Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Roe v Wade------for men
- Thread starter dilloduck
- Start date
dmp
Senior Member
GotZoom
Senior Member
I wonder if he could sue her for fraud, misrepresentation, etc.
One can always hope...dilloduck said:It does----maybe the logic will reflect back on the original mistake with a light that-----enlightens ! :teeth:
I can see the reasoning behind this.dilloduck said:I've been arguing for years that as soon as men are OPENLY DENIED any "benefit" from ROE v WADE, the true intent of it will be exposed.
Abortion REMOVES choice. A man cannot decide to kill the baby simply because it is inconvenient for HIM. On the other hand, a man cannot legally coerce a woman into carrying the child to term if he WANTS it. Completely unfair.
dilloduck
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #10
mom4 said:I can see the reasoning behind this.
Abortion REMOVES choice. A man cannot decide to kill the baby simply because it is inconvenient for HIM. On the other hand, a man cannot legally coerce a woman into carrying the child to term if he WANTS it. Completely unfair.
When a man and a woman have sex is when the decision to be willing to become a parent is made. When ROE V WADE was being argued the feminists insisted that this was NOT so in the case of a woman. Now the opponents to this action are using the VERY SAME ARGUMENT to try to defeat the mans' decision to choose. Not only unfair--it's blatant gender discrimination.
Yeah, I could never quite wrap my mind around that argument. A woman should have access to abortion bc she is the "victim" in the male-dominated act of sex. But at the same time, women should be freed to have MORE sex a la the Sexual Revolution. Either you have control/choice in sex, or you don't. Which is it?dilloduck said:When a man and a woman have sex is when the decision to be willing to become a parent is made. When ROE V WADE was being argued the feminists insisted that this was NOT so in the case of a woman. Now the opponents to this action are using the VERY SAME ARGUMENT to try to defeat the mans' decision to choose. Not only unfair--it's blatant gender discrimination.
Makes no sense. It's just a bunch of people trying to avoid responsibility for the natural consequences of their actions.
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,865
- 2,040
I'm at a loss for words here. So I thought I'd post this to get some thoughts from everyone... 
Mar 10, 2006
by Mona Charen
This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, "Well, what did you expect?"
A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay $500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men -- is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause.
Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM website:
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.
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth. But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive freedom."
Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he wants to raise the baby himself).
The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18 years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the matriarchy?)
But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo one another in selfishness.
The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same.
Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and explain that it's nothing personal.
http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2006/03/10/189321.html
Mar 10, 2006
by Mona Charen
This is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels and demand, "Well, what did you expect?"
A group called the National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v. Wade for Men." Here are the facts: A 25-year-old computer programmer named Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., was ordered by a judge to pay $500 per month in child support for a daughter he fathered with his ex-girlfriend. His contention -- and that of the National Center for Men -- is that this requirement is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause.
Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her. The courts, he and his advocates argue, are forcing parenthood upon him in a way that they cannot do to a woman. Here's the money quote from the NCM website:
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.
The feminists may well be stumped by this argument. After all, they've based their abortion advocacy as a matter of women's reproductive rights. Is it logical to claim that women have reproductive rights that men lack? Yes, a woman has to carry an unplanned pregnancy for nine months and give birth. But Mr. Dubay, and many other men, are saddled with 18 years of child support. That's a pretty substantial inhibition of one's "reproductive freedom."
Imagine that John and Jane learn that she is pregnant. She has full latitude in the decision-making. She can decide, over his objections, to abort the child or to raise it alone (he'll be lucky to get generous visitation), or to place the child for adoption (in which case he can object, but only if he wants to raise the baby himself).
The National Center for Men could argue that since a man cannot oblige a woman to carry his child to term, neither should she be able to demand 18 years of child support from him. (The NCM has other complaints, too, and it's amusing to see the tables turned. They whine, for example, that men tend to die an average of eight years earlier than women, and that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are men. True. Is it the fault of the matriarchy?)
But the gravamen of the men's complaint is unwanted fatherhood. These poor fellows who have sex with women they do not want to marry or have children with are persecuted in this Brave New World we've created. When the only frame of reference is a competition of rights, both sexes strive to outdo one another in selfishness.
The point (and it is not one the feminists will find in their quiver) is that sexuality requires responsibility -- and that doesn't just mean using birth control. It means that if you engage in sex you have an automatic obligation to any child that may result. Pro-choice women have been vociferously rejecting this responsibility for decades. It should come as no surprise that men are inclined to do the same.
