Yes, I think everyone agrees that it would be better for a child if daddy paid up. There is no doubt about this. It is, however, a simple issue of equal rights. A woman has A choice to keep or absolve all responsiblity for a child. A man has none.

Many people argue that it would be better for married mothers to stay home and raise the kid. Perhaps we should have a law that forces all married mother's to do this. Why not? It's better for the kid! Why should she not sacrifice the same "selfish" rights a MAN has as it's better for the child. Do you see the absurdity?

It's a basic issue of equality. I think any man who would abandon a child is a miserable sack of crap, but I think that he should be GUARANTEED the equal opportunity provided to women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women can also choose to abandon or refuse or fail to support their children - it happens all the time. They probably do it less than men do, but it is still a "choice" that is available to them in the same way that is availabe to men. The only procreative choice that is not either shared or available to men and women is the choice to terminate the pregnancy or have the child; only a woman has that choice and only a woman suffers the physical consequences of that choice.

I agree that the societal cost of changing this equation is not worth the consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A man who doesn't want children must make sure he doesn't allow his sperm to get anywhere where it could meet an egg! He cannot rely on anyone else to do that for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy is not the equivalent of a man's choice to financially opt out of fatherhood.

They could be the same in the eyes of the law. Both are essentially abdications of responsibility, but just as a woman has a legal right to refuse motherhood, a man must have an equal right to refuse fatherhood. Believe it or not, Roe v. Wade applies as much to men in its own way. A law cannot, before the U.S. Bill of Rights, be applied in a discriminatory fashion; it must be equally relevant, legally speaking, to all persons. That a man will never need to ask for an abortion is not a matter of legality, but of biological imperatives. It is the fact that a man cannot become pregnant that renders Roe v. Wade a moot point in our case, not a legal decision.

So the question becomes: What is the male equivalent to abortion rights?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For SUCKER. Let his story be a lesson for all men who don't want to pay child support. Stop relying on your partner for birth control!

I feel very bad for the child in this situation--a mother who is very possibly a conniving bitch and a father who is a tight-fisted moron. An abortion was probably a good idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have read "nature" in these comments as if it were some egregious misfortune or an ultimate bane. Where did the anger and resentment about being a male or female come from? The argument is over "my body" and "my wallet" without regard for the more fundamental issue of life. Up until a century ago soon after males and females went through puberty they were ready for marriage, family and adulthood. But society has lept forward, mostly by economic and political ideology, to a point when the adolescence has been extended into the ages of mid to late 20's. Sexuality is promoted and exploited by the media. So now there is a large population that is not prepared for children, have little understanding of the responsiblities of caring for life and a constant message that sex has no consequences. The problem, from my view, is no sex education in school, no socialization of boys that they must take responsibility for their sexual acts when men and most of all that the relationship between a womand and man is the fundamental foundation for maturity and growth and sex should only add to a secure and intimate understanding and not be the leading aspect of communication. There just seems to be a confusion, distrust and animosity between males and females that I do not remember historically. It is as if many are unhappy with their own natures. One fact is nature certainly will not conform to any social, political or personal ideology, wish or expectation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a feminist. I am the mother of three adults. I am a smart, responsible woman. And I am shocked at the hypocrisy of so-called “smart & progressive” women like the writer of this commentary.

Do not force something on a man that you do not want forced upon you. It is that simple.

There is no logical or ethical reason in this country (as it stands today) to force a man to support a child he does not want. None. Ladies, if you cannot afford a child, DO NOT HAVE ONE. Otherwise, you are a weak, dependent, irresponsible hypocrite. And unfortunately, there are already enough of those around.

Attention ladies! YOU control your body. YOU control your finances. YOU control your life. YOU make the decisions regarding sex. YOU should be a responsible adult. He might not pay you. He might not marry you. He might leave you if he does. YOU might be alone with a kid someday. Wake up and be responsible for yourself.

I am not talking about the silly notion of abstinence. That is just stupid political and religious talk. And there is no such thing as promiscuity. That is a judgmental and ignorant concept. Sex is fun, and Sex is an absolute means to enlightenment as a woman (why do you think men in religion and politics have consistently, over the centuries, attempted to control a woman’s sex life?).

BUT. Everything changes IF ABORTION RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY FROM WOMEN. Then, and only then, may women ethically and logically FORCE men to pay out the nose. Trap them. Do whatever. But, as long as women are able to control their own reproductive process, they have no right in this world to force a man to pay a dime for a child they choose to have.

With this in mind, young men who ignore today’s threat to a woman’s right to a safe abortion is really just ignoring their own right to choose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with the comments about males being accountable for their actions. If you drive a car and make a mistake that causes an accident, in the eyes of the law you are accountable for any damages that mistake may cause; whether intentional or not. You do the best you can in this world, and if your precautions are not adequate, you just have to make the best of the consequences. Mature people understand this, life is not a free-for-all.
And pregnancy aside, why would anyone choose to have unprotected sex with someone they hardly know (three months is not an adequate amount of time to know someone) when there is a serious epidemic of STD's and AIDS/HIV ? It seems that people spend more time and do more investigation and research into buying a new car than is done when making a decision about sexual contact. Regardless of gender, making choices based on logic and not lust about one's own body should be foremost. That is what separates us from the chimps.
Until our society can/will provide adequate care and support (financially and otherwise) to people raising children without a partner, I support the so-called inequality of the system in opting to give more "rights" to women to make the choices that are (more than likely) going to affect every area of their lives for the next 20 years.
This man (little boy) can cry victim all he wants, but the child in this situation is the real victim.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The point is, Dubay's girlfriend indulged in fraud to get him to conceive and support a child. He had made it very clear that he didn't want a child and she deceived him.

In essence, she committed a crime against him, and the courts have validated that crime -- and enlarged upon it.

This is justice? Maybe in George W. Bush's strange little world. Don't forget to adopt a frozen zygote today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After my second child was born in 1973, I had a vasectomy. My then-wife and I decided that two was enough. The vasectomy served a twofold purpose: It guaranteed with almost 100% precision that I would never again impregnate a woman by the traditional method (yes, I was made aware at the Planned Parenthood clinic where the surgery took place that a microscopic possibility existed that some determined and spiteful sperm might still find its way out, but that such events were very rare) and it relieved my wife of the unfair necessity of dosing her body with dubious contraceptive chemicals. So, if I may be allowed to toot my own horn, I believe I did the right thing and I have never regretted it. I’m sixty-two now and there have been no more children. To all you young men out there who are still looking for the “casual lay” (pardon my language, ladies), I suggest you think about this quick ‘n’ easy operation. If, however, you think you would like to have children somewhere down the road, or if you are one of those macho morons who think you will be less of a man as a result of this operation (you won’t be; I guarantee your voice will not get higher and you will not walk with a swish), then I suggest you mentally prepare yourself to reap what you may possibly sow the next time you decide to dip the ol’ wick. In other words, think ahead. Think ahead and, if you really are a man, be ready to accept your responsibilities. This is a highly philosophical issue, one without a clear yes or no answer. Many good points have been raised in previous posts, but ultimately it will be up to the courts, and right now you have to live with things as they are. So THINK! Anytime you drop in for a little of the ol’ in-out, think about that worst-case scenario and make up your mind about what you would do about it. Might want to talk it over with Mary Jane, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Betcha that site got a lot more hits after the "Roe v Wade for Men" story hit the blogs ...

