Okay, I found out that people are already working on this legislation. If you want to get involved and support this, here is a sample letter you can send to your representative. You can also get more info here: <A HREF="http://rights.webjump.com/" TARGET=_blank>http://rights.webjump.com/</A> (No point duplicating their efforts when we can join them, right?)<P>Dear ;<P>I feel it is necessary to write to you about a severe violation which goes against the very constitutional rights of people in our country.<P>It has to do with "forced parenthood", which as you will see, has gotten out of control. You are aware that under the Constitution a woman has the right to have an abortion if she chooses not to be a parent. However, that same Constitution apparantly does not apply to the men of our country. A man may be unknowingly "forced" into fatherhood, even though he has made it very clear that he does not wish to have children. If the woman chooses to have the baby anyway, the "father" is ordered by the courts to pay child support. These same women can then use the courts to carry out personal vendettas, which eventually cause the financial, if not emotional, ruin of the father. These are our sons, grandsons and friends - where are their rights? <P>How can a man be tricked into this? Very easily, one example is below:<P>A man marries, the wife agrees not to have children as the husband doesn't want any. The wife goes out gets a prescription for birth control pills and even takes them for a short while. Then the wife decides to quit taking the pill, while telling the husband she is still on them. She turns up pregnant, and because she wants a baby, refuses to do anything about it. The husband finds out she wasn't taking the pill, the marriage dissolves, she sues for child support and the court orders it to be paid. Now, she feels she has been wronged by the husband divorcing her so she spends the many years that follow, destroying the ex-husband financially - and the courts oblige.<P>This, at the very least, would make it impossible for the father ever to have a relationship with the child and in most, if not all cases, will end up causing resentment. This is in no way in the best interest of the child and cannot be a healthy environment. There are ways to handle this without violating the man's right to remain childless or burdening the government with the financial support of the child.<P>Women who choose to have a child without the consent of the biological father, should be warned in advance that they would be solely responsible for the financial care and that government aid would be limited. Further, all forced fathers who are currently ordered to pay, that can prove their case in a court of law, should be allowed the choice of "voluntary termination of parental rights." If the father later chooses, by mutual agreement with the child's mother, to participate in the child's life - he would then be obligated to pay child support and would lose the option of "voluntary termination of paternal rights." <P>While this may not have a personal effect on you or your family at this time, I ask you to remember that it could happen to you, your son or grandson, just as easily as it could happen or has happened, to mine.<P>I feel strongly that something must be done to correct this injustice. I know that if this had been previously brought to your attention, you would have taken action on it - just as I am sure you will do now. <P><BR>Respectfully,

Thank you, Popeye, for bringing this to the forum. I am printing it up.<P>catnip =^^=

I realize this thread has been an active topic on the MB board lately, but the answer still lies with practicing birth control. There are many VERY EFFECTIVE methods and if a man decides he NEVER wishes to have children - then by all means do something permanent and be free from worry and obligation forever. <P>If you do not TRUST the lady you are with - then do you really want to sleep with that person? <P>We aren't out of the stone ages all together - there are physicians that won't sterilize women upon request unless their husband 'OK's' it - women are still in the dark ages with certain rights. <P>Although I feel for the men that find themselves in this predicament - it WAS easily preventable.

<BR>popeye,<P>The men's rights movement is suprisingly factional, and different groups have different agendas. To the extent that groups have similar agendas, sadly there is more internecine warfare than you might suspect. My own take on this...right now, and certainly for some time, groups like Choice for Men are going to be relegated to fringe status because of the "best interests of the child" assumption in family courts. <P>genesforme,<P>The Choice for Men position, which I'm not advocating personally here, is framed as an equal protection issue. Women have the right to unilaterally terminate a marriage, without consent of the father, if they so desire. Shouldn't men have the identical right to terminate their responsibility as well? Even if you can't agree to that as a blanket law, what about in cases where the man was decieved about birth control - shouldn't there be culpability on the part of the woman?<P>The thought experiment would be this: Lets say a woman doesn't want any children, but cannot use any form of birth control (except condoms) for health reasons. Her partner: (a) wants children, (b) knows he will automatically get custody of the child, (c) knows that she is living where abortions are totally illegal and she cannot travel to get one, and (d) deceives her about the utility of his condoms. Specifically, he secretly puts pinholes in the condoms. Now, if she gets pregnant, she *must* carry the child to term, surrender sole custody to her partner, and start paying 25% of her net income to him against her wishes. Would anyone defend this outcome? If not, why is it OK for such an outcome to happen to men? Etc. <P>Bystander

