Three Times the Lady, Once Times the Whore
Myself and every other man on Earth have been saying it for years: alimony is fucked — and it’s extremely sexist.
But wait, what about this?
Did you know you’re liable for child support if you knock some slut up who lies about being on the pill and then doesn’t want to have an abortion because of some ridiculous shit like she suddenly has “principles” or because her mother didn’t abort her? Well you are liable for that cash cow and it’s the biggest croc of shit and injustice that could ever be imagined.
First of all, honey, you don’t do everything your mother does because you don’t swallow. And secondly, where were all these magic, money-sucking principles while you were on your back enjoying the greatest hour and a half of your life? Perhaps you were praying to a different, more easy-going God at that point — or maybe God was half as drunk as you and not paying attention. I doubt it.
Thanks to American Superman Matt Dubay, the black hole of injustice feminist blowhards and the dumbest women on Earth call “taking responsibility” will soon be put straight — as straight as a shotgun or a bunch of cowboys or every single picture frame that any man has ever hung anywhere. Men are master hangers, whereas women are merely masters at hanging onto a free ride.
A lawsuit, rightly dubbed, “Roe vs. Wade for Men”, has been filed by Mr. Dubay and the Nation Center for Men, which seeks the obvious:
Women and Child Support: Fuck You!
Whatever you think about abortion, in America it’s not illegal when it’s not illegal and that’s the bottom line — or the Man Line because that’s the line we men walk at all times. You know what else isn’t illegal in America (at least at the moment)? Eating a Snickers bar. If someone offers you a Snickers bar and you don’t want it, and then they turn out to win like a plasma TV or some jet skis in the wrapper, you’re not entitled to shit! Abortions are exactly the same.
Roe v. Wade for Men claims that since men have absolutely no choice in deciding whether a fetus is unconceived (aborted) or given up for adoption after birth, they have no legal responsibility to pay for the goddamn thing.
Is this Law for the Retarded: 101? Of fucking course that’s true. Look, here’s how the court proceedings will go:
“Have you motherfuckers ever heard of No Taxation Without Representation!?”
No, I’m joking. You can’t say motherfuckers in court.
“Your honor, guess what. If you go rent a car and opt not to tell them you’re blind, you can’t go wrecking around town like a carom and then drop a damage bill off at the car rental place with their newly renovated Renault Peugeot that now has two missing wheels and new fucking Delorean doors. It’s not their problem. It’s yours. Case closed.”
The Honorary Man of the Month for March is Matt Dubay’s lying slut of an ex-girlfriend — we’ll call her Slutarella; who is about to be thrown under the proverbial bus of her fucking lifetime in the name of men’s rights. Not equality for men man-mind you, but men’s rights. Men seeking equality is like Robert De Niro auditioning for a Star Wars film.
It’s beneath him.
Related Articles:
March 18th, 2006 at 8:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: bc780dabec0ff
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Print this Comment on this E-mail this
Dads: No cash for unwanted children
In lawsuit, activists argue if women have right to decide fate of fetus, fathers can decline financial role.
David Shepardson and Eric Lacy / The Detroit News
Al Goldis / Associated Press
“It’s just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices,” says Matt Dubay, 25, of Saginaw, who is part of a lawsuit claiming fathers have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a child they didn’t want. See full image
This article was found at http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/LIFESTYLE/60309 0385/1005
A federal lawsuit seeks to establish a “Roe v. Wade for men,” allowing them to renounce parenting responsibilities before the child is born. Do you agree that men should have the legal right to opt out of supporting children they never wanted?
Click here to vote
Printer friendly version
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
A national men’s rights group plans to file a federal lawsuit this morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit, claiming that fathers have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a child they didn’t want — in a claim they dub “Roe v. Wade for Men.”
A Troy lawyer for the New York-based National Center for Men said he will file a long-shot lawsuit on behalf of 25-year-old Matt Dubay of Saginaw that seeks an order declaring the Michigan Paternity Act unconstitutional. Dubay recently was ordered to pay support for his 8-month-old daughter.
