal campaign aimed at giving men the opportunity to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit, nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men, to be filed today in US District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his former girlfriend’s daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the US Constitution’s equal protection clause.

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.

''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," said Mel Feit, director of the men’s center. ''I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."

Feit’s organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.

Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for his former girlfriend’s daughter, who was born last year.

He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that – because of a physical condition – she could not get pregnant.

Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.

''What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. ''Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.


#2

duplicate thread, we just discussed this yesterday. I have a personal opinion about surgical options for men, especially sports stars, who refuse to support the children the sow broadcast over the landscape with the cooperation of various women. However to detail that opinion would be inappropriate on this forum. this entire discussion probably belongs under Culture of Death because it has the same root as the abortion defense movement: intrinsic hatred of children, kinderphobia


#3

I have to agree with the suit. Since abortion is “legal” a man’s only responsibility should be to pay the abortion bill or the equivalent. By doing so he would forever terminate his parental rights to the child. DNA testing should be done either after the abortion or birth to confirm his paternity. If he was not the “father” then he should get a full refund for the abortion cost and double it as a punitive damage.

Abortion is immoral and always wrong but within the dynamic of “choice” the woman had a choice to contracept as the man does, they could abstain but only she can choose to continue to term or terminate and he has no say. Either the man gets to say yeah or nay on abortion or he should not have to pay child support if he did not want to have children. She should not be able to have it both ways.

Obviously, this takes further down a crazy wrong road but feminists should be forced to be logically consistent.


#4

[quote=genealogist]I have to agree with the suit. Since abortion is “legal” a man’s only responsibility should be to pay the abortion bill or the equivalent. By doing so he would forever terminate his parental rights to the child. DNA testing should be done either after the abortion or birth to confirm his paternity. If he was not the “father” then he should get a full refund for the abortion cost and double it as a punitive damage.

Abortion is immoral and always wrong but within the dynamic of “choice” the woman had a choice to contracept as the man does, they could abstain but only she can choose to continue to term or terminate and he has no say. Either the man gets to say yeah or nay on abortion or he should not have to pay child support if he did not want to have children. She should not be able to have it both ways.

Obviously, this takes further down a crazy wrong road but feminists should be forced to be logically consistent.
[/quote]

Are you saying that he shouldn’t take responsibility for his actions? He knew from the beginning that all contraceptives are not 100% effective; he knew that his actions were those to conceive life, yet he CHOSE to participate anyway. Where is his responsibility?


#5

[quote=auppie]Are you saying that he shouldn’t take responsibility for his actions? He knew from the beginning that all contraceptives are not 100% effective; he knew that his actions were those to conceive life, yet he CHOSE to participate anyway. Where is his responsibility?
[/quote]

The point is SHE also knew all these things, but only she gets to decide if the pregnancy will go full term or not, not the man. He has no say over her decisions, so why should he have to pay child support for a child she decided to have? She knew all the consequences of having sex just as much as he did. Do you see, even if you disagree?


#6

A tragedy that the child’s needs are not even mentioned in this battle of the sexes. Hopefully, the courts will recognize the rights of the child before the financial well-being of the father.


#7

[quote=Cupofkindness]A tragedy that the child’s needs are not even mentioned in this battle of the sexes. Hopefully, the courts will recognize the rights of the child before the financial well-being of the father.
[/quote]

We all have the basic human right to life and freedom.


No one has the right to someone else’s bank account purely as a result of their birth, or due to giving birth, and that’s what this really comes down to, imo.


#8

[quote=Rob’s Wife]We all have the basic human right to life and freedom.


No one has the right to someone else’s bank account purely as a result of their birth, or due to giving birth, and that’s what this really comes down to, imo.
[/quote]

Yes, in the days when women couldn’t get abortions, men were held responsible for any children they might father because a woman would have to have and support his offspring. But, if she can abort, why should he have to pay anything when she decided to carry the pregnancy to term (using the radical feminists language against them here, no spitballs please :wink: ).

If rad fems want to say that a woman has all the choice, then why should any man have to support her children, even in marriage? This would be consistently logical, as someone else pointed out. But, they don’t want their own logic turned on them because they have to put women forward as the victims of men in order to keep the idea alive that women need the right to abortion, but they also want to portray women as having enough brains to know they need an abortion, which makes no sense, at all, really. :rolleyes:


#9

[quote=Della]The point is SHE also knew all these things, but only she gets to decide if the pregnancy will go full term or not, not the man. He has no say over her decisions, so why should he have to pay child support for a child she decided to have? She knew all the consequences of having sex just as much as he did. Do you see, even if you disagree?
[/quote]

Yes, I do see, and I agree that she even knew of the possibilities of premarital sex. Also these are two different issues in the courtroom.

A question comes to mind to your question of why should he have to pay child support for a child she decided to have, and that is: why doesn’t he just terminate his parental rights to this child right now?


#10

[quote=auppie]Yes, I do see, and I agree that she even knew of the possibilities of premarital sex. Also these are two different issues in the courtroom.

A question comes to mind to your question of why should he have to pay child support for a child she decided to have, and that is: why doesn’t he just terminate his parental rights to this child right now?
[/quote]

Exactly. And I imagine the courts will come to the same conclusion, which will still let the man off the hook. In putting forward the idea that a woman has all the rights with regard to abortion, the rad fems have opened a Pandora’s box. They can’t have it both ways–a woman being free to abort/not abort AND the man having to support her child whether he wanted to be a father or not. So, the ball is in the rad fem’s court, so to speak, but I can’t see how they are going to get past this one, which is why the lawsuit is being brought into court in the first place. To get the rad fems to admit that they can’t have it both ways. Yes?