If it adds anything to the discussion -<P>When I underwent a vasectomy (about five years ago, at my HMO) I had to get written permission from my wife, and there was a waiting period. <P>If I were a woman seeking an abortion, neither restriction would apply. <P>I am pro-choice myself, but I find this distinction interesting. <P>Regards,<BR>rs0522

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by genesforme:<BR><B> the answer still lies with practicing birth control. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sure, but the woman has choices AFTER the fact. The man does not. I don't think anyone is debating whether birth control or abstinence is not the best choice. It's more an argument over the fairness in choice once the deed is done. <P>Consider the following scenarios:<P>Older man- younger woman. Man doesn't want children because by the time his children are in high school, he's likely to be dead. He doesn't want to have them knowing they will spend their teenage years and adulthood fatherless. Younger woman doesn't care. She lies about birth control and gets pregnant anyway. Too bad old man.<P>Younger man- older woman. Younger man is in college and trying to acquire the tools to have a stable future. Older woman just knows her biological clock is ticking and doesn't care about the father's future. Kiss your future good-bye, dude. Your kid needs all you can make in as a grocery store clerk.<P>Any age couple- It's one night stand. Couple is drunk. Nobody cares. Life goes on. Woman shows up with a kid and wants child support and a daddy for her kid. These people don't even know each other. You play, you pay.<P>The scenarios we are facing (MM, OW, OC, and MM's family, dividing income, etc) are not the only issues. This is bigger than us. This truly is about what is best for the children. Women DO have the right to decide if and when to have children. They have the option of forcing the father to pay for children he didn't want. Men choice ends with keeping it in their pants or using protection. I know that is the best course of action if you don't want children, but let's get realistic. things happen. What recourse does a man have then?<P>We live in a sexist society where women are automatically given custody of children regardless of whether or not they are fit. <BR>What if the father wants custody and is the better parent? It's just too D*** bad, huh?<P>Married men are automatically made to pay for children born in wedlock even if the children are not theirs. So the adultering man gets off scott free while the betrayed man gets to pay for the [censored] child? Oh, where is the justice in that?<P>I am saying that women should be forced to abort children they don't want? No, I am saying that both parents should be given the opportunity to chose parenthood. Nobody should have more rights than the other because of biology. Children deserve to be born into homes where there is love, stability, and a commited couple. Protecting the rights of children by offering equal reproductive rights to men will give children a greater chance at having a loving two parent home and make women more responsible for the lives they bring into the world. <P>I am sure there are some women out there who don't care about whether or not their children have daddies, but I think most of them carry their babies hoping and dreaming that it will bring them closer to the man. It doesn't happen. If they had to face being a single mom with no financial or emotional support obligated by the father (because he gave up his parental rights), I think there would be far more responsible women out there.<P>Bystander- love your "experiment!" Puts things really into perspective.

I don't know if this pertains to your question, but here's a story<BR>from my H's experience...<P>When he was 2 years old, his parents divorced. His father was ordered to pay $15 per week. His father wouldn't even pay it. His father had a choice that if he didn't pay child support, then he would give up rights to see his child.<P>Well....he chose NOT to pay child support and he gave up all rights to see his child.<P>Regardless of child support or not, his mother still left the door open for the father to see his child. The father still chose not to.<P>The father stepped out of the picture completely. He didn't even want anything to do with his child and this child was born through a marriage, NOT out of wedlock.<P>Maybe it was a good thing because his father was an alcoholic womanizer anyway who practically lived in a bar.<P>Anyway, a couple years later, the mother ended up meeting a nice man and they were married. My H was well provided for and lived in a loving environment. His step-father treated him as if he were his biological son.<P>My H loves his step-father very much. He looks up to him and respects him.<P>In conclusion, I think that it is better for the child to be in a loving environment than in an environment where there is resentment from a reluctant parent (who is being FORCED to be involved in the child's life).<P>Everything worked out for my H, as far as being raised in a loving environment and a loving family. My H has a younger half-brother and a younger half-sister from his mother's 2nd marriage with the step father, but all kids are treated the same. They are all loved the same.<P>My H happenned to visit his biological father a year ago. My H didn't like what he saw...the biological father is still an alcoholic who lives in bars. The biological father still didn't have any interest in my H, his son, at all. After my H saw his biological father, he commented, "The best thing that my Mom ever did was to divorce him. I'm glad that I didn't grow up with my biological father because I might have turned out like him."