Among the things that NCM will provide (for a fee) is telephone counseling to help you get over the harm done to you by your childhood CIRCUMCISION .

This issue invites are a number of cheesy jokes and cheap shots but it's an self-revealing choice of grievances, all the same. The position is 'male circumcision in the West is the moral and medical equivalent of Female Circumcision as practiced in the East.'

There is some small particle of truth in the position: there are men who declare, think, feel, and believe that they have been harmed, damaged and traumatized by circumcision ... and many more eager to believe them -- especially if the topic of female genital mutilition has been raised.

These men also feel that public restroom space should be planned based on a square foot per patron system. So, if a sports bar has 4 times as many male as female patrons, and devotes 200 square feet to their men's room, the women's facilities should be 50 square feet. "That's fair isn't it?"

Similarly ... if a woman can choose to bear or not bear a child ... shouldn't the biological father be able to prevent or insist on the abortion, too? Isn't that only fair?

"Our Money, Ourselves" after all.

(Or maybe the two of them should decide the matter by democratic process ... the one with the more friends gets to decide outcome.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Says he was lied to. But we may never know the truth.

How many men lie, brag, show-off, posture and fake it, to get into a woman's pants? More than a few, I suspect.

In fact, the vast majority of males seem to think this is what they are supposed to do. I know that every time the discussion has risen in a group setting, it's me against everyone else. With very few exceptions, my male confrères are well practiced in the art, and consider me a big sucker or some kind of chump.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich just keep ripping us off even more, our standard of living continues to drop compared the other more advanced nations, and while Rome burns, our supposedly earnest and conscientious Netroots liberal blogosphere continues to try to divide us up into battling factions by stirring up gender and race wars by pitting us against each other.

Nice work you can get it!

Who is our common enemy--us, the common people, men and women, black and white, or is it the rich people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IF the woman had agreed that the couple wanted no children AND the two had discussed that and documented that in writing AND they were using birth control AND the pregnancy resulted from a failure of said mutually-agreed-upon birth control, OK. In such a circumstance, I can see the point of those who say a man should have some say about the fate of the child, a decisive say.

I think he should be able to force the woman to give the child up for adoption, if done while the woman still has the option to knowingly opt for an abortion instead.

But I cannot see giving men under any circumstances the right to merely refuse to pay.

I think that in the above mentioned case, a man should have the right to insist, legally and in writing, if done during the first two months of the pregnancy, that the mother give the child up for adoption, if she choses not to abort.

As far as a man going out to a bar, picking up a woman, having unprotected sex and then bitching when he gets hit with a paternity suit, I say -- SHUT UP.

So how could such a regime be effectuated on the ground? With extreme difficulty, is all I can say. You would have to have affidavits, witnesses and evidence supporting the cohabitation or longterm committed relationship of the couple, of the mutually-agreed-upon and used birth control, statements from doctors regarding said birth control, written proof of the mother's expressed agreement with the father's expressed disinclination to have children . . . a lot of documentation.

Under no circumstances would I be for a program which would allow men to simply renounce their fathers' obligation while leaving the child in the hands of the mother. If a father does not want to support his child, the child should be aborted or adopted.

Unless the child is conceived using artificial insemination from a sperm bank. A woman who would organize that should be able to keep her father-free child. Accidental mothers, no.

IMHO.

A better alternative would be some form of reversible male contraception. I understand some barefoot genius in India has come up with something that works wonders, using "a reversal of electromagnetic polarity." For $25 (in India), men can have a reversible vasectomy. If not that, let's get some money out there to develop some form of reversible male contraception.

Then, boys, use it. Or get out the paperwork and get it in order. Save those birth control receipts. Build a case.

But if men are just being negligent, careless and dumping birth control responsibility on the mother -- no outs for you.

IMHO.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A male should take responsibility for being fertile...either abstain from sex until you are ready, or get your self "fixed". Women too have this choice. I believe in Choice, but I believe it should be a last ditch effort....

In this article, the writer describes some things a woman has to decide...I didn't notice her health listed, nor how she is going to support the child once it is born, who will tend it (and pay for the tending) while she is at work earning the money to feed and clothe the child or pay it's medical bills.

Abortion is NOT something a woman does without thought, it is a painstaking decision process. A man who does not want to marry the woman (and being pregnant is NO reason to get married), he can walk away if the child is not healthy....the woman can't....don't believe me, carry a living being in your body for 9 months, feeling it move, kick, suck its thumb, hiccup, etc, and tell me you didn feel SOMETHING for that being.

To me, giving a child up for adoption is not a viable option..too many adoptees have been abused and murdered. I would care too much about the child to risk that...better to abort as soon as possible upon learning of the pregnancy than to risk giving the child to a monster....

To support or not support a human that you have helped create, ready or not, is not an issue...and it goes far deeper thant he pocket book. A child needs love, nurturing, attention. If the male (or female) involved in it's creation is not up to all if then the least he or she can do is make sure it has the basic neccessities of life...$500 a month is nothing compared to what it costs to actually stay in the home and financially suipport the child, especially once it reaches school age...

So, stop sniveling, support the child that may result in your getting your jollies, or abstain from said jollies or get a vasectomy--simple

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is nothing equal or fair about human reproduction. In fact, the deck is basically stacked AGAINST women. Now don't get me wrong, I love being a woman, but periods hurt and we get them for most of our lives. Getting pregnant isn't just about morning sickness and mood swings; even in our medically advanced society women still die in childbirth. And even if we're healthy and glowing, delivering a child hurts like a mutha'. It's not fair that men deposit a few squirts of sperm (which is for the most part enjoyable for them) while we have to suffer for a potential orgasm. Is the fair? no. Is that EQUAL. Hell no.
You can argue all you want that men should be able to have the same rights, (even though they don't take the same risks) when it comes to childbearing, but why in God's name should they? I can agree with fairness and equality when it comes to jobs, and schools, or hell even women and men going dutch on dates, but until we live in a world where we grow our babies in an incubator or some shit like that, reproduction will never be fair.
Just look at how far we've come when it comes to sex: There aren't that many shotgun weddings, and men and women who have sex outside of marriage don't have to spend a day in the stocks getting pelted by rotten fruit. All we say is, that if you play, you gotta pay. We Women risk our health and our financial responsiblity; all men have to worry about is their paycheck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I've learned anything in my short life, it's that women will forever remain blameless for their sexual activities.

