Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men'

Ridiculous. Of course men are entitled to the same choice that women are.

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not children should be supported; the issue is men having the right to terminate a pregnancy before it gets to that point. (Legally, not physically.)

The issue is really about the state getting as much money as it can via child alimony.

Equality be damned.

My Board: [URL=http://z3.invisionfree.com/AntiFeministing/index.php?act=idx]Antifeministing[/URL]

But the guy's argument was full of flawed logic.

He was trying to say that because a woman can choose to keep the child, adopt it out or abort it, he shouldn't have to pay child support because he didn't want to have a kid?

What?

Well, if she had decided to abort, would he have helped her to pay half? If so, then his argument falls apart. He'll pay half for what he wants, but not for what he doesn't. If not, then I have to ask, "Why the hell not?" Because she said that a medical condition made it so she couldn't get pregnant? So doctors are never wrong, and women never lie? *rolls eyes*

Sorry dude. You rolled the dice, and it came up snake eyes. That kid you helped to make is your responsibility, too. There is no such thing as an "unintended pregnancy" when you have unprotected sex.

This is really a non-issue. It's a child having a temper tantrum because he can't have things his way. And that isn't the kind of president we should want for real mens issues.

"Sorry dude" doesn't cut it. He is entitled to the same legal rights and privileges that a woman gets, and yes, that includes the right to terminate a pregnancy. Since biology prevents him from doing that literally, he deserves the opportunity to do it legally.

This is men's rights 101, as far as I'm concerned, and a very serious issue.

his irrational argument.

Not about whether he should be able to have the pregnancy terminated or not.

And I'm not real sure that I buy into the whole, "If a woman can decide to terminate a pregnancy, then her partner should be able to force her to as well," argument for fairness. Personally, I think that the abortion option should be off the table completely and BOTH parties made to take responsibility for their actions.

But that goes to a much deeper issue in our society today: Nobody wants to take responsibility for anything anymore. "It's not my fault that I'm stupid! You should have anticipated that and warned me repeatedly so I could have ignored you and did it anyway! Pay me $5 million dollars." Where does it stop? Where is the line going to be drawn? When will people finally stand up and say that enough is enough?

Let's face the issues that are before us:

1) Radical feminism has worked tirelessly to destroy and subvert the family and marriage by driving wedges such as this between men and women.

2) Radical feminism has pushed extremely hard for "Pro choice"

3) Radical feminism has pushed extremely hard for women to have casual sex without regard to their health (mental, physical, emotional).

In short, radical feminism has promoted a lot of "don't take responsibility for anything. If it feels good, it is good!" type behavior.

Again, this is a non-issue in the sense that we're choosing the wrong battles to die for. And that plays directly into the enemies hands.

If he makes a commitment to go through with a pregnancy, then hold him responsible; until then give him the same right that a woman has-- not to force an abortion, but to absolve himself of something that he never intended in the first place. As long as men and women have sex, accidents will happen, but why should a selfish, manipulative woman be able to hold having a baby over a man's head, and use a baby to milk him? That's a terrible reason to bring a child into the world.

Anyhow-- who is dying for this issue? I'd rather not die for this or any other issue!

You're arguing around in circles...

You admit that "accidents" will happen, but men shouldn't be held accountable for that, nor have to take responsibility? You're proving my point, so I thank you for that.

Here's a thought: Instead of taking responsibility AFTER the fact by paying child support men should take responsibility BEFORE the fact and either not have casual sex, or make sure they have protection and use it.

Here are the facts as we all know them:

1) Children are conceived by a male and a female having sex.

2) We can limit #1 by either abstaining from sex or from using birth control. Birth control has it's issues, though...so the only way to be sure that a woman will not get pregnant is to NOT have sex. You don't get to cry foul AFTER you have consensual sex and the woman gets pregnant.

3) If a child is conceived, BOTH parents should show the kind of responsibility that comes as part and parcel of deciding to have sex in the first place, and take care of their offspring.

