| Welcome to Die Hard Baseball. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Father's rights? LMAO!! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 9 2006, 07:26 PM (378 Views) | |
| kyyankgrrl | Mar 9 2006, 07:26 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Father's Rights? Men Want Right To Turn Down Fatherhood Group Wants Same Rights As Women POSTED: 7:46 am EST March 9, 2006 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. "There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly." Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich. Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant. Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail. "What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started." State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case. "The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said. Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said. Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion. "Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized." Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt. "Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say." "The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility." Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child. "If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative." The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter. "None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child." ********** Amusing. I'm curious....are men also going to fight for the right to swollen feet and ankles? Are they going to fight for the right to morning sickness and gaining in excess of 30 lbs? Are they going to fight for the right to 100 hours of labor pains? Are they going to fight for the right to have their willies cut so a big-headed baby can emerge? Are they going to fight for the right to stretch marks, saggy tits and future incontinence? L M A O!!! |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| Element | Mar 9 2006, 07:46 PM Post #2 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
Yes, that would be so horrible for you, wouldn't it. I argued for the exact same thing in an AP English essay. A financial abortion for me. How is is pro-choice, when only the women has the choice. Yes, it is you body, but it is our money. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | Mar 9 2006, 07:54 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
This just confirms why courts almost always award custody to women....men will do anything and everything to not take responsibility for the consequences of their sexual behavior. When a man's body is permanently scarred and damaged by paying child support, then I'll contend he has the same rights in this situation as a woman does. Did you move this to politics? Thanks....I thought about that after I posted it!! P.S. How did I know you would respond to this??
|
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| Element | Mar 9 2006, 08:31 PM Post #4 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
And having a child to get child support payments so they can have money to buy other things is responsibility? You know there are women fishing condoms out of the trash to get the sperm to impregnate themselves just so they can get that child support. In fact, funny story, men have started to put Tabasco sauce in the condoms after use. A couple women have got burned, and taken them to court. They lost in both cases. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | Mar 9 2006, 08:40 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
And yet a man will continue to sleep with a woman he knows is this devious, deceptive, and conniving....why? I forgot......men only judge from the outside....otherwise they wouldn't constantly get hoodwinked by women with inflatable plastic jugs. At any rate....if men are allowed to disown their kids because "women have choices too"......where does this leave the child? |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| Element | Mar 9 2006, 08:42 PM Post #6 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
Men will take all the sex they can get. It leaves the child either aborted, on in the womans care. It is their body, they should be able to raise a kid by themselves, right? |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | Mar 9 2006, 08:50 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Regardless of the consequences. Well, since women still make only 78 cents for every dollar men make, looks like that child will be forced to live in poverty because of gender inequality and because the father sees it as the side-effect of a good Saturday night. |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| Element | Mar 9 2006, 09:03 PM Post #8 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
That is taking average yearly saleries of women and man. It fails to count for hours worked, or difficulty of labor, or skills these men and women have. Maybe if the worked as hard as man and had the same skills as men, it would be closer. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | Mar 9 2006, 09:14 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Interesting that you justify the gender difference in salaries based on hours worked, difficulty of labor, and skills required. Yet you ignore these same factors regarding pregnancy, labor and childbirth. Like I said before....when a man nearly dies from paying child support, I will say his rights in the matter are equal to the woman who nearly dies birthing his rugrat. |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| steveox | Mar 9 2006, 10:08 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
Mel Feit is right what he said on fox news today.MEN HAVE NO RIGHTS When women are involved.I dont belive a guy should pay for child support if he doesnt want the kid anymore. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| kyyankgrrl | Mar 9 2006, 10:35 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Feminist & Proud
![]()
|
Yeah, that'll teach that kid a lesson.... |
![]() Sig by Detroittigerfan28 In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman. - Margaret Thatcher I never married because there was no need. I have three pets at home which answer the same purpose as a husband. I have a dog that growls every morning, a parrot that swears all afternoon, and a cat that comes home late at night - Marie Corelli (19th century author) Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. - Martin Luther King, Jr. | |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 9 2006, 10:58 PM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Mel Feit (whomever he is) is seeking to stir controversy with that outrageous statement. If men had no rights in these cases, there would be no need for the law firms boasting of their representation of men's...you guessed it...RIGHTS. Also, I see the consequences of the second part of your statement every day. As a mandated reporter to DCFS, these biological fathers who abandon their children leave a scorched earth behind them. It takes many people to pick up the pieces and repair the damage. Don't want kids? Wrap that rascal! |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| Element | Mar 9 2006, 11:23 PM Post #13 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
Stop the presses. We agree!