So guys, the lesson here is: Always use your own rubbers! And get a paternity test.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I for one choose not to judge either party for their action. I have gotten pregnant twice while on the birth control pill, once resulting in a miscarriage and the other time resulting in my beautiful baby daughter. Both times was with my current partner, who was told that he probably wouldn't be able to have children because his grandmother took DES in the 1950's to prevent miscarriage. So I got pregnant, it happens. My other experience (not very vast, as I have only had two partners my husband and a former boyfriend), is that birth control has mostly been my responsibility (as well as the experience that all my female friends have had) and that most young men assume that if you are on the pill then you are okay, and they are off the hook. I think a lot of the comments play into the notion in our society that reproduction is solely the woman's responsibility. Regardless, he still parented a child, and therefore it is his responsibility to support it in some way. 'Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Men do not care about children as much as women do. Look at the stats of which parent has custody. Almost always the mother.
All this talk about 'welfare mothers'....why not 'welfare fathers'?
Because there are none.

After our divorce-(he left for a younger woman) when my children when to visit their father ...he didn't even take vacation time to be with them. He got a sitter.

What we need, is for women to have a way to earn a living, and still take care of the kids. That is really hard, maybe impossible ....in a capitalist society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to prosecute people who lie and trick partners into pregnancy. That is fraud. This includes women who try to trap men into pregnancy by lying about their fertility status or sabotaging their own birth control, and men who sabotage women's birth control so they get pregnant, slitting condoms and the like. Hopefully, these deceitful types only make up a minority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with some of the above posters entirely (well... almost :)

Personal responsibility is of utmost importance. It really should start with your own body.

I too am a proud woman. I too agree that it is bulls**t that some women find they have to latch onto a guy and dig their grubby little hands into his wallet just because they had a kid.

You have the kid - you take care of it. You don't want to be responsible - then don't have the kid. Simple.

Oh, how I wish. Things aren't that cut-and-dry.

Tubal ligation. Ok. Good idea. Where does one get the $$ to do this procedure, even if you find a doctor to do it? And realize that not everyone can afford birth control - not everyone has it available to them. Yes - it's good and fine to say "Well - they could always have a tubal ligation." Yeah? I find that a jackass statement. Some women cannot afford it.

Birth control pills - not every woman can take these. FACT.

Condoms - good idea - if you can get the guy to wear one.

Diaphrams, sponges, spermicides, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on. All good ideas - IF you know about it, IF you know how to use it, IF you can afford it - that goes on and on too.

I have said it before and will say it again. As long as the state feels free to poke it's nose into MY reproductive rights, and thereby penalize me; then it follows that men should fairly and equally receive the same treatment - IE - get screwed by the state forcing them to pay child support. Sounds fair to me.

All people, women and men alike, need BASIC SEX EDUCATION. There. I've said it. Make the knowledge available - and not that abstinance crap - REAL education. What sex is, what it does, statistics, birth control methods & success/failure rates of such, cost of having/raising children (financial, emotional, physiological) - a whole host of real information that can (and will) apply in REAL LIFE.

As I've said before - If child support payments by men seem unfair, - then all y'all men who don't wanna pay child support should start lobbying the government to keeps it's nose outta my uterus - until that day really happens (it hasn't yet, despite 'legalized abortion') then pay up dudes. When that day comes, I will fully support the notion that a gal knocked up should keep her hands outta your wallet.

Indeed, something I have not heard - what about all the gals that should / do pay child support? I know that the system is not fairly balanced that way either.

This issue is anything but fair - and anything but cut-and-dry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about time that men started fighting back. If the power to abort is based only on the decision of the female, then basic fairness would let men choice whether or not to support the mother/baby.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It should be a given that women having consensual sex with men take full responsibility for the outcome of that sex and by extension, every precaution and preparation necessary to deal with what happens. Assuming the father would/should help is a passive position that leaks into other areas of a woman’s life. I agree with the posters who say that women have to get their acts together and shoulder this responsibility and stop expecting someone else to do that.

The problem is, children don’t get to choose whether their egg and sperm donors are decent, smart, capable human beings and we can’t just demand that women get their acts together and hope for the best. That reality is why this is actually a societal, not just an individual, issue. What happens to that child affects everyone in that child’s community, directly or by extension.

I don’t want to live in a society that abandons children to their fates because those children’s parents are selfish, ignorant, or criminal. We don’t like it when the “community” (immediate or larger) has to shoulder the costs of individual selfishness, ignorance or criminality, but we do it all the time in the form of police, firefighters and emergency response, subsidized day care, WIC, and many other forms. To avoid doing some of this, we’ve created laws to try to force parents to take care of their own offspring as much as possible.

If we don’t want to continue doing that (as this case and the discussion clearly shows), then we better come up with better social policy that solves the problem while still supporting children who are innocent of the original selfishness, ignorance or criminality.

We’ve heard your pain, men, now let’s hear some real solutions that don’t involve abandoning children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...will change the situation in the very near future. Men will be able to go on the pill, and open adoption is a recent option for women (or men) who can't afford to support or care for a child on their own. If they don't want their children adopted by another family, then the child support laws need to stand as they are. Non-custodial parent should make a contribution, even if only financial, to custodial parent. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If a married couple has a child, that child is part of a legal contract and the father should share joint responsibility for its support. That's partly why the legal institution of marriage was created.

If a woman chooses to have a child when she is not married to its father, that is her choice. There is no legal relationship and the father should not be held responsible.

Where is the flaw in this logic? Unless we go further and pass laws that say that having a child together automatically marries a couple. In fact, that might not be such a bad idea (apart from all the bigamy that would result) and contraceptive stocks would positively soar.

I'm a feminist who is anti-alimony for childless couples in no-fault divorces, by the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I suspect based upon the number of boyfriends and husbands who murder their pregnant wives and girlfriends, i.e, Scott Peterson and others that there is a fundamental difference in male and female perception of a surprise pregnacy. This murdering pheomenon which nobody seems to talk about is evidence of the effect on the psyche of a male who finds himself in this position. Even if he doesn't murder the woman, what kind of father will he be if he feels he's been scammed?; what kind of resentments will he harbor against the child and the mother? What part has she played in setting the stage for this guy in becoming the jerk he will become, if he is not already one. What happens when he has a new woman and new family--by agreement. Will the new woman also resent the child and turn in to the proverbial step mother. Legal right or no legal right, if I was a woman, I certainly would not want this man in my life or my child's life for 18-years or more. I would not think minimal court ordered financial support until age 18 is sufficient. Fathers who want their children often pay much much more. There's college after age 18. I think the child, the women and man should consider adoption, and making a choice of parenthood when it's agreed; when it bolsters and not destroys the relationslhip and when they are emotionally and financially willing to accept the consequences of parenthood which go well beyond age 18. On the other hand, losers, drug addicts and serial killers have to have parents too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..."Compared to raising a child alone, forking over a few hundred dollars a month is a small price to pay."...

...still appears to be a little glib. What if the guy doesn't HAVE a few hundred dollars to just "fork out"? If so many of the threads around alternet are true, most people in the US only get paid about $3.27 a week, how is a guy meant to be able to support a kid when he can barely support himself?
-----------

And really, if these women are so manipulative, do these "few hundred dollars" go straight to the mother? Having heard about various cases in which women do not spend their money on their kids but on entertainment, drugs, shiny things, etc, I am a firm believer that the money, in some cases, needs to be given to a responsible person (a grandparent, for example) who will better manage the funds and make sure they are spent solely on the child/children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is elementally simple. For the woman, she can choose abortion, adoption, or raising the child. For the man, he can choose to refuse sex, or wear a condom. If he wears a confom, and it leaks or spills, if there is a child he is partially responsible.

