"Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay"

[Philbot]

News: NEW YORK - Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

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.

© source where applicable

Full article here.

[C. D. Ward]

Stupidest...lawsuit....ever...


Well, except for that hot coffee madness...

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wrong on two points.

Stupidest...lawsuit....ever...

That would be the lawsuit Fox made against Franken, alledging that the front cover of Franken's book would fool people into thinking Fox supported the book.

Well, except for that hot coffee madness...

The McDonalds case was not about simply spilling hot coffee onto herself. She spilled scalding hot coffee on herself causing third degree burns. Linky to the McDonalds case.

[ice_eagle]

I don't know how this guy intends to compare men and women to determine "equal protection" under the Constitution. Men's role in reproduction is just too different from that of women to clearly determine what is really equal.

[Zeluvia]

I don't know how this guy intends to compare men and women to determine "equal protection" under the Constitution. Men's role in reproduction is just too different from that of women to clearly determine what is really equal.

Perfectly valid lawsuit.

He didn't want the child, she lied to him, and now he has a financial responsibility he didn't want or contract for.

I hope he wins = )

[Busheses]

Perfectly valid lawsuit.

He didn't want the child, she lied to him, and now he has a financial responsibility he didn't want or contract for.

I hope he wins = )

All he had to do is keep you know what in a safe place and avoid all this.

[Zeluvia]

All he had to do is keep you know what in a safe place and avoid all this.

yes, but he entered into sex under false pretenses !!

[Rubia Warren]

Yeah but all women have to do is keep you know what closed, but we get a way out via abortion. There's no do-over for men. That's not fair.

[ice_eagle]

Yeah but all women have to do is keep you know what closed, but we get a way out via abortion. There's no do-over for men. That's not fair.

I agree with you. However, how is the court to enforce this? It will seldom have more than heresay evidence in cases like this (allegations that one party said something to the other, etc.). None of that is verifiable without some hard evidence.

The only way such a precedent could be maintained is if there is some sort of contract before anyone engages in sexual activities. Furthermore, what would prevent that from being extended to married couples? When they split, what is to stop one of them from alleging that the children's conception was unintentional and the fault of the other party?

I think this is just one of those cases where we cannot rectify the situation with a tolerable risk of doing the wrong thing.