Judge Dismisses "Roe v. Wade for Men" Lawsuit

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Let's see, most you support the concept of one career families, women shouldn't have babies unless they're willing to stay home and raise em kind of thinkingchildren are too valuable to be entrusted to daycare. this is used to justify paying women less in the workplace, a pay hit that she will not recover from if she returns to work once her kids are older.

then Come divorce time those same women are then nothing but evil, gold digging tramps out to fisacally ruin a man, those kids who were too valuable to be placed in daycare are nothing but hammers used by their evil mothers and men need to hire sharp lawyers to keep those child support [payments as low as possible, let the biatch get out there and wirk, she deserves nothing,after all she contributed nothing.

Wax it, diet it, tramp stamp it, sex, hot on the half shell, anytime, anyplace, men deserve hords of young hotties eager to jump their jocks.. pregnancy worries ? that should be the slut's problem not mine.. unless of course she gets preggers then she needs to "face responsibility"alone and get a scrape job... unless the dad is pro life then she best not abort.. but wait, then she's a damaged goods single mother..and on and on it goes

There's an old arab saying "women want toasted ice"well I think it applies perfectly to a lot of men when it comes to issues of sexuality and reproduction.

btw, I raised 3 kids.. there was many a day that I'd have been glad if my parenting responsibility began and ended with the writing of a check.

That's all well and good, but doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the role of the father in supporting children out of wedlock, not in it. You had the choice to abort the children that you mothered. Why shouldn't the father have the same option to shirk his responsibilities intrinsic to the sexual act?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
No, there isn't. Biology cannot be denied, women and men are different. True equality would be for both members, during the pregnancy, to be incapacitated and have to miss 9 months of work.

I'm not sure why the man would miss nine months, much less be incapacitated, since neither of these things happen to women. Most women work during pregnancy, at least to a point. Six weeks after the birth is the general rule for maternity leave last I heard.

A men's 'right' to 'choose' is moot, since he doesn't carry the child. Duh.

Men WILLINGLY left their fate 'in the hands of the woman' when they didn't practice enough personal responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy to happen in the first place. Them's the rules. Practice some personal responsibility.

Why shouldn't the woman also practice personal responsibility? Clearly, men and women are physically different. However, we have the ability, through legal and medical practices, to equate the two. Why shouldn't we use these powers?

 

[montanafan]

Guys, I'm going to let you in on a little secret...If you don't want to make a baby, keep your sperm to yourself. It's that simple, really!

When you let that magical concoction of yours out into the big old world, bad things can happen. Things you didn't intend, but you helped in creating.

The only time I can sympathize with you is in the case of a divorce because if you had children in a marriage you were probably being responsible with your little buddies; and yes, there are problems with the way the amounts for child support payments are determined from case to case. I've seen some guys really raked over the coals. But if you're complaining about those stupid child support payments because it means that you can't afford a new sports car or the cool home theater setup you want, no I don't feel sorry for you at all.

As for the abortion issue, no I don't think the guy should be able to decide that she should have an abortion if he didn't want the baby. But, I don't think she should be able to decide to have an abortion either, except in the case of rape or her life being endangered. I think that it should be her choice as to whether or not she wants to carry a child for nine months that was the result of a traumatic/violent attack on her. And I think her life should be hers to choose or not. On-demand abortion, no way.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I have an even better idea. Let's hold women responsible for their own choices and for regulating the functions of their own bodies. Since abortion is available, a birth is thus 100% a woman's choice and thus women should bare 100% of the responsibility.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I have an even better idea. Let's hold women responsible for their own choices and for regulating the functions of their own bodies. Since abortion is available, a birth is thus 100% a woman's choice and thus women should bare 100% of the responsibility.

And then you would be snapping your own whipper 100% of the time. 😉

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

LANSING, MICHIGAN (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a Saginaw County man who says he shouldn't have to pay child support. US District Judge David Lawson ruled that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous and ordered him to pay attorney fees to the state.

Dubay says his ex-girlfriend knew he didn't want to have a child and she assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition. He says that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should be able to decline the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
..............
Some interesting stuff: There was a case where some 12 year old boy was raped by his babysitter and knocked her up. But courts forced him to pay child support anyway.

Seems pretty clear cut, the man was deceived and he shouldn't have to pay a single red cent.