In 2004, Dubay, a computer technician, began dating a woman who worked in cell phone sales. He said she told him she couldn’t get pregnant — because she was using contraception and had physical conditions that prevented her from getting pregnant.
After three months, they stopped dating — but soon afterward, she told him she was pregnant.
“It’s just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices,” Dubay said Wednesday night. “I was up front. I was clear that I didn’t want to be a father and she reassured me that she was incapable of getting pregnant.”
After learning of the pregnancy, they discussed adoption.
“I was trying to talk reason, to try and have a two-way conversation. She considered an adoption but then quickly stopped listening,” Dubay said.
So he researched the issue and found the National Center for Men in New York, which agreed to take his case.
“The whole issue is, she made the decision based knowing that I wasn’t going to be there for the child in any part and she said she could raise the child on her own,” Dubay said.
Troy lawyer Jeffrey A. Cojocar, who is filing the lawsuit for the National Center for Men, acknowledged it will be an uphill battle.
“No one is denying this is going to be difficult. But we want the law applied equally between sexes. They each should have a say about a child’s future,” Cojocar said.
Women’s organizations oppose the lawsuit because it leaves the child and mother to fend for themselves.
“This is ridiculous,” said Leslie Sorkhe, director of operations for the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support. “This is about the child, a child that needs the emotional as well as the financial support of both parents. The child is entitled to his or her equal protection under the law.”
Renee Beeker of Milford, legislative vice president for National Organization for Women’s Michigan chapter, says the lawsuit implies that the burden of pregnancy prevention is solely on the woman.
“In the event of an unintended pregnancy, the needs of the child must be met,” Beeker said.
The National Center for Men and its president don’t want to be able to force women to have abortions or give up a child for adoption. They want to be able to go into court before a child is born and renounce parenting responsibilities — and 18 years of child support.
“More than three decades ago, Roe v. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception,” said Mel Feit, the group’s director. “But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.”
Cojocar admits that courts across the United States have routinely thrown out lawsuits by fathers who claimed women committed fraud by lying about taking precautions to avoid getting pregnant. Those courts have typically found a greater state interest in ensuring that minor children are supported. This claim is different in that it cites the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.
But, the men’s group says it should be more than biology.
“We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA,” Feit said. “A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother.”
Saginaw County Circuit Judge Patrick McGraw recently ordered Dubay to pay $475 a month — plus half of all health care expenses for the baby girl, Cojocar said.
He sold his dream car, a 1998 Trans Am, and took in a roommate to stretch his budget so he can begin to make child support payments next month. He has seen his daughter once — when he took a DNA test to establish paternity.
The child’s mother didn’t return calls seeking comment.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who has made collecting unpaid child support a top issue, said fathers must support their children, regardless of the circumstances of the births.
“If the subject is child support, our focus should be on children, not on squabbles between the parents,” Cox said. His office has collected more than $23 million in child support, his office will announce today.
Michigan parents owe more than $7 billion in unpaid child support — part of the $100 billion owed nationwide by parents who fail to support their children.
Legal experts say a ruling allowing men to opt out of support could open a Pandora’s box, forcing the state to pick up the difference to support children of single parents.
The planned suit names the girl’s mother, who is 20, and the Saginaw County prosecutor as defendants.
You can reach David Shepardson at (313) 222-2028 or dshepardson@detnews.com.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Oh poor man, he had to sell his car? What a tragedy.