Now either you are a numbskull, or you play one on TV. If you're acting stupid, stop. My point about choosing the battles we die for is this: Stop trying to cure the disease by treating the symptoms. KILL THE DISEASE!

Anything else is just wasted energy.

You have yet to explain why men should be deprived of the same choice that women already have. Why should men serve as walking ATMs for unscrupulous women?

"Don't ever have sex again!" is bogus, since sex is a basic human need. That's fine if you're a priest; for normal men it's no solution. According to the courts, women don't surrender their right to procreate-- or not procreate-- simply by virtue of choosing to engage in sex. Why should it be any different for men?

I'm tired of men being exploited, and treated as second class citizens by the feminist nanny state. Why do you want to make excuses for it?

You aren't playing the part. You really are stupid. Your reading comprehension skills need a serious overhaul if you got "never have sex again" in what I wrote.

I said that the only way to be sure that a woman doesn't get pregnant is to not have sex with her. It's a fact...you can debate it all you want to no affect. So that leads to the next statement that I made: If you do have sex, and she gets pregnant...you don't get to cry foul. The chance was there the minute you stuck your dick in her. The "I didn't know she'd get pregnant" argument doesn't hold water.

I'm not making excuses for the feminists, I'm saying that men need to stop making excuses for why they can't take care of the kids that they helped to create VOLUNTARILY. I'm saying that both parties involved need to "man up" and take responsibility.

How on earth are you being exploited when you're told that you need to take responsibility for your own voluntary actions? In fact, if you were a man...you wouldn't need to be told. You'd do what you needed to on your own because it's right.

I'll bet you're the first guy to bemoan the "loss of privilege" that men are experiencing, but the last to actually offer a way to stem the tide.

Let me help you. The first step to gaining respect is to take responsibility for what is yours. If you don't, you prove that you're not able to handle anything else that's given to you. So quit whining and do your part.

No, I'm not stupid. You, dear sir, are the one engaging in exactly the sort of moronic paternalist chest-pounding that keeps the feminists in power.

Men are entitled to the same rights as women, including the right to procreate or not procreate. This right for women does not terminate simply because she chooses to engage in sex; nor should it for men.

You have yet to make anything remotely resembling an intelligent argument against this.

I'm advocating that EVERYONE take responsibility across the board. No excuses for anybody.

You're advocating that NO ONE take responsibility for anything. Excuses for everybody.

"...moronic paternalist chest-pounding..." Isn't this how most feminazis word their arguments when they don't really have anything of substance to offer?

So who is more like the feminists again?

I'm done with ya. My granddad always said, "Son, never argue with a drunk or a fool."

Oh? And where did I advocate that?

What I advocated is an equal right for men to terminate both rights and obligations for a pregnancy, to put them on a more equal footing with women, who already have the right to an abortion. So long as Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land, men should have this right.

Why should men have to serve as ATMs for unscrupulous women, who may even have lied about using birth control just to get a man on the hook? You have yet to answer that painfully simple question. The issue isn't whether abortion should be legal, but whether or not men should have any rights so long as abortion is legal.

Have to draw you some pictures. You seem like you may be more of a visual aid kinda guy...and not so much into the letters.

First, I did answer your painfully simple question in my first response. If you don't take your own precautions to avoid getting a woman pregnant based on her word alone that she's on the pill, medically unable to have kids, whatever...you are an idiot. Being stupid does nothing to absolve you from the responsibilities that you incur by your own voluntary actions. You put yourself on the hook. Now be a man, and handle your business.

Second, where did you advocate no one taking responsibility? You're whole diatribe has been a playground style argument that if women can blow off their responsibilities, then guys should be able to as well...I suspect secretly hoping that no one will notice the "two wrongs do make a right because if you say they don't, you're helping the feminists" slant you put on it.

Let's try it this way:

You drive drunk and run your car up a telephone pole. Your insurance company informs you that, too bad, they aren't paying for your car. You call up the bank who has the note on your car: "Yeah, I didn't intend to run up that telephone pole, so I'm not paying you back the money I borrowed for the car."