The case about the 12 yr old boy is simply sick and disgusting.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

LANSING, MICHIGAN (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a Saginaw County man who says he shouldn't have to pay child support. US District Judge David Lawson ruled that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous and ordered him to pay attorney fees to the state.

Dubay says his ex-girlfriend knew he didn't want to have a child and she assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition. He says that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should be able to decline the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
..............
Some interesting stuff: There was a case where some 12 year old boy was raped by his babysitter and knocked her up. But courts forced him to pay child support anyway.

Seems pretty clear cut, the man was deceived and he shouldn't have to pay a single red cent.

The case about the 12 yr old boy is simply sick and disgusting.

Yes and all that sickness and disgust is in the eye of the beholder. You need some eye wash.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

LANSING, MICHIGAN (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a Saginaw County man who says he shouldn't have to pay child support. US District Judge David Lawson ruled that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous and ordered him to pay attorney fees to the state.

Dubay says his ex-girlfriend knew he didn't want to have a child and she assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition. He says that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should be able to decline the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
..............
Some interesting stuff: There was a case where some 12 year old boy was raped by his babysitter and knocked her up. But courts forced him to pay child support anyway.

Seems pretty clear cut, the man was deceived and he shouldn't have to pay a single red cent.

The case about the 12 yr old boy is simply sick and disgusting.

Yes and all that sickness and disgust is in the eye of the beholder. You need some eye wash.

You don't think raping a 12yr old or the elderly and infirm to forcing them to pay child support is disgusting? Go take a shower.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If you're a man and you don't use a condom, you live with the consequences. End of fricking story.

What if you are in a long term relationship and the woman assures you she is on the pill, but is irresponsible with her medication or "skips" a few days...when I was single, I always used a condom simply because I like having control over my destiny, but women share an equal burden of responsibility. Short of committing to marriage, a man has no obligation towards his sexual partners...why should a man be concerned with pregnancy, when he is not the one who runs the risk of getting pregnant. I keep hearing the "it's my body argument," but why does that not also apply to premarital sex...short of rape scenarios, a woman has total control over who she chooses to sleep with, and the precautionary measures used during intercourse. End of fricking story.

in other words nothing is ever the responsibilty of men in the arena of sexuality/ reproduction ?

Well, it is YOUR body isn't it...you get to control what comes in and goes out...don't want to get pregnant? YOU have total control over that risk factor.

As I stated previously, the only time a man is responsible is under the contractual arrangement of marriage.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: montanafan
Guys, I'm going to let you in on a little secret...If you don't want to make a baby, keep your sperm to yourself. It's that simple, really!

Really? Let's take this one step further... remember that guy who had a paternity suit filed against him by a woman who gave him a blowjob, then used his semen to get herself pregnant?

Maybe all men should freeze some sperm, then get vasectomies done.... or become totally abstinent/monks/wankers/gays...

Or maybe pregnancies should be terminated upon request of either party involved, and those women who want to keep the babies should be legally bound to release men from any financial burden?

How about leaving "real" law to law, and religious crap in the toilet, where it belongs?

I fully support a women's right to choose, and it goes both ways - men are definitely in a disadvantaged position... in the U.S at least.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

If you're a man and you don't use a condom, you live with the consequences. End of fricking story.

What if you are in a long term relationship and the woman assures you she is on the pill, but is irresponsible with her medication or "skips" a few days...when I was single, I always used a condom simply because I like having control over my destiny, but women share an equal burden of responsibility. Short of committing to marriage, a man has no obligation towards his sexual partners...why should a man be concerned with pregnancy, when he is not the one who runs the risk of getting pregnant. I keep hearing the "it's my body argument," but why does that not also apply to premarital sex...short of rape scenarios, a woman has total control over who she chooses to sleep with, and the precautionary measures used during intercourse. End of fricking story.

in other words nothing is ever the responsibilty of men in the arena of sexuality/ reproduction ?

Well, it is YOUR body isn't it...you get to control what comes in and goes out...don't want to get pregnant? YOU have total control over that risk factor.

As I stated previously, the only time a man is responsible is under the contractual arrangement of marriage.

What you dont understand is that in this world we have a double standard when it comes to reproduction.

