She got one of yo kids got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin child support for one of his kids
His baby momma’s car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV Any Given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai …
18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn’t his
–Kanye West
I think this is a very interesting story. You hear a lot about pro athletes and other powerful figures getting caught up in these child support battles after a one-night stand … but what exactly should their responsibility be, in those cases? Women have a range of options in the event of an unintended pregnancy, from abortion to adoption. What choices do men get?
NEW YORK (AP) — Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men’s rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child. …
The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: 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. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
“There’s such a spectrum of choice that women have — it’s her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions,” said Mel Feit, director of the men’s center. “I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.” …
[Plaintiff Matt] Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant. …
“Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences,” he [Feit] said. “No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say.”
“The problem is this is so politically incorrect,” Feit added. “The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility.”
Feit doesn’t advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
“If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible,” Feit said. “If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”
(Other blogs discussing this include To the People, Ang’s Weird Ideas, Bring it On! and Sister Toldjah on the pro-men’s center side … on the con side, there’s The Narrow, GOP Bloggers, Brad Abridged, The Stranger (I think), and I See Invisible People. Protein Wisdom has a really thoughtful essay, but I’m not sure which side he comes down on)
1) If a man doesn’t want to support a child, he doesn’t have to have sex with its mother in the first place.
2) In at least several states (including New Jersey and Maryland, I think), by law a man has only two years to contest paternity of a child. After that, he must pay child support *even if the child is later proven not to be his.* The rationale being that once a child grows accustomed to Max X acting like a father figure and Man X didn’t dispute it at the start, Man X must then see through the obligations he has accepted.
So this whole lawsuit mess, I think, is ridiculous. A man must be responsible for his actions but also always take due care at the right time to discern exactly what his obligations are. I mean, do other people (like these lawsuit fools) seriously *not* see it this way?
i think it’s interesting that this article/debate is being advanced now when women’s choices are being drastically restricted (s. dakota comes to mind).
i think that men need to take responsibility for birth control (condoms) if they are concerned about the possiblity of having a child.
Something I have never understood, as a woman, is why would a man have sex with a woman and not make sure there is no way she could get pregnant if he didn’t want her too??? I decided years ago that I didn’t want anymore kids. I then took the responsibility on myself and made sure that wouldn’t happen. I did not ask my husband to assume that responsibility, I took it on myself. I guess, as with most things, it all boils down to self responsibility. If you don’t want to have a kid with someone either a) don’t sleep with them, or b)make sure noone can get pregnant from you.
Ridiculous — yeah, but condoms don’t always work.
Mofo, post-Roe we wouldn’t say to women, “if you don’t want to support a child, don’t have sex in the first place.” They have choices, despite efforts in South Dakota and elsewhere to limit them.
So to answer your question — yeah, I have a lot of sympathy for this guy. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with their proposed legislation, but I do think the law should be equitable to both men and women … all the choices should not be just on one side.
Mofo, as for your second point — yeah, I think those laws are the case in most states. But those statutes date back to a time before DNA testing, when courts didn’t want to get involved in messy battles over proving a woman’s fidelity. The Times had an interesting storya few years back about some guy who was cuckolded in his marriage. When DNA testing (over a cystic fibrosis genetic marker) showed three of the kids weren’t his, a court cut off his visitation rights — but he’s still having to pay for their child support. Doesn’t that strike you as just outrageous?
I found this comment on another blog:
Interesting situation – far from the norm, I imagine… but unfortunate nonetheless. I don’t understand what her point is though… she says the father should have a choice. What choice? The ability to go back in time and let him vote on whether or not she aborts it? Simply choose to not pay child support because she didn’t tell him in time?
I guess what I’m wondering is, what is the widespread effect of letting guys decide if they want to pay child support? If the question of child support is coming up at all, it definitely means the man and woman are already at odds. He’s a “dog” and she’s a “gold digger”. Now, how many guys are going to look past their own feelings about this woman and choose that the responsibility to the child remains?
No, it may not be a perfect system, and there will always be some idiot judge who makes a guy pay but won’t let him have visitation if he’s interested – I don’t argue that. That’s awful.
