Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men'

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/06/fatherhood.ap/index.html

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
________________________________________________________

Excuse me? His "ex-girlfriend's daughter"?
 
LadyT said:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/11/06/fatherhood.ap/index.html

LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
________________________________________________________

Excuse me? His "ex-girlfriend's daughter"?
Click to expand...


:confused:

Why did this even make it to trial? How is it NOT a fundamental responsibility, to pay support for your child?
 
Dungheap said:
Oh, I see. The reporter made it seem like it was his ex-girlfriend's daughter only, not his. The rest of the article made it clear the child was his as well.
Click to expand...

that was his argument, that it was her child only.
 
Cypress said:
:confused:

Why did this even make it to trial? How is it NOT a fundamental responsibility, to pay support for your child?
Click to expand...

yeah, well fast forward 20 years, this sorry SOB will regret this $hit and be begging for her forgiveness.
 
LadyT said:
yeah, well fast forward 20 years, this sorry SOB will regret this $hit and be begging for her forgiveness.
Click to expand...


I'll never understand how - no matter how pissed you are at an Ex - how or why one would want to take that anger out on your own child.
 
Cypress said:
I'll never understand how - no matter how pissed you are at an Ex - how or why one would want to take that anger out on your own child.
Click to expand...

Not really relevant to this case, but I think anytime child support comes in to play paternity test should be mandatory. It's wrong to make men the heavy, when there are many cases of men paying support to later find out the child is not theirs. If the state required it, the man would not have to choose between playing the role of an asshole, possibly estranging the relationship, or that of a schmuck.
 
I think what Asshat was trying to say is that once a woman becomes pregnant she is the ONLY one that gets to choose what happens to the child.

Abortion? Woman gets to say yes or no, Man gets no say. This is unequal in the sense that the man may want the child and the woman can say no. Why not give the man the same ability to say HE will raise and care for the child? What is so unfair or patriarchal about that?

Because Women get the choice to take the pregnancy to term or to terminate, the man has absolutely no say as to his future. Will he get to raise his child? Will he have to pay child support that he may not be in a position to pay at the time the child is born and thus the rest of his life is limited because he has to work full time jobs that limit his ability to get a better education?

So many women say he made his choice when he chose to have sex without thought of the consequences later on down the road. But that is a two way street. Unless she was raped the woman had the EXACT same choice. This argument is meritless. I actually think that women have asked for a pass in this department and somehow a lot of us have bought in to it.

I am pro-choice because I know the historical consequences in counties that have regulated pregnancy and required woman to have children. One need only look at communist Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu. They forced woman to remain pregnant, abortion was punishable by prison and yet a country of 25 million only had 300K abortions less that the US every year and when Romania collapsed the burden of children in state run orphanages was tremendous.

All that being said, pregnancy is the one place where a mans choices end at ejaculation while woman have the choice to keep or have the child.
 
RStringfield said:
Not really relevant to this case, but I think anytime child support comes in to play paternity test should be mandatory. It's wrong to make men the heavy, when there are many cases of men paying support to later find out the child is not theirs. If the state required it, the man would not have to choose between playing the role of an asshole, possibly estranging the relationship, or that of a schmuck.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what paternity tests have to do with this. Did they guy deny the child was his? I was under the impression that he simply didn't want to have a child, but got his girlfriend pregnant anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top