Roe vs. Wade for men.
So, there’s a new lawsuit being prepared by a men’s activist group being called Roe vs. Wade for men. Basically, a man who didn’t want children slept with a woman who assured him that she was physically unable to get pregnant- and it turns out that she wasn’t, in fact, sterile. She gave birth to a child. The lawsuit here would give the father the opportunity to opt out of child support because he didn’t have any choice in the matter- he didn’t get to choose whether or not he wanted to be a father. A woman can choose whether or not to be a mother (although not in some states anymore), but a man doesn’t get a say. “Shouldn’t things be equal?” seems to be the logic behind this argument.
But things aren’t equal, and until some amazing advances in medical science are made, they can’t and won’t be. The difference between having the option to pay child support and having the option to have an abortion is this: in the former situation, three people are involved-a mother, a father, and a child. In the latter, two people: a man and a pregnant woman. Only the woman can decide what can and can’t happen to her body.
The moment that child is born, things should stop being about the man and woman: they should be about the welfare of the child, and what’s best for it. And, yes, it sucks to be that guy. I’m not saying that he didn’t get the short end of the stick. He did. And I’m not saying that child support should be mandatory for men in every single case- sperm banks and male rape are instances when exceptions can be made.
A last note: “Roe vs. Wade for men” my ass. No man that I know of has ever died from paying child support. How many women have died from illegal abortions?
Ricky's last note: When I told my boyfriend that there was a lawsuit that was being called "Roe vs. Wade for men," he asked if they were taking away the right to a vasectomy. I just thought that was interesting.
Photography by Chip; January 2006.
But things aren’t equal, and until some amazing advances in medical science are made, they can’t and won’t be. The difference between having the option to pay child support and having the option to have an abortion is this: in the former situation, three people are involved-a mother, a father, and a child. In the latter, two people: a man and a pregnant woman. Only the woman can decide what can and can’t happen to her body.
The moment that child is born, things should stop being about the man and woman: they should be about the welfare of the child, and what’s best for it. And, yes, it sucks to be that guy. I’m not saying that he didn’t get the short end of the stick. He did. And I’m not saying that child support should be mandatory for men in every single case- sperm banks and male rape are instances when exceptions can be made.
A last note: “Roe vs. Wade for men” my ass. No man that I know of has ever died from paying child support. How many women have died from illegal abortions?
Ricky's last note: When I told my boyfriend that there was a lawsuit that was being called "Roe vs. Wade for men," he asked if they were taking away the right to a vasectomy. I just thought that was interesting.
Photography by Chip; January 2006.
14 Comments:
what's vasectomy?
i don't see why it's a 'man vs. woman' case. it wouldn't make a difference if the man told the woman he was sterile.
(same anon as previous post)
oh, right, it's the whole abortion thing...
well, she did screw him over, but it's not the babys fault, he should stop whining and help raise the kid.
it seems that if we're going to begin forcing women to give birth, we should force men to pay. Similar to the first comment, what if he told her HE was sterile, then she got pregnant? Would she be forced to have the baby?
Candy
Help me I have discovered the porn on Flickr and I cant stop looking at it. Are you on flickr?
Nice to come back here and have a nudity free reading experience.
That SD abortion thing is bullshit they're trying to do the same thing here in MI.
anon-a vasectomy is sterilization for men.
everyone: the thing is, it's just a bad analogy. An abortion is a medical procedure done on one person. A child isn't.
regi: no, I'm not. And about the SD thing being bullshit: you're telling me. It's definitely got me upset.
I made an advertisement for you. Maybe you should start a discussion about "How can a girl make a buck entertaining pervs on the internet.", your why I visit not other people's porn. Why dont you add "jenni cam" like photos to your blog.
Aw, thanks. There aren't any jenni cam pics on my blog because I don't have a webcam. I actually don't even have my own digital camera- I have to borrow Ricky's.
In Roe v Wade one of the considerations was the impact having a child would have upon her life. Not just because she would have to carry the child and give birth to it, but also because she would have to support the child.
ROE v. WADE
The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws.
wb57- thanks for pointing this out. I did not know this. I still don't think it's an accurate comparison.
So has anyone actually gone out and *looked* as to whether requiring men to pay child support in these cases ultimately hurts or helps kids? It's a nice assumption but probably far fewer kids would end up getting carried to term if it was harder to get child support and women might be more exacting about birth control (shouldn't have to fall on them but we are being unfair to someone here and the goal is to make sure the fewest kids are born without support or born unwanted).
Also the argument that it is the best interests of the kid who count would justify making the richest guy the woman has slept with in the past year rather than the father pay the child support. Why doesn't your argument favor this solution instead of the one given?