How about this for another example of discrimination against women, my colleague who I mentioned yesterday, the one who’s ex only pays $45 week in child support, well guess what, he is the one who wanted the child. She was unsure but they were married and he persuaded her to have the baby. He then left her when she was 8 months pregnant. Now the family court determined early on that he had to fulfill his financial responsibility, minimal as it is. He then called her last week to say that he couldn’t meet his $45 per week payment because if he did, then he wouldn’t be able to afford his rent. Can’t afford $45 a week? What’s wrong with the man? I’ll tell you, he’s obviously a dickhead. Now, apparently this is a regular occurence in the ongoing BS between her and her ex. Her child is now 4, effective July 2006, the AU govt. will cut all child support allowances to single mothers who have not entered employment by the time their dependent child turns six. Where is the corresponding welfare cut to a non-custodial father if he is also out of work and doesn’t find employment by the time the child is six? It doesn’t fucking exist, of course. This is AU after all, land of discrimination against women, non-whites and the poor.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:41 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Wrong. Women, by virtue of their biology, have accountability automatically enforced upon them. They have to decide either to abort, go through with it and raise the child, or adopt/foster the child to others. Men, however, as is clearly fucking evident from the types around here, are like rats jumping ship. This is why we have govts and why you Libertarians are thankfully a minority group, because quite a lot of men by nature are selfish, self-seeking opportunists, who will try and get away without consequence for their actions, especially, when it comes to their sexual behaviour.
The only good thing that will come out of the Dubay case, if he wins, is that men will have equal responsibility and accountability when it comes to the final and absolute decision to abort. Will be interesting to see how much you like that.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:22 am - IP Man-Hash: 4b2724cf3f725
God, i love this case. I doubt he will win with the justice system so unfairly skewed against men, but i can always hope. Seeing as he may be laying the groundwork for a future case in which TRUE reproductive rights equality is granted, more power to him…
March 19th, 2006 at 3:23 am - IP Man-Hash: 34e3b10c32441
Prior to birth “it’s just a bag of tissue”, after the birth it’s a “pot of gold”.
Women know the value of potential future wealth.
March 19th, 2006 at 5:31 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
It comes right back to abortion. Female, the hypocrisy is actually on the part of feminists who insist that women have the right to discard the fetus (an easy way out for women who don’t want to take responsibility for the results of their sexual activity), while at the same time claiming that a man should have no say on the abortion subject at all when it is equally *his* fetus at issue because ‘it’s his baby, his responsibility’.
“Well, he’s a man. It’s not in his body!”
Well, it’s *his* money, why should *he* have to pay child support for a child he wanted aborted. It’s as I wrote before, female. What is good for the gander should be good for the goose.
March 19th, 2006 at 8:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
How ludicrous does this debate need to get? You want equality, then try this on for size, as she is using her body as the incubator, the man should perhaps pay her a weekly amount for this service, plus danger money for both carrying the child and delivering it. Then, due to the physically ravaging effects carrying a child has on one’s body, another weekly amount for any decrease in physical health she suffered as a result of pregnancy. How much do they pay for surragote mothers in the US? Why shouldn’t all women be paid such tidy sums?
March 19th, 2006 at 9:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 29fa70584ff70
Matt Dubay and eminent domain
Steve Kellmeyer
Steve Kellmeyer
March 17, 2006
A few months back, the conservative world was in an uproar because the Supreme Court ruled that the state has the right to take any property it wants if that land can be used to generate more revenue for the state. Matt Dubay’s lawsuit, in which he attempts to avoid paying child support on the grounds that he didn’t want a child, has an interesting resonance with that ruling.
According to CNN, “the president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter. ‘None of these are easy questions,’ said Gandy, a former prosecutor. ‘But most courts say it’s not about what he did or didn’t do or what she did or didn’t do. It’s about the rights of the child.’ ”
Confusion from the Leaders
Indeed? What child would that be, Ms. Gandy? According to the National Organization of Women, the decision to have sex is not a decision to have a child. There is no child at the moment of conception. There is no child, really, until birth. How can Matt Dubay be responsible for a child he didn’t create?
According to the most modern, cutting-edge definitions of sexual responsibility, pregnancy and personhood, Mr. Dubay most emphatically did not create a child nor had he anything to do with the creation of a child.
Abortion supporters insist the act of sex does not create responsibility towards a future child. If it did, no one could support abortion. Legal abortion is grounded in the idea that something which does not yet have its own existence does not yet have any rights. Thus, abortion supporters take great pains to explain why the tissue mass in the womb is not really a child.
