The Male Equivalent of Roe v. Wade

[Secular Sanity]

I don’t think that a man should be able to force a woman to be a container, but I also don’t think that a woman should be able to force a man to be a father.

Well, whatta you know! I was wrong.
 

We agree on forcing a man to be a father. If a woman can opt-out of an existing pregnancy, the egalitarian thing is to allow the man to do so as well. No financial or other obligation whatsoever. At least that would make legal abortion equal among the genders.

 
Capracus provided a case that I was unaware of.  It makes sense now.  They’re two separate issues. The support enforcement act is not discriminatory. 

Dubay vs. Wells

The sexual privacy cases referred to by plaintiff do not give either biological parent the right to escape responsibility. The plaintiff maintains, however, that the statute is unequally applied because it "forces" him into involuntary parenthood against his interests and contrary to the decisions he made to not be a parent. In this assertion the plaintiff is mistaken. A judgment of filiation under the Paternity Act itself does not make Dubay a father; it merely confirms a biological fact — that the man has sired the child — upon presentation of proper proof. There are, to be sure, financial consequences that flow from that determination; but the State has a compelling interest in ensuring the support of children, after the child is born.

The Sixth Circuit has explained that in order to make out a case of selective enforcement, the plaintiff  must establish that the challenged [enforcement action] had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. However, the plaintiff has not alleged that the Saginaw County prosecutor has ever been asked (and then refused) to enforce the Paternity Act's support provisions against a female or that a male, including the plaintiff, has been denied the benefits or protections of the Act.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has not set forth a claim in his amended complaint for which relief may be granted. No conceivable set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to the relief he seeks. The motions to dismiss, therefore, will be granted.

The plaintiff presents simply a novel legal theory, a theory that would invalidate the paternity and child support laws of the fifty states and the federal acts on child support. The theory is that unwed fathers, as a matter of reciprocity, should also be given the choice to deny any financial responsibility for the child's existence. It is a theory so foreign to our legal tradition that it has no "foundation," no chance of success. We cannot imagine that any federal court would agree with plaintiff's principle that the concept of "procreative privacy" should be stretched to include the constitutional right for a father to receive the constitutional equivalent of the termination of the mother's pregnancy by allowing him the right to deny paternity and deny the duty of financial support.

[Zinjanthropos]

Casually speaking and because my Research Dept is shut down I will rely on personal observation. Reading these threads reminds me of what I call, and perhaps it is referred to as such in science terms, domestic slavery. IOW's, a person becomes property in the mind of another. 

I've seen it, particularly with women, where they surreptitiously become owned by their spouse/partner/acquaintance etc. Sure, it could be cultural too. I've never been able to figure out why or how someone gets into the position of subordinate for life. At what point is the line of demarcation established and one becomes a possession. 

My daughter's best friend growing up invited me to her wedding. She's from a broken home but a really nice kid. She was at our house more than at home. Anyways she gets married and in less than a year she ends it. Turns out her new hubby smacked her around one night. Credit to her for ending it right there because I'm thinking if she had submitted to the violence or forgiven it then she was on the way to becoming property. I don't understand it, why I would want my partner to be treated like property? I've never even thought of my wife as a personal possession, so where in hell do guys get these  ideas from?

[C C]

[...] Dubay vs. Wells [...] We cannot imagine that any federal court would agree with plaintiff's principle that the concept of "procreative privacy" should be stretched to include the constitutional right for a father to receive the constitutional equivalent of the termination of the mother's pregnancy by allowing him the right to deny paternity and deny the duty of financial support.

Sophie Jae: "So what's the bottom line to all this for a Thrust Ranger like you? I'll tell you. Always wear a dairy sock, become V-Safe, explore the perks of Vitamin F deficiency, or get a 23" monitor for a partner. Otherwise, stop complaining about the trouble Kitty Risk sends your way." -- Crescent Moon Over Crib Hill

[RainbowUnicorn]

I don’t think that a man should be able to force a woman to be a container, but I also don’t think that a woman should be able to force a man to be a father.

