Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Detroit Free Press:Did his right to choose end at bedroom door?


Zguy28

Recommended Posts

Interested to get everyone's opinion on this.

*******************************

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060310/NEWS05/603100318/1007

Matt Dubay thinks life is unfair, and who among us could disagree?

Some casual flings, after all, bequeath only wistful memories; others yield lifelong mementos with names like Jennifer or Jack and needs like diapers, braces and college tuition.

Dubay, a 25-year-old computer technician from Saginaw, says he made it clear he wasn't interested in the latter kind of souvenir when he began dating a cell phone saleswoman back in 2004.

Dubay says she assured him that wasn't a problem, explaining that 1) a chronic physical condition had left her incapable of conceiving, and 2) she was using contraception.

That seeming redundancy (Nonflammable! Fire extinguisher included!) might have given a more skeptical fellow pause.

But Dubay says he took her at her word, never suspecting he needed to take his own contraceptive precautions.

Imagine his surprise when, a few months after their breakup, the woman presented him with a daughter.

Last year, a Saginaw County Circuit Court judge ordered Dubay to pay $475 a month in child support, plus half of his daughter's health expenses. On Thursday, Dubay challenged the order in federal court, asserting in a lawsuit that Michigan's paternity law denies him the freedom of reproductive choice that women have enjoyed since Roe vs. Wade.

The resulting inequity, Dubay's lawyers say, violates the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause by imposing "responsibilities and obligations on men such as Dubay, while affording certain privileges, rights and choices to be unilaterally made and exercised by females."

"Matt was responsible; he was clear about his intentions," Dubay's lawyer, Jeffery Cojocar, said Thursday. "We don't believe men who do what he did should be forced into parenthood."

If Dubay's ex-girlfriend deliberately misrepresented her susceptibility to pregnancy, as Dubay asserts in his lawsuit, he has every right to feel betrayed. But I suspect no judge in the United States is about to penalize their infant daughter for her mother's alleged lack of candor.

Unfortunately for Dubay, courts have been equally reluctant to recognize fraud claims against women who deceive their sexual partners about their use of contraceptives or their inability to conceive. So Dubay is unlikely to get much satisfaction in court, unless he considers inciting water cooler debates its own reward.

The National Center for Men, which is bankrolling Dubay's suit, says it's time courts recognize how Roe vs. Wade has placed men at the mercy of women's choices. After the suit was filed Thursday, the center began distributing a form that it said men could use to assert their reproductive rights in court.

Concise enough to carry in a wallet, the Reproductive Rights Affidavit "is not yet an official legal document," the center warns, "but it may be submitted to a court having jurisdiction over family matters as a symbolic protest against unfair and unjust paternity laws."

Until the revolution comes, though, you might want to carry something else in your wallet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting case.

"Matt was responsible; he was clear about his intentions," Dubay's lawyer, Jeffery Cojocar, said Thursday. "We don't believe men who do what he did should be forced into parenthood."

My initial reaction is Matt may have done a fine job laying out his intentions with this woman...but he did a piss-poor job in taking care of matters himself. He should not have taken as gospel her word that she could not concieve/was on birth control. He should have made sure he was protected...so he is responsible for this child.

That's my initial reaction...have to give it some more thought though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it many times. Don't sleep with anyone you are not prepared to have a child with. Period. No birth control short of surgury is 100% effective.

This guy has no leg to stand on, in my opinion. If he could somehow prove she lied to him, then maybe, MAYBE he'd have a case. But beyond the he-said, she-said bit is a baby girl that he fathered, whether he intended to or not. I don't know why his arguement is any different than "the condom broke."

The kid's here. She's yours. Support her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine his surprise when, a few months after their breakup, the woman presented him with a daughter.

This part of the story is what confuses me. Did he or did he not know she was pregnant? The article seems to indicate he did not know...but how can that be if the child was born a few months after the breakup? Did she hide it that well?

I suppose the case would be a lot more interesting if the girlfriend told him she was pregnant, and then he wants her to get an abortion. She refuses and he takes her to court while she is still pregnant. I can see him trying to get that one through the courts (not that I would agree with that position, but I could see his point)....but...after the child is born...sorry pal. Welcome to parenthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it many times. Don't sleep with anyone you are not prepared to have a child with. Period. No birth control short of surgury is 100% effective.