If you do not want to be a parent, abstain or use protection. If you use protection, be aware accidents happen. Responsible adults make restitution if they cause an accident.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I keep reading "Dubay" as "Dubya" and getting all confused.

=8-o

TGIF...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll say this. We talked about using protection. She agreed to use the system of her choice if I paid for it. Call it an agreement involving a certain amount of trust. So I paid. She was late. I find out later she decided to get pregnant to bring us closer together. We talked. We had the baby. (I wish we could have an honest dicussion about planning instead of a deceptive one about prevention) I really missed out on something special.

I make $8 an hour. We live in the city and neither of us drive. (read high cost of being poor). I work 60-70 hours a week washing dishes. We grow apart because I'm at work all the time while she is a stay at home mom.

I'm sleeping on the couch by the 3rd month of pregnancy. By the time our daughter is 1 1/2 years old she decides I should move out. I squat in a house (it's detroit after all), work 2 jobs, give voluntarily $275 a week, plus groceries, diapers, wipes, etc.. I get to see Indira once a week, maybe every 10 days for an hour. She gets a new boyfriend and I get to see our baby once a month, at her friends house, while her friends babysit me. (so much for trust or being able to just be a dad.)

We go to court. I'm ordered to pay $300 a month. She has full legal custody, rights, everything. All I have is a vague statement of reasonable visitation, and of course, $300 in stone. She's pissed and resentful because she can no longer leverage visitation, or the hope of visitation into everything I make but some food to eat for myself.

She parentally kidnaps our daughter. Puts a restraining order on me so I cannot see my kid. Nevermind they are separate issues- I cannot take her back to court because I've been told 1. I am a sperm doner. 2. I am check in the mail. 3. Should I ever try to see my daughter, she will say, do, invent, distort anything/everything so I will never see my daughter again. Up to and including child abuse/domestic violence/etc. And her friends and her family have agreed that so long as I keep paying that $300 for a daughter I will never see again, I can have whatever life I can afford on whats left over.

I actually did that for a year. Naively believing it could work out somehow. Now I know better looking back at my parents divorce it's the same pattern.

This year I got another restraining order, you know, just because. Merely a reminder. Procedure. My daughter will be four in December. More time, more memories, more of not being able to be there for my kid. But accrding to her, she's not my kid, anymore. So pay up and move on. Be a man and stop whining.

This year I lost my job, again. They know. They understand. It's Detroit after all- land o' baby mama's. Moved into a crappy hotel I can afford on part-time work. I collect cans and bottles to recycle.

I'm still suicidally depressed over never seeing my daughter going on two years now. I paint alot. Read alot. Learned how to make furniture and jewelry. Alot of little gifts for her for someday that will never come. Think about helium poisoning some days. Think final exit. Think self deliverance. I cry alot. To sleep, to wake, at work. I don't eat, I can't sleep. I'm impressed that I even have a job to go to. Or a place to come home to. I sulk. I mope. I write. I am slowly disintigrating because of this. But be a man, go to work, pay up, and tough it out. Well, Fuck you. I am a person. I am a human. I feel. I bleed.

My x is doing ok. Got to keep all the funiture, clothes, everything. I left with my clothes. Her adopted parents pay for everything. They own the building she lives in. They take a certain delight in having this much control and influence.

Somedays I don't eat, being my day off from the restuarant. Everything I truly own fits in a milkcrate I can put on my bicycle. And my backpack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only person here though that is suffering and doesn't know it, and by the time she does the damage has been done and will consume years if not a lifetime of recovery. That person is my daughter because her parents could not put aside their own personal ambition/ego/greed/defects, etc
and *both be responsible parents*

I want to be a father to my daughter. I know *ALOT* of men that do. The problem being one of perception on the womans part. Since they carried it for 9 months it's her property. Man has no say. Besides, how many woman want to pay child support, huh? So much easier to get that check and get a new boyfriend and repeat the cycle. Because the courts will side with the mother almost everytime.

Then again if I am working my ass off so she can stay home, carry the baby to term, stay home to be a mom, sacrificing my 'Dad' time, I have some say as well.

I don't have a problem with paying for daycare. I am will to get another job to pay for it. I am willing to do whatever it takes to take care of my daughter.

The problem I am having is that she doesn't want me to be a part of my daughters life- just gimme that check and seeya.

So having no real option without since technically I am now dealing with a terrorist (kidknapping is kidknapping). I should pay a ransom why?

see above statement where we cannot get our act together and be responsible. And so the multi-generational trend continues into the next. Dysfunction breeds dysfunction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't believe your tragic rant, and if it's true, you are one sorry exception. The overwelming reality is struggling, unsupported single mothers, most with too little time to write such a missive.
These 'fathers rights' guys (and some gals) want what they think they deserve; power over the situation, and a 'choice' on what they'll pay...If you've been involved in the creation of a child, you ARE involved; biologically, morally and reasonably. This IS about wallets and wombs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(This may have been covered already, this story has generated a lot of comments.)

This really all comes down to there being no real dedication between the man and the woman.
The only time this is an issue is between two people having casual sex.
Well, you play, you pay. End of story.

And no, I am not one of those christians who says you should only have sex with your wife or husband. No.

But it's really very simple. If you're not married, and you're fucking someone because you need sex, then you are completely responsible for your actions.
There is no way around it.

For all you male assholes out there, think about this hypothetical (but someday possible) scenario...
You are 50 years old, and your daughter is 26.
She gets pregnant by her boyfriend of seven months, and he decides he's done and not going to pay support.

How do you feel now?

He was never dedicated to begin with, so why was his dick in your daughter?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why does an infertile woman need to take birth control? That should have been a tip off from the start. I'd say they were both lying to themselves and to each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...toward a child who is not in either of their bodies.

My husband's ex pays child support. She ran away and left him a single dad when the kids were 3 and 2. She has no option to refuse to pay. Now that the kids are not in her body she has no control over the money she must pay for them.

Neither men nor women can control whether they pay for a child who is not inside either one's body, except by terminating parental rights and giving the child up for adoption. To the best of my knowledge, if a father is known, a mother cannot give a child up for adoption against his will; she can hand the child over to him but then must pay child support herself.

This is falsely phrased as a male vs. female issue because the vast majority of custodial parents are female. But there are male custodials, and female non-custodials, and noncustodial mothers have the same obligation to pay child support. So if a woman fails to get an abortion, and bears a child, and the father wants to keep it, she does not have the right to terminate her own financial responsibility to it. She has the same obligation to pay child support he does.

A woman's right to an abortion is not her right to not pay for a child. It's her right not to have her body used to make a child. Men have the same right but a much narrower window of time to exercise it in, because they do not bear the children. Once born, children are legally entitled to the financial responsibility of both parents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If all men are pigs, why do women get so upset when men act like pigs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's easy to write about what you've lived through. I saw my divorce and got to grow up without my father. Oh, there were plenty of men that came around but none would ever stay- they knew they game: a single mother with kids is vulnerable, and if they're in a compromised position, will put out hoping. She did until she caught on.

