I agree that they aren't the same thing. Indeed enslaving a man for a third or fourth of a normal lifespan is far worse than forcing a woman to carry a baby to term for nine months. I hope this lawsuit succeeds. If it doesn't it will just be further proof that the judiciary in this country is totally corrupt.

Juliana Bunim’s dismissal of the proposal to give men reproductive rights is far too glib and all too typical of women’s attitude to men. She also misses the point. The point isn’t that women should be forced to carry a baby, but rather having unilaterally decided to do this then she should have no right to force a man into the financial burden of parenthood. Women who procreate without the consent of the man are in effect stealing his DNA.

It's very simple. Men can and should choose when to become parents. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, he should simply use a condom.
It's called taking responsibility.

"Women who procreate without the consent of the man are in effect stealing his DNA."

Yes, women who rape men, become pregnant, have the baby and then sue for child support are stealing DNA. Otherwise, it seems like men have happily and willingly provided the DNA.

Men and women both have the right to control their bodies and do everything in their power (to their own bodies) to prevent conception and childbirth. Once that child exists, both parents have legal obligations. A woman who did not want custody of her child would have to pay child support to the single father caring for that child. The law is totally fair now in that it applies equally to everyone involved.

Who should pay for kids if not their biological parents?

Robin, what is this, sexual responsibility in Mother Jones? Do not let the Mother Jones readers in the S&M dungeons hear you. Oh, btw, if the male can use a condom, then the woman can keep her legs shut or do the same.

"Women who procreate without the consent of the man are in effect stealing his DNA."

I agree with Paul except where he says "too typical of women’s attitude to men" that kind of generalization is not fair.

If the situation were just that cut and dry - the contraceptive method fails AND the woman decides to keep the child against the man's wishes - then yes, he should have a choice about supporting the child.

I just hope the National Center for Men sincerely supports a woman's right to choose.

Above all, it must be considered what is best for the child. In the case that a man doesn't want to become a father, is punishing the child and denying him/her support okay if it's all in the name of equality?

This is such a complicated debate which requires locating specifically the balance or imbalance of fairness and keeping the potential child's best interest in mind.

It takes both man and woman to have sex and conception is a known and common result of sex, so both bear equal responsibility for the conception. However, is it fair that the woman should be able to choose single-handedly whether to carry the child or not? Because of nature the woman physically bears the child, but does that take away the man's stake in fatherhood? In all fairness, the father should be given a decision in all matters regarding the fetus, but that raises a difficult question. What if the mother and father disagree? What if a pregnant woman wanted an abortion but the father wanted to keep the baby or vice versa? Who should prevail? Our society has determined that the woman should make the ultimate decision, so isn't it fair that a man have some agency in his own fatherhood? Or does the decision to have sex mean an absolute waiver of choice in the matter for him?

This lawsuit does seem fair. As long as time stipulations are met, a man should be able to make the choice like a woman. For example, during the 1st trimester (the period of potential abortion) the man should be required by law to commit or refuse to commit to the parenthood. If he commits, then from that point on he must fulfill his legal obligations to the child. If he refuses, the woman has the opportunity to abort and if she chooses not to, she voluntarily bears the parental responsibilities alone. That seems fair to me. Please tell me if you disagree.

As a pro-choice feminist, I am not sure that I don't agree that men should be able to keep a baby they concieve. That means that women would have to pay child support. Maybe the man should have to find another womb in which to carry the baby, since making the woman carry the baby means that things won't be 50/50. Here's what I tell my sons (and daughter). If you have sex with a woman and she becomes pregnant, then you are responsible for that child. I don't care whether she slept with 100 other men, you made the choice to take off your pants; the child didn't. Which sperm hit the egg is irrelevant; if you don't want to take the consequences, or don't want a lifetime relationship with that person, don't have sex. It is time we stopped focusing on the "rights" of the adults and remember that once a baby is born, it is our sacred duty to take care of it. If you are ready to have sex, you should be ready to grow up. We need to realize that sex isn't really free unless it is between two loving adults who take responsibility for their actions.

There are many takes on this and it is unfair to all involved when a disagreement between parents occur. I do believe a child should not be punished. however, neither should the adults for that matter. Unfortunately, there are many motivations a woman can have for keeping a child against a man's wishes. Some good/some bad. A potential interim solution that may serve as a deterrant for women solely looking for financial gain is to base child support solely on the financial disposition of the woman. A child should not bring the economic status of the woman down if she is raising the child herself. However, it should not be a windfall of excess cash either. There is an equity issue here and it is sad that a woman can make a decision that effects so many while the man has no choice but to deal. If a woman knew that she could not receive support for an unwanted child, would she go through with the pregnancy. if we can honestly answer that question, the answer is simple.

I don't think the author of this article ever actually makes an argument why the suit is bad. If she did I think it would likely be in here:

"But the problem here is the simple truth that women and men are not equal in their child-bearing roles. The government forcing a woman to carry a baby to term is not the same as a man carrying a financial burden."