It doesn’t have a heartbeat (except it does by the 22nd day after conception).
It doesn’t have brainwaves (except it does by the 42nd day).
It can’t feel pain (except it can by the 7th week, in fact, between 20 and 30 weeks gestation, the tissue mass is more susceptible to pain than a born child).
So, to parrot the pro-choice position, how can Matt Dubay have responsibilities towards a tissue mass? Towards something smaller than your thumb? Smaller than a grain of rice? How can he have responsibilities towards a fertilized egg that doesn’t even exist until hours after he has withdrawn from the woman, withdrawn from the bedroom, gotten dressed and gone home to wash his car? Conception happens hours, sometimes days, after having sex.
Even so, life does not begin at conception, remember? One hundred years ago, fifty years ago, even a decade ago, pregnancy began at conception. Today, it begins at implantation. Today, women aren’t pregnant with children, they are pregnant with undifferentiated tissue masses, tissue masses that are nearly as marvelous a source of stem cells as menstrual blood.
Stem cells and abortion. That’s why we changed the definition of when life and pregnancy began, remember? So we could tear apart those little tissue masses and steal, ahem, borrow, excuse me, use their stem cells. What? Oh, sorry. I meant use the stem cells.
Confusion in the Logic
So, we ask again, Ms. Gandy, how can Matt Dubay have any responsibility towards a child he didn’t create? A child is created through the act of gestation, but what has that got to do with a man? Men don’t have wombs. Men don’t gestate. Remember?
This is why we can create embryos for experimentation — as long as we don’t implant them in the womb, as long as these embryos don’t gestate, it’s moral to tear them apart. Gestation is the key, remember? Not conception, not fertilization — gestation. Without gestation, it’s just potential human life. With gestation, it might become real human life.
But men don’t gestate.
Now, why would Ms. Gandy, who has vociferously supported the aforesaid line of reasoning, suddenly come to the conclusion that the act of sex creates responsibility towards a future child?
For years, we have been taught that Americans don’t understand science, and Ms. Gandy is demonstrating that ignorance in spades. Sex does not create children. Gestation does. Only women gestate. Thus, only women create children. Thus, only women have responsibilities towards children.
According to the logic of neo-science and legal abortion, men aren’t responsible for the existence of children. At all. Nada, zip, zero, nothing, goose egg, empty set.
Those are just the facts of modern biology, successfully redefined by the pro-abortion lobby and Nobel-hungry biologists. It’s just the nature of the thing, Ms. Gandy — not our fault. You insisted on the definitions. We fought against those new definitions. We lost. You won. Congratulations.
Confusion in the Ranks
Everyone who attacks Matt Dubay assumes that Mr. Dubay is somehow responsible for the existence of a child. Even abortion supporters are making this argument. But the whole concept is negated by the new science definitions, which tells us no child exists at the moment of ejaculation, nor at the moment of conception, nor even at the time of implantation, but only some later time. It is likewise negated by the new law, which tells us the woman has no responsibility toward whatever possible child might eventually exist.
So, those who argue against Matt Dubay’s claim are either (1) logically inconsistent or (2) liars out to defraud one-half of the population. And here is where the new learning concerning eminent domain ties in.
Tying It All Together
The idea that the joint act of sex creates a joint responsibility, and that this responsibility is created towards a specific person as yet unconceived and without existence, this is an old idea, an idea so old it no longer applies in this brave, new country. The courts have specifically repudiated the idea in the case of a woman who has begotten a tissue mass.
So, if the court rules against Matt Dubay, it will embrace the curious position that a child has the right to receive money from a man who had nothing to do with her existence, but does not have the right to receive life from the woman who created her.
This is perfectly in accord with the recent eminent domain decision. It doesn’t matter who owns what. What matters is this: can the state legally increase its revenues by taking property from one person and giving it to someone else? According to the Supreme Court, yes, it can. So, the state has every right to take money from any man in order to give that money to any woman with child, and thus keep both the woman and the child off state aid.