I also got to see the hell they put each other through, the hell they put me and my brother through when they could not talk to each other. Think willing pawns because all you can think of is that somehow this is going to fix it and they'll get back together- somehow because parents are gods at that stage and you don't understand adult head games and psycology until years and decades have passed and I am still shocked as I understand more.

Now as a father I damned sure did not want to see my daughter grow up on the other side of the equation. I asked to not believe me, talk to my dad, talk to my mom. Don't repeat the cycle. All she could think of at that point was I am not, will not be, good enough, mostly due to the influence of her adopted parents because they're made. Her strategy is to get the check and get a new bf with more money, get pregnant with his kid, and get married. I know. I watched try it to someone I knew from shopping at his store. He caught on right after she told him she was 2 months late. She got an abortion. Do you have any idea just how disturbing that is?
I had even offered to help with is kid as it's my daughters little brother or sister. But no- we must continue the cycle and any inconvenience must be...terminated. As 2 kids from 2 different men are going to seriously diminish her attractiveness to the next guy/victim.

This is Detroit, and you have a great majority of women pursuing this dead end path, hoping. And alot of guys either taking advantage of it, and a very, very few, trying to man up.
And even fewer of those trying to be responsible are even allowed to because they're presence alone is a deterrent to the mothers social life.

I lived through this crap, I'm still living through it. And yeah, I am that exception for living through it as a kid- the damage done is still being revealed- do you really think I want my kid to grow up anything like me with lots of limited options because dad wasn't there? Don't believe if it's not within your realm of possibility, do your own research. Find the truth on your own time and own power- it means nothing if it's spoonfed to you. Maybe someday, you'll find yourself just begining to walk down the same path that I've been, maybe then you'll understand how convuluted, complicated, tragic, and pathetic humans can truly be. Maybe it'll be a friend of yours and you can watch it all go down- spare you from any real deep soul searching, guilt, or enlightenment- you can just buy a him a beer at the bar and go home to a nice, comfortable middle class+ life and forget about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep your damned pants zipped!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a pretty muddled and convoluted article all together. The particular case described indicates information by the male conveyed to the female with regard to children. It also relays the seeming acceptance by the female and her reliance on birth control methods (which seems at least to acknowlege the information from the male). Her subsequent decision with regard to the pregnancy and how to proceed ostensibly would have included the information given to her prior to her getting pregnant. To expand this particular case into a single and general procedure with regard to financial issues seems at the very least to be pretty shaky. Did she discuss this after getting pregnant with this person, and did she take that into consideration in her decision to carry the pregnancy to term? It's not in the best interests of anybody, including the progeny, to give carte-blanche to the female in these matters under all circumstances. This article confuses more than enlightens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A woman cannot be forced to be a mother against her will. If she opts not to abort, she can give the kid up to an orphanage, meaning it's not a "her body" argument.

But denying a man the same right is fine. Even though it wouldn't interfere with a woman's "right to choose" ONE BIT.

Did ever occur to anyone that giving men reproductive rights might take some energy out of the pro-life movement? No. Of course not, feminists never think that far ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They both should share the responceablity, and not the taxpayer. He should have done his part not to reproduce, it's not just her respounceability. If they want help, it should be sterilzation for both. I'm sick of people haveing childern and having the taxpayer supporting there misstakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The difference between the womb and a wallet is the diffrence between a parent and a wallet, or a parent and a womb. We don't require men to parent, because money doesn't make that happen. And a womb isn't a garunteed home full of love. I acknowledge the difference, but what happens to the children's lives and development if the support is paid, but said child actually desires a parent, or two?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it's your kid, step up and take care of your responsibilities. I cannot imagine fathering a child and then letting it go wanting because of some selfish desire to not support it. I also have little respect for fathers who will not involve themselves in their children's lives.

Children grow up in all kind of environments but desire parents- not a parent. Even if you never get married or get involved with someone else you have a responsibility to the child. If you do the deed, live up to your obligations and responsibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would those people who sneer at Dubay, "Suck it up and take responsibility for your actions" say the EXACT SAME THING to the MILLIONS of women who abort their pregnancies resulting from consensual sex? I think not.

A man cannot force a woman who does not want to be a parent to endure the 9 months of suffering that is pregnancy. But, a woman can force a man in the same situation into 216 months of prolonged psychological, financial, and physical stress. The win-win-win (mother, father, baby) scenario is this. Women, don't abort your children. Men, be a man and be there to raise them. Don't like it? Quit havin' sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

twenty years after my vasectomy, my wife got pregnant. Talk about a surprise! I was responsible. I didn't want children, and I took responsibility for keeping that from happening. Mother nature had different thoughts, and she won.

After the shock wore off, and I got the proof that it was mine, (my vasectomy had naturally reversed - rare - but possible), I got angry. I knew her views on abortion. I didn't think I should have the right to force her to have one, but I also understood that her choice meant I would be saddled with the responsibility for this child, either as an active father or with child support. it just wasn't fair.

My turning point came when I realized it wasn't fair for either of us. She didn't want this pregnancy any more than I did. While she legally had a choice, from her frame of reference, it was not a real choice. She was saddled with nine months of pregnancy at middle age, and raising a child for the next twenty years, because my vasectomy failed. That wasn't fair either. We were both victims. Sh!t happens! Deal with it! I could either leave or stay and make the best of it. I stayed.

In our case, things have worked out fine. We have a beautiful 6 year old daughter that is very much loved. My life is clearly different than I planned, but so is hers.

Life is complex and there are no easy answers to many issues. I've come to the conclusion that the current state of affairs may be the best we can do. It is a compromise, and not totally fair to anyone, but about as balanced as life can be. women may have more options than men, but since they do have the burden of pregnancy, that's where the choice belongs. I clearly don't support a man having the authority to force a woman to end a pregnancy. Both parents now have financial responsibilities, and neither should be able to walk away from them.

The current system is clearly not perfect, but it's probably more equally balanced than any other alternatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The male's choice to be responsible is made at the moment he does not act to prevent conception, just as it is for the female.

It is only the consequences of that choice that are different for each partner.

How tragic that the male's response is to whine about money, a short term issue, when the emotional & psychological effect on all parties resulting from that choice are profoundly long term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On behalf of the "Men" on this forum I would like to apologize.

The primary issue here for the men is ensuring that they take the appropriate measures (i.e practise "personal resonsibility") and wear protection to prevent their sperm from inseminating an egg.

It is the male's choice to do this or not. If it fails it is a risk we all know is inherent to the process of intercourse.

