• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Roe v. Wade for Men"

zakur

Illuminator
Z
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
3,264
Unwilling father tests men's rights

They had sex. She got pregnant. She sued for child support. Now, he's suing back, contending that men have a constitutional right to "avoid procreation."

With the suit, Matthew Dubay, 25, of Saginaw, Mich., becomes the public face of a "men's rights" movement that contends men should have the same ability as women to decide whether to have children.

Supporters of the movement are calling the case "Roe vs. Wade for men"--a precedent-setting case that could define a man's right to choose parenthood.

The case is the first to assert a constitutional freedom to "choose not to be a father" under the equal protection clause, said Dubay's attorney, Jeffery Cojocar.

Child support isn't the only issue at stake: Dubay doesn't want any of the other legal or emotional responsibilities that come with parenthood, Cojocar explained.

[...]

In the fall of 2004, he had a discussion with his then-girlfriend. Dubay told her he wasn't ready to have kids, according to the legal complaint. That's fine; I'm infertile and I'm using birth control just in case, she allegedly responded.

When the woman found herself with child, she was unwilling to terminate the pregnancy. She gave birth to a baby girl and then obtained a court order requiring Dubay to pay $500 a month in child support.

Dubay thus joined the ranks of men who argue they were duped into having children they never wanted and then forced to assume financial responsibilities for which they were unprepared.

It's an old story, and one the courts have been very clear on, said Bruce Boyer, director of the child law clinic at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. The child's interest in receiving support, he said, overrides any interests the father may have.

"I can understand why people might be sympathetic to Mr. Dubay if he was duped into becoming a father," Boyer said. But if the child is his--as is the case--"this shouldn't be about him and his rights; it should be about this child and the child's needs."
Click to expand...

Hell...I'm no legal expert and even I can tell you that his case doesn't have a chance.
 
I feel that under the concept of equal rights, men should have the right to "a legal abortion", just as women do.

Why should the decision be left to one partner, when both will be liable for support?

Just think of some of the potential changes to society involved in the paradigm shift: binding legal contracts involved for pregnancies, binding contracts for sperm/egg donors, legal 'prostitiution' in that men will hire women to have their babies, thusly bringing legal prostitution, same sex parents, baby selling (transfer of contracts?)... AAAand, the biggie, baby licences required- you'll need to register your notarised contracts to suport your babies.

I'm all for it.
 
Puh-leeze. The guy should have been using a condom anyway, whether she was or wasn't on the pill. Babies aren't the only nasty consequence to unprotected sex.
 
Does anybody see the unfairness in that a mother can give up her baby for adoption, and be done with any legal respnsibilities, but a father's responsibilities can only be terminated by the mother?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Puh-leeze. The guy should have been using a condom anyway, whether she was or wasn't on the pill. Babies aren't the only nasty consequence to unprotected sex.
Click to expand...

There are websites out there giving advice on how to sabotarge condoms.
 
Grammatron said:
While you are correct, he still was lied to.
Click to expand...

Oh, my! Lied to, by a lover? That's a first for the annals of human history!

My sympathy is zero. He got lazy and complacent and put trust where it shouldn't have been, and now he's trying to get out of the consequences.
 
Grammatron said:
While you are correct, he still was lied to.
Click to expand...
I missed that part of the article. She allegedly stated that she was both infertile and on the pill but still wound up pregnant. "Sterile" people and women on the pill get pregnant all the time. I don't see conclusive evidence of a lie.
 
casebro said:
Does anybody see the unfairness in that a mother can give up her baby for adoption, and be done with any legal respnsibilities, but a father's responsibilities can only be terminated by the mother?
Click to expand...

Would the father still need to pay child support for a child that's up for adoption? :p

It takes two to make a kid. It takes two to support a kid. Mother provides the time, father provides the cash. For the lack of better settlement, this seems fair to me.
 
I think these "men's rights" groups should spend more effort on fighting cases of paternity fraud rather than hopeless causes like this one. Yeah, Dubay didn't want to be a father, but the kid is definitely his. There are countless men out there paying support for kids that aren't even theirs. And even when the DNA evidence proves this conclusively, courts are still ruling that they continue paying support. That is ridiculous, IMHO.
 
casebro said:
Does anybody see the unfairness in that a mother can give up her baby for adoption, and be done with any legal respnsibilities, but a father's responsibilities can only be terminated by the mother?
Click to expand...
I suppose it is in a way unfair, but that's just the way it is. Biology puts most of the decisions in the hands of the mother.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Oh, my! Lied to, by a lover? That's a first for the annals of human history!

My sympathy is zero. He got lazy and complacent and put trust where it shouldn't have been, and now he's trying to get out of the consequences.
Click to expand...

So we should abandon JREF mission then right? After all, everyone who gets tricked into scams of "psychics" and "herbal healers" are just lazy and compacent people and should have zero sympathy from us.
 
It wasn't until I'd heard this story on NPR that I gave it much thought. I'm a belt and suspesnders kinna guy, that's a rubber baby buggy bumper and "excuse me ma'am, are you on the pill?", so I always figured that I'm safe from problems such as this. However, no matter how careful both people are, there's always the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. The way it stands currently, a woman with an unwanted pregancy has all the legal power t to make choices regarding the pregnancy, and the father has none. It's really, really difficult to justify giving legal power to the father of an unwanted pregnancy over abortion, adoption, and other choices. "Keep your laws off of my body" is a slogan that I've accepted. So, I, like the rest of male America is put into an odd position of not having the slightest legal rights over decisions involving pregnancies we've, willingly or not, contributed to.

I have absolutely nothing to suggest, because there's nothing in the current legal system to secure the rights of a father in this circumstance, and I doubt very much we want to go back to a time when the mother of an unwanted pregancy had little or no rights.

[/RANT]
 
ImaginalDisc said:
It wasn't until I'd heard this story on NPR that I gave it much thought. I'm a belt and suspesnders kinna guy, that's a rubber baby buggy bumper and "excuse me ma'am, are you on the pill?", so I always figured that I'm safe from problems such as this. However, no matter how careful both people are, there's always the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. The way it stands currently, a woman with an unwanted pregancy has all the legal power t to make choices regarding the pregnancy, and the father has none. It's really, really difficult to justify giving legal power to the father of an unwanted pregnancy over abortion, adoption, and other choices. "Keep your laws off of my body" is a slogan that I've accepted. So, I, like the rest of male America is put into an odd position of not having the slightest legal rights over decisions involving pregnancies we've, willingly or not, contributed to.

I have absolutely nothing to suggest, because there's nothing in the current legal system to secure the rights of a father in this circumstance, and I doubt very much we want to go back to a time when the mother of an unwanted pregancy had little or no rights.

[/RANT]
Click to expand...
The laws are "off [her] body" she could have all the babies she want to have but she shouldn't expect the father to contribute.

So while you are keeping the laws off her body make sure you also keep it out of his wallet.
 
Grammatron said:
The laws are "off [her] body" she could have all the babies she want to have but she shouldn't expect the father to contribute.

So while you are keeping the laws off her body make sure you also keep it out of his wallet.
Click to expand...


Again, it takes two to make a kid. Don't want to pay child support- don't have sex with her.
 
Grammatron said:
So we should abandon JREF mission then right? After all, everyone who gets tricked into scams of "psychics" and "herbal healers" are just lazy and compacent people and should have zero sympathy from us.
Click to expand...

Since we're dealing in hyperbole, then I shall characterize your position as desiring to defend everyone from all negative consequences of any of their actions, no matter how stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom