"Roe v. Wade for Men" dismissed
Categories: Just for dads, Divorce & custody
Did ya hear the one about the guy who said he shouldn't have to pay child support because he told his girlfriend he didn't want to be a father? Unfortunately, it's not a joke. Matthew Dubay claimed that his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, told him that she was medically unable to have children and thus he should not have to support the daughter he fathered with her. In fact, he went so far as to file a lawsuit, hoping to have Michigan's paternity law declared unconstitutional. In February, a court ordered Dubay to pay $500 a month in child support to Wells and her daughter.
Dubay also claimed in his lawsuit that men have "the right to procreate as well as the right to avoid procreation." DeWayne Wickham, in an USA Today opinion piece, discusses the first part of that claim, saying that a "right to procreate" would mean that men have the right to force themselves upon women. The second part, however, I completely agree with. Men certainly do have the "right to avoid procreation." No man should be forced to have sex at all, nor should they be forced to have sex without protection. What Mr. Dubay fails to realize is that he has -- and, more importantly, had -- the right to avoid procreation. He failed, unfortunately, to exercise that right when he had sex without wearing a condom. Because he did not take steps to prevent the pregnancy, he is fully responsible for it.
Luckily, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson agreed and dismissed the case in federal court. Dubay won't even get a chance to waste taxpayers' money on a trial, a good thing in my opinion. Michigan state Attorney General Mike Cox summed it up well: "This is an important victory for the children of this state," Cox said. "Both parents have a clear responsibility for the support of their child, no matter the circumstances surrounding conception. The court upheld that time-honored understanding. Michigan will not become the state where parents can opt out of personal responsibility."
Dubay also claimed in his lawsuit that men have "the right to procreate as well as the right to avoid procreation." DeWayne Wickham, in an USA Today opinion piece, discusses the first part of that claim, saying that a "right to procreate" would mean that men have the right to force themselves upon women. The second part, however, I completely agree with. Men certainly do have the "right to avoid procreation." No man should be forced to have sex at all, nor should they be forced to have sex without protection. What Mr. Dubay fails to realize is that he has -- and, more importantly, had -- the right to avoid procreation. He failed, unfortunately, to exercise that right when he had sex without wearing a condom. Because he did not take steps to prevent the pregnancy, he is fully responsible for it.
Luckily, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson agreed and dismissed the case in federal court. Dubay won't even get a chance to waste taxpayers' money on a trial, a good thing in my opinion. Michigan state Attorney General Mike Cox summed it up well: "This is an important victory for the children of this state," Cox said. "Both parents have a clear responsibility for the support of their child, no matter the circumstances surrounding conception. The court upheld that time-honored understanding. Michigan will not become the state where parents can opt out of personal responsibility."
Recent Posts
- Teen Auctions Mom's Naked Photos (7/09/2009)
- Evian's Roller-Skating Babies Ad - Cute or Creepy? (7/09/2009)
- Have You Named a Guardian for Your Child? (7/09/2009)
- Get Me Outta Here (7/09/2009)
- White House Aides Missing out on Family Time (7/09/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Anji 7-23-2006 @ 3:14PM
Glad to hear it. :o)
Reply
Melissa 7-23-2006 @ 4:08PM
I am so glad this was dismissed! If this law God forbid was passed you would have hundreds of thousands of men using this excuse to gt out of paying child support. Man up bitch!!!!
Reply
mecredi cruder 7-23-2006 @ 4:46PM
I'm glad it got dismissed. He's just another guy trying to use the law to get out of his responsiblity. The mother telling him, she couldn't have kids is not an excuse for irresponsbility of not protecting yourself. As we all know doctors are not 100% accurate and no one has control over mother nature. If you dont want kids, either use protection or dont have sex!
Reply
l estrada 7-23-2006 @ 5:06PM
This whole law suit should never have made it to any level in the judicial system. This young man makes a decision to have unprotected sex knowing that he is fertile and then wants to cry foul when the woman becomes pregnant! GROW UP!!!! How about taking RESPONSIBILITY for your own reckless decisions. Since you chose to have unprotected sex and fathered a child you need to nut up and support this child financially and emotionally.
Reply
suburbanmisfit 7-23-2006 @ 5:38PM
I feel for the little girl. She's going to grow up and someday she's going to Google her dad's name and all this stuff is going to come up. Hopefully she'll have grown up knowing all this so it won't be such a blow. Better yet, I hope that this idiot sees the light and tries to be an active part of his daughter's life.
Reply
Monica 7-23-2006 @ 5:44PM
is a fact a lot of women trick men into having babies, with the hopes of getting married and keeping them by their side... my sister did it, and I know lots of women who have done it...
the fact that the court ordered him to pay for this baby does not mean this child will have a father that will support her mentally, emotionally or physically...
he'll just fork over the money...that is very clear from listening to him talk...
I believe in being responsible for your actions, but I also believe that men should have a saying when it comes to who they father... specially if it was no accident and she tricked him into getting her pregnant... and God knows that happens so much.