Roe v. Wade and the sexual carnival we've encouraged in this country ever since have planted the idea that men and women have some sort of constitutional right to enjoy sex without consequences. Mr. Dubay and all of those similarly situated (including women who use abortion as emergency contraception) should look into the faces of their sons and daughters and explain that it's nothing personal.
http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2006/03/10/189321.html
- Moderator
- #13
Well, I hope this guy realizes that he has basically lost all chance of a future sex life. I can't imagine any woman would want to be with a man who gets a woman pregnant and then wants to abandon the woman and child. And now he has his name out there publically for all the world to see. and im sure someone will interview him. his face and name will be out there for all time.
Oh well. His loss. If he didn't want a kid then he shouldnt have had sex with the woman he obviously doesn't care about.
Oh well. His loss. If he didn't want a kid then he shouldnt have had sex with the woman he obviously doesn't care about.
007
Charter Member
Avatar4321 said:Well, I hope this guy realizes that he has basically lost all chance of a future sex life. I can't imagine any woman would want to be with a man who gets a woman pregnant and then wants to abandon the woman and child. And now he has his name out there publically for all the world to see. and im sure someone will interview him. his face and name will be out there for all time.
Oh well. His loss. If he didn't want a kid then he shouldnt have had sex with the woman he obviously doesn't care about.
What about this part?
Dubay does not dispute that he is the child's father. Rather, he claims that during the course of his relationship with the mother, he was given to understand that she could not become pregnant because of a physical condition. He insists that she knew he did not want to have children with her.
Evil begets evil....
Roe vs. Wade gave a woman the right to kill her own baby, now for the sake of "fairness", some men want to walk away from their paternal responsibility. If you use the legal system's logic (and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), that seems reasonable. Actually, I'm surprised the fellow isn't suing for the right to get a court order to force the mother to have an abortion, then it WOULD be equal. All he wants is to walk away.
For years, we've been told that it's a woman's RIGHT if she wanted to walk away from her parental responsibility. We've been treated to stories of coat hangers, and back alley abortion clinics, and of course, the poor women that were being forced to be baby machines by their oppressive boyfriend or husband.
But when a father wants to do the same thing.... he's a BUM!!!!!!! Fathers just want the right to do the same things that mothers can do, treat their offspring like chattel, like property that they can abandon at will. Hey!!! Women can do it! Women have been awarded the same rights as slave owners in the antebellum South towards their child, they can treat them as property and as a source of income. Wow! Children as livestock! This is what Roe vs. Wade has brought us to. Our society has now run full circle, from slavery to democracy and now back to slavery.
Of course, many of you may not realize this, but the fellow is being hit up for child support, which means that he will have 17% of his wages garnished from his paycheck until the child is 21, he will be responsible for paying for health care, baby sitting, and of course college. All of the money the mother receives is TAX FREE to her and she doesn't have to tell the father what she does with the money. That is all being done in, what the courts and the feminists like to call, "the best interests of the child". But ACTUALLY, it is just another means of redistributing wealth from men to women.
And horror stories abound about fathers who have to make decisions between paying the rent and paying child support. Then there is the fact that the court system in this country is horribly biased against fathers. In fact, courts decide in favor of the mother almost all the time. In New York State, the court system awards custody to the mother over 90% of the time.
So, what's a fellow to do? I can see why some guys are gay or want to become women. At least gay people don't get hit up for child support (unless they adopt) and women have all the choices when it comes to this.
So, it just follows, doesn't it? A travestry of jurisprudence, the effects of which are magnified by the legal practice of honoring precedent and defended as a contrived "right" by those who, in my opinion, have no concern for human dignity.
I'd like to hear the pro-choice people and the feminists spin this.
Roe vs. Wade gave a woman the right to kill her own baby, now for the sake of "fairness", some men want to walk away from their paternal responsibility. If you use the legal system's logic (and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), that seems reasonable. Actually, I'm surprised the fellow isn't suing for the right to get a court order to force the mother to have an abortion, then it WOULD be equal. All he wants is to walk away.
For years, we've been told that it's a woman's RIGHT if she wanted to walk away from her parental responsibility. We've been treated to stories of coat hangers, and back alley abortion clinics, and of course, the poor women that were being forced to be baby machines by their oppressive boyfriend or husband.