Alright. I have to comment.<P>I agree that a man should be able to terminate his parental rights if there is proof that he was decieved in the birth control.<P>As a welfare reform researcher, I realize that this will never be passed into law. Too many lawmakers will point to increased welfare cost if all of these deadbeat dads renounce their parental rights.<P>My situation: both of my children with my 2nd wife she planned, but she didn't inform me of her plans.<P>Now she has left, and I have the kids. They are the light of my life.<P>

So how are you going to prove that the man didn't want to conceive? Just because he was married? Who knows what he said to get into bed with who he wanted. And how about this again? Both people know pregnancy happens from sex. If the man wants to have rights, then he shouldn't have sex with someone he doesn't want to get pregnant! How hard is this to figure out? So lets say the guy does go ahead and have sex and then the woman gets pregnant and he says write me off for any financial responsibility. Who gets hurt here? The child gets hurt. It is either outright murdered or else it is kept from being properly supported. How many men do you think would say after the fact they never wanted a pregnancy just to get out of their responsibility? A lot I bet! Popeye it is very unfair that more money should go to the OC then your own children. That system should be fixed. But your husband knew darn good and well that the OW could get pregnant if he had sex. And he did it anyway. That child doesn't deserve more than your children but doesn't deserve less. He did make a choice about what he wanted and he made it when he had sex. Now he has to live with the consiquences including that his own wife and childen are deprived. Someone should call Dr. Lora about this. Any bets on what she would say? I think she would say that that is the man you picked and now you have to live with his actions. I don't think she would say that the man should just get to abandon the child because he didn't want a pregnancy. I'm sorry but no man is that stupid. Especially a married man with children. What does everyone else think?<P>Del

Also I can't help it but there is just no way a man is unknowingly forced into fatherhood! Don't have sex when you shouldn't with who you shouldn't and it wont' happen! How hard is this?<P>Del

<BR>GP,<P>I agree that such laws won't be passed, although I don't think its for reasons having to do with welfare costs. The government already limits direct welfare to a certain amount of time (at least in the US). The reason cited for refusing to pass such legislation, IMO, would be the best interests of the child.<P>Of course, if the supposedly benevolent goevernment truly believed in the best interests of the child, we'd have a default of 50% physical custody and 50% legal custody in divorce. But that's a different discussion.<P>Bystander

<BR>Delphi,<P>Men can and have been unknowingly forced into fatherhood. There are a couple of cases that come to mind, one of which I wrote about recently here in MB. A man went to a party, got drunk, and then went into a bedroom and passed out. An ex-girlfriend went into the bedroom, masturbated him erect, mounted him, and she later became pregnant. She admitted in open court that he never gained consciousness (and a urologist testified in court that a man can ejaculate without gaining consciousness). She later sucessfully sued for child support. The family court recognized that the man had been legally raped, but held that it had no bearing on the declaration of paternity. The man was ordered to pay 25% of his net income for the next 20 years. While I feel for the child, this is a case where the woman should take full responsibility for what happened.<P>And if we're willing to draw that line, the question is "if" but "where."<P>Bystander

<BR>Nonconsensual sex with an unconscious person is called rape. So change the laws for rape against a man. <P>Everyone else,<BR>If someone doesn't want a baby (male or female) don't have sex or get sterilized. Male or female, birth control is never 100%. It is the risk that both take. When I was married, my ex and I decided we didn't want kids (mainly me). I got my tubes tied, and yes, I had to have my H's permission.

Bystander,<P>How often do you really believe that happens? I mean give me a break. I'm not saying that it didn't happen that time and maybe once in a blue moon it does. But you have to admit that most of the time its people just like Popeyes H who chose to have sex and now doesn't like paying the price.<P>Del

<BR>TS,<P>You're right, the court recognized that the man was raped, at the very time they ordered him to pay child support. That outcome is morally indefensible and I think we both agree. Btw, we'd probably agree that ordering some who was mentally insane at the time of conception is ridiculous, too.<P>How about this one, also a true story. A man agrees to have sex with a woman, but he states that he does not want to risk a pregnancy. So the woman consents to giving the man oral sex, *and* he wears a condom. After he finishes, she offers to dispose of the condom. Once she's out of sight, she quickly pulls out a syringe, lifts the semen from the condom, and vaginally injects herself with the semen. She admitted in court that she did this, and she later successfully sues for child support. The man was ordered to pay 25% of his net income for 20 years. Yeah, you can say that having sex carries risks, but the man consented to a sexual activity with a zero chance of pregnancy, and only through the woman's conduct (proactively inseminating herself) did she become pregnant. I cannot in good conscience agree with the court's decision in this case. JMO.<P>Bystander

<BR>Del,<P>Technically, I don't know how often it happens. My guess is that its pretty rare, to be honest. But case law is fun to study, precisely because its full of these bizarre cases that defy blanket statements like, "...there is just no way a man can be forced into fatherhood." <P>I'm not going to tell you that I stay up at night worry about things like this. But on the other hand, as a man, its pretty strange to think that a female stranger could put a shotgun to my head, order me to ejaculate in a cup, impregnate herself with my semen, and then turn around and sue me for child support. That's not an outcome that should exist within the realm of possibility, no matter how remote.<P>Bystander