 

[13Gigatons]

Men like sex

Men don't like babies

Doesn't this seem obvious ?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

LANSING, MICHIGAN (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a Saginaw County man who says he shouldn't have to pay child support. US District Judge David Lawson ruled that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous and ordered him to pay attorney fees to the state.

Dubay says his ex-girlfriend knew he didn't want to have a child and she assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition. He says that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should be able to decline the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
..............
Some interesting stuff: There was a case where some 12 year old boy was raped by his babysitter and knocked her up. But courts forced him to pay child support anyway.

Seems pretty clear cut, the man was deceived and he shouldn't have to pay a single red cent.

The case about the 12 yr old boy is simply sick and disgusting.

Yes and all that sickness and disgust is in the eye of the beholder. You need some eye wash.

You don't think raping a 12yr old or the elderly and infirm to forcing them to pay child support is disgusting? Go take a shower.

Since I don't feel sickness or disgust I don't need a shower. Seeing it now in me just means you've changed your focus to me. Everywhere you look you see what you are.

 

[mattpegher]

Several years ago, I was in the position of unwitting father. The woman I was seeing became pregnant. Problem was she had gone back to her old boyfriend and although the odds were that the child was mine, it could have been either one of us. Of course the boyfriend was not even aware that I could have been the father, and convinced her to have an abortion. Dispite my urging to keep the child, she decided to go ahead with the abortion.
Even given the possibility that she may have raised the child as his, I would have found it difficult to avoid the desire to support the child.
The case-in-point discusses a man and women who as far as we know both believed that conception was impossible but it occurred. Not much different than others who have accidental pregnancies. Thus the discussion of entrapments by the females are better left aside.
Although men are left out of the decision, in the end the state must protect the child and both parents are responsible. I agree that there is no after the fact options for guys, but this inequality does not change the fact that the child of such a situation cannot be made to suffer for the circumstances of its birth.

Plus we are talking about child support which at least in many states is fixed regardless of income. Here in New Jersey, if I divorce my wife, I would have to give my ex more just to keep them living at a level at which I want them to live.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Really? Let's take this one step further... remember that guy who had a paternity suit filed against him by a woman who gave him a blowjob, then used his semen to get herself pregnant?

Maybe all men should freeze some sperm, then get vasectomies done.... or become totally abstinent/monks/wankers/gays...

Or maybe pregnancies should be terminated upon request of either party involved, and those women who want to keep the babies should be legally bound to release men from any financial burden?

How about leaving "real" law to law, and religious crap in the toilet, where it belongs?

I fully support a women's right to choose, and it goes both ways - men are definitely in a disadvantaged position... in the U.S at least.

Maybe you can point out anywhere in this thread anyone said anything religious to invoke your obligatory hatred-of-religion spiel. I'm not seeing it.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

The anti-abortion angle (present in many of the responses in this thread) comes from a religious controversy, CycloWizard.... or are you too tired of my "spiel" to see it?

 

[LunarRay]

The financial responsibility for a child belongs with the creators so long as they did so with full knowledge and acceptance of the outcome of the precipitative event.
The termination of the process belongs to the woman who for any or many reasons may not wish to carry a fetus to term or before viability.
The man in all of this has no right to trump the woman's reproductive decisions. I base this on the non-religious belief that a fetus is simply that until it is viable out side the woman's body at which point it has its own rights which trump both 'parent's' desires or wants.
A woman who does carry to term and delivers a human creates the financial 'burden' on both parties to the event. The man and the woman share equally in this 'burden'.
Religion has said that to engage in sex before marriage is wrong and, therefore, the penalty for this 'sin' is to either keep the child or adopt it out.. Abortion is not in the equation but always the two parties are bound by religious and societial norms to support the child if the decision is to keep it.

SOOOOOOOooooo Why are men not willing to support what they knowingly create? Why do men want to be able to decide what the woman does after the only fact the man is involved with produces a fetus or child?
To me and IMO... it is because they (men) demand control over another human (the woman) even though they are, by design, with out that right. Men are men and women are women... different and with different functions and created (or evolved) with all the requisite qualifications to perform these functions.
Paternity's financial issue is right as is Maternity's financial issues..

