Roe for Men deemed “frivolous”

Remember the “Roe v. Wade for Men� case that Rebecca Traister at Salon covered a while back? Well, the results are in. Check it out.

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

10 Comments

  1. Dymaxion
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    That’s just the Assistant Attorney General’s request — the judge hasn’t actually ruled yet.

  2. Posted June 30, 2006 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    i don’t think men should have to support children that they didn’t want, but it needs to be in writing before a pregnancy, signed by both partners, if a guy plans to get out of supporting his child.
    it would let the woman know what kind of fellow she has on her hands up front if he waved such a document in her face, insisting she sign.

  3. Frau Direktor
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    I agree with Jami. If a man wants no financial responsibility for a child, fine. Then he gets absolutely, positively no rights to the child. No coming back later to play Daddy to absolve a guilty conscience. No rights whatsoever. No coming back if the kid becomes a filthy rich pro athlete, or wins the lottery or something. This is where Jami’s written agreement comes in.

  4. EG
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    This whole thing reminds me of Katha Pollitt’s great “Personal Responsibility Act” for men back in Subject to Debate. How about this: if a man absolutely, positively doesn’t want to support kids, he can freeze a sample of sperm to be used later if he changes his mind, and then get a vasectomy?
    How many kids are unplanned? About half, if I’m remembering correctly. Allowing men to walk away from those kids will plunge even more women and children into poverty–and lots of men walk away already. It’s not like the government considers enforcing child-support payments to be a huge priority. In a country that guaranteed its citizens a decent standard of living, this kind of law might be acceptable (though I’d object to it morally), but in this one? Not so much.
    In what situation does one get to say about a significant consequence of one’s action “I didn’t mean to,” and walk away scot-free? If women get pregnant when they didn’t mean to, they have to either have an abortion or have a baby–both require taking responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. In no case does the woman get to walk away, whistling, all “nothing to do with me, all this.” So why should the man?
    Although I am having fun envisioning Jami’s scenario of a man having to ask a woman to sign this agreement before sex: “So, it’s like this: if the condom breaks and you get knocked up and have a baby, I’m just gonna walk away and leave you stranded with no support whatsoever. Just sign here, and we’ll get it on.” “Oh, uh, really? No, thanks.” “But…but…I’m a man! Don’t you want me? Aren’t you desparate for any male attention, no matter how pathetic?” “No, not really. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.”
    It strikes me that any man who has ever voted anti-choice in his life should then be barred from using such a form anyway, right? That idea appeals, I must say.

  5. Posted June 30, 2006 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    Allowing men to walk away from those kids will plunge even more women and children into poverty–and lots of men walk away already. It’s not like the government considers enforcing child-support payments to be a huge priority. In a country that guaranteed its citizens a decent standard of living, this kind of law might be acceptable (though I’d object to it morally), but in this one? Not so much.
    This is the crux of the issue: deadbeat child support is simply a way for states in the US to avoid paying welfare. Instead of a social safety net, there’s a system that requires all families to have two parents, even if neither parent wants to be with the other.
    Think of it this way: if a woman has sex with two men, gets pregnant, and has a child, then the man who will have to pay child support is the one who happens to share DNA with the child. But why should it be this man and not the other, given that he isn’t more of a father to the child? DNA contribution isn’t enough or else sperm donors would be considered fathers complete with child support payment and visitation rights. Ultimately, it’s a way of finding a convenient person to pay the bills since the state doesn’t want to.
    I agree with Jami. If a man wants no financial responsibility for a child, fine. Then he gets absolutely, positively no rights to the child.
    You’ll be surprised how many people will consider that point trivial. They don’t want to be fathers, and the only reason the state forces them to is because of the screwed-up American notions of encouraging traditional families and slashing welfare.

  6. Jacky
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    i don’t think men should have to support children that they didn’t want, but it needs to be in writing before a pregnancy, signed by both partners, if a guy plans to get out of supporting his child.
    it would let the woman know what kind of fellow she has on her hands up front if he waved such a document in her face, insisting she sign.
    Then a woman should have to sign that she will choose to abort the child, if that is her intention.
    It would let the man know what kind of lady he has in his hands up front if she waved such a document in his face.

  7. Erin
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    Jacky, that’s kind of stupid. If the man doesn’t want to support any accidental children, he’s not going to care if the baby gets aborted or not.
    Anyway, if a man disagrees with my abortion views, he welcome to NOT have sex with me and accidently knock me up.
    Alon, your post was equally stupid. The man who fathered the child IS chosen to support said child because his DNA is half the reason the child is alive. Sperm doners are “exempt” because otherwise no one would donate sperm! Basically, a sperm doner or egg doner is a “substitute” for the “real” parent whose body just isn’t healthy enough to make a baby the “regular” way.

  8. JudasIscariot
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Of course it is. All females hate males. Feminism is but an expression of this. Females desire to deprive males of their rights. This is inevitable. Males must fight back, but are too weak and brainwashed by feminism.