This guy has no leg to stand on, in my opinion. If he could somehow prove she lied to him, then maybe, MAYBE he'd have a case. But beyond the he-said, she-said bit is a baby girl that he fathered, whether he intended to or not. I don't know why his arguement is any different than "the condom broke."

The kid's here. She's yours. Support her.

Even surgery is not 100%. Atleast male surgery. I had it done and the doc told me that sometimes the body re-plumbs itself. In the words of Jeff Golblum in Jurasaic Park "life finds a way"

I don't feel the least bit sympathetic for the reason Henry stated above. Sex makes babies. It's designed to do so and is very efficient. Now, I would like to see some sort of punishment for the deceiving woman, if his side of the argument is accurate. But ultimately, he helped conceive the child so he is atleast half responsible for her care. I can't imagine trying to wiggle out of parental responsiblilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I suspect no judge in the United States is about to penalize their infant daughter for her mother's alleged lack of candor.

This is exactly why he will lose his lawsuit. Child support is for the benefit of the child. No judge will reverse this. Whether he wanted one or not, he has a child now. It was his choice to believe a girl. He should have taken matters into his own hands... :paranoid:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it many times. Don't sleep with anyone you are not prepared to have a child with. Period. No birth control short of surgury is 100% effective.

This guy has no leg to stand on, in my opinion. If he could somehow prove she lied to him, then maybe, MAYBE he'd have a case. But beyond the he-said, she-said bit is a baby girl that he fathered, whether he intended to or not. I don't know why his arguement is any different than "the condom broke."

The kid's here. She's yours. Support her.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

fathering a child and then not wanting to be a dad is the most lowly act on earth. or at least close to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it many times. Don't sleep with anyone you are not prepared to have a child with. Period. No birth control short of surgury is 100% effective.

This guy has no leg to stand on, in my opinion. If he could somehow prove she lied to him, then maybe, MAYBE he'd have a case. But beyond the he-said, she-said bit is a baby girl that he fathered, whether he intended to or not. I don't know why his arguement is any different than "the condom broke."

The kid's here. She's yours. Support her.

I think what most people don't realize about this is, if he is successful in setting a precedent, it will throw the doors wide open for men to shirk parental responsibility. This is a pandora's box.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legal point he is arguing is one with which I have long had trouble.

The right to abort a child is based on a woman's right to have control of her own reproductive life. The moralistic argument against abortion says that the woman had the right to choose, and that she chose to have sex. After conception she should not be allowed to kill her own child -- she should live with the consequences of her initial choice, regardless of whether or not she wanted or intended to conceive a child. This argument has been rejected by the courts and women have been free to terminate their pregnancies since the early 70s.

Men on the other hand, are legally forced into fatherhood and not afforded the same opportunity, post-conception, to terminate the pregnancy. In fact, they legally have no standing in the decision whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term. Yet, they are legally responisble for the child's monetary well-being for 18-24 years, depending on the state.

In essence, men have absolutely no rights to determine whether the pregancy is terminated, but all of the responsibilities for the woman's decision. Under what fair legal standard is one parent allowed to end their child's life on a whim, yet the other cannot even choose to ignore the child? It is an inherent flaw in the legal rationale of abortion that I am surprised took this long to arise in the courts.

The other major legal flaw arises from the courts increasing criminal sentences for killing a pregnant woman. How can the courts say a fetus is not a child and can be terminated by the mother, then turn around and charge someone with a second count of murder for killing the same child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what most people don't realize about this is, if he is successful in setting a precedent, it will throw the doors wide open for men to shirk parental responsibility. This is a pandora's box.

Yeah, what percentage of babies are ones that the dad wasn't sure he wanted during conception? Probably most of them...

Besides, this whole law suit confuses the issue of "choice" in abortion. The choice is not whether or not you want to have a child; the choice is whether or not you want a child to grow inside your body for 9 months. It isn't reproductive freedom; it's personal freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On some levels you have to feel a little bad for the guy. That's a very devious thing for a woman to do. However, there are more out there like that than you think and you're being naive and stupid if you take her word for it and don't take your own measures to protect yourself. Like someone else said, it's the same as if the condom broke. He knew in the back of his mind this was possible, hell, she may well have been on birth control as nothing is 100% except abstinence. Own up, stfu and take care of your kid. Everything else is in the past but this child is here now. How anyone can father a child and then not contribute to raising it is beyond me. That guy ain't no man, that's for sure. Nothing but an immature child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, what percentage of babies are ones that the dad wasn't sure he wanted during conception? Probably most of them...

