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.
that is the gist of the argument for men's rights according to a new suit being brought to the district court in michigan
its a good question even though the case will undoubtedly lose: if a man is assured by his partner that she has a physical condition that prevents her from getting pregnant (as in this case), does that somehow exempt the man from paying child support? if a man was not intending to pass along genetic material (as in this case) is he exempt?
note: these questions brought up by the case are much different than just getting out of a regular-old accidental pregnancy. but supposing that it won, it would get men off the hook from that, too. hmmmm.
more details on the case via yahoo news and the national center for men