  9. Posted July 3, 2006 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Alon, your post was equally stupid. The man who fathered the child IS chosen to support said child because his DNA is half the reason the child is alive.
    Half the reason? Why, is the man pregnant for 4.5 months? The only point at which the man is 50% responsible is right after conception. And even so, in the scenario I posited, if the first man the woman had sex with impregnated her, then your “50% of the reason” comment becomes even more nonsensical, since the second man could’ve impregnated the woman just the same had the first one not been there.
    Basically, a sperm doner or egg doner is a “substitute” for the “real” parent whose body just isn’t healthy enough to make a baby the “regular” way.
    I love it how you imply all households must be heterosexual two-parent families. Single women and lesbian couples who take advantage of sperm donations don’t cede any fatherhood rights and duties to sperm donors, either, so what you say is just false.
    Jacky, that’s kind of stupid. If the man doesn’t want to support any accidental children, he’s not going to care if the baby gets aborted or not.
    I think you misunderstood Jacky’s post. The idea is not that a man who does not want to be a father can force a woman pregnant with his child to abort. Rather, it’s that a man who does want to be a father can force a woman not to abort. After all, as many anti-choicers say, the man contributes 50% of the DNA, so he should make half the decisions.

  10. WeAreNotAlone
    Posted July 15, 2006 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    Take away freedom from a man and you take away his spark. Without it he is an empty shell. The life of a woman married to that empty shell is emptier still.
    The problem is not about deadbeat dads not taking care of their children but still wanting to be a part of their lives. This is also not about how to split parental rights when both parents want to take care of the child. It’s about what happens when the dad doesn’t want anything to do with the child but the woman still wants to have the child.
    So I’ll show the situation under three different lights: the ideal situation, the practical situation and the real situation.
    The ideal situation is theoretical and impractical. To make it easier to understand, suppose that right after conception the embryo was always magically transported to an invitro facility.
    If we were having this debate in such a world, the solution should be fairly simple: Whoever wants to raise the child should provide for the child. If both want to then they can pool their resources, if neither wants to then the child is aborted.
    However, in practice, this doesn’t work so well. Because it means that if the dad vouches for the child but the mom doesn’t she would be forced to carry the child to term. This is not as clear a decision as some now believe. If the mother aborts the child, from dad’s point of view the mother has killed his son or daughter. But if there is doubt about the relative value of a woman right to control her body and a man’s right to his own unborn child, simply thinking about what it would take to force an unwanted pregnancy should be enough to settle the issue.
    I’ll say this again but from a different perspective:
    Roe vs Wade is an injustice perpetrated on men in order to avoid an even greater injustice towards women. Moreover, this is a willfull concession made by men for women.
    Men are going into this battle of the sexes with a tremendous amount of good will. I really wish women would do the same.
    Allright, so after Roe vs Wade. The score is pretty clear. If both parents want the child then they share in responsibility and care for the child. If the dad want’s the child but the mom does not but she is willing to carry the baby to term, then the dad should be responsible for raising and carring for the child. If the mom does not want to carry the baby to term, then the dad has no recourse. If the mom wants to carry the baby to term, but the dad does not want anything to do about the child, then the mom should be entirely and solely responsible for caring and raising the child.
    Forcing men to pay for child support for children they don’t want anything to do with is a gross injustice towards men.
    Still there are a couple of excuses people use to attempt to justify the situation.
    First, it’s all fine and dandy to say that a woman can “chose” not to have a baby but the choice is MUCH harder for a woman than for a man. The embryo is in her, it requires surgery to take out and there’s lots of hormones involved. It’s an argument to have the man equally responsible for the abortion, but not an argument to have the man responsible for the baby. If the woman choses not to have the baby it’s emotionally draining. The man, most of the time, does not have the same emotional cost. This is an injustice of nature, and the legal system is not the place to rectify it. It’d be like saying men must wear weights at all times to compensate for their greater muscular strengths.
    The second reality is this: Women will often chose to have their baby even if they know that they do not have the means to raise that child.
    We live in a society that cares greatly for its children. There is a strong will to make sure that every child has a fair chance at life.
    Some would argue: why not make the parent who never wanted the child anyway pay for the child?
    Well I’ll say it a couple more times so that it sticks:
    Her decision: her consequences.
    Her choice: her responsibility.
    Child Support is the result of a society that wants welfare recipients (the children) but doesn’t want to pay for it. So they target the most vulnerable minority (“Deadbeat dads”) and make them pay for it.
    To conclude (like they taught me to do in english class), there is an ideal system where only the parent who wants the child needs to be responsible for that child. However, because pregnancy happens in a women’s body. Men have decided in Roe vs Wade to preserve women’s right over their bodies at the cost of men’s right to have their child brought to term.
    Also, society seems to be shirking responsibility of it’s poor children by imposing undue responsibility on “deadbeat dads”. I think that’s absurd.
    Men who don’t want children get to “fire and forget” during sex since at worse they would be responsible for abortion fees. Women who don’t want children have to deal with the actual abortion and the emotional cost. I said that this is a natural unfairness and is not a reason to “get back” at men through the legal system.
    Hmm… I’ve written too much. Again.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

168 queries. 0.629 seconds