Do you think the bank should just say ok and write it off because you didn't intend to be stupid, but were?

Again, thank you profusely for proving my original (and now subsequent) points for me.

He believed the woman when she said she can't have children. Don't ever believe a woman when she says that. Have her prove it to you. Yes, she may throw a fit if you seek proof but, the need to protect yourself far outways her throwing a fit.

www.move-off.org

.... Fridays are mens activist days..Be bold men and open a conversation with a co-worker about a mensactivist topic...then give him some web addresses so he can educate himself!! I personally have little slips of paper I made on a copy machine that look like little bussiness cards. I keep these bussiness cards in in my wallet at all times until I get the opportunity to give someone one of them!!
...I give them out at the laundrymat
...I give them out in the park
...I give them out in the street
...I give them out on campus

xEOD: I understand your point; it's just stupid and makes no sense. And yes, you are on the side of the feminists. You're living in a fantasy world in which men can still afford to sacrifice themselves, and force each other to subsidize irresponsible women. We can't.

Grow up. Your father's world is gone, and so is your grandfather's.

"I'm done with ya!" Yeah right, you vagina.

"A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous."

FRIVOLOUS adj. - referring to a legal move in a lawsuit clearly intended merely to harass, delay, or embarrass the opposition. Frivolous acts can include filing the lawsuit itself, a baseless motion for a legal ruling, an answer of a defendant to a complaint which does not deny, contest, prove, or controvert anything, or an appeal which contains not a single arguable basis (by any stretch of the imagination) for the appeal. A frivolous lawsuit, motion or appeal can result in a successful claim by the other party for payment by the frivolous suer of their attorneys fees for defending the case. Judges are reluctant to find an action frivolous, based on the desire not to discourage people from using the courts to resolve disputes.

---

Apparently the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is not written to prevent discrimination or guarantee specific rights; rather, it is meant to ensure the equal application of law by the states.

So, you can receive all fair and equal due process, and still lose your case.

Dubay has stated he's prepared to go all the way to the Supreme Court; but if all the lower courts have dismissed his case, it's highly unlikely that the Supremes would hear it either.

You don't get to the Supreme Court until the lower courts have dismissed your case.

xEOD, if you want men to act as they did in your grandfathers day then women should too. If tradition is your friend sir, then your enemy is feminism, not men. It wasn't men who started the hate movement known as feminism.

My Board: [URL=http://z3.invisionfree.com/AntiFeministing/index.php?act=idx]Antifeministing[/URL]

xEODGuy makes a good point. "I'm advocating that EVERYONE take responsibility across the board. No excuses for anybody." I couldn't agree more. We must all take responsibility for our individual actions across the board.

However I disagree with his statement that "You're advocating that NO ONE take responsibility for anything. Excuses for everybody."

xEODGuy I have a question for you. Are you pro-life? Your arguments imply that you are but you haven't come out and said as much. If that's the case, then presumably you would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned and consider that women who have abortions are "irresponsible" since they have so many other options at their disposal (birth control, adoption or even safe haven laws that allow them to drop off a newborn at a hospital anonymously with no questions asked).

Let's assume for a moment that Roe vs. Wade was overturned and women lost the right to have an abortion. They would still have these other means (adoption and safe haven laws) at their disposal to "responsibly" deal with a pregnancy. So I ask you, if women have these other rights, why aren't men provided the same rights? In some cases, a man may not even be made aware that he has a child - as far as I know there are no laws that compel a mother to inform the father that a child was born in the first place. How can a potential father take responsibility when he is not even made aware of the child in some cases?

But assuming the man is informed of the child and given the opportunity to "be responsible" for the child, why are they denied the same rights as the mother to terminate their parental rights and turn over their child to a family that is able and willing to raise the child (especially when they may be unable financially and emotionally to take care of the child themselves)? Why are men forced into financial servitude in this situation at the whim of the woman when the woman has all these other options? You can't force someone to be responsible but in this case you are taking away the very options that would allow the man to act responsibly. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

... what percentage of appeals to the Supremes do they accept to review? A very tiny minority, right?

