Men's Rights Group completely misses the point of pregnancy prevention

Update: Check out the brilliant response to this ridiculosity by William Saletan over at Slate. (Thanks Anilucia!)

Here's a good example of what gives men such a bad name with feminists:

Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday 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 addresses 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: 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."

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.  We already have a tough enough time having fathers contribute to the raising of their children, both financially and emotionally.  The issue here isn't what's best for the woman or the man but for the child.  A woman's right to choose is about control over her body before the child is born.  During that time, the potential father has no obligation to the woman or the fetus. (Although some argue he should).  Once the baby is born, though, the issue is about what's best for the kid and the kid's life. At that point, the mother can't avoid her obligations to the child, so neither should the father.

Seriously guys, if you don't want to pay for the kid, there's a simple answer: Use a condom.

(Thanks Cathy!)

Comments

[caroline]

Layin' it down. Keep it up.

[anilucia]

Slate had a great commentary on this... I was falling out of my chair.

www.slate.com/id/2138088/

[Bradley]

I hate to tell you this, but in the majority of states a woman can void her obligation to the child within 7 days of giving birth by dropping the newborn off at a hospital or some other designated location.

In these situations, if the father is known they are still obligated to pay support but still need to fight in court to gain custody of the child that was financially and physically abandoned by the mother. Also, most states will then refuse to go after the mother for support if the father does happen to get custody.

Also, you should read the case before passing judgement on the guy. His girlfriend knew he did not want to have a kid and deceived him - to the point of showing him fake test results - saying that she could not have children. Should someone who commits what would amount to fraud in any other instance have the right to obligate another person to care for a child that they did not want, or believe that could ever possibly be conceived. I don't think so.

[Jason Schultz]

Your points seem contradictory. Either the mother gives up her rights (for example, via adoption) or she doesn't. If she maintains custody of the child, she cannot neglect it or its criminal.

As for this woman's alleged deception, I still think every man must take responsibility for his own fertility. Yes, it's wrong if she deceived him and he should be able to sue her for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it doesn't mean the child should suffer because of the mother's deceit. She should pay but so should he. The child shouldn't be the one to lose out in the end. His obligation is to the child, not to her.

[Gary Jackson]

I would like to run a scenario past you to clarify this man's delema. You go to a restaraunt and use your credit card. You trust the establishment to charge you for only your meal, but an employee fraudulently uses your card to purchase items off of the internet. Although there was an implicit understanding between you and the establishment, it was an unspoken one. Now, the bills start pouring in from the employee's shopping spree. If I understand you correctly, it is your fault that you didn't better control your information and you should be held liable for the fraudulent shopping spree? This is basically the same scenario. If two people are having sexual relations, they should be able to trust each other concerning that one activity, shouldn't they? I lament for the child in this because it played no part in the deception and will suffer for it, but neither did he. He is a victim in this, both emotionally and soon financially. Let's not forget that when we rush to judgement.

[Jason]

Sigh. I don't think its really a good idea to reduce the scenario to a financial transaction. Seriously. But yes, I think its morally reprehensible for anyone, including this woman, to have "tricked" another person into an obligation via deception. But at the same time, that's not what his suit is about. His suit is about not having to pay for child support. If he sued her for fraud, that would be a different story, but he didn't.

Now it's what's best for the child? Hysterical! Don't dare worry about that child while it's developing in the womb though!

[Shannon]

Can a potential father sign over rights to the unborn child or does the mother have to do it?