MOM has opened a debate on the "Roe v. Wade for Men" case and goes on a road trip to DU to watch philosophies of life fall like a house of cards. The argument behind the case is:
If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
Putting adoption in that category is really no longer applicable. From what I understand, there's no more adopting a child out without the father's approval.
I know the men's rights groups have been looking for a case like this to use as test, but I think they have more important fish to fry; such as paternity fraud and the garnishment of wages. The criminal courts use DNA evidence to get people off death row, but many family courts don't want to use DNA evidence to get men off the hook for paying for children that are not theirs.
Eric Zorn's interesting take on it is here.
UPDATE:
Looks like I spoke too soon about adoption, and in Florida no less:
Critics call it Florida's best-kept secret, a law that allows babies to be adopted without notifying unwed fathers.
Now, two men are challenging rulings under a state law that stripped them of their parental rights because they weren't registered with a state databank.
Posted by floridacracker at March 10, 2006 12:46 PMActually this case is part of the process of frying those more important fish.
Paternity fraud is a problem, but it is the symptom, not the disease. The conditions described in your linked article could not originate and flourish in the absence of deeper, more serious problems. Think about what is required for such a travesty to exist. It has become acceptable to deprive a whole class of people, men, of due process and real access to justice simply because they are men. All the rubbish about focusing on the welfare of the child is just that. The real focus is using the child as a blunt instrument to bludgeon a man, and any man will do in a pinch.
A life-hating and man-hating brand of radical feminism has increasingly dominated certain aspects of American political discourse for decades. The problems with paternity fraud are one of the ugly results. It is one of the long-standing goals of the radical feminist movement to destroy the family. They see it as the foundation of a capitalist society they hate and as the primary tool used by men to oppress women. No fault divorce; the campaign to overturn sexual mores, including the promotion of birth control to separate sex from reproduction; abortion on demand; the imposition of barriers between parents and children (e.g. distributing condoms to your kids in school whether you like it or not, and school privacy rules that keep information from parents [e.g. if a teacher discovers your child has been sexually assaulted/molested, you cannot be told]; the abolition of consent and even notification requirements for various proceedures, especially abortions; all this and much more is the result of a campaign of social engineering to produce a society in which blind justice is nowhere to be found; in which there is different justice for members of different groups. "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
The "Roe v. Wade for men" case is not about a remedy for a specific issue. Even the plaintiffs admit it is a legal dead-end. Its real purpose is to force deeper changes in the parameters of a public discourse that has been confined into one , narrow, acceptable channel of thought and to at least begin to loosen the grip of a minority of oppressive radicals on the debate.
Posted by: Hawkeye at March 10, 2006 07:01 PMI have mostly guys on here, and I agree with MOM that most guys don't like to talk about this. I posted on it here because I personally think it's an interesting and worthwhile subject and wanted to do my bit to get it out to the public.
People want to jettison the old way because it's too restrictive on their personal freedom, but what they're replacing it with is a mess.
In any case, I'm all about everybody getting a square deal--whites, Americans, heterosexuals, Christians, Southerners, males, and whatever other unfashionable group I might have missed, included.
Posted by: Donnah at March 11, 2006 11:07 PMwhy dont you just lay your cards on the table, lady ?
No-Fault divorce...ya lose some, and you lose some more. It's hard to argue with a precedent. I ask young lovers today, "Which kind of marriage are y'all talkin' about havin'..The Two Year Weekend or the Promise to God version ?"
Posted by: Owen Crosby at March 12, 2006 02:33 PMWell, some folks don't want the promise to God stuff. But replacing it with something unfair is wrong.
Posted by: Donnah at March 13, 2006 01:17 AMDonnah - I think your point about paternity fraud is extremely appropriate.
But what can we do to make life "fair"? The best we can do is to try to make law reflect reality.
I have a lot of sympathy for men with horror stories, but what of the children? If they are born they must have some rights. I cannot stand to see this topic discussed solely in terms of the rights of the man and the woman.
Because in the end, someone has to pick up and take care of the child. In the end, the responsibility is still there. It's just a matter of who pays, not whether someone pays.
Posted by: MaxedOutMama at March 19, 2006 09:17 PM