A Roe v. Wade for Men?

An article in the Detroit News this morning discusses the plans of a national men's rights group to file a lawsuit "claiming that fathers have the legal right to opt out of the financial responsibilities of supporting a child they didn't want -- in a claim they dub ‘Roe v. Wade … for Men.'"

The lawsuit is on behalf of a man from Saginaw named Matt Dubay who says his former girlfriend "told him she couldn't get pregnant -- because she was using contraception and had physical conditions that prevented her from getting pregnant.

After three months, they stopped dating -- but soon afterward, she told him she was pregnant."

Though I think fathers, regardless of their desire for a child, should provide financial assistance what's interesting here is that although they call it a "Roe v. Wade for Men" this group is asking for less than Roe v. Wade gave women. The group isn't asking for fathers to have the right to end the lives of their unborn children throughout pregnancy. They're asking for less than that, they're asking for the right to make a decision about paying child support before the child is born.

The Detroit News also has a poll and a comment board regarding this article online. When I checked last the vote was 59% in favor of men being able to "renounce parenting responsibilities before the child is born."

It appears that in the minds of at least some people the logic of the pro-choice movement (that women only have a responsibility to their unborn children if they want it) should also apply to men.

UPDATED: More thoughts from the American Princess