How many times do the men win on child support cases? We need those law firms to defend the few rights we do have in divorce and child support cases. I want to be a mens rights lawyer when I grow up. Cause worth fighting for. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| steveox | Mar 9 2006, 11:29 PM Post #14 |
![]()
|
Its like this.Mel Feit did stir controversy 19 years ago after he read in the paper that the ACLU took the womans case to court when her boss told her to wear a dress to work and she was fired by her boss cause he told her to wear a dress to work.Well she challenged her boss by refusing to wear a dress to work instead she came to work with slacks on.So the ACLU won the cause cause the woman has the right to wear whatever she wanted.So Mel feit challenged his boss by comming to work with a dress.Thats right a man wearing a womans dress to work and his female supervisor fired him cause he refused to take off that dress and wear the right clothes.And guess what? He ran the the ACLU and they wouldnt take his case. And you claim the ACLU is for equal rights? BULL!!!!!! The ACLU is for women and minorites They dont serve MENS RIGHTS!!! So thats why Mel Feit is now standing up to guys and take this issue to the U.S Supreme Court. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 9 2006, 11:39 PM Post #15 |
![]()
|
I don't have the empirical data at hand to tell you how many times do men "win" on child support cases. As each case would be unique (ranging from deadbeat Dad to Dad having sole custody for the best welfare of the child), how many "wins" by men would be a specious statistic in any case. I agree that it's a cause worth fighting for. Men should be equally represented and bear equal responsibility. But spare me the "Men have no rights" nonsense. That's hyperbole and entirely untrue. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 9 2006, 11:43 PM Post #16 |
![]()
|
If you are indeed speaking to me, at no point did I even mention the ACLU, so please do not tell me what did or did not claim. As for the claim that the ACLU works only for women and minorities...hogwash. Also, I edited your profanity. There's far better uses of the English language than that. |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| Element | Mar 9 2006, 11:45 PM Post #17 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
ok, so maybe steve is taking it to the extreme, but there is a lot of truth in what he is saying if you don't take it word for word. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| steveox | Mar 9 2006, 11:48 PM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Its True! and you know it! Ok i did slip up a bit on my profanity and i apologize.But im burned up why liberals side on women & minorities.Just like on that insurance crap a woman feels discriminated when she has to pay for more life insurance cause women live longer then men.ITS A BUSINESS!!!! YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS WHEN YOU BUY LIFE INSURANCE! |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Element | Mar 9 2006, 11:52 PM Post #19 |
|
The Original
![]()
|
I stopped reading right there, because I agree with that and I was afraid I was going to find something in you post I didn't agree with. |
![]() ![]() ![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| artvark | Mar 9 2006, 11:54 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
Gentlemen, I spent the last five or so minutes using the ACLU website and internal search engine to find this. It would appear that the ACLU is petitioning the Michigan Supreme Court on the behalf of a...<gasp> DAD! Michigan Courts Use Cohabitation Law to Restrict Father's Visitation Rights (12/21/2005) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org ACLU Asks Michigan Supreme Court to Strike “Lewd and Lascivious” Cohabitation Law DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has appealed to the state Supreme Court on behalf of a divorced man whose overnight visitation with his children has been restricted by the court of appeals. The court order, based on an antiquated law that criminalizes "lewd and lascivious cohabitation," prohibits his girlfriend from sleeping at their shared home on the nights when the children are in the home. "This antiquated law allows the state to unconstitutionally interfere with a parent's relationship with his or her children," said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan Executive Director. "It is based upon the notion that there is something sinful when unmarried adults spend the night together rather than on the best interests of the children and the family." Thirty-five-year-old Christian Muller of Ferndale shares legal custody of his two daughters with his ex-wife. But when he became involved in a committed relationship after the divorce, Muller's ex-wife asked the court to forbid him from having overnight visitation with his children when his girlfriend, Michelle Moon, was present. After a Friend of the Court Referee would not recommend that her request be granted, the case went to Oakland County Circuit Judge Daniel Patrick O'Brien. Judge O’Brien issued an order contrary to the decision of the referee, prohibiting either parent from having overnight visitation with the children when they had unrelated overnight guests of the opposite sex. "By forcing the woman that I share my life with to leave our home sends the message that daddy is doing something bad, daddy is doing something morally wrong," said Muller. "This court order undermines my rights as a parent, as an adult, and as an American with the right to choose how to live my life." "The unfounded restriction they have put on my parenting time has done nothing but cause confusion, resentment, physical and psychological hardship and distrust, which affects the whole family," Muller added. Michigan made “lewd and lascivious cohabitation” a crime in 1838, the same year it prohibited interracial marriages. Although the state repealed its prohibition on marriage between the races in 1883, the prohibition against unmarried cohabitation remained. Michigan is now one of only seven states that retain this archaic provision. “We haven't found a decision upholding a criminal prosecution under the statute since 1925,” said Moss. “Now, in 2005, Michigan courts have used the statute to force a father to choose between visitation with his children and his intimate relationship with his girlfriend. It's time to finally make clear the statute is unconstitutional.” The restriction at issue focuses on unmarried cohabitation and suggests that it creates a greater risk to children. According to the U.S. Census, there are now 5.5 million cohabiting households in the United States, an 11-fold increase since 1960, and 39 percent of these households have children under 18. "Mr. Muller and Ms. Moon are still living together, and Ms. Moon is sleeping in her car, his van, and sometimes at her parents' house when his children are there," said Bethany Berger, the ACLU Cooperating Attorney who is working on the appeal. "The order has not ended their unmarried relationship, but instead stands in the way of their efforts to fully share their home with his children and ensure that his children remain a full part of his life despite his divorce from their mother." According to the ACLU brief submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court, "If courts are permitted to restrict divorced parents from living with both their unmarried partners and their children without evidence that this restriction is justified by the interests of the children, it will either undermine their ability to move toward permanent loving relationships or their efforts to fully include their children in their lives. Both are contrary to the legislative will in enacting the Child Custody Act, and contrary to the constitutional authority of the state to inject itself into the lives of Michigan families. The Court of Appeals even stated that 'the best interests of the children were not actually the issue before the trial court.'" To read the leave application filed in the Michigan Supreme Court, go to: www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/mullerleaveapplication.pdf |
|
"Get out the tapemeasure...looooong gone." Pat Hughes is baseball radio magic. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2

















7:39 PM Jul 10