Masculine Abortion?

RameNoodle

ND Number 1!
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
742
Location
Bears Country (Illinois)
Yesterday on Dr. Phil (eh, well, nevermind...) there was a man who got a woman pregnant and she decided to have the baby. However, he didn't want to pay child support. So, he decided that he would try to bring up a case that he didn't have to pay child support because he wasn't given the option of an abortion. This is the story. Click on the link under "Roe v. Wade for Men" for the story.

So, does the man have reason here?
 
No. If he didn't want to have a kid he should have not been having sex.
 
Matt (the man in question) said:
"From the beginning, I had told her very clearly that at this point in my life, there is no way I could be a father. She informed me that she had a condition where she could not get pregnant. She also informed me that she was on the pill for other medical conditions," explains Matt Dubay. His ex-girlfriend, Lauren, became pregnant anyway, and now he must pay $500 in child support every month. "When a pregnancy occurs, women are given options; men are not. They are forced into whatever the woman decides she's going to do."

According to him [Matt], she [expectant mother] stated what I have underlined above. Now, IMO that right there makes his argument worth it.

Remember, this is not an argument of someone who just doesn't want to deal with their failure to be responsible, but someone who was informed a pregnancy wasn't possible.

One thing of note, is I would have questioned why she was still on the pill if she couldn't get pregnant. I must confess though that I do not know what else the pill is used for.
 
He's the father, how could he not pay child support? Abortion rights for men...haha...i doubt anyone except deadbeats would support this moron.
 
Masquerouge said:
No. There are ways to make sure you won't get the wife pregnant.

There are very few ways to do so cheaply, without medical surgery. Plus I do not believe this was his wife.

Realize that even if a condom is worn and the female is on the pill there is still a chance to get pregnant.
 
Methos said:
There are very few ways to do so cheaply, without medical surgery. Plus I do not believe this was his wife.

Realize that even if a condom is worn and the female is on the pill there is still a chance to get pregnant.

I know. But the fact that the woman actually tricked him makes it very different. I wish that were in the OP...
 
HighlandWarrior said:
He's the father, how could he not pay child support? Abortion rights for men...haha...i doubt anyone except deadbeats would support this moron.

First off, where did it state abortion? No where. He never states he wants her to have an abortion, only he doesn't feel obligated to support the child financially.

BTW, I support him, so are you stating I'm a deadbeat? I was once in the same situation as him, only opposite. She didn't want the child and I did. But since its a womans body I have no rights.
 
Masquerouge said:
I know. But the fact that the woman actually tricked him makes it very different. I wish that were in the OP...

I recall the news story when it came out several months ago, so I had previous knowledge of it. I too wish they had brought that statement up in the OP.
 
Methos said:
Realize that even if a condom is worn and the female is on the pill there is still a chance to get pregnant.

The biological point of sex is to reproduce. We have evolved to do this rather efficiently. Nothing is safe. If you don't want a child, there's the internet and KY.
 
Methos said:
According to him [Matt], she [expectant mother] stated what I have underlined above. Now, IMO that right there makes his argument worth it.

Remember, this is not an argument of someone who just doesn't want to deal with their failure to be responsible, but someone who was informed a pregnancy wasn't possible.

One thing of note, is I would have questioned why she was still on the pill if she couldn't get pregnant. I must confess though that I do not know what else the pill is used for.

If you cant do the time don't do the crime, accept responsibility for your actions, sex is fraught with peril, you have a child even though you didn't believe it was possible, **** happens you don't understand the .01% of actually having sex and the risk of having a baby, didums it happened, grow up, accept that you made him or her, time you got used to the real world. Responsibilty for your actions is part of life.

EDIT: that was a cross post with Mob Boss, he's absolutley right though.
 
augurey said:
The biological point of sex is to reproduce. We have evolved to do this rather efficiently. Nothing is safe. If you don't want a child, there's the internet and KY.

I think I pride myself in overcoming my biological instincts, reproduction on every sexual intercourse being one of them. I'm not an animal. :p
 
Sidhe said:
If you cant do the time don't do the crime, accept responsibility for your actions, sex is fraught with peril, you have a child even though you didn't believe it was possible, **** happens you don't understand the .01% of actually having sex and the risk of having a baby, didums it happened, grow up, accept that you made him or her, time you got used to the real world. Responsibilty for your actions is part of life.

I find this odd, as no one seems to care about the legal aspects of it. If a female informs you they cannot physically have a child and winds up having one, you all state "if you can't do the time don't do the crime"! What the??? She has in a way committed fraud. She lied to him and he is punished for it. Are you saying that it doesn't matter what the female does to get pregnant (lie, etc.) that you're [the male] still punished for it?

What about the other way? When a female gets pregnant and wants an abortion and the male doesn't? Should he get any say in the matter?

