"Roe v. Wade for Men"

There's a new lawsuit today from the National Center for Men that's been nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men." It has to do with a man's choice not to have a child and avoid the financial responsibilities required with fatherhood.
Basically, what the group is saying is that women have more options when it comes to unexpected and/or unwanted pregnancies than men do. A woman has the "right to choose" to either keep or abort the baby, whether the husband wants it or not. If he wants to keep the baby, but she wants to abort it, she gets to abort it. If he wants to abort the baby and avoid child support, but she wants to keep it, she gets to keep it and he must pay.
This is very interesting to me. So much fuss is made over a woman's right to choose, but what about a man's right to choose? Obviously, these men are fighting for the right to require the woman to abort the child, but if they gain the right to do that, then logically they "should" have the right to require the woman to keep the child. But a law of that nature was shot down just a couple months ago.
I'll be intersted to see how all of this turns out. My guess is that it will not go through, which will cause a huge fuss about unequal rights. Then men everywhere will freak out saying they were forced into paying child support and single moms everywhere will end up fending for themselves will no support from their children's fathers.
You can read more about this by clicking here.


BasementBum said...

Thanks for posting this Audra...I share your interest in the story.
Guys always get screwed when it comes to "choices" about kids...from abortion to divorced parenental stuff.
1st: abortion in ALL cases is murder of a human.
That being said, and with an understanding our currnt political system, I'm think incrementalism is key in making abortion illegal. We recently passed a "Women's Right to Know" in MN which lowered abortion by roughly 10%.
Another step we should take is a contract that must be signed by the legal mother AND father of the baby before an abortion is granted. I bet ya this would lower the abortion rate even more.

Doesn't it make sense?
Isn't the man part of the creation of the baby?

Obiviously if the man would sign the contract and want to keep the baby he would be held to financial support of the mother throughout the pregnancy and if the baby was kept, child support.

The Charlebois said...

Only problem is that it goes both ways - if the woman wanted to keep the baby and the man didn't, this law would make it so that she had to abort it. Or maybe they could get around it by saying the woman could keep the baby as long as the man didn't' have to pay child suppoort?
I would venture to guess that there are probably more women who would want to keep the baby than men who would. Maybe that's a sexist comment, I don't know. Just seems to me that women being as emotional as they are would have a harder time giving the baby up.