Lots of good points. I agree he will probably fail. Bottom line- wrap that rascal!
NEW YORK (AP) -- 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.
The gist of the argument: 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.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.
"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.
Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.
'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."
Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."
"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."
Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
I am willing to discuss anything....I can only speak for myself though....Also, if I share my thoughts on this...there would be religious underpinnings to my argument...Not looking to proselytize.
Well I agree. Sex should only be for marriage. Not that I have lived that way. BUT I know that my life would be different, maybe better but that is hard to say, if I had followed what I know. Religion or not sex brings, disease, unwanted children and heartache. That is just fact!
Sex is meant primarily for one thing...procreation. If someone gets pregnant, it means things went right....I dont believe a kid should be punished if the parents werent married....he/she is entitled to every advantage the parents can afford.
Sex is pleasueable, that is its powerful inducement...But If debay didnt want to be a father...guess what...keep your pants zipped...because contraception can fail
The mom did teh right thing by having the child...
Both parents are responsible for bringing this child into the world...they can disavow themselves of any responsibility in 18 years.
I find it interesting that this lawsuit is going on. I guess that is what peaked my interest about the article. I understand his point- I do not agree, but I see his point. He may really have believed her, she really may have said it. But bottom line do not let anyone dictate your life!
i had to think about this one for a while... and the only thing i can come up with is that in haste people (can) make decisions that in the end cause regret for which no amount of repentance will erase. as i have said before -- i do not like organized religion and i also don't like government infringing on religious rights-- but life really is not as complex as we make excuses for it to be.
__________________
You should fear anything that can bleed for seven days without dying... (as told to Mr. DS on 3-12-10)
I'm going to have to agree with Dylan on the point that if dude didn't want to run the risk of fathering a child, he should have kept it zipped up. At a minimum, he should have done what he apparently didn't do and used a condom. He mentions that the woman repetitively reassured him that she was physically unable to have children. I would guess that he took that as gospel and therefore decided that he didn't need to protect himself. Wrong-o, buck-o. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
__________________
MM
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
It simply amazes me how people can be so unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions. I know single mothers who don't even bother to try to collect child support from their deadbeats because they know it will be a never ending battle. I guess I count myself lucky that my mother raised me with the expectation that if I ever had children, those children are my responsiblity... not anyone else's. I generally even assume my step-kids are my personal responsibility.
I can almost hear the thought process that must have gone on in this woman's head: "Oh sure, he says he doesn't want a child. Just wait until this baby is born. He will fall in love with her, and probably me too for showing him how wrong he was." I just hope she is in a position to care for this child without dude's financial contribution because I bet he won't be easy to collect from.
__________________
MM
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
I get the impression this guy was recruited to be the poster boy for this kind of suit...
The lawyer could be trying some creative lawyering, but I guess this is part of a bigger agenda.
Granted, alot of dads do get should get better visitation privileges, etc.... But this is just convoluting public policy.
I agree Mema, it comes down to personal responsibility...one night of fun could mean 6,570 nights of responsibilities.
Tennessee girl...I think our hero heard what he wanted to hear, whether Cutiepants was telling the truth or not. But I am totally shocked to find out the faire sex isnt always totally truthful.
All of that aside, it's the welfare of the child at stake here. Enough kids are in homes with two parents without enough money to survive. He should have enough cellular instinct to want the child that is half of him, whether he likes it or not, to thrive. Even if that means just providing monetarily.
Too many times child support becomes the neverending fight between mom and dad, and the child is just a shadow of a thought.
well, as someone who saw two older brothers get the wrong end of the stick (actually, my second oldest brother actually sued and gave up all rights to his son, and didn't have to pay anymore). I think there's a difference between the soccer dad's who get the kids every other weekend or for the entire summer, and dad's who try to be in their kids life, but the ex-wife/ex-girlfriend won't let them.
IMO, if you are active in your kids life, you should pay child support. But if you're treated like garbage by your ex and not even allowed to see your own kid, I don't really find any real objection to going to court and have a "well, I'm not good enough to be in the child's life, so you take all the responsibility in raising him/her". I mean, I know a woman who is divorced, and her and her ex-husband each have one of the kids.... but the husband has to pay child support for the daughter who doesn't live with him, but does she have to pay for the son who doesn't live with her? no.
Good point, I do agree that if a man is not allowed to see his child, he shouldn't have to pay child support. I just assumed that wasn't the case here since it wasn't mentioned in the article and it would be a good argument.
The little girl is the one the courts will look out for in this case, I guarantee it....mom and dad are adults and they created this and should have a much better understanding of how they wound up here...the little girl's interests are what matter, everything else is secondary...she is innocent here.
I understand what ANF is saying, BUT sometimes the man is not a decent enough person to see the kid. Take my case and this is why I say ANY sex before marriage is wrong. IF he is not worthy to marry- chances are he is NOT worthy to raise a kid. My son's dad turned quite psycho when Zach was 18 months- he tried to kill me twice, he robbed two stores, knocked the windows out of my cars, stole checks and bounced them all over town and did things that I am not even comfortable talking about. Well- I gave him a chance to give up his rights and therefore his $ obligation. BUT his dumba$$ wanted to keep his rights- to keep a tie to me. The judge told him (from jail) that he could retain his rights and have to pay support, but he would not see the kid without years of joint counseling at his expense. Well now the boy is 14- getting support and has not seen him in 12+ years. I would easily let him give up his rights- BUT I spent $10,000 keeping him from forcing me to bring my kid to the jail to visit and getting a lifelong restraining order, so at this point- HE WILL PAY AND NEVER SEE THE KID, who does not even want to see him
Are you accusing me of trying to start something?
I would easily let him give up his rights- BUT I spent $10,000 keeping him from forcing me to bring my kid to the jail to visit and getting a lifelong restraining order, so at this point- HE WILL PAY AND NEVER SEE THE KID, who does not even want to see him