From that point on it should be in the woman's hands, unless of course the male agrees to lose the elasticity in his stomach skin causing terrible loss of self-esteem, gain 40 lbs, have his breasts sag to his mid stomach, potentially endure post-partum depression, wake up multiple times in the middle of the night to have his nipple snapped at, go everywehere with one hand on the cryign baby and another ona tote bag full of diapers trying to find the appropriate place to lay down the kid after they shit their pants in that restaurant you love to eat at....which by the way because your partner doesn't financially support your childs expensive expenses, you end up paying for all of this on credit cards as your indebtedness and impoverishment spiral out of control....

you want equality....i dont think you apes could handle equality....

once again, on behalf of males everywhere im extremely sorry...and don't bullshit yourselves that if us men got pregnant we wouldnt abort the majority of conceived pre-humans .... (for more on the idea of pre-humans, see genesis 2:7)

Do you really believe we would compromise our career mobility... success in capitalist workplace demands that you be competitively punctual, commitmed, and flexible... believe me i have two older sisters who can attest to the fact that child care arrangements and constant illness and doctors visit hinder these very basic components of success in our backwards economy...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My point several weeks ago was that I agreed with Row v.Wade but that I think it discriminated against men. Under the present interpretation of Roe v. Wade, men have absolutely NO reproductive rights It is entirely a woman's decision whether to carry a conceived child or to terminate the pregnancy. I want men to have an equal role in the decision to terminate a pregnancy

The spin line of men having a right to "opt out" of the financial obligations of parenthood had nothing to do with my ealier observation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just like the phrase: "YOUR God, YOUR Rules. YOU Break'em, YOU Burn in Hell"

It is YOUR body, YOUR decision, YOUR ultimate responsibility.

If "YOU decided" to let some guy pound their pud into YOU, YOU knew what could happen to YOUR body.

It was YOUR decision, it was YOUR choice, It is YOUR body, YOU will have another choice to make and it is YOUR responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hey gents,

im glad to see that you've taken the situation of women not paying for half the bill and made sweeping conclusions that somehow that is proff they are unable to "handle euality"....

i must ask if you take any consideration for inequalities stemming from the imperatives of child rearing, like time off for pregnancy, time off for sick kids, time off for taking care of sick family members, and do you also consider how many women experience the discontinuation of work when the hubby gets a new job (the man is often the most well paid, competitive and successful in the labour market of the two because of our disproportionate freedoms from the responsibilities of children and family...)

women experience so many discontinuties in their labour market experiences that they cant possibly compete on an equal footing with men ... unless we get a develop a greater ethic in the family and in business for cooperative parenting (hopefully with some sort of egalitarian democratization of our economies) women will always be disadvantaged and if i am going to decry their unequal contributions at the dinner table, im just being plain ignorant

life is too complicated for sweeping conclusions...

Gents, if you are feeling oppressed maybe study the laws of capitalism and see why life feel slike more and more of a grind with less and less satisfaction...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compared to raising a child alone, forking over a few hundred dollars a month is a small price to pay.

$500 * 12 months = $6,000
$6000 * 18 years = $108,000

Gee, what a small price to pay. I'll agree that an abortion is not the equivalent of stopping child support, but the fact is women have more power over having children - if abortion is an option.

Men should have the right to plan their families too. No contraception is 100%, therefore the condom argument is moot in my opinion. The female in this particular case claimed to be on contraception and infertile - to say the man is at fault for not wearing a condom in that case is egregious.

His argument for equal rights is justified.

However, the judge throwing out the case in consideration for the child's well being is also justified.

This is an emotional issue, but if you put that aside, the man deserves the right to abort just as much as the woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It happens, it's unfair, but it's also too late. You have a child and a responsibility to it. It's YOUR child. Do you really want to deny it your care and support, because of circumstances the child had no control over? Should you be unfair to YOUR child because life was unfair to you?

This by itself should settle the issue. You have to forget your anger, be it at fate or the woman if she lied about birth control or decided to keep it against your wishes, and do your best for your child.

Why do so many people forget this basic humanity and try to use their children as weapons against each other or as leverage to extract money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hypothetically, if "the man deserves the right to abort just as much as the woman" how do you go about facilitating the realization of this right...physically coercive abortions, a mediated negotiation, do they hire an arbitrator....

This is the problem with any suggestions about men possessing these rights, like all rights they are th eproducts of judgements from courts or legislatures and you will never in a million years (hopefully) see men being able to decide women's reproductive fate.... such an argument is in violation of the basic principles of the great ol' american pursuit for LIBERTY ...

It is an utterly sexist and repulsive notion when you consider the potential realities of how these male rights would be exercised...

I don't think this debate can be won because it is very complicated but this male "i have to be free to control every aspect of my life, even if it impinges on the freedom and happiness of others" bullshit because im a self-interested, irresponsible, inconsiderate alpha male ape has to stop....

There is no realistic way for men to exercise these potential rights that would not be egregious violations of basic human rights and of the most basic elemts of principle and morality...CHRIST!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All understanding/s or contract/s referred to in this post is with reference to cross gendered human couples whose activities could result in pregnancies. I have known of more than one cross gendered sexual relationship where the rythm method was used and the understanding amongst the couples was that if there was an accidental pregnancy there would be no abortion as per the wishes of the females in those relationships (and it was understood that both parties would try to be emotionally and financially involved with the offspring). By default, the current laws in USA will serve to protect that understanding.
In the hypothetical case where both members had an understanding that accidental pregnancies would result in an abortion and hence not subject either party to the emotional / financial burdens of raising one or more children then that understanding should be valued. In the hypothetical case where both members of a cross gendered couple desired and agreed to not have an abortion in case of a pregnancy then that understanding should also be valued. Ideally there would be something similar to pre-nuptials that could protect the couple's understandings (say pre-coital contracts).
It is always possible that the parties may change their wishes after an actual pregnancy. They ought be subject to the terms of the understandings / contracts to the extent reasonable. In a society where a soldier is forced to risk the soldier's life or face imprisonment, adult film actors (in a gender neutral sense) are forced to carry out their contracts or face civil penalties, it seems like at least a civil penalty for violating the understanding / contract ought to be considered. I personally feel that a genuine unanticipated change in a female from planning on aborting to not aborting should basically render the male not financially liable but not be entitled to compensation for the emotional burden that the male may be subject to. If the female who agreed to not abort has a change of mind and aborts without the conset of the male then (presuming no strong reasons) the female should be subject to civil penalties as per the understanding / contract.


If it can be determined that the female's change of mind was whimsical then a criminal charge may also be in order since the emotional damage to the male could potentially be much greater than most physical injuries that people get convicted for on assault / battery charges. I understand that this view point may seem threatening to some females, but try to understand the viewpoint well. Imagine how one would feel if the person's child was killed because someone refused to follow up on doing something that was agreed to and was essential to saving the child. Imagine that a C-section operation was necessary to save the life of a fetus that the parents cared about, but the doctor whimsically decided that since the female's life was not at risk and the fetus didn't really matter a long sought after weekend getaway was in order. Should the doctor not be held criminally responsible for the death of the fetus (presume the pregnant female's life was never at risk (use your imagination hint- partially experienced nurse was at the hospital)). I know that a weekend is not the same as nine months and in most cases the change of mind of the pregnant female is unlikely to be whimsical, but there probably are cases in which females change their mind to hurt the males.
Please think and reply intelligently if you choose to reply. It will help keep alternet.org forums better off than some of the other liberal / conservative / regular (as opposed to alternate) forums on the net.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In any case the actualization of male reproductive rights implies that they must take control of a women's body and impose their will...a gross violation of a human being indeed...

maybe we should legalize rape while were at it... if we take the step of allowing men discretion over women's bodies, even if the women totally deceived the man and "suckered" him into making her prego, we would have to be permitting him to coerce her...forcefully mandate that she get an abortion ....assuming she wants the baby...

