Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In any case its not the law now.

Hence the reason that people are trying to change the law.

[lord of the mark]

theyre not lobbying their state legislature, theyre bringing a lawsuit. Evidently cause they think its cute to copy Roe V Wade, but misunderstanding the legal differennces.

[lord of the mark]

"Child support is a legal obligation, not a contractual one. It arises by operation of law when a child is born, irrespective of whether both parties consented to the birth of the child and irrespective of what the parties' agreement concerning support of the child is. Even though a married couple can enter into a binding contract concerning how their property and debts are going to be divided upon divorce, the portions of such an agreement concerning child support are never binding. A judge can choose to enforce or not to enforce a child support agreement, even if it is part of a voluntary, bargained-for exchange between two intelligent adults. A voluntary agreement may be upheld, however, if the judge finds that it is in the child's best interests.

While a party to a divorce may validly waive alimony, courts will not permit a person to waive the right to child support. It makes no difference at all what kind of consideration has been given for the waiver. Moreover, a court can choose to ignore a waiver of child support provision in an agreement and yet go on to enforce all the remaining provisions of the agreement. Similarly, a judge can order child support even if neither party has requested it.

The usual principles of contract law simply do not apply to child support. In one Florida case, a wife who'd had a child by another man agreed not to seek child support from her husband in exchange for his agreement to sign the child's birth certificate. When the couple later sought a divorce, the judge held the man to his end of the bargain (prohibiting him from contesting paternity), but relieved the woman from her promise not to seek child support. When it comes to child support, fairness to the parents is not a significant concern; the controlling consideration is what result will be in the best interests of the child. Accordingly, it is never a good idea to use the child support obligation as a bargaining chip during a negotiation."


I think its abundantly clear WHOSE right this is.

If a woman cant waive child support, or exchange it for consideration, in a divorce settlement, how can she destroy the right by her actions relating to conception? Answer - she cant, cause its not HER right.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
theyre not lobbying their state legislature, theyre bringing a lawsuit.

So having a law overturned through judicial review doesn't count as changing the law?

Also, from the article:

"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."

And evidently the debate ends with "In any case its not the law now."

Q: Is it fair that the law is the way it is?
A: Yes, because the law is the way it is. Oh, and Biology.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger

So having a law overturned through judicial review doesn't count as changing the law?

Also, from the article:


And evidently the debate ends with "In any case its not the law now."

Q: Is it fair that the law is the way it is?
A: Yes, because the law is the way it is. Oh, and Biology.

Trying to overturn a law through judicial review, when you have zero case in the courts, doesnt counts as trying to change the law, no.

Starting a frivolous lawsuit in order to get attention, is an abuse of the judiciary.

Q. Is this a frivolous lawsuit?
A. Yes, cause the law is the way it is
Q. Would it be a good idea to change the law by statute?
A. Im not sure, but I suspect that changing the notion that child support is a childs right without respect to the actions of the mother will have ramifications for family law that these guys havent thought through. In any case, if they want to change the law by statute, this isnt the way to do it.

[notyoueither]

Apparently they think the courts are the right place to challenge laws that violate the US Constitution.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Apparently they think the courts are the right place to challenge laws that violate the US Constitution.

The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

But the current situation doesnt violate the equal protection clause. Both men and women have a right to privacy and to control over their own bodies. Nothing in current law stops that. Both men and women have an obligation to support their children , without regard to the circumstances of conception.

The convoluted attempt to claim that the right to privacy protected in Roe is actually a right to avoid financially supporting ones child, is absurd, and will certainly be thrown out. Evidently they realize this, but are abusing the judiciary to make a point.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Because to force a person to have surgery performed on themselves against their will, would not only overturn Roe, but any doctrine of personal privacy or personal liberty in law.

This is actually a valid argument (and I haven't seen GePap making it). However, the father in the OP is not calling for a forced abortion, he is calling for not-supporting a child he didn't want.

As such, he is defending a right similar to that of women's who do not bear responsibility for the child after birth.

[lord of the mark]

hypothetical

A man wants to have a child and the woman does not. The man claims to be sterlized, but isnt. The woman gets pregnant.

She doesnt believe in abortion, and carries to term. The man requests custody, and gets it. He then sues the woman for child support.

IIUC, under current law, shed be obliged to pay it. So NO violation of equal protection. None whatsoever.

The plaintiff here resents that the woman has a right to terminate, but wont. Too bad, since the right to terminate doesnt exist to protect him from this, but to prevent state violation of a right to privacy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is actually a valid argument (and I haven't seen GePap making it). However, the father in the OP is not calling for a forced abortion, he is calling for not-supporting a child he didn't want.

As such, he is defending a right similar to that of women's who do not bear responsibility for the child after birth.

What women do not bear responsibility for the child after birth? I dont know what youre talking about. A woman who bears a child has a legal obligation to support that child as well as well as the man. Child support law is gender neutral in this country, IIUC.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
What women do not bear responsibility for the child after birth? I dont know what youre talking about. A woman who bears a child has a legal obligation to support that child as well as well as the man. Child support law is gender neutral in this country, IIUC.

The women who put their children to adoption.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is actually a valid argument (and I haven't seen GePap making it). However, the father in the OP is not calling for a forced abortion, he is calling for not-supporting a child he didn't want.

As such, he is defending a right similar to that of women's who do not bear responsibility for the child after birth.

spiff. Suppose abortion were illegal. Both men and women would be in an equal positon then, would you not agree? Both men and women are capable of lying about contraception, and both have obligations to support their children.


How does legalizing abortion change this? It only does if you think of the right to abortion, not as a right to control over ones body, but as a right to an "out" from the obligation to support a child you conceived.

But the obligation is only to support an actually existing, born child. Its not an obligation to carry a pregnancy to term in order to suffer the consequences of a mistake. And the mans obligation in this instance to pay child support is NOT an oligation to suffer the consequences of a mistake - its an obligation to another human being, a child, with whom he has a biological relationship.

Thats why a woman cant bargain away child support. Cause its not about HER. Its the childs. The father didnt choose to have the child? Well guess what, the child didnt choose to be born. But that wasnt the childs choice to make. Some obligations you get whether you chose to have them or not.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The women who put their children to adoption.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The women who put their children to adoption.

In that case society allows the severing of both bio parents ties to their children, in order to allow a new set of parents to establish ties to those children. The adoptive parents now assume the obligation to support. The childs interests are not harmed. (IIUC if the proposed adoptive parents are unable to support the children the adoption will not be allowed)

[Spiffor]

edit: nm