Sunday, February 21
Here comes a 25-year old programmer from Michigan, who says that if men are not allowed to protect a potential progeny, they should not have to pay child support either if the pregnancy occurred against the men’s will. The young programmer says that his former girlfriend assured him she could have no children and knew he did not want any. When she got pregnant, he offered to pay for the abortion or give up the baby for adoption. The girlfriend instead sued him for a $500 per month child support payment. And as you can guess, she won.
Think about it. Women have all the rights not to become parents. They may choose to abort, or give up the baby for adoption, or simply leave the baby at a hospital. The law is explicit that women are entitled to avoid unwanted parenthood. Why aren’t men protected similarly? Indeed the National Center for Men has drafted a proposition called “Roe v. Wade for men” which gives men the right, when faced with unwanted parenthood, to resort to a “financial abortion”. If the pregnancy occurred against their will, and if it is early in pregnancy, then, they would like to have the right to be released from any future financial responsibilities. "When it comes to reproduction in America today, women have rights and men merely have responsibilities" (Glenn Sacks, 2008, quoted here.)
It’s only fair the National Center for Men says.
What do you say? (Don’t debate the abortion issue please. The question focuses on men’s rights.)