It's a gross thought when you dish out the idea of what it would really be like if men had "reproductive rights"... So Gents, if the society you want to see involves that kind of abuse of women.... lets just give you a all a really good time and legalize rape too....

Women are not men so they should not control their bodies? Right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If there was no financial incentive for a woman to "accidentially" get pregnant I guarantee that there would be A LOT FEWER unwanted pregnancies! I can assure you that if a woman were to not be able to always have in her mind "if I do happen to get pregnant this guy is going to have to give me money for 18 years" then women would be a lot more careful, and take more precautions! I bet even Dubay's girlfriend would have been more careful if she knew she wouldn't have the 18 year hold on his wallet if she got pregnant!

Take away the financial incentive and a lot fewer women would be having "unexpected" pregnancies! When there are fewer unwanted pregnancies then there will also be a lot fewer men abandoning their children!

Fortunately the laws in this country are starting to lean toward "father's" rights, and the financial incentive is beginning to be reduced. Check out Tennessee's current Parenting Time & Support guidelines and you'll see what I mean. All states have either already gone this route, or they are moving in that direction. Some faster than others, but fathers DO HAVE RIGHTS, and they deserve EQUAL rights when it comes to supporting their children. They should NOT BE a free ride for a woman that has a child, whether planned or unplanned, as has been the case in so many instances in the past.

I can show you many examples of a father paying an amount of child support at a level that it puts him at a poverty level of survival, and at the same time actually raises the mother and child's standard of living above where they would be if the couple had stayed together! This is just plain WRONG! There are also MANY other examples of mothers benefiting from splitting up with the child's father! Take away the financial incentive and there will be MANY FEWER divorces too!

I am NOT defending all fathers, as there are obviously many that do not meet their fair responsibilities. But I am saying that if a woman did not have a financial incentive then there would be a LOT fewer unwanted pregnancies, and A LOT fewer divorces!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was a single father raising my wonderful daughter for five years alone until remarrying three years ago. During that time, my ex-wife paid no child support, and still does not. (I have never pursued child support -- she's not capable of paying.)

I believe I have an understanding better than most men of what it means to be a single person raising a child.

With the preamble over, I'll say this: I believe it is this simple: A woman has a right to choose whether or not to be a mother. She can do this with contraception, abstinence or abortion. A man, I believe must, in an equal society, also have this right to choose. He should do so with contraception. If that fails, he should make it known to the woman he would prefer she obtain an abotion. Then, if the woman excercises her right to choose to have a child, the man must have the right to say that he chooses not to be a father. When this occurs, that means no support payments and no legal ties to the child.

I believe most men will choose to be a father when confronted with these circumstances. However, to deny a man this right seems to me hypocritical of women who do have this right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anytime I engage in intercourse, I am well aware of the potential to conceive a child. My partner uses birth control and I use protection, yet, that possibility is lurking. We are only 20 and she certainly would wish to have an abortion in the worst case scenario. She's expressed this sentiment to me.

However, if she did get prego and I was gonna be a daddy, fuck would I be scared. But you know what she would be too. This whole child-support sucking vampire scenario is repulsively sexist and fanatical... To presume such an underestimation by women of the magnitude of child rearing and its immense financial, emotional, and physical responsibilities is an atrocious insult to women's intelligence...

No situation with your female vampire fantasy would be so cut and dry, beyond your narrow scope of thinkign there are factors of religion, family expectations, heck even misguided ambitions that a baby could provide salvation for a yet to be fulfilling life...

When men argue that, even in my situation where my partner says she'll terminate the pregnancy, somehow I should be able to express my lack of desire and voila im abdicated of all parental responsbiltiy for the childrne i create, well im just beign a lazy free loader... shifting the burden onto my child's mother because i do not have the integrity to accept that I engaged in conduct where I knew full well results could be achieved that would destroy my life...

I know the responsbility scares you guys, but keep your precious self-interest in your pants and do not engage in intercourse if you are not mature enough to handle the potential consequences.

Just answer this question!

When you have sex do you think it is at all possible even with protection to conceive a child? Furthermore, is it possible for a variety of factors (beyond your vampire theories) to influence your partner after conception to give birth to your child (therbey, rendering you two mutually responsible for a very big order)?

If you answered yes and maintain your demands for "male reprocutive rights," i'm gonna go on a limb and say your scraed of responsibility and do not appreciate what a significant and fucked up experience getting knocked up is like for a woman and yourself mutually....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Three times in my life a girlfriend has told me she was on the pill, even showing them to me. Each of those, I learned she wasn't taking them or had quit and declined to tell me in hopes of getting pregnant. I caught it each time, and, as we had agreed we didn't want kids at this point beforehand and each had tried to entrap me, I immediately broke up with them.

A friend wasn't so lucky and paid child support for eighteen years. The woman never understood why he wouldn't just "come home" and "be a family". He missed out on the rest of college and, between legal fees, child support, etc, lived a fairly poor life until his death a few years ago.

So - what's fair here?

I've been a fanatic about contraception all my life, paid for it most times (financially, I mean), and still, only luck and vigilance has kept it down to one son (we were breaking up, I was coming off a 96 hour shift and was beat, and she "forgot" the diaphragm. The boy and I have a great relationship; he left his mom to move here the day he turned 18, tho she tried hard to teach him to hate me - I went and got disabled - and still paid child support, BTW). The usual response is, "You stuck it in there, no one forced you, you're responsible, period." The one who paid most, perhaps, was the kid. My friend couldn't bring himself to have anything to do with him, because he and the mother came as a matched set. The boy ran away many times; he finally died at 14 or 15 in a drug deal.

It's just that, too often, talking does no good if one or the other is dishonest, and that seems to be the case VERY often. I've been a fanatic about contraception all my life. As for condoms, I've only ever used them as a favor to the lady when I expected nothing out of it but the snuggle and some frustration. Turns out that circumcisions remove a LOT of nerves, and for some of us, we may as well have half an inch of plastic coating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Three times in my life a girlfriend has told me she was on the pill, even showing them to me. Each of those, I learned she wasn't taking them or had quit and declined to tell me in hopes of getting pregnant. I caught it each time, and, as we had agreed we didn't want kids at this point beforehand and each had tried to entrap me, I immediately broke up with them.

A friend wasn't so lucky and paid child support for eighteen years. The woman never understood why he wouldn't just "come home" and "be a family". He missed out on the rest of college and, between legal fees, child support, etc, lived a fairly poor life until his death a few years ago.

So - what's fair here?

