Debating 'Roe vs. Wade for Men'
When I blog for this show, I'm always curious to know if the subject will actually motivate people to engage in a debate. Turns out my original story about the case they're calling "Roe vs. Wade for Men"
generated a lot of interest.
It's about a lawsuit arguing men should have the right to reject the responsibilities of fatherhood -- including getting out of paying child support. A national men's rights group backing the suit argues a woman gets to decide if she wants to have a child, give it up for adoption, or have an abortion, while the man has no control.
In the lawsuit, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old from Saginaw, Michigan, is suing his ex-girlfriend, 20-year-old Lauren Wells. They had a baby girl who is now eight months old. Dubay says he told Wells up front he did not want to be a father. And he doesn't feel he should have to pay $560 per month in child support. Here's a sample of your responses:
He was intimate with her and is responsible. Can you imagine the financial impact of allowing men to avoid child support! It is already a problem. He needs to pay.
Posted By Ted, Dallas, Texas
The main question is whether or not the man has a right to any say in the outcome. What if the woman wanted an abortion and the man wanted the child? Would the man have a say in that circumstance? Or would the woman have all the choices without any regard to the wishes of the man?
Posted By Frank, Columbus, Ohio
He says it's about trying to extend to men the freedom of choice the Supreme Court decision gave to women. Really? What statement fails to realize is that women must deal with the situation because of biology. Hence, the choice to make a decision, because they cannot walk away from this reality. When men have the ability to become pregnant, then the same choices should be extended. If men currently are extended the same choices, then it is assuming that they will have choices which will affect a women's body. Where is the equal justice in that?
Posted By Margaret, Orlando, Florida
This is really a matter of "equal justice under law" and needs to be sent to the Supreme Court. Look at it this way -- if a woman becomes pregnant she has the following options open to her:
(1) Abort; or,
(2) Rear child; or,
(3) Place for adoption
The man, in the case of pregnancy, has the following options:
(1) Pay support; or,
(2) Marriage and support; or, if this lawsuit is successful,
(3) Flee or otherwise refuse
As it stands now, the only options open to men are #1 and #2; and #3 is right-out illegal in most places. What this lawsuit does is open up equity for men in this matter -- since men cannot become pregnant themselves, this gives the man a similar "opt-out" option that the woman currently has. Regardless of personal morals, this is an intensely important issue, and may well drive legal doctrine in this country for decades.
Posted By Phil, Waterloo, Iowa
You can watch my full report on this story tonight on the show. It will be followed by a debate on this subject. And you can read my original blog post here
. Feel free to leave more of your thoughts in the space below.