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I have an even better idea. Let's hold women responsible for their own choices and for regulating the functions of their own bodies. Since abortion is available, a birth is thus 100% a woman's choice and thus women should bare 100% of the responsibility.

so you support the idea of men having zero rights to their children ?

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The financial responsibility for a child belongs with the creators so long as they did so with full knowledge and acceptance of the outcome of the precipitative event.
The termination of the process belongs to the woman who for any or many reasons may not wish to carry a fetus to term or before viability.
The man in all of this has no right to trump the woman's reproductive decisions. I base this on the non-religious belief that a fetus is simply that until it is viable out side the woman's body at which point it has its own rights which trump both 'parent's' desires or wants.
A woman who does carry to term and delivers a human creates the financial 'burden' on both parties to the event. The man and the woman share equally in this 'burden'.
Religion has said that to engage in sex before marriage is wrong and, therefore, the penalty for this 'sin' is to either keep the child or adopt it out.. Abortion is not in the equation but always the two parties are bound by religious and societial norms to support the child if the decision is to keep it.

SOOOOOOOooooo Why are men not willing to support what they knowingly create? Why do men want to be able to decide what the woman does after the only fact the man is involved with produces a fetus or child?
To me and IMO... it is because they (men) demand control over another human (the woman) even though they are, by design, with out that right. Men are men and women are women... different and with different functions and created (or evolved) with all the requisite qualifications to perform these functions.
Paternity's financial issue is right as is Maternity's financial issues..

your argument clearly creates a violation of equal protection.

perhaps what science and the government should do is take men and women out of the process and grow children in a lab.

In the future those who want to become parents just go to the store and pick one out.

one could use donor dna or their own, and a selection of children is grown until lets say the 8month 29th day, when the final selection is made the parents can choose 1 , 2 or more based on their income.

The remaining product then is destroyed or used for parts.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
The anti-abortion angle (present in many of the responses in this thread) comes from a religious controversy, CycloWizard.... or are you too tired of my "spiel" to see it?

No, you simply choose to make use of the fallacy of hasty generalization by assuming that all people opposed to abortion do so solely on religious grounds, or at the very least the fallacy of guilt by association. I've yet to see a single usage of religion to support a viewpoint in this entire thread.

Oh, and spiel, just FYI. :>

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The financial responsibility for a child belongs with the creators so long as they did so with full knowledge and acceptance of the outcome of the precipitative event.
The termination of the process belongs to the woman who for any or many reasons may not wish to carry a fetus to term or before viability.
The man in all of this has no right to trump the woman's reproductive decisions. I base this on the non-religious belief that a fetus is simply that until it is viable out side the woman's body at which point it has its own rights which trump both 'parent's' desires or wants.
A woman who does carry to term and delivers a human creates the financial 'burden' on both parties to the event. The man and the woman share equally in this 'burden'.
Religion has said that to engage in sex before marriage is wrong and, therefore, the penalty for this 'sin' is to either keep the child or adopt it out.. Abortion is not in the equation but always the two parties are bound by religious and societial norms to support the child if the decision is to keep it.

SOOOOOOOooooo Why are men not willing to support what they knowingly create? Why do men want to be able to decide what the woman does after the only fact the man is involved with produces a fetus or child?
To me and IMO... it is because they (men) demand control over another human (the woman) even though they are, by design, with out that right. Men are men and women are women... different and with different functions and created (or evolved) with all the requisite qualifications to perform these functions.
Paternity's financial issue is right as is Maternity's financial issues..

your argument clearly creates a violation of equal protection.

perhaps what science and the government should do is take men and women out of the process and grow children in a lab.

In the future those who want to become parents just go to the store and pick one out.

one could use donor dna or their own, and a selection of children is grown until lets say the 8month 29th day, when the final selection is made the parents can choose 1 , 2 or more based on their income.

The remaining product then is destroyed or used for parts.

Equal protection under what the 14th or some other?

"Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. "


In any event, the current process is sorta like a lab, don't ya think..
Heck you can still have donor dna either way... the entire egg or sperm for that matter.