#11

[quote=Della]Exactly. And I imagine the courts will come to the same conclusion, which will still let the man off the hook. In putting forward the idea that a woman has all the rights with regard to abortion, the rad fems have opened a Pandora’s box. They can’t have it both ways–a woman being free to abort/not abort AND the man having to support her child whether he wanted to be a father or not. So, the ball is in the rad fem’s court, so to speak, but I can’t see how they are going to get past this one, which is why the lawsuit is being brought into court in the first place. To get the rad fems to admit that they can’t have it both ways. Yes?
[/quote]

That would be ideal, yes, however, ideals are not something that frequently occurs in organizations like rad fems.

This is not just her child; it is his child too. It doesn’t matter if he wanted a child or not, he has one, and doesn’t want to face the responsibility of it. Anytime anyone engages in premarital sex, both partners take that chance of creating a life. When they engaged in that kind of behavior, he was taking that chance of becoming a father (whether he wanted to or not).

The cases that get me are the ones where the woman had the baby, didn’t tell the father for better than 15 years, and she NOW expects child support.


#12

[quote=auppie]This is not just her child; it is his child too. It doesn’t matter if he wanted a child or not, he has one, and doesn’t want to face the responsibility of it. Anytime anyone engages in premarital sex, both partners take that chance of creating a life. When they engaged in that kind of behavior, he was taking that chance of becoming a father (whether he wanted to or not).
[/quote]

Of course it’s his child too, but according to the rad fems, it’s only his child IF the mother carries the child to term. That’s not right. It ought to be as you stated it, but it isn’t, which is why the lawsuit is being brought to court–to point out that discrepancy.

The cases that get me are the ones where the woman had the baby, didn’t tell the father for better than 15 years, and she NOW expects child support.

Well, he’d only have to support the child for 3 more years in that case, which would be just about the amount of time it would drag through the courts. Ironic, huh?


#13

[quote=Della]Well, he’d only have to support the child for 3 more years in that case, which would be just about the amount of time it would drag through the courts. Ironic, huh?
[/quote]

Nope, he would have to pay the back support as well. It is unfortunate, and not ethical.


#14

Originally Posted by Della

Well, he’d only have to support the child for 3 more years in that case, which would be just about the amount of time it would drag through the courts. Ironic, huh?

auppie:

Nope, he would have to pay the back support as well. It is unfortunate, and not ethical.

Ah yes, I’d forgotten about that. No, it’s not ethical. Which is why these men are, once again, bringing this lawsuit.


#15

If men do not want to father children–they must remain CELIBATE. You play, you pay.

The onus of pregnancy and child bearing is sigularly the mother’s lot.
HER legal choices should not be used to penalize the child.

In putting forward the idea that a woman has all the rights with regard to abortion, the rad fems have opened a Pandora’s box. They can’t have it both ways–a woman being free to abort/not abort AND the man having to support her child whether he wanted to be a father or not.

So, it is justified to sacrifice the well being of a child, who has a right to support, just to serve some politcal ideal? How heartless. The mother, because she has the legal right to murder the child, mitigates the obligations of the father. What perverse logic.

If one supports this position, THE CHILD “has it” no way.

This legal argument does not hold water in any moral bucket.


#16

[quote=Della]Exactly. And I imagine the courts will come to the same conclusion, which will still let the man off the hook. In putting forward the idea that a woman has all the rights with regard to abortion, the rad fems have opened a Pandora’s box. They can’t have it both ways–a woman being free to abort/not abort AND the man having to support her child whether he wanted to be a father or not. So, the ball is in the rad fem’s court, so to speak, but I can’t see how they are going to get past this one, which is why the lawsuit is being brought into court in the first place. To get the rad fems to admit that they can’t have it both ways. Yes?
[/quote]

I do think that’s why the case is being brought up.

Just one more example of how their philosophy is really bad for women, not really good for them. —KCT


#17

[quote=coyote]So, it is justified to sacrifice the well being of a child, who has a right to support, just to serve some politcal ideal? How heartless. The mother, because she has the legal right to murder the child, mitigates the obligations of the father. What perverse logic.

If one supports this position, THE CHILD “has it” no way.

This legal argument does not hold water in any moral bucket.
[/quote]

Which is why the whole rad fem position is evil. The child is the last one taken into consideration–more precisely, the child isn’t taken into account at all unless the mother decides to carry her baby to term, and only THEN does a man have any obligations, according to the abort philosophy of the rad fems. You’re so right, the whole damnable thing “does not hold water in any moral bucket.”


#18

The only good thing about an issue like this is to point out the rediculousness of the woman’s so-called “right” to abortion.

I would hope that men should rise above and show a level of maturity that surpasses the feminists and oppose this.

If he’s the father, he can support the child. The fact that the mother doesn’t get locked up for aborting is just plain wrong. We’re not doing the children any favor by allowing the men to opt out.

I say leave the law as it is (men are obligated to pay) and continue to throw the double standard in the face of feminists.

The more I read that passage in Genesis, “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” the more I think the term “desire” is not the healthy desire, but a desire to dominate. Same word, desire, is used a few passages later to describe sin’s desire for Cain, a desire bent on destruction.


#19

I say leave the law as it is (men are obligated to pay) and continue to throw the double standard in the face of feminists.

Their double standard has been thrown in the face of the rad fems for 30+ years and made no dent. Not that I agree with the lawsuit in question, but at least somebody thinks it’s time to make them face their own logic. Maybe it will kick start some people into seeing what a double standard it truly is if the shoe is put on the other foot. :wink:


#20

I think this case has good possibility. The best decision that could come out of it is that a man should have some say in the decisions concerning his pre-born child, such as not getting an abortion, being notified of his fatherhood, etc. Of course, the case wouldn’t say that precisely as it doesn’t deal with that, but it could lay the legal groundwork for it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.