Delphi wrote: . How many men do you think would say after the fact they never wanted a pregnancy just to get out of their responsibility?<P>Women do exactly that all the time- it's called abortion. They have that option. Men do not. Is it fair to say that men can make a woman abort? Of course not. That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is informed parenthood. <P>We all know how children are conceived. We all know that "accidents" (real and imagined) happen. This is reality. What happens after that is STILL a matter of choice- for the woman anyway.<P>If the woman has to face the fact that a man does not want to be a father, she has the option to abort, give the child up for adoption, or have it as a single parent. The woman KNOWS that if she has the child, the man is ALWAYS obligated to support it. How is that fair?<P>I don't think that child support is a bad thing. I think parents should take care of their children, but I what I am arguing for is CHOICE, not abortion, not child support, not abstinence.<P>I think the ideal situation for choice to happen is during the first trimester. After that it isn't a choice, but abandonment. I think there are limitations to everything. Let's be reasonable.<P>As for the murder/abortion option, it's a personal decision. Abortion is legal. Some people will chose it. Others will not. Taking offense to the choice others make shouldn't take away their ability to make that choice if it is legal.<P>How many men would walk away if they knew they could? I don't know, but is that the kind of guy you'd want for your father anyway?<P>As far as the comment about my H's not wanting to pay child support, you are making assumptions. Money, either going to child support or being taken from one child to give to another, has never been our issue. Check my posts. <P>And for the argument that this kind of choice increases the welfare strain on the general population, what about women's choice to have children in a single parent home? Those children do not add to the tax burden of the rest of us? It's okay for women, but not for men? Why the double standard? <P>Someone pointed out that this problem dramatically decreased in NJ, by the way, when women were made to take financial responsibility for their illegitimate children when welfare payments were either eliminated or reduced. Is it cruel? I think it's called being a RESPONSIBILE parent. Responsible parents don't bring children into the world where they are unwanted, shameful, and economically challenged.<P>Choice is not about whether the people are married, unmarried, gay, straight, have money, don't have money, have children already, or don't have children. It's about equal rights for choice.

I still say - if the person you are going to sleep with or are sleeping with is so deceptive - why would you want to be with them at all....and again - there are many ways to prevent pregnancy and many men do not practice them - take responsibility for your life and the life you may be creating everytime you have sex. <P>In the case where the man was passed out and such - know of a similar case and that is rape - that would be the only acception I would agree with. In any other case - you don't take responsibilty for protection - you live with the consequences of your choice. <P>Unfortunately - the consequence has a face and a name and a heart - and doesn't understand why daddy doesn't want to be a part of his/her life - he/she doesn't understand that mom may have been unscrupulous in getting pregnant - all they understand is my dad doesn't care about me.... Sorry, but that is the fact of this sad situation.

genesform,<P>What about statutory rape? There is a case here in the state I live in where a 16 year old boy is being forced to pay child support for a child conceived with his teacher when he was 13 or 14 years old. The woman in her mid to late 20's<P>IMHO this is absolutely stupid. The reason statutory rape laws are on the books is to protect minors who are judged by society and the law to be too young to make adult decisions. <P>I will guarentee you if the situation was the other way around and the man won custody of the child being an adult and able to raise the child, the girl would not be forced to pay child support. <P>Not only are the laws baised so is the application of them.<P>Some food for thought.<P>JL

genesforme,<BR><BR>The rape case is your only exception? What about the mentally insane? A thought experiment (I'm on a roll): A wealthy man checks into a mental hospital because he's hearing voices telling him that he's an Egyptian prince, and should get as many women as possible pregnant. The doctors diagnose him with schizophrenia and put him on Thorazine. After a few days, he starts feeling better, but decides to stay an extra week to make sure he's OK. An unscrupulous nurse stops giving him his Thorazine, and instead gives him a sugar pill. Soon, he feels like he's supposed to get as many women as possible pregnant. The nurse obliges this clinically insane man, and then turns around and nails him to the income shares cross. I don't see that as a moral outcome - he could not have consented to sex.<BR><BR>How about the shotgun to the head I mentioned earlier? Say a woman puts a shotgun to a man's head and orders him to ejaculate into a cup. She uses the syringe to inseminate herself, and turns around and sues the man for child support. That's not even rape (it would probably be charged as assault with a deadly weapon), but should the man be forced to pay child support? Again, I don't think that outcome is morally defensible.<BR><BR>In my view, the best interests of the child cannot be held absolute, and as soon as we start making exceptions, the equal protection argument popeye makes begins to have a lot of validity.<BR><BR>Bystander