Well, whatta you know! I was wrong.
 

We agree on forcing a man to be a father. If a woman can opt-out of an existing pregnancy, the egalitarian thing is to allow the man to do so as well. No financial or other obligation whatsoever. At least that would make legal abortion equal among the genders.

 
Capracus provided a case that I was unaware of.  It makes sense now.  They’re two separate issues. The support enforcement act is not discriminatory. 

Dubay vs. Wells

The sexual privacy cases referred to by plaintiff do not give either biological parent the right to escape responsibility. The plaintiff maintains, however, that the statute is unequally applied because it "forces" him into involuntary parenthood against his interests and contrary to the decisions he made to not be a parent. In this assertion the plaintiff is mistaken. A judgment of filiation under the Paternity Act itself does not make Dubay a father; it merely confirms a biological fact — that the man has sired the child — upon presentation of proper proof. There are, to be sure, financial consequences that flow from that determination; but the State has a compelling interest in ensuring the support of children, after the child is born.

The Sixth Circuit has explained that in order to make out a case of selective enforcement, the plaintiff  must establish that the challenged [enforcement action] had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. However, the plaintiff has not alleged that the Saginaw County prosecutor has ever been asked (and then refused) to enforce the Paternity Act's support provisions against a female or that a male, including the plaintiff, has been denied the benefits or protections of the Act.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has not set forth a claim in his amended complaint for which relief may be granted. No conceivable set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to the relief he seeks. The motions to dismiss, therefore, will be granted.

The plaintiff presents simply a novel legal theory, a theory that would invalidate the paternity and child support laws of the fifty states and the federal acts on child support. The theory is that unwed fathers, as a matter of reciprocity, should also be given the choice to deny any financial responsibility for the child's existence. It is a theory so foreign to our legal tradition that it has no "foundation," no chance of success. We cannot imagine that any federal court would agree with plaintiff's principle that the concept of "procreative privacy" should be stretched to include the constitutional right for a father to receive the constitutional equivalent of the termination of the mother's pregnancy by allowing him the right to deny paternity and deny the duty of financial support.

FAIL !

contrary to the decisions he made to not be a parent.

in what part of a legally binding agrement may a man or women have copulation which shall legally absolve them of procreation ?

financial liability Vs forced managerial control.
is the male forced to pay 50% of the abortion cost ?

pre-copulation binding agreement of non procreational sex ?

---

I don’t think that a man should be able to force a woman to be a container, but I also don’t think that a woman should be able to force a man to be a father.

Well, whatta you know! I was wrong.
 

We agree on forcing a man to be a father. If a woman can opt-out of an existing pregnancy, the egalitarian thing is to allow the man to do so as well. No financial or other obligation whatsoever. At least that would make legal abortion equal among the genders.

 
Capracus provided a case that I was unaware of.  It makes sense now.  They’re two separate issues. The support enforcement act is not discriminatory. 

Dubay vs. Wells

The sexual privacy cases referred to by plaintiff do not give either biological parent the right to escape responsibility. The plaintiff maintains, however, that the statute is unequally applied because it "forces" him into involuntary parenthood against his interests and contrary to the decisions he made to not be a parent. In this assertion the plaintiff is mistaken. A judgment of filiation under the Paternity Act itself does not make Dubay a father; it merely confirms a biological fact — that the man has sired the child — upon presentation of proper proof. There are, to be sure, financial consequences that flow from that determination; but the State has a compelling interest in ensuring the support of children, after the child is born.

The Sixth Circuit has explained that in order to make out a case of selective enforcement, the plaintiff  must establish that the challenged [enforcement action] had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. However, the plaintiff has not alleged that the Saginaw County prosecutor has ever been asked (and then refused) to enforce the Paternity Act's support provisions against a female or that a male, including the plaintiff, has been denied the benefits or protections of the Act.

The Court finds that the plaintiff has not set forth a claim in his amended complaint for which relief may be granted. No conceivable set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to the relief he seeks. The motions to dismiss, therefore, will be granted.