Wow, you really are a logic nazi. I'll try and answer. You're right, someone should look into what's best for kids in terms of requiring men to pay child support.
My response, without individually breaking down every point you make, is this: although things can't be fair, ever, that doesn't mean we can't try and make them as fair as possible to all parties involved.
Here is the reality of it. It happened to me! Speculate all you want.
Bottom line is in this country you CANNOT place laws on 1 specific group of people and other laws on another group of people! Its a direct contradiction of the constitution of the United States! All you chumps out there that are not in this nightmare and paying $1000.00 a month to some bitch thats blowing all the money on herself while your child is doing without dont know what the hell you talking about with "Keep you zipper shut".."Play you pay" and all that crap. How much does the damn mother have to pay? WE pay, women hit the damn lotto by getting pregnant. Hell Im tempted to convince my own daughter to get knocked up by a couple of doctors and retire!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What’s to stop women from doing that if they can stomp on men and literally screw them out of outrageous amounts of money!? See my point?! The bottom line is its unconstitutional to give women the right and not men. Thats all there is to it!
Posted by: Danny Holland at May 16, 2006 07:28 AM
62
Bottom line is in this country you CANNOT place laws on 1 specific group of people and other laws on another group of people! It’s a direct contradiction of the constitution of the United States! All you chumps out there that are not in this nightmare and paying $1000.00 a month to some bitch that’s blowing all the money on herself while your child is doing without don’t know what the hell you talking about with "Keep you zipper shut"."Play you pay" and all that crap. How much does the damn mother have to pay? WE pay, women hit the damn lotto by getting pregnant. Hell I’m tempted to convince my own daughter to get knocked up by a couple of doctors and retire! What’s to stop women from doing that if they can stomp on men and literally screw them out of outrageous amounts of money and laugh in our faces when WE say we are not ready for fatherhood!? See my point?! The bottom line is it’s unconstitutional to give women the right and not men. That’s all there is to it!
More reality.
I see you noted the dad doesnt have to be up all night, take the kid to school, nurture them, entertain them, sacrifice their life for the childs benefit, do without, etc, etc. HELLO!!! thats why MEN would like a choice like WOMEN have. Everytime you have sex are you planning on having a child? Most of us do it for pleasure not planning on having a child, its human nature, WE ALL DO IT! Now if there is an unexpected pregnancy, shouldnt the father have the right to decide if he is ready to forfeit his life to become a father and pay outrageous amounts of money for 18 years? Well WOMEN have that right, what the hell do they have to lose!? NOTHING! MEN Lose! I cant believe all the different views here but the bottom line here is should men have the same right as women to terminate parenthood? If the mother wants the child and the father opts out, then ol MOM can pay the child support! Ill bet money she runs down and aborts the child if SHE has to pay but its ok if ol DAD forks over all the money and mom gets another boyfriend which happens 90% of time and gets to raise the child, men dont even get the opportunity to raise the child anyway. Lets put the shoe on the other foot here and say Dad always get the child and ALL THE MONEY, ALL THE TAX BENEFITS, gets to watch the child grow up, chooses who he wants to be the mother, have MOM pay the $300.00 a month in medical insurance on top of the $1000.00 a month in child support, choose whichever weekend he and the new mom want to take a trip somewhere and THEN let mom have the child for that weekend, whenever its conveinent for DAD to let her have the child! How does that sound!!!? Well thats what MEN GET! And that is how it is,Ive lived it daily since 1999! My girlfriend that I was trying to leave and that I told I didnt want any more children stopped taking the pill behind my back, I caught her by checking the pills and moved out! A month later she comes into my office all happy! Im pregnant! That cost me around $135,000.00 !!!! That sound fair to you!!!!!!!!!!!? Now if she didnt want it she could run down for an office visit with $300.00 and forfeit the obligation, but why do that and lose $135,000.00!? Just like winning the lotto! You take that right away from women and now see how fast she gets to the abortion clinic! Oh ME pay for this child!? Screw that! But ol Dad just sits back and writes checks for 18 back breaking years while she runs off with another guy and blows your money on her new life with your child! Boy thats real fair. Like my dad use to tell me "You wanted it! You got it!" NOW PAY FOR IT. A women wants a child against a father will then she can pay for it and let the father be a father when he is ready, NOT whenever a women decides he is!
Danny: whatever merit your argument had has already been taken away by your poor writing. But I'll try and answer you anyway.
1. You can't tell anyone what to do with their body.
2. There is now a child in the world that is a product of your loins. It is not fair to that child to deny support. It has nothing to do with the other parent.
3. If your child is going without, then I suggest you quickly go to a social worker and report this. It's unethical to let a child suffer.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home