So, Matt Dubay will lose not because he had anything to do with creating a child. According to all the most advanced thinkers (which wouldn’t be us neanderthals in the pro-life movement, by the way), he had nothing to do with the creation of the child. No, Matt Dubay will lose because his wallet is subject to eminent domain.
——————————————————————————–
Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally recognized author and lecturer on pro-life issues. His work is available through http://www.bridegroompress.com. He can be contacted at skellmeyer@bridegroompress.com.
© Copyright 2006 by Steve Kellmeyer
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kellmeyer/060317
March 19th, 2006 at 10:05 pm - IP Man-Hash: 29fa70584ff70
THE RIGHT TO ABANDON YOUR CHILD
by Mona Charen
March 10, 2006 12:07 AM EST
This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, “Well, what did you expect?”
A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling “Roe v. Wade for Men.” Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay $500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his ex-girlfriend. His contention — and that of the National Center for Men — is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause.
Dubay does not dispute that he is the child’s father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here’s the money quote from the NCM website:
“More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.”
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they’ve based their abortion advocacy as a matter of women’s reproductive rights. Is it logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth. But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child support. That’s a pretty substantial inhibition of one’s “reproductive freedom.”
Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the child or to raise it alone (he’ll be lucky to get generous visitation), or to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he wants to raise the baby himself).
The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18 years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and it’s amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the matriarchy?)
But the gravamen of the men’s complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children with are persecuted in this Brave New World we’ve created. When the only frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo one another in selfishness.
The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility — and that doesn’t just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same.
Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we’ve encouraged in this country ever since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and explain that it’s nothing personal.
To find out more about Mona Charen, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at http://www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
This article was found on http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12953
March 19th, 2006 at 10:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: d190ee8325b21
Joe, could you just post links to those articles instead?
-Dick
March 19th, 2006 at 10:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 29fa70584ff70
A Man’s Right to Choose?
A new lawsuit asks whether men should be allowed to get “a financial abortion” in cases of unplanned pregnancies.
By NANCY GIBBS
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Wednesday, Mar. 15, 2006
Should a man be forced to be a father if he doesn’t want to be? Yet another front in the abortion wars reopens now that the National Center for Men has undertaken a crusade to establish a “Roe v. Wade for Men.” “Up until now, reproductive choice has been seen as a woman’s issue: you’re either pro-life or pro-choice,” says center Director Mel Feit. “We’re adding another element. If we expect men to be responsible, isn’t it right to give them some choices too?”
It’s a legal stunt, but as a way of calling attention to double standards and unintended consequences, the campaign makes sense. Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, was ordered to pay child support after his former girlfriend had a baby. He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn’t get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition. When she did get pregnant, he argues, she could have chosen to have an abortion. So shouldn’t he have a choice as well, about whether to support a child he never wanted to have?
Dubay and the center filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, which raises all kinds of confounding questions about rights and choice and what we really mean by equality, when we look at the social and biological roles played by men and women in the course of becoming parents. Feit argues that within a short window of time after discovering an unplanned pregnancy — he has proposed a month, but thinks a week might even be more appropriate — a man should have the right to terminate his legal and financial obligations to the child. “I’m not talking about fathers opting out of obligations that they’ve committed to,” Feit says. “I mean early in pregnancy, if contraception failed, men should have a choice, and women have a right to know what that choice is as they decide how to proceed.”
His argument gains force as more and more states pass laws requiring, as part of pre-abortion counseling, that pregnant women be informed that the baby’s father has a legal obligation to pay child support. These rules were a response to evidence that the overwhelming majority of women seeking abortions do so for social and economic rather than medical reasons. Abortion opponents hope that by informing women about the legal and financial support systems available to them, including the father’s obligations, they might reduce the number who choose abortion.
But solving one problem may just be creating another: pregnancy counselors find that another great source of pressure on ambivalent women is often the father of the child. As states crack down on “deadbeat dads,” men have a greater financial incentive to pressure women into ending unwanted pregnancies. Some threaten to break up with their partner if she doesn’t get an abortion. There is concern that violence against pregnant women is fueled by men trying to avoid a financial liability. So Dubay could argue that allowing men to shed their financial obligations for unwanted children might protect women from all kinds of pressure when they are deciding how to handle an unplanned pregnancy.
