"Roe v. Wade for Men" dismissed
Filed under: 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."
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- When my 9 yr old daughter came home from school real upset, because kids at school can be so mean verbal, I told her the old saying. "Sticks and stone...
- Who lives at 1282 sharar Avenue, Opa Locka, FL?
- This is not a question. But their NO!!!!! such thing of a perfect parent like every thing in all our life is a learning experience.One thing we all pa...












ReaderComments (Page 2 of 2)
8-05-2006 @ 4:03AM
Anariel said...As a woman and as a citizen, I agree with equal protection of the law. This includes preserving the reproductive rights of men as well as women. Based on this clause, men must have the right to choose just as the women do. I believe in justice and the equality.
Honestly, it get very tiring that feminists stress independence and freedom from stereotypes but selectively choose what types of freedom they want. And it doesn't help that women like Dubay's G-friend make women look bad by lying and then demanding assistance. If you choose independence, then do not rely on a man to take care of YOUR child. A child that YOU decided to keep. If the man doesn't want anything to do with it then screw him! It's YOUR baby, not his.
If you feel that you cannot support a child on your own, then maybe you shouldn't be having sex. Or you should take appropriate measures to ensure that the possibility of pregancy is minimalized. I made that decision a long time ago when I decided to have sex. I don't need a man to raise a child, I only need a man to have one!
Reply
8-29-2006 @ 9:40PM
Dorothy said...THis is to the people that acutally believe you can trick someone into getting a girl pregnant. How does that happen? Please tell me step by step!! As far as I know, unless she rapes the man, he makes a conscious decision to have unprotected sex with her. He can say no!! If she says she is unable to have children, unless he sees documentation or is at the doc appt. with her when she is told, he should be using protection. You cannot "trick" someone into getting you pregnant. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. If anyone actually believes that you can "trick" someone into getting you pregnant, that person is obviously not mature enough to be having sex in the first place.
Reply
8-30-2006 @ 3:31AM
theresa said...yes jason, women have the right to keep their legs closed, but men have the right to keep their pants zipped, and not have unprotected sex with someone they may have to deal with for 18 years. it goes both ways.maybe next time this guy will wear a condom.
Reply