From a story at CNN, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old man in Saginaw, Michigan, does not want to pay child support for his eight-month-old daughter, Elisabeth. Matt claims he told his former girlfriend (the child’s mother) that he was not ready to be a father. He states that his former girlfriend knew he did not want to be a father and assured him, repeatedly, that - because of a physical condition - she could not get pregnant.
The gist of the argument is that if a woman can choose among abortion, adoption, or having the child, a man involved in an unplanned pregnancy should have similar reproductive rights. “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 National Center for Men. “I’m trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly.”
The lawsuit, filed by the National Center for Men, on behalf of Matt Dubay, states that Dubay should not be required to assume responsibility for his daughter, if he does not wish to exercise any parental rights. In other words, he is choosing to give up his rights to his daughter (please pardon the expression, but to “abort” his rights, if you will), and does not feel he should be expected to be financially responsible for a daughter he does not wish to have, or be involved with.
The case, which will be filed on Thursday, has been nicknamed “Roe Vs. Wade for Men”. Jennifer Brown, of Legal Momentum - a women’s advocacy group - does not believe the suit should be nicknamed what it is, or anything similar. She states, “Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want. There’s nothing equivalent for men. The have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized.”
Feit (director of National Center of Men) counters, “Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences. 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. 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 and Dubay say that the lawsuit is not being filed so men will have a fatherhood opt-out. In other words, it’s not there so that men will be able to have consequence-free one night stands, etc, or will not have to worry about using protection. Feit proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline all parental rights and responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither parent had desired a child.
Feit states, “If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible. If she can’t take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative.”
The case is set to be filed on Thursday (03/16), and is expected to start receiving flack from women’s advocacy groups, shortly thereafter. Womens’ advocacy groups are expected to start pissing off men and male-advocacy groups, almost immediately. Needless to say, it will wind up being a vicious circle. My prediction is for this to be a very vicious media battle.
Let’s get to the opinion portion of the post, shall we?
Here’s a very specific breakdown:
- Man and woman get together, in a relationship.
- Man says he doesn’t want a child.
- Woman says she can’t get pregnant, anyway.
- Relationship ends.
- Woman does wind up pregnant, has child, goes to court for child support.
- Here’s the big one: Man does not want to pay child support, and does not feel he should have to as he specifically told the woman he did not want to have a child, the woman said she could not get pregnant. A pregnancy occurred…
- Should he still be required to pay?
What’s your opinion?
If you say “yes, he should required to pay,” then - technically - you are stating that he has no reproductive rights, post intercourse.
If you say “no, he should not be required to pay,” then - technically - you are stating that a man has a right to terminate any parental rights and responsibilities.
My opinion? I believe that if there was a reasonable belief that pregnancy would not happen, then the man should not be required to pay for support if the relationship was already over when the woman discovered the pregnancy. Additionally, I feel that in giving up responsibilities for child support, the man should be required to permanently give up all parental rights. In other words, he will never be able to file a legal injunction to see, or interact with, his child.
There are a lot of you who will say that he should have thought to use protection. Let me rebuff that argument very simply:
1) My fiance and I actively have sex. She wears an I.U.D. that is shown to be nearly 100% effective against pregnancy (99.99%), and she was told by her doctor that it was that effective. There is no reason for us to pursue other birth control methods, as the doctor has assured us she stands such a miniscule change of becoming pregnant.
2) The man and his girlfriend actively had sex. His girlfriend had a physical condition that - according to doctors - prevented her from becoming pregnant. There was no reason to pursue other birth control methods, as doctors had assured her she could not become pregnant.
There are a lot of you who will say that he should take responsibility for the child.
What if he has absolutely no intention of ever being in that child’s life? What if he is willing to sign away - now and forever - all parental rights (including the right to ever visit/see his child)? Should he still be required to pay for a child that he did not want, that was discovered outside of a relationship (the relationship had ended when she discovered the pregnancy), that he has no rights to, that he could never see (assuming he signed away such rights)?
If you say “yes,” then why? In my opinion, the woman controls the man’s fate in this instance. If she chose to have an abortion, all is well and good for the guy. But it she chooses to keep the baby, then she can require the man to pay, regardless of whether he has any interest in the child - EVEN IF IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT SHE COULD NOT GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
ALL methods of birth control carry some risk. If they had used birth control, and she had gotten pregnant, should he have to pay? Why, if they were broken up, etc..?
Again, breaking it down: If my fiance and I seperated, and - after we broke up - she found out she was pregnant, I would have a choice to make. On one hand, I could be in my child’s life with visitation, etc… On the other hand, I could decide I wanted nothing to do with the child, and was willing to sign away all parental rights.
Regardless of what I decide, my fate is in her hands. If she chooses an abortion (or adoption), then I am liable for nothing. If she chooses to have the child, then she can sue for child support from me, even though I was under the impression that she would not get pregnant, she did not find out until after the dissolution of the relationship, and I had no say in whether or not she had the child.
Doesn’t seem very fair, to me.
Before you get upset at me, stating that a guy should accept responsibility, please realize that I fully agree. However, this case has extenuating circumstances. Had she not told him that she was unable to get pregnant, I’m sure he would have taken precautions (birth control), or (possible, but doubtful) not had sex, at all.
This case is set to be a defining one for the decade, and for reproductive rights. Before it blows up into a mass-media circus, I’d like to hear your opinion.
So how about it? What do <em>you</em> think?
*NOTICE: Certain facts from the above article are not contained in the documented source. Said facts were originally reported in a televised news broadcast on CNN, and are therefore considered as accurate as facts contained within the print version of the story.
Technorati Tags: roe vs wade for men, matt dubay, national center for men, Mel Feit, Jennifer Brown
Powered by Qumana