But the way it works now seems to be the “closest thing to right” you can do with a problem with no right answers. Men’s rights should kick in when and if the child is born. Forced to support it whether you like it or not, but always with the option to have a relationship with that child. You made it, you pay for it buddy.
Well, I don’t think anyone really advocates giving men a vote on whether women aborts a fetus. And I think everyone agrees men should pay child support for planned pregnancies, or those within marriage.
But what responsibilities should a guy have for unplanned, “condom broke”-type pregnancies, particularly when they are tricked into getting a woman pregnant? You do hear about that happening, particularly with pro athletes and other rich and powerful men.
But you don’t want kids to grow up in poverty, either, and Feit’s suggestion that “adoption is a good alternative” seems horrendous.
Presumably in this case, though, if there wasn’t mandatory child support for unplanned pregnancies, there wouldn’t have been a pregnancy in the first place.
I guess I just don’t see a way to impliment their idea then. They’re complaining the women have all the cards, so they think men should be able to walk away from the baby’s care.
Even if it’s an “Oops, the cheap condom broke!” type deal… and he walks away from it, who takes care of the kid? Do we sue Trojan condoms and use the cash to get the kid through college?
It just seems like no matter the source of the situation, accident, trickery, slight of hand, careless passion… what difference does it really make?
Once it’s here, whoever made it has to pay for it. It’d be great if you could have an “oops” clause, but there’s a crying mouth to feed. And some guy “made” that mouth.
Well — playing devil’s advocate here — it’s certainly possible to raise a child without child support. Many people do it.
As a commenter wrote on Protein Wisdom, “ultimately shouldn’t the person who truly has choice bear the full burden of exercising that choice?”
“Simply choose to not pay child support because she didn’t tell him in time?”
Forget abortion.
A woman has an option of walking away and ending the story right there. She can put a child up for adoption. She’s no longer responsible in that case.
I’m pretty sure a father could intervene and take that child, but I wonder if the woman would be obligated to pay child support if that were to happen.
If she’s not obligated, that is a pretty clear inequality. The woman can choose to walk away from the finaincial obligation (by putting the child up for adoption) and the man can’t. If the woman has to pay for the child if the father wants to raise it, it may be equal.
Hope it’s not too late for my two cents here. My take on it — women have choices to become a parent or not. Men have no say in the matter. Birth control is not 100%.
We would never tell a woman to not have sex if she doesn’t want to have a child. And it’s always been said regarding abortion: her body, her life, her choice. Don’t men deserve the same here? Granted we take the “his body” out of the equation. But still, his life his choice. If he made it clear he did not want a child. Used protection or had her assurances she was using protection, and it failed. Shouldn’t there be a time period where he can say, “hold up now! I do not wish to be a parent”
Women are given that option. So should men.
Now a completely different matter is the child support. IF women still have sex with a guy that they KNOW does not want a child, and they get pregnant and decide to keep that child anyways, then I’m sorry, but they are accepting full responsibility for that child. We are talking about adults here making decisions here. IF you cannot afford to raise a child, then there are abortion or adoption choices available to you. Or you get help from your family (please leave the government alone since you made this decision to keep a child yourself knowing full well that you were on your own with it).
Of course, I am assuming people are going to act like the adults they are. And that teens won’t have sex willy nilly without protection. 🙂
But I do think men should have an out as women do regarding being a parent. It’s a full time very rewarding job. But let’s not pretend it’s easy. Many dont’ have what it takes to do it well. Just look around, there’s proof of it everywhere.
Cathy Young has some statistics about how often women don’t receive child support. Fully 52% of mothers didn’t have a “legal child support award,” according to the Census Bureau, Young says.
Young writes that,
[…] Here’s my question. We’ve already discussed whether men should have to pay child support for children they don’t want in out-of-wedlock situations. But this is really more of a moral question — did Thomas and Johnson have any ethical duty to “be a father” for these kids who share half his D.N.A.? I know what I’d want if I were in Dones or Roszell’s shoes … but that isn’t really a moral argument. […]