Simple statement is that a woman has options; keep the child, put him/her up for adoption, or abortion. The man has no options whatsoever.

Another thing, for those of you who say the time/crime thing. Did you have sex just for sex? It doesn't matter if you used protection or not, as that isn't 100% effective.
 
Masquerouge said:
I think I pride myself in overcoming my biological instincts, reproduction on every sexual intercourse being one of them. I'm not an animal. :p

All I meant was that biologically, sex is to reproduce. I understand that it has evolved cuturally far past this. However, that doesn't mean that our culture has changed our biology. We are still efficent at breading -- indeed, this is why birth control isn't effective even when taken properly.
 
MobBoss said:
Dont do the crime if you cant do the time....
Ok, he shouldn't have had sex outside of marriage. And, doesn't this phrase apply to her, also?

Why shouldn't the man have equal rights in the future of his child. If a woman has the choice to either keep the baby, abort it, or put it up for adoption, shouldn't the man, whose financial future may or may not be at stake, have an equal opinion in the fate of the baby, since whether it lives or not will affect him also? Doesn't he have a right to decide what will become of his offspring?

Can't the same argument that women use to justify child support, "He made a decision and its his child too" be used by men in saying that the woman told him that he had no risk of becoming pregnant with her?
 
RameNoodle said:
Why shouldn't the man have equal rights in the future of his child. If a woman has the choice to either keep the baby, abort it, or put it up for adoption, shouldn't the man, whose financial future may or may not be at stake, have an equal opinion in the fate of the baby, since whether it lives or not will affect him also? Doesn't he have a right to decide what will become of his offspring?

Actually I think so, but only if the woman tricked him into having a kid.

EDIT: forget that. You know what? The man should have as many rights as the woman regarding the baby's fate. The man should be able to decline child support.
 
source

A man cannot require the woman, with whom he is married, to bear his child to term, but a woman can require a man, with whom no relationship exists other than a casual sexual encounter, to support a child that she unilaterally chooses to have. The argument for the status-quo is; "It takes two to make a baby." That is just rhetoric designed to justify a means. The only thing that a man creates, as defined by the pro-choice movement itself, is an "unviable tissue mass". As a result of the "Roe vs. Wade" decision, it is solely the woman that makes the conscious and deliberate "choice" to cultivate that "tissue mass" into a living and breathing entity. If the woman has the right to excise that "tissue mass" from her reproductive system, without any regards for man involved, then the man should have the same right to disavow that "tissue mass".

Many unmarried men have been told by birthmothers that they don't want their help. Other men may be completely unaware that they are fathers. Sometimes, in a deliberate move designed to deny a man the opportunity of establishing a paternal bond with a child, a birthmother may wait for years before petitioning a court for the instatement of child support. When these cases come to trial, Domestic Court judges are prone to assign these so-called "deadbeat dads" retroactive child support payments. The argument for the status quo is; "Both parents have an obligation to provide support for a child." This premise is erroneous in two aspects:
First, whether a child is supported by it's biological parents is also arbitrarily decided by the "choice" of the birth-mother. Even after the birth of a child, the birthmother still has the option to decline her parental responsibilities through the adoption process. After a birthmother relinquishes her child through adoption, she is free of any further responsibilities to her child regardless of the future hardships that may befall that child.
Second, while both parents supposedly have an obligation to support a child, in many cases the State will provide the mother's part of the parental obligation with cash benefits, housing allowances, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The State will then confiscate the biological father's income and sanctimoniously chastises him about a parental obligation.
This exposes the true intent of child support in the instances of illegitimacy. While being sold as a bill of goods described as "what is in the child's best interest", child support, coupled with welfare entitlements, offer young women, who have little or no education or job skills, an opportunity for a lifestyle they otherwise could not afford through the means of bringing a child into the world without the benefit of marriage.

It is not uncommon for Domestic Court Judges, as a stipulation of child support, to assign all medical and dental expenses a child may incur to the noncustodial "father", despite the fact that the health and welfare of a child is in direct correlation with the lifestyle and supervisory skills of the custodial parent.

Probably the most unjust and punitive aspect of child support law is the tax code. When using the "earned income tax credit", which is nothing more than an additional government stipend offered to the "working poor" in the guise of a tax refund, a custodial parent can work part time, pay no federal income tax throughout the year, but yet receive a "tax refund" of a thousand dollars or more. On the other hand, an unmarried, noncustodial father, who is required to forfeit up to 25% of his income for child support purposes, receives NO dependant tax deduction.

The above is just an excerpt.
 
Masquerouge said:
Actually I think so, but only if the woman tricked him into having a kid.

I agree with you, the problem is being able to prove she tricked him. Take the case in question; we only have the word of this Matt fellow. Who knows, for all we know he may be lying, and he may be telling the truth.

I think the biggest thing about this story is what rights the male has, or what rights he should or shouldn't have.
 
Top Bottom