Reply
LS 7-23-2006 @ 5:59PM
I have to express my outrage for the other side of the argument here. If it's true that she lied in the first place, why should he have to pay? It would be different if they knowingly used contraception that failed, or if they took the risk of unprotected sex. But.. she lied and said that she was "unable" to have a child.
True, the only people in the room at the time of conception were the man and the woman in question, and it's heartbreaking to have a child in the middle of all of this. And I think he should have used a condom, just to be safe... BUT... we're talking about personal responsibility here. Didn't SHE have a responsibility to be honest with him? He was up front about not wanting a child, why couldn't she just say, "then you'd better use a condom"?
Instead, he's on the hook for $500 a month for a child he specifically stated he didn't want. I think both "adults" are responsible.
In my opinion, this smells of entrapment on her part. She wanted a child, so she lied to him, knowing full well that he did not want one, but would be required to help pay for it.
As I said, it's a nasty situation, and one that will go into the logs for future teaching of my kids: if you don't want the consequences, don't do the act. Period.
Reply
Shauna 7-23-2006 @ 6:31PM
I think it's great that a man finally is standing up for himself. I fully support him. Why are women the only ones who can decide to have a child or not? A woman can't make a baby by herself, but a woman can have an abortion and the courts are mostly on her side. Men should be able to decide too. If a man wants a child and the women doesn't, the man doesn't have any say in it either. How many women out there pregnant just for a paycheck. More than you think! How many women have tricked men into having babies that they really haven't wanted. Either to keep the man around or try to change him. Again, more than you think! Women need to step up and start taking responsiblity for their actions too. Quit always blaming the man.
True, not all men are blameless but women are just as much to blame. Hopefully something like this would stop most of the hoochies and hoodrats from having unwanted kids. Women have just as much responsiblity to protect themselves from getting pregnant as a man does! Female condom, birth control!
They need to start making a man's birth control! But I'm sure women would just complain about that too!
Reply
Kristy 7-23-2006 @ 8:10PM
First of all, just because she told him that she could not conceive a child doesn't mean she was knowingly lying. It could very well be that her doctor told her she could not conceive, yet she did anyway. I know a woman who had a hysterectomy, yet still conceived when she was 45 years old! Miracles happen all the time, and this may very well be one.
Second, using birth control is still no guarantee that conception will not take place. The only way a man can guarantee that he will not help create another life is to not have sex...or to only have it with himself!
My son's father isn't in his life, but that is ok because he has a wonderful step-father who loves him anyway. Just because this loser may not be in his daughter's life doesn't mean she won't have a daddy.
Just about any man can be a father, but only someone special deserves the title of "Dad"!
Reply
Gwen 7-23-2006 @ 8:14PM
I agree with suburbanmisfit. Hopefully both parents take complete interest and responsibility in the little girl's well being as she grows up.
I hate reading about babies whose parents didn't want them and they end up abandoned, or dead, somewhere in a trash bin.
Reply
Karen 7-23-2006 @ 8:20PM
I think it's a shame that this man is being forced to pay $500 a month for the next 22 years is a shame if he truly told this girl that he didn't want a child. I don't believe it should even be a question of "he should have used a condom". If she made the decision to go ahead and get pregnant, after being told he didn't want to be a father, then I believe she should have to financially provide for the child 100%, no questions asked. She too entered into this sexual situation knowing it might possibly produce a child and she took that risk. The result should be her sole responsibility.
When a women goes to a firtility clinic and makes a baby, nobody forces these sperm donors to support the baby, this shouldn't be any different.
Let's look at it from a different angle. Let's assume this couple had mutually agreed to have unprotected sex because they thought it wasn't medically possible to get pregnant and that nobody was getting tricked and lied too. Suppose the female didn't want the baby and he did. He would have no grounds to stop her from obtaining an abortion and that needs to be changed. Men have rights too. Women can't have it both ways. If men are going to be forced to pay after a baby is conceived when they don't want to - then they should have the same rights to keep a baby alive and to raise it on their own and support the child 100%.
Reply
Uncle Roger 7-24-2006 @ 1:05AM
I'm a guy, so perhaps I have a bit of a different viewpoint from a lot of the people here.
Look at it this way, suppose I borrow money from someone. They hand me a loan agreement, tell me it's all standard stuff, and I sign it without reading it. Next thing I know, they show up and take my house because the contract actually said that as interest on the loan, they get my house. Doesn't make what they did right, but it's still my own stupidity for not reading the contract.
Now, suppose I'm in the bedroom with a girl and I say I really don't want to have kids. She tells me she can't have children so it's okay. Wouldn't I be pretty damn stupid not to put on a condom anyway? And if she gets pregnant, it's my own damn fault for not covering (so to speak) my tuckus (et al).
I understand the guy didn't want a kid. That's pretty wise. Which makes it all the more surprising he was stupid enough not to wear protection.
