[MERGED] US court case to challenge inequalities for men & pregnanies.

[punky]

I don't think this thread will make me too popular amongst the CF feminist brigade, but...

Pretty radical stuff...

NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit †� nicknamed
Roe v. Wade for Men †� to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

I think they are being a bit optimistic... but I do like the bit where they say they are trying to spark debate. There are inequalities (most would argue its for a good reason) but it would be nice if some common ground could be found here. I do think though that they should be challenging situations where a man wants to go ahead with a pregnancy for religious reasons, but a woman doesn't, as that involves religious freedom as well as gender equality.

Also, if the allegations are true that the woman deliberately trapped the man.. That's really dispicible... But what can you do about it? And in court, how could you prove it anyway?

Still its good that there is at least one men's rights group out there, even if it is in the US. There are many thousands of women's groups out there actively fighting for whatever they can so its good to see men finally catching up on some of the issues where men are on the sharp end of the stick.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

[SlackDad]

I think the concept of 'unintended pregnancy' is an oxymoron, in all but the most exceptional cases, i.e. rape for instance. Even with good contraception there is always a risk. So, in that sense all but the most ignorant knowingly accept this risk if engaging in intercourse and should therefore deal with the consequences, one of which is financial. The baby never asks to be born and its needs are always paramount.
A related question is how many rights a man has where a women has chosen a termination or vice versa in that decison making process. As women have over the years been pretty much **** on by men, and it is her body that is physically carrying the pregnancy, I believe this decision should remain primarily hers.
BTW we have had a proliferation of mens groups in recent years inc. Fathers for Justice et al.

[punky]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

BTW we have had a proliferation of mens groups in recent years inc. Fathers for Justice et al.

Indeed, but they are now disbanded... And before were always at risk of being hijacked by fringe near-militant members and sometimes things with members weren't always as they seemed. Plus their are other issues they could address.

It takes two to have a baby, but only one to be responsible for it. I am not saying abortion is an easy way out (because its not) but at least women do have some way out if they choose to take it.

The whole idea puts me off sex altogether really. If a baby is born by accident, regardless of the circumstances, its never fair or right for the child.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

I The baby never asks to be born and its needs are always paramount.

I agree with that - however it seems we often hear of single mothers who chose to be single - saying that they "don't need a man to bring up their child".

In which case they won't need the financial support.

[punky]

Following on, this has just come up again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm

A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

I am with the courts here. Ms Evans has said she will not claim from the CSA, but who's to say she'll always think like that? Remember the case, in several countries, where an anonymous sperm donor to a sperm bank was tracked down and forced to pay child support? (link) And sooner or later, the kid will want to know who its real father is and cause all kinds of complications. I don't think Mr Johnston is being unreasonable here. He should be given some kind of say here.

Yeah, its sad this woman is now infertile and wants kids. But she's going the wrong way about it. There are so women who can't have kids who don't have frozen eggs to use. She should look to adopt... There are so many kids condemned to a sub-standard life in care homes, and later in adult life. If being a mother is so important to her, why not be a mother to a kid who was forced into adoption?

[greencreeper]

Seems to me that notion of a man supporting the woman pre and post pregnancy belongs in the days of olde, when men were men and women stayed at home, usually near the kitchen. Women these days are more than capable of self-sufficiency. Seems to me that feminists want equal rights and men still to hold the door open. AKA having your cake and eating it.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by greencreeper

Seems to me that notion of a man supporting the woman pre and post pregnancy belongs in the days of olde, when men were men and women stayed at home, usually near the kitchen. Women these days are more than capable of self-sufficiency. Seems to me that feminists want equal rights and men still to hold the door open. AKA having your cake and eating it.

Well said

[Xaccers]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm

Punky mentioned this in another thread, and I don't think there's one already open.

Originally Posted by BBC

A woman left infertile after cancer treatment cannot use her frozen embryos to have a baby, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

A terrible situation to be in, I have to say, but I agree with Punky and the courts.

However, to prevent such a situation occuring in the future, how about when a woman donates eggs to be fertalised by her partner for re-implantation after cancer treatment, why not fertalise some of those eggs with doner sperm?

If the couple remain together and use the frozen embryos, fantastic, hope they live as a happy family, and after 5 years, all the embryos are destroyed as per normal.
If they seperate before implantation however, then the embryos fertalised by the doner sperm could be used.
The woman would therefore still be able to have children.

What do you think?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

However, to prevent such a situation occuring in the future, how about when a woman donates eggs to be fertalised by her partner for re-implantation after cancer treatment, why not fertalise some of those eggs with doner sperm?

If the couple remain together and use the frozen embryos, fantastic, hope they live as a happy family, and after 5 years, all the embryos are destroyed as per normal.
If they seperate before implantation however, then the embryos fertalised by the doner sperm could be used.
The woman would therefore still be able to have children.

What do you think?

That's a very interesting idea and I think in light of the troubles Ms Evans is having, people may consider it in the future. Its not the norm atm, because of the high failure rate of IVF. If you halve the number of eggs fertalised by your husband in half, then they failure rate of getting an egg fertalised by her husband effectively doubles.

The ideal solution would be if eggs could be frozen prior to fertalisation. That way they can be fertalised by whoever she likes. I guess they can't do that otherwise they would have done it anyway.

I think more women will do as Xaccers said as they become more realistic about life.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by greencreeper

Seems to me that notion of a man supporting the woman pre and post pregnancy belongs in the days of olde, when men were men and women stayed at home, usually near the kitchen. Women these days are more than capable of self-sufficiency. Seems to me that feminists want equal rights and men still to hold the door open. AKA having your cake and eating it.

Yes, women are and have always been capable of 'self-sufficiency'. Although of course we have to consider facts such as 70% of the 1.2bn people in poverty are women and children, 21% of the world's managers are female, women in full-time jobs earn an average 17% less than British men, women in part time jobs earn an average 42% less than British men and that 1% of the titled land in the world is owned by women. (All facts reported by the Independent on Wednesday). It's not just about 'equal rights', but rather joint responsibility and a semblence of a fair playing ground, which evidently we don't have.
In my experience it's invariably the mother left holding the baby, be it the one who has to take time off work for child sickness, or whatever.