Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Below taken from: http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml
Men's Center files pro-choice lawsuit in federal court
Distributes men’s “reproductive rights affidavit”
On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man's right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. TM
More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.
We will ask a United States district court judge to apply the principles of reproductive choice, as articulated in Roe vs. Wade, to men. We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex. We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA: A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother
We will ask that women be required to share reproductive freedom with men.
Our lawsuit will be filed on behalf of Matt Dubay, 25, a computer technician from Saginaw, Michigan. The state of Michigan is seeking to force Matt to pay child support for a child he never intended to bring into the world. Matt insists that the child’s mother repeatedly assured him she could not get pregnant and, also, Matt says that she knew he did not want to have a child with her. Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were “Mattilda.”
I figured the people bringing the suit could sum it up better than I, so I simply copy-and-paste-ed it. Plus, that was quicker, and I'm lazy.
I think it's high time for something like this. After all, if a woman becomes pregnant, she can then have an abortion without asking permission of the father or even notifying him (in most jurisdictions anyway) thereby "opting out" of motherhood. This can be done, as I said, without the notification of the father or even directly against his professed desire or interests.
Conversely, a woman can tell a man she's on the pill or using such and such other birth control method(s). However, in truth, she is using NO birth control and therefore she "opts in" to motherhood. Again, the father is either not consulted or the action is against his expressed interests.
So why shouldn't men have the same, or at least similar, rights? The answer is, of course, they should. Check out some of the links below to learn more about this case.
I've included links from people or organization with varying views on this subject, so as to give you a well rounded idea of what's going on.
March 17th, I'll be at the movies. I'll be seeing V For Vendetta. Follow that link there to the site for the movie. I can't actually remember the last movie I went to see, but I intend to see this one. I only feel compelled to mention it here because of the interesting plot and the fact that the hero is the villian. I get sick of watching the good guys win.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
And babies on welfare, lines of people at the WIC places, people eating off my taxes, illiterate idiots graduating from our already overpopulated and understaffed schools. Yes, great plan guys, great plan...