I think she's comparing apples an oranges. The apple is the phrase, "the government forcing a woman to carry a baby to term." No one is talking about that here. No one is saying we should outlaw abortion. The orange is the phrase, "a man carrying a financial burden." That is the issue, yes, but where's the argument?

It is certainly true the woman has a bigger biological role to play in bringing a baby into the world, but that doesn't mean she has a bigger parental role once the child is born. The issue here is what happens after the baby is born, not the parents' respective roles during pregnancy. Personally, I favor *equality* between the sexes, not superiority for the woman. That means both parents have an equal stake in the life of the child. The law should recognize a woman's right to govern her own body, and thus it (rightly) does not allow an unwilling father to compel a woman to have an abortion. But, by the same token of self-governance, it should not let a woman compel a man to pay for her choice not to have one. If the government gives her the conscious choice to prevent this child from becoming a burden on her, what right does the government have to say the father should not also be given such a choice?

There are a lot of hypothetical issues here - what if the contraception fails, what if she lies about being on birth control, what if she is impregnated via another man. Or, "The man should have thought about it ahead of time." While for many people those issues play a role in their stance on the issue, for me they do not. During the period of the development of the child when an abortion is legally available and medically safe, the woman and man should be partners in making decisions about family. This is the meaning of "equality." You can't place the bulk of the burden of responsibility for consensual sex in the man's court and call it equality. She agreed to have sex just as much as he did, so she should share in the consequences just as much as he does. At no point should she be given control over him, as is currently the way. If the woman takes advantage of the biological fact that the baby is inside her and not him, and makes the decision alone to bring it to term, the price of being able to make that decision should be that she will have to raise the child alone.

In a comment here, the author of the article brought up a good point: Won't that hurt the child? Indeed, it will. But it also massively changes the incentives to have a child alone, and I expect the number of mothers who defy fathers' wishes would drop. As a result, the number of children with single parents will drop. If you extend the author's point you could ask this (obviously absurd) question: Shouldn't the law compel people to contribute to charity, for the betterment of society? Even if they want nothing to do with those charities?

One response might be: no, but that's different. We're not talking about random charities, we're talking about children that would not be here without the father. But remember, if the father actually did have anything to say about it, there child indeed would not be here.

Rights. What about the choices to abandon your child or place them up for adoption. Women can choose. Men can't. They're just a wallet. We give encentives($$$) to un married woman to pump out babies. NO man could force a woman to have his child, take custody, and force her to pay child support, Even if he told her he had a vasectomy!She would loose her drivers and biz lisences, have accounts seized and property liened. She would be financially destroyed by the Courts and never able to afford to have a REAL family, BY CHOICE. I know, because my husband has been destroyed by a girl he dated over 16 years ago. 10 years ago, he got the good news about his child that he never knew about. By the way - he was already raising his own 2 boys alone for most of their lives, while his ex partied, recieved assistance and a FREE Harvard degree claiming to be single Mom. Guess who has to pay? We lost our home and biz. How do we explain to our children why we are homless and eat at food banks. The best interest of the children? My ***! The bias Courts have ruined us for the rest of our lives. My husband is almost 50 now, our boys are adults now, but he can never own a biz or be free to enjoy any freedoms. Yes, because he had sex with a lyer! But ultimately, she had the choice, not him. Find out how much the Feds match each State and your will find out that it IS only about money and not the children. Men need to have the same right and equal choices. One mistake will not ruin a womans life but it will ruin a mans life and any future hopes for him. My husband does not support abortion but supports adoption, and that would have been HIS choice.
Lelia. INDIGNANT!

COULD NOT BE STATED BETTER, LELIA!!! BLACK CHILDREN IN THIS COUNTRY ARE OVERWHELMINGLY BEING BORN TO WOMEN WHO ARE PIMPING THE GOVERNMENT. THE BASTARD URRR UHHH ILLEGITIMACY RATE IS F'ING 75%! WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ALL ABOUT? IF IT WERE EQUAL, THIS WOULDN'T EVEN BE AN ISSUE. NOW, FOR ANYONE WHO ARGUES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FATHERS AND FAMILIY UNITS; WHEN YOU SEE KIDS STANDING ON THE CORNER IN THE HOOD, ASK THEM HOW MANY OF THEM GO HOME TO A FATHER. WHEN YOU GET THE ANSWER AND COMBINE IT WITH THE NUBMERS FOR BLACK BOYS IN JAILS AND PRISONS, YOU'LL KNOW TO SHUT THE HECK UP ABOUT THIS ABSURD ISSUE. THIS THING HAS BEEN OLD NEWS TO BLACK MEN. SIMPLY BECAUSE A WOMAN/GIRL/XX CHROMOSOME CAN REPRODUCE, IT DOESN'T MAKE HER A MOTHER.