Legal info

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The financial responsibility for a child belongs with the creators so long as they did so with full knowledge and acceptance of the outcome of the precipitative event.
The termination of the process belongs to the woman who for any or many reasons may not wish to carry a fetus to term or before viability.
The man in all of this has no right to trump the woman's reproductive decisions. I base this on the non-religious belief that a fetus is simply that until it is viable out side the woman's body at which point it has its own rights which trump both 'parent's' desires or wants.
A woman who does carry to term and delivers a human creates the financial 'burden' on both parties to the event. The man and the woman share equally in this 'burden'.
Religion has said that to engage in sex before marriage is wrong and, therefore, the penalty for this 'sin' is to either keep the child or adopt it out.. Abortion is not in the equation but always the two parties are bound by religious and societial norms to support the child if the decision is to keep it.

SOOOOOOOooooo Why are men not willing to support what they knowingly create? Why do men want to be able to decide what the woman does after the only fact the man is involved with produces a fetus or child?
To me and IMO... it is because they (men) demand control over another human (the woman) even though they are, by design, with out that right. Men are men and women are women... different and with different functions and created (or evolved) with all the requisite qualifications to perform these functions.
Paternity's financial issue is right as is Maternity's financial issues..

By design, it is not the woman's choice to terminate the pregnancy either. This is a facet of our 'technology', not human nature or design. Since we have reduced this complex situation, via court order, to simply a choice to be made, then either the man or woman may make it equally. This is the only way to remove control of the woman over the man after the pregnancy. The problem may arise that you deem this gives the man control over the woman during the pregnancy. However, the solution proposed - the 'paper abortion' - gives the woman the right to control herself while the man also maintains control of his destiny.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why the hell are all these men having sex outside of loving trusting relationships where deep emotional bonds and sympathy exist between two people. I guess if guys want to f@ck around there's always the risk of getting f@cked back, no? Maybe if guys had a bit more sensitivity and capacity for feeling they'd have a bit more insight into who exactly it is they are partnering. Maybe guys should develop sufficient psychology to be able to see who they can trust.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The financial responsibility for a child belongs with the creators so long as they did so with full knowledge and acceptance of the outcome of the precipitative event.
The termination of the process belongs to the woman who for any or many reasons may not wish to carry a fetus to term or before viability.
The man in all of this has no right to trump the woman's reproductive decisions. I base this on the non-religious belief that a fetus is simply that until it is viable out side the woman's body at which point it has its own rights which trump both 'parent's' desires or wants.
A woman who does carry to term and delivers a human creates the financial 'burden' on both parties to the event. The man and the woman share equally in this 'burden'.
Religion has said that to engage in sex before marriage is wrong and, therefore, the penalty for this 'sin' is to either keep the child or adopt it out.. Abortion is not in the equation but always the two parties are bound by religious and societial norms to support the child if the decision is to keep it.

SOOOOOOOooooo Why are men not willing to support what they knowingly create? Why do men want to be able to decide what the woman does after the only fact the man is involved with produces a fetus or child?
To me and IMO... it is because they (men) demand control over another human (the woman) even though they are, by design, with out that right. Men are men and women are women... different and with different functions and created (or evolved) with all the requisite qualifications to perform these functions.
Paternity's financial issue is right as is Maternity's financial issues..

By design, it is not the woman's choice to terminate the pregnancy either. This is a facet of our 'technology', not human nature or design. Since we have reduced this complex situation, via court order, to simply a choice to be made, then either the man or woman may make it equally. This is the only way to remove control of the woman over the man after the pregnancy. The problem may arise that you deem this gives the man control over the woman during the pregnancy. However, the solution proposed - the 'paper abortion' - gives the woman the right to control herself while the man also maintains control of his destiny.

Ok.. then the woman can force the man to have a vascetomy... and reverse it if she desires...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why the hell are all these men having sex outside of loving trusting relationships where deep emotional bonds and sympathy exist between two people. I guess if guys want to f@ck around there's always the risk of getting f@cked back, no? Maybe of guys had a bit more sensitivity and capacity for feeling they'd have a bit more insight into who exactly it is they are partnering. Maybe guys should develop sufficient psychology to be able to see who they can trust.

If one believes that a human being exists at conception then they should act that way.. if they believe that a human being exists at some point in the process then they should accept this too... abortion etc..
But in both cases the resulting human child has rights and one of them is to be cared for emotionally and financially..
The woman has no rights regards the man and the man no rights regards the woman... each has their own process and since the woman's is to 'carry' the fetus/child then it is her what decides what goes on within her... her right to privacy...