My point was that the odds are really stacked against Dubay, and being dismissed as "frivolous" cannot be reassuring.

At every level of the appeals process, judges are biased against overruling other judges opinions. And even if you "win" an appeal, doesn't that typically mean that your case is simply "remanded" right back to the lower court for a repeat of the same process and the hope of a different outcome?

Reading between the lines, doesn't it suggest that Dubay needs a more expensive lawyer to rejigger and strengthen his argument?

As I read the article, the courts have not yet even agreed to take up the man's argument ... they're still saying he has no basis for even flying his lawsuit.

Am I misreading?

No, you're right. The chances of the Supreme Court providing a rational outcome in this matter are very, very slim.

But tomorrow's another day. Keep fighting, boys!

It doesn't mean Dubay shouldn't try. He could win, stranger things have happened like...oh I don't know...Roe v Wade maybe?

My Board: [URL=http://z3.invisionfree.com/AntiFeministing/index.php?act=idx]Antifeministing[/URL]

You got to the point before I did.

I can understand his point as well, and that's why I really like the Ohio proposed law. But at some point, it really comes down to "should people be forced to be parents against their will?"

In the case of women, we accept that they should not. That's why abortion is legal, abandonment doesn't require the father's consent, and adoption requires the fathers consent ONLY when the couple is married.

In the case of men. Buck up and take it like a man.

That's our current societal standings. There are two ways to solve this problem:
1) give both genders the freedoms that women enjoy.
2) give both genders the responsibilities men bear.

I'll accept either solution. I'll honestly prefer #1 as it is simpler in application and doesn't force anyone to be a parent against their will (which, honestly, would be in 'the best interest of the child' would it not?)

Have you looked at the abortion stats? Now, I am not trying to change your mind about abortion, just want to make sure you know how many babies are aborted per year in the US alone. If you still hold the same belief after knowing the stats, that's cool with me.

You are right though, one way or the other it has to be equalized.

My Board: [URL=http://z3.invisionfree.com/AntiFeministing/index.php?act=idx]Antifeministing[/URL]

Sorry about the deleted post, guys. Read on in the thread and you'll see why I deleted it.

xEODGuy said:

I'll bet you're the first guy to bemoan the "loss of privilege" that men are experiencing, but the last to actually offer a way to stem the tide.

That's a feminist argument. Sometimes it's argued by men who believe we're somehow entitled to "privilege" by virtue of being male.

Either way, the only people around here who make such arguments are trolls. I guess we'll stop feeding you now.

I enjoy the lively debate. It's a breath of fresh air from the typical gender feminist approach to debate which takes the form:

1. Repeating lies (unsupported statistics or lies of omission - aka not telling the full truth)
2. Simply trying to censor their opponents (directly or through shaming tactics)
3. Playing the gender card (aka: Hillary's "don't pile on me guys - I'm just a helpless woman after all").

Also, if you believe in what this case is trying to accomplish please join the cause and make a donation.

In my city we actually have a "baby shutter", sort of like a mailbox for babies where "poor women" can get rid of them so they don't kill em.
Society even grants women the right to literally dump their children!

DH, I appreciate the fact that you actually read what I wrote, formulated your arguments into an obviously well thought out manner and then articulated them as such. I applaud you.

As far as me being pro-life or not, I would say that for my own personal beliefs yes, I am. But, I also believe in and fought for the rights of individuals in this country to make their own decisions, no matter how I may feel about it personally. I feel that this is a personal decision, and that the government should keep out of the "morality" business.

Do I think that women that have abortions are irresponsible? That is far too general a question to answer pointedly, because so many things come in to play when making the decision whether to abort or not. It's far from a black and white issue, and one that should be discussed thoroughly by us as a society. We have truly lost our way in America, and the sooner we all sit down and figure this mess out together, without all the histrionics, the better.