But when a father wants to do the same thing.... he's a BUM!!!!!!! Fathers just want the right to do the same things that mothers can do, treat their offspring like chattel, like property that they can abandon at will. Hey!!! Women can do it! Women have been awarded the same rights as slave owners in the antebellum South towards their child, they can treat them as property and as a source of income. Wow! Children as livestock! This is what Roe vs. Wade has brought us to. Our society has now run full circle, from slavery to democracy and now back to slavery.
Of course, many of you may not realize this, but the fellow is being hit up for child support, which means that he will have 17% of his wages garnished from his paycheck until the child is 21, he will be responsible for paying for health care, baby sitting, and of course college. All of the money the mother receives is TAX FREE to her and she doesn't have to tell the father what she does with the money. That is all being done in, what the courts and the feminists like to call, "the best interests of the child". But ACTUALLY, it is just another means of redistributing wealth from men to women.
And horror stories abound about fathers who have to make decisions between paying the rent and paying child support. Then there is the fact that the court system in this country is horribly biased against fathers. In fact, courts decide in favor of the mother almost all the time. In New York State, the court system awards custody to the mother over 90% of the time.
So, what's a fellow to do? I can see why some guys are gay or want to become women. At least gay people don't get hit up for child support (unless they adopt) and women have all the choices when it comes to this.
So, it just follows, doesn't it? A travestry of jurisprudence, the effects of which are magnified by the legal practice of honoring precedent and defended as a contrived "right" by those who, in my opinion, have no concern for human dignity.
I'd like to hear the pro-choice people and the feminists spin this.
This thread needs to be joined with the other one Roe v. Wade for Men... I think dillo started it.
I think this lawsuit is just a logical extension of Roe v. Wade. If one accepts that "law," it is only fair to extend this "right" to men, too.
But, as dillo said, hopefully this will do more to expose the disgusting selfishness behind RvW than all the "unenlightened" protests of "anti-choice" men and women that have been going on for decades.
I think this lawsuit is just a logical extension of Roe v. Wade. If one accepts that "law," it is only fair to extend this "right" to men, too.
But, as dillo said, hopefully this will do more to expose the disgusting selfishness behind RvW than all the "unenlightened" protests of "anti-choice" men and women that have been going on for decades.
007
Charter Member
I think one thing this whole mess highlights, is how trashy some people are.
Yeah baby... aren't you sexy... let's hit it and worry about the consequences later...
Well ya know what? The time to worry about what you'd do in the event that a woman gets pregnant, is BEFORE you stick your johnson in. If you don't want to deal with any of the fallout that may occur from a pregnancy, DON'T STICK THE MEAT IN. My God... how hard is that. Stop thinking with the little head, and start thinking with the big head!
Yeah baby... aren't you sexy... let's hit it and worry about the consequences later...
Well ya know what? The time to worry about what you'd do in the event that a woman gets pregnant, is BEFORE you stick your johnson in. If you don't want to deal with any of the fallout that may occur from a pregnancy, DON'T STICK THE MEAT IN. My God... how hard is that. Stop thinking with the little head, and start thinking with the big head!
dilloduck
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #18
Pale Rider said:I think one thing this whole mess highlights, is how trashy some people are.
Yeah baby... aren't you sexy... let's hit it and worry about the consequences later...
Well ya know what? The time to worry about what you'd do in the event that a woman gets pregnant, is BEFORE you stick your johnson in. If you don't want to deal with any of the fallout that may occur from a pregnancy, DON'T STICK THE MEAT IN. My God... how hard is that. Stop thinking with the little head, and start thinking with the big head!
Thats all well and good but that argument didnt work when it came to abortion rights for women---they can spread em with ANY consequences of pregnancy. Shouldn't women be chastised for not thinking with the right head too?
:rotflmao:Pale Rider said:I think one thing this whole mess highlights, is how trashy some people are.
Yeah baby... aren't you sexy... let's hit it and worry about the consequences later...
Well ya know what? The time to worry about what you'd do in the event that a woman gets pregnant, is BEFORE you stick your johnson in. If you don't want to deal with any of the fallout that may occur from a pregnancy, DON'T STICK THE MEAT IN. My God... how hard is that. Stop thinking with the little head, and start thinking with the big head!
That's the 2nd biggest lie of all... after "it's not a child," the biggest lie is "there are no consequences to abortion."dilloduck said:Thats all well and good but that argument didnt work when it came to abortion rights for women---they can spread em with ANY consequences of pregnancy. Shouldn't women be chastised for not thinking with the right head too?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 97
- Views
- 693
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 799
- Replies
- 244
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 43
- Views
- 216
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 56
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 166
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 21
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 9253
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 497
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-