The plaintiff presents simply a novel legal theory, a theory that would invalidate the paternity and child support laws of the fifty states and the federal acts on child support. The theory is that unwed fathers, as a matter of reciprocity, should also be given the choice to deny any financial responsibility for the child's existence. It is a theory so foreign to our legal tradition that it has no "foundation," no chance of success. We cannot imagine that any federal court would agree with plaintiff's principle that the concept of "procreative privacy" should be stretched to include the constitutional right for a father to receive the constitutional equivalent of the termination of the mother's pregnancy by allowing him the right to deny paternity and deny the duty of financial support.

However, the plaintiff has not alleged that the Saginaw County prosecutor has ever been asked (and then refused) to enforce the Paternity Act's support provisions against a female or that a male, including the plaintiff, has been denied the benefits or protections of the Act.

when a mother abandons her baby to the state, does the state force her to pay for the babys costs ?

[Secular Sanity]

Sophie Jae: "So what's the bottom line to all this for a Thrust Ranger like you? I'll tell you. Always wear a dairy sock, become V-Safe, explore the perks of Vitamin F deficiency, or get a 23" monitor for a partner. Otherwise, stop complaining about the trouble Kitty Risk sends your way." -- Crescent Moon Over Crib Hill

Hilarious!  "Thrust Ranger"...loved it!  

when a mother abandons her baby to the state, does the state force her to pay for the babys costs ?

Yes and no.

Can a Parent Give Up Parental Rights?

"The voluntary termination of parental rights is rare unless the minor child is being adopted. There must be good cause in order for the court to do so. Circumstances that support the voluntary termination of parental rights usually occurs when a stepparent stands ready to assume responsibility of caring for his/her spouse’s child.  Both biological parents must consent to the termination of parental rights.

A parent cannot give up parental rights simply to avoid paying support unless there is a stepparent willing to take over the responsibility and obligations through adoption."

Even a Court order of permanent guardianship does not terminate the parent and child relationship. The guardian shall be the recipient of the child support payments.

But here’s where it gets a little lopsided.

Relinquishing an unwanted baby to the care of a safe haven provider relieves you of any criminal liability, but also relieves you of your parental rights to the child.  The age limits vary from state to state, anywhere from 3-60 days with the exception being North Dakota, which allows for an infant to be dropped off for up to a year.

Safe-Haven Law

"Any male who finds himself having fathered a child—whether as a product of a committed or a fleeting relationship—is subject to at least 18 years of financial support, should the mother choose to birth and raise the child. This is decreed by each state through its laws, without consultation with the man and without regard to his own sentiments and actions. In contrast, the states grant a woman from conception until around 24 weeks of pregnancy (and beyond that when one considers the adoption option) the privilege—inclusively as a constitutional right—to choose whether or not to bear the burden of motherhood. Furthermore, under the safe-haven laws of many jurisdictions, a woman may relinquish her parental rights and obligations by abandoning her newborn child in a “safe place,” like a police station or a church. In spirit, and sometimes by statute as men are not always granted an analogous ability to take advantage of safe havens, these types of laws clearly cater towards aiding the female actor in her specific circumstance. The pregnant woman is given the decision-making power both for herself and for the male as to whether both will become parents." [source]

I had a discussion earlier with scheherazade about child support in cases of male victims.  This, too, seems unjustly.

This case below established a precedent.

"It is one of the earlier cases now cited in U.S. child support guidelines which say that in every case that has addressed the issue the court has decided that an underage boy is liable for the support of his child even when the conception was the result of statutory rape by the mother.

The court stated that the state's interest in ensuring that a minor receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring sexual crimes against minors."

They determined that the rape was irrelevant and that the child support was not owed to the rapist but rather to the child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.

"A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child’s father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? So long as a man engages in an intimate sexual act resulting in his depositing of his sperm with a woman who then becomes pregnant, he is liable for child support."

A CRITIQUE OF THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD FOR DETERMINING CHILD SUPPORT IN CASES OF MALE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND STATUTORY RAPE