The larger philosophical argument is basically this: Do men have as much of a right to control their reproductive lives and financial futures as women do? “Roe v. Wade really changed the world for women,” Feit says. “It allowed them to separate intimacy from procreation, freed them from the fear of contraceptive failure. That kind of empowerment and security that women feel in intimate relations — well, men can’t, frankly.” The only sure protection is total abstinence. Feit contends that men who don’t want to have a child and made reasonable efforts to avoid it should at least be able to choose a “financial abortion” that frees them from any responsibility for the baby.
In a sense women already have a version of that right: Most states have laws permitting a woman to relinquish all her parental responsibilities if she leaves a baby at a hospital after giving birth. “No shame. No blame. No names” says the poster on the bus shelter. Naturally such laws are designed to offer an alternative to the heartbreaking stories we read of babies dumped in trash cans and abandoned by the side of the road.
The rights of fathers have always been the background noise of the abortion debate. Beginning with Planned Parenthood v. Danforth in 1976, then in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, state efforts to require that fathers be notified before women have abortions were struck down by the Supreme Court as placing too great a burden on women. A majority of Americans approve of spousal notification, provided there are exceptions for women in abusive situations, and when he was an appeals court judge Sam Alito upheld such a provision. But the Supreme Court ruled in Casey that “it cannot be claimed that the father’s interest in the fetus’ welfare is equal to the mother’s protected liberty….” Requiring a woman to notify her husband before an abortion, the Justices argued, “embodies a view of marriage” that is “repugnant to this court’s present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution.”
Wanda Franz, president of National Right to Life, is glad to see Dubay’s case calling attention to the mixed messages society sends to men. “He’s basically saying that a woman now has the right to engage in sex relations without worrying about having a child she’s responsible for. He wants the same right — to be able to have sex with a woman and if she gets pregnant, he shouldn’t have to be responsible, since he can’t force her to have an abortion legally.”
Franz says that she is, of course, in favor of both parents’ taking responsibility for a child, an impulse that she says legal abortion has undermined. One obvious problem, if men can sever their financial ties to unwanted children, is what becomes of that child, particularly as states cut back on health care and social services. “What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that’s the way it is,” Dubay told the Associated Press. “Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started.”
Still, Feit has been surprised by the response he’s gotten so far. “It doesn’t break down along traditional gender lines,” he says. “We’re getting so much support from women.” The men divide roughly half and half between those who support what he’s doing and those who say essentially “be a man; accept responsibility.” “Women seem more supportive, which is very surprising and gratifying. They say maybe this is fair, men should have some say, some choice. I’m getting more support from women than I anticipated.” He is the first to say that these are not easy questions. So sometimes just asking them is the right place to start.
This article was found on http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html
March 19th, 2006 at 10:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 29fa70584ff70
Sorry about that…….I will do that from now on.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: 29fa70584ff70
Here is any interesting article about Dubay’s case being wrong, but so is abortion.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/060310
Here is another article, saying this lawsuit is ridiculous, but the real solution is not to feminist’s liking
http://www.donkeystomp.com/archives/2006/03/roe_v_wade_for.html
March 20th, 2006 at 12:29 am - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
http://www.vasectomyinfo.com.au
No need to thank me.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:30 am - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
http://www.abortionhelp.com.au
March 20th, 2006 at 2:30 am - IP Man-Hash: a0da30bfb699d
Fem said:
How ludicrous does this debate need to get? You want equality, then try this on for size, as she is using her body as the incubator, the man should perhaps pay her a weekly amount for this service, plus danger money for both carrying the child and delivering it.
-Hmmm, more “entitlements”? Typical female, heres a newsflash for you, childbearing is probably safer now than it ever has been in the HISTORY of humanity. What you are proposing, is to PAY someone for being a woman and pretty much doing what her body was made for? Sounds like bullshit to me….