I've been a fanatic about contraception all my life, paid for it most times (financially, I mean), and still, only luck and vigilance has kept it down to one son (we were breaking up, I was coming off a 96 hour shift and was beat, and she "forgot" the diaphragm. The boy and I have a great relationship; he left his mom to move here the day he turned 18, tho she tried hard to teach him to hate me - I went and got disabled - and still paid child support, BTW). The usual response is, "You stuck it in there, no one forced you, you're responsible, period." The one who paid most, perhaps, was the kid. My friend couldn't bring himself to have anything to do with him, because he and the mother came as a matched set. The boy ran away many times; he finally died at 14 or 15 in a drug deal.

It's just that, too often, talking does no good if one or the other is dishonest, and that seems to be the case VERY often. I've been a fanatic about contraception all my life. As for condoms, I've only ever used them as a favor to the lady when I expected nothing out of it but the snuggle and some frustration. Turns out that circumcisions remove a LOT of nerves, and for some of us, we may as well have half an inch of plastic coating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why would it have been so hard for him to wear a condom. Birth control is not a guarantee against pregnancy, things like antibiotics and certian medicines can make it weaker. If he does not want a child he needs to make sure that he's protecting his end of the bargain. Regardless of what the womans doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hear, Hear! Say it louder, get a billboard!
THIS is what we should be teaching girls from the time they are small children.
We should also be teaching boys that they are responsible for their actions.
Would you believe I, working as a teachers' aide in a middle school, actually got into trouble letting 7th graders know that I expected them to take responsibility for their actions (misbehavior in class, generally)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am prolife on abortion (and on sexism, war, poverty, the death penalty, environmental destruction, etc...) but I agree with the prochoice author of this article that an unanticipated/undesired pregnancy is NOT the same for a man as for a woman.

For a woman to abort is far more understandable than a man to claim he has no responsibility for the child.

First of all, the obvious biological differences--though most differences between male & female are socially created, carrying a child in your womb for nine months, going through labor and delivery, & perhaps breastfeeding the child as well is a far greater physical & psychological undertaking than a sperm squirt!

And then of course there is the cultural imbalance of power between men and women, which CAUSES abortion by disadvantaging even punishing women for having wombs that sometimes become pregnant with alive & human children against all odds & efforts.

one major way this imbalance causes abortion is men refusing to take responsibility for their offspring, and women and unborn children are not only deprived of their support, but this in a society where there is little to no COLLECTIVE sense of responsibility for all our children.

Because conceiving and carrying new life is something women do, this society as a whole does not actively support & value it...Yes, I'm going to commit a heresy & say that abortion is a COLLECTIVE wrong on the hands of every societal institution that makes too many men feel they are entitled to walk away from their own kids, and drops the 500-ton prospect of abortion or ELSE upon women, often at the cost of children's lives.

Another way the imbalance of power between men and women causes abortion is this: the whole responsibility of contraception is thrown on the WOMAN.

And this: sex and sexual pleasure are all too often reduced to heterosexual, penis-vagina intercourse. Namely, the only kind of sex, out of all the possible kinds of pleasure between consenting adults, that can lead to conception. People who want to completely avoid the risk of pregnancy yet have fulfilling, happy sex lives could with a bit of imagination and adventurousness rely on these other possibilities, which are often more woman-friendly! Straight people could learn from GLBT people that penis-vagina intercourse is not necessarily essential to sexual fulfillment!

No, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not an embittered manhater, for the record I'm a woman happily married to a man who has always been a wonderful dad to our unplanned daughter...I know that men are capable of great good as well as bad. I just don't think "choice for men" brings out the good too well, and it just makes "choice for women" ever more of a bitter, horrific thing for women & kids, born and unborn.

Mary
www.xlibris.com/prolifefeminism

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Kai Ma for this insightful piece. It is astounding how many people try to make this issue complicated. I completely agree with the writer's point, but I would conclude the article by trying to simplify and answer Mr. Dubay's confusion on "men's reproductive rights"... There is only one. Men have the right to deposit their seed where they choose (with the understanding that you are having congress with a sentient being, you must have permission). That's it. Period. It is not complicated and even Mr. Dubay should understand. Maybe not, he seems to think my uterus is analogous to his wallet. Let me continue with the objectification of my uterus so Mr. Dubay can understand, and I'll try to keep it simple, stupid. I did not buy my uterus at a local department store, I was not given my uterus as a birthday gift, I did not find my uterus in a car/bus/taxi. The female uterus comes with the female. WE/females are the only one of the species that can get pregnant and give birth. THOSE activities are Women's reproductive rights. You, Mr. Dubay, have no right, other than that stated: Where to drop your load. This is called NATURE, Mr. Dubay. It is intrinsic and is unaffected by your unawareness or attitude, and please learn to accept the alarming reality that only WOMEN get to give birth. You're an adult for heaven's sake. Take an anatomy class. MOST sincerely, lee

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Her piece is nicely contrived if not complete B.S.

Best solution, guys, get snipped. No one can manipulate you and make you "pay" against your will, no one can scream unequal rights, no Judge gets to pass moralistic clatrap like Mr. Dubay's judge did. Besides, there are just too many damned humans on this fragile overpopulated planet to justify the womb-nuts insisting on carrying offspring you helped create while your brain was beyond rational control. We're over populated by some 3 billion folks... Every sperm is sacred enough to keep outta women's bodies. Now there's equality for ya'! Besides the really devoted womb-nuts are making embryos in labs now without us. Let em' do things that way for a few dozen generations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most doctors won't sterilize a young man even if he HAS had children ("You never know...", they say). I tried through my late twenties to mid-thirties. Good option, but hard to put into practice.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No. A dad wanting to opt out of responsibility for a child is no where near the same as a woman choosing an abortion. The former is just irresponsible and callous. The latter is murder of the most innocent amongst us.

That women in our country can even choose to cast the death penalty on babies is an abomination responsible for more deaths than the holocaust. That organizations like the National Organization of Women have convinced American's that it's okay to think just about the woman in its statements like abortion being a matter of a woman's life and death shows us just how deluded and deceived our society is. Wakeup NOW: it's the baby that's going to be dead; not the woman!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This case is simply about fraud.
Facts:
She lied about being infertile.
She lied about using birth control.
He believed her.
She then used her child as a weapon to extort money from him, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

Now, if this were a little old lady who believed someone and was consequently defrauded out of her life savings, would you say:

STOP WHINING!
The old saying "You do the crime, you do the time" applies here - poor little snivling little old lady “he lied to me! he lied to me!" Pick your partners better next time. Or don't let others handle your business transactions. Or stop whining and deal with it.

There is no difference, except that I would argue that the situation is far worse in Matt’s case, as he will be stuck with the consequences of her fraud for the rest of his young life, whereas at least the old lady will die soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with the fact that it was fraud. Legally, that is just what it is.

As for the person suggesting contracts or agreements (verbal contracts) that would prevent the woman from forcing him to pay for child support, OR getting an abortion...I hate to tell you, but those contracts are invalid because they would be against public policy. You cannot contract or agree to do something that is against public policy, or the court will simply invalidate it upon higher authority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]