Monica -- Men do have a say in whether or not they father a kid. All they have to do, if they don't want one, is put on a condom.
Karen -- you said "She *too* entered this sexual situation... ...The result should be her *sole* responsibility." (emphasis mine) So you're saying that even though she was only one of the partners in the sexual situation, the responsibility is all hers? Why not all his? If two people shared in the conception, shouldn't they both share in the responsibility?
I'm sorry. The guy had at least three ways of proactively making certain that he didn't become a father: not having sex, engaging only in sexual acts that cannot produce offspring, and wearing a condom. Actually, four: he could have gotten a vasectomy.
He did nothing to ensure that he got what he wanted (or actually, that he didn't get what he didn't want), and now he shouldn't have to live up to the consequences of his inaction? Suppose I called up the bank and told them I didn't want them to foreclose on my house. Only, I never actually made any loan payments. Should I be able to keep my house just because I told them I didn't want to lose it, and even though I did nothing to make sure I didn't lose it?
As much as I could enjoy the fantasy of being able to wander around and exercise my "right to procreate" with every hot babe that catches my eye and avoid any responsibility by saying I didn't want kids, I'm enought of an adult to know that that isn't the way it works. If I don't want a kid, I need to make sure I don't have one.
Reply
S.M.Mehdi Hassan 7-24-2006 @ 3:14AM
Before writing my comment, I have read all the above comments and the news on Matthew Dubay. Here I can see that all the commenters have taken either Matthew's side or Lauren's; except suberbanmisfit and Gwen. Only these two expressed their concerns for the poor baby. This baby will never get parents love and care that it deserves. I think, American policy makers should think about "Live Together" seriously and pass a new law on child birth during live together . I must admit that the present law goes in favor of women. What Matthew says does not matter now. I am sure all the judges of USA will give the same verdict that Matthew has to pay for the child. It does not matter if he is telling the truth. This is unfair. I think, the best solution is to pass a law that would prohibit couples, who are living together from having a baby. The main advantage of such a law would be neither the men nor the women would get a legal advantage over another. I know this sounds wierd but think it from this way: it does not matter who wins now; Matthew or Laura. Both way, it is the life of the baby that would be devastated. Better if they were not allowed to give birth during their period of living together.
Reply
Jason 7-24-2006 @ 10:10AM
So by the logic in the article, women don't have a right to an abortion. She had the right to keep her legs closed and not have sex in the first place.
Reply
Brenda 7-24-2006 @ 11:19AM
S.M.Mehdi Hassan,
How do you propose to stop people from giving birth out of wed-lock? How would you enforce that law?
Reply
Uncle Roger 7-24-2006 @ 12:37PM
Jason -- I'm not sure whether or not you meant my logic or Dubay's, but yes, women have the right to "keep their legs closed". If they don't, however, and an offspring results, they are equally responsible, for supporting that child.
I don't see how that has anything to do with abortion -- that's an entirely different (and unrelated) discussion.
Reply
Christine 7-24-2006 @ 12:42PM
Ok.. why is it that everything comes back to abortion?
This woman did not choose abortion. And this case has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
Geeze.. why is it that some people take every opportunity to jump on one soap box.
If this woman chose abortion.. then he wouldnt have filed anything. He was not trying to prove women shouldnt have abortions.. if anything... it would be closer to saying.. men should be able to force women to have abortions.
Ugh.
Reply
Ashley 7-24-2006 @ 4:40PM
I completely agree with you Roger, especially in your comment. I find it infuriating when I hear about things like this, men who think that it is not their responsibility to be a father to a child just because they did not want one before having sex. I don't know about everyone else but I learned what caused babies when I was a little kid: If you don't want a baby then a) don't have sex, b) use precautions. My first instinct was not that this girl was lying about being unable to have children and instead that she was medically unable, that she had been told this -maybe I'm optimistic. In any case, regardless of what she told him he should have practiced safe sex! Condoms do not just protect against pregnancy and even if she was medically unable that doesn't mean it can't happen
Reply
Uncle Roger 7-24-2006 @ 5:45PM
For what it's worth, the impression I got while doing the research on this story was that the girl truly believed that she could not get pregnant.
Reply
lenona 7-24-2006 @ 6:24PM
Hi Roger. That was beautiful (the #12 comment). I wish those who disagree with you would explain what the difference is between your loan scenario and the other - *I* don't see one.
From one of my favorite columnists (from 1998, re an Albuquerque case):
"If this is fraud, then should we call a man's insincere promise to 'put it in for just a minute' assault?.......Every man could claim his girlfriend tricked him.......Every disease and condition in the country has its advocacy organization; where is the big fertile-male campaign to forward the development
of a male pill or a reversible vasectomy? Is male-controlled contraception at the top of the list of demands of any men's rights group?.......This isn't women 'having all the power.' It's men having their cake and eating it too."
You can easily find the rest, if you like.
Reply