Besides, this whole law suit confuses the issue of "choice" in abortion. The choice is not whether or not you want to have a child; the choice is whether or not you want a child to grow inside your body for 9 months. It isn't reproductive freedom; it's personal freedom.

I agree. Personally, I would never want one of my children aborted. For me it's the wrong thing to do, I just don't believe in it. However, I still believe that it should be a choice that people are allowed to make. The reason I say that is because everyone has a different set of morals and standards they live by and I believe it's shortsighted and selfish for me or the government to attempt to force those standards and beliefs on another person. Being able to make your own decisions and believe differently than others is one of the great things about this country that I fear has been gradually shrinking in recent times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I say that is because everyone has a different set of morals and standards they live by and I believe it's shortsighted and selfish for me or the government to attempt to force those standards and beliefs on another person.
I have some honest serious questions.

  1. In your opinion, where do you draw the line with what is morally acceptable?
  2. Who determines the standard?
  3. Is there a standard for morals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some honest serious questions.

  1. In your opinion, where do you draw the line with what is morally acceptable?
  2. Who determines the standard?
  3. Is there a standard for morals?

That's my point exactly, everybody has a different answer to those question which is why I don't think the government should decide the answer to those questions. Abortion is a subject where my views on its legality are not firm because I don't feel like it's right, I just can't bring myself to say that others shouldn't have the right to decide that for themselves at this point. In general, if you are not hurting someone else (and this is the sketchy part when talking about abortion) you should be allowed to do it, IMO. For example, I don't believe that people are "victims" of drug abuse. Those people made that decision for themselves, it's a decision that everyone will have to face for themselves in some way, regardless of legality, so it's not something I think one should be able to face jail time for. I'm not saying rampant drug use should be supported, it's just a social not a criminal problem to me.

I believe there are some standards for morals, albiet very broad ones. I think that most people can agree on the basic morals like not murdering people, not raping people, not stealing, ect. There's to much varyiation among different cultural and religious backgrounds let alone variations within those backgrounds to be able to create a universal standard. That's why I believe if the moral in question has many people on both sides of the fence, it should be left to the people to decide if it's right or wrong for them, not the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not just like a condom breaking. A condom breaking is an accident. This guy is alleging that he was deliberately tricked into giving her his sperm. I'm not saying he should win the case, because he shouldn't, I'm just saying this is a bad analogy. I agre with not sleeping with anyone you want to have a child with, but you can't always tell right away. Some women hide their psycho side

very well and then after you get married, hell breaks loose. I don't know from experience but I've seen it happen.

If I were him, not only would I pay the child support, I would demand sole custody on the grounds that the mother was irrational, deceptive and untrustworthy.

Hypothetical question: What if he did protect himself and then when he gets up to use the restroom she goes over, takes the used condom out of the trash and impregnates herself with it? Then what would you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I believe there are some standards for morals, albiet very broad ones. I think that most people can agree on the basic morals like not murdering people, not raping people, not stealing, ect. There's to much varyiation among different cultural and religious backgrounds let alone variations within those backgrounds to be able to create a universal standard. That's why I believe if the moral in question has many people on both sides of the fence, it should be left to the people to decide if it's right or wrong for them, not the government.
Thanks for answering.

Don't the people make the decisions now on moral issues when their elected representatives pass laws respecting certain decisions, such as abortion?

While certainly most politicians are out to pursue their own personal agenda, there most definitely is still some "government of the people" since they do want to be re-elected in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering.

Don't the people make the decisions now on moral issues when their elected representatives pass laws respecting certain decisions, such as abortion?

While certainly most politicians are out to pursue their own personal agenda, there most definitely is still some "government of the people" since they do want to be re-elected in most cases.

True, but when 45% of the people disagree that's too many who are being forced to live within someone elses moral guidlines. That's why I say things like murder are no brainers but if there is a large amount of variation in opinion the minority should not be subject to other's morals.

I think this gets back to the problem of personal responsibility in this country, or lack of it. Issues that don't pertain to harm to others should be handled and taught by parents, churches, mosques, synagogues, ect because that's where morals are actually learned and understood. To most, they seem arbitrary when handed to them by the government. Morals hold much more value when you believe in them than when you abide by them because you have to.

Basically, my main point is, in a government controlled by white protestant males I believe it's extremely unfair to other religious groups and ethnicities to have to abide by the moral agenda set forth by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...