Then, due to the physically ravaging effects carrying a child has on one’s body, another weekly amount for any decrease in physical health she suffered as a result of pregnancy. How much do they pay for surragote mothers in the US? Why shouldn’t all women be paid such tidy sums?
-It must be horrible to have a child, thats why so many women have them, again and again and again. Or they are so forlorn if they don’t have a child, and then cannot have one. You are pretty simple to figure out, you are like many people, its all about money to you. You would exclude half of the world in your selfishness and/or ignorance. Why shouldn’t they be paid such tidy sums? Well here’s a question, why should men be forced to pay such tidy sums if they can be thrown away at the blink of an eye? Is that really “responsibility”? I think not.
March 20th, 2006 at 3:45 am - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
What’s that? You don’t want the man to pay for being a man and doing what his biological nature dictates? You don’t say…guess we’ll just leave everything for women to sort out then.
March 20th, 2006 at 7:16 am - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
“You want equality, then try this on for size, as she is using her body as the incubator, the man should perhaps pay her a weekly amount for this service, plus danger money for both carrying the child and delivering it. ”
Using her body as an incubator? Female, you are the hypocrite. Wow..women have nine months of ‘incubator’ status (funny, since the more apt analogy is pregnancy->incubator, since the mother’s womb came first) and the choice to destroy the fetus at will, while the man is literally forced to be a financial ‘incubator’ for years. Are you being purposely obtuse here, female? My point is that the hypocrisy is on your part. You have a choice here: either support the point that *both* parents should be responsible for the child until it can survive on it’s own, or that *both* parents can choose to abandon the child before birth. If the mother can abandon the child up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut (that’s the law for Canada, even if the child is fully out it would be perfectly legal to kill it because there is still a physical connection to the mother), then why can’t the man renege on his child support obligation if he has absolutely no choice at all when the mother is pregnant? Her ‘reproductive’ rights far outweigh his, and that is not right or just, female.
‘Then, due to the physically ravaging effects carrying a child has on one’s body, another weekly amount for any decrease in physical health she suffered as a result of pregnancy.’
Oh, dear lord, did we not point out the financially ravaging effects of child support payment and parenthood? Did you know that each child costs about 200 000 dollars to raise and support?
‘How much do they pay for surragote mothers in the US? Why shouldn’t all women be paid such tidy sums? ‘
1. Because they can abort the kid at any point while surrogates are normally under contract and agreement - she is a babysitter. In other words, the kid isn’t hers!
March 20th, 2006 at 1:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
Yes, that is what I am saying, however, I still think abortion should be legal and that a woman should have the legal authority to determine to abort without interference from a man. There have probably been situations where men have gone to court to attempt to block an abortion from occurring, and in those situations, I think the pregnant woman should be treated as surragote and paid the going rate as such.
They already do. Women can abort/adopt out and men can run off. What Dubay is trying to do is wipe out debt collection agencies who enforce deadbeat dads to pay alimony.
Are you making this up?
Men do renege on their obligations, do you like the socioeconomic consequences of that? Do you think that it is fair for you, the taxpayer, to pay for these assholes children? If your father deserted your mother, would it have been alright for her to be solely personal responsible for you? Without assistance from other relatives/friends or the state, she would have had to work full-time to support you and raise you. Is that fair? Then, if you were male and grew up to be a juvenile deliquent or criminal, your mother would have got the blame for being a single parent, and it’s your own damn fault for being raised in a female-headed household. I see a lot of women getting the blame here, even by other women, without thought for the actual pragmatic effects for the child and society as a whole.
This is how I see it. You all want the man to give up the responsibility of the consequences of his actions (accountability) and make the woman completely responsible, even for the fact that the man himself chose not to wear a condom or have a vasectomy. As the man chose not to wear a condom or have a vasectomy, I don’t see how this can be considered a case of entrapment. More like a case of profound stupidity and irresponsibility.
March 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: 29fa70584ff70
“Rights for me, not for thee!” the feminist’s mantra