That being said, I do see your point. There does seem to be a decidedly large gap in the number of choices that women have once pregnant as opposed to the men that are involved. But I don't think that an approach that basically mimics the feminist one is our answer. Behaving in a similar manner to those that we oppose reduces our message, and our credibility; continuing to damage an already broken system does no one any good.

This takes us back to my original point: We shouldn't be wasting time, energy and the little bit of political capital men have left on a losing battle. This battle was lost before it ever went to the courts, and I think that we all know that. Now we have given our enemy, feminism, another club. They can point at this isolated case and say, "SEE? All men want to get out of their responsibilities! We told you they couldn't be trusted!"

The only way to treat a disease is by effectively and decisively treating the disease itself. That means you can't treat the symptoms and expect it to just go away. When you have cancer, your doctor doesn't just give you some Tylenol and a cool rag, then send you on your way. He cuts it, burns it or poisons it out. That is the battle we should be fighting. The symptoms will go away on their own if we only destroy the underlying disease.

Who is "we?" Why do we need you to tell us which battles to focus on? How are feminists better off now that some men are demanding their own freedom of choice?

Furthermore, how do you propose to "destroy the underlying disease?"

Is anyone really surprised? If he paid for the lawsuit himself or acted based on the notion that he could win it after having been told that it was possible by his lawyers, then he might have a case for malpractice, IMHO.

The only good that was going to come out of this case was publicity for the cause of paper abortions for men. Perhaps we've gained a little publicity and generated some rotten and poorly-reasoned debate on talk radio.

Making paper abortions for men a reality first requires that most Americans, probably an overwhelming number of Americans, regard abortion as not merely uncontroversial but also almost completely moral and good and perhaps even as a duty and responsibility in cases of an unintended pregnancy. Because paper abortions for men both encourages women to get abortions and would result in women and children suffering, the general populace must be very much in favor of abortion.

In order for that to happen, most Americans would need to be atheists and I doubt that will happen anytime soon, especially now that the nation's average IQ will decrease as it transforms into an impoverished third world country as the result of global labor arbitrage (foreign outsourcing, work visas, and mass immigration).

As much as I wish that it would come true, I certainly don't expect that paper abortions for men will become legal in my lifetime. For that matter, I don't even expect that most Americans will have even contemplated or considered the issue in my lifetime. It's just too abstract given most people's mentality; it's unthinkable for them and it would never even occur to them.

XeoDguy, the reason why paper abortions for men should be legal is precisely a matter of responsibility. Because women have control of the functioning of their bodies and because abortion is legal and available, and because abortion is 100% moral and good and morally obligatory in many situations, women thus make the final decision as to whether or not a child will be born and thus should take 100% of the responsibility for it.

Of course, if someone opposes abortion and feels that it is immoral and should be illegal, perhaps because of a belief that a magic god-being "breathes" a "soul" into the embryo at conception, then that entire argument is of no consequence.

The moral argument in favor of paper abortions for men is not that men should just have the right to not become fathers as a matter of having equal rights, rather it's primarily that women make the decision of whether to birth children and thus that they should be responsible for their actions and not be allowed to inflict an externality on others.

Of course, that argument presupposes that abortion is moral and good and even obligatory in a great many circumstances. I suspect that a great many men who favor having paper abortions for men feel that way even if they can't explicitly identify or vocalize that thought.

For that reason, the only thing that paper-abortion-for-men's advocates can really do is to campaign for abortion itself. However, that also means championing reason, a morality of rational self interest, and a metaphysics of atheism or at least agnosticism.

Men's activists take note -- by advocating in favor of abortion in general, you INCREASE the chances that a woman will choose abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, which does help to further our goal of men's not being forced into fatherhood merely by women choosing to have abortions more often. After all, if women always chose abortion 100% of the time in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, then this would be a non-issue. So, advocating for the legality, availability, and most importantly, the morality of abortion accomplishes both goals (fewer men being forced into fatherhood and the realization of having paper abortions for men).