• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy

Interchange

TRIBE Promoter
Please tell me how fuked up this is? :eek:

Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids

Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 6:52 a.m. EST (11:52 GMT)


Matt Dubay contends his ex-girlfriend assured him she was unable to get pregnant.

Family Planning
Reproduction
Abortion
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? 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."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html
 

deevah

TRIBE Member
when they make a depo-provera equivalent for men, i'll think about considering their argument
 

kaniz

TRIBE Member
Dunno, in some ways I think men get the short end of the stick in being forced to pay child support at times.

The women made continual claims that she was unable to get preggers - so as a result, they didn't use birth control. I think it's unfair to force this guy to pay child support.

I'm sure if he had ANY idea she was able to get preggers - he would of insisted on using protection or the pill.

/Generally/ speaking - if its an unplanned pregnancy. Just both of them didn’t bother to use protection, and they were 'aware' that there was a chance of getting pregnant. Then yeah, the farther should be forced to pay child support. Or even if it is a 'planned' pregnancy and they end up splitting up before the child.

However, I think in cases where the mother 'tricks' the father into it.
Ie: "I am physically unable to get pregnant, so I don’t need the pill, and don’t need to worry about condoms" .. or "Hey, I'm on the pill. *giggle* (no, I'm not really)" - I think its very unfair to force the father into paying child support.

Its like that girl who 'stole' the sperm - held it in her mouth after a BJ, 'saved' it, then got herself pregnant with it after, then expected child support payments. Really, who in their right mind would expect a BJ to lead to pregnancy? - (did the guy get ordered to pay child support on that or not? I forget the result of the case).

In /MOST/ cases - I do agree that the father should have to pay child support if he gets someone pregnant. However, I do think that there is the odd time where there is an exception to that rule, and the father shouldn’t be forced to.

question though: Did the girl really think she was unable to get pregnant - and it's a fluke that she did? or was she just lying about it all along?

If she 100% thought for real, documented medical claim - and its a fluke. Then, I'd go with 'ok, then have the guy pay up some child support' - but, if she lied about it, and no documented medical thing stating as such - fuck her, dont make him pay child support.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
Hi i'm God said:
I think thats pretty fair under certain circumstances.

Once safe, reliable birth control for men is developed, society will change drastically. Like it or not, pregnancy is a trump card that can be played without the man’s input. Male birth control will forever change of the dynamic between man and woman.
 

starr

TRIBE Member
kaniz said:
If she 100% thought for real, documented medical claim - and its a fluke. Then, I'd go with 'ok, then have the guy pay up some child support' - but, if she lied about it, and no documented medical thing stating as such - fuck her, dont make him pay child support.
how would you prove this at all?
 

kaniz

TRIBE Member
Well, if she claims that she is 'physically unable to get pregnant' - I'd assume that she had seen a doctor about it? and, wouldnt a doctor have that on file?

Or, did she just make the blind assumption - "You know, I've had alot of unprotected sex off the pill, and never gotten preggers - maybe I'm just unable to!" ?

I'm just assuming with that type of claim saying that you are unable to get pregnant - that she had been to a doctor to see about it, and the doctor was the one who told her that she was infertile/unable to get prenant because of some pre-existing condition.

And, if that was the case - and getting pregnant was a fluke - as both her, and her doctor thought that she was unable to. Then yeah, shit happens - and the guy should pay support.

However, if she NEVER saw a doctor about it, has no medical proof to back up the claim that she thought she couldnt get pregnant, and was either making it up, or lying about it - POSSIBLY (we dont know the whole story) to trap the guy into having unprotected sex to produce a child - then I dont think he should be forced to pay child support.

I do think that in MOST cases - like, 99.99% of them - the father should be forced into paying child support. However, I do think that there are times when a father is trapped into the situation by the female lying about being able to get pregnant - and in those times, I dont think the father should be forced to pay child support.
 
Last edited:

Subsonic Chronic

TRIBE Member
I think it's an interesting argument that shouldn't be dismissed just because it's "politically incorrect", although I would imagine that only a small percentage of men would find themselves in the same position as this Matt Dubay.

In his very specific scenerio (provided that his side of the story is the truth), he's got a good point, but this is the kind of excuse that so many lazy, shitty fathers could hide behind if they realised that they're not prepared to raise a child.
 

Booty Bits

TRIBE Member
i do think that some men are put in unfortunate situations of having to raise a child or pay support for an unwanted child, but...not to be too gross about it... if you are going to cum inside a girl's hooha, thats a risk you have to be willing to take.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Flashy_McFlash

Well-Known TRIBEr
Booty Bits said:
i do think that some men are put in unfortunate situations of having to raise a child or pay support for an unwanted child, but...not to be too gross about it... if you are going to cum inside a girl's hooha, thats a risk you have to be willing to take.
Agreed x 100000

From a young G's perspective
And before me dig out a bitch I have ta' find a contraceptive
You never know she could be earnin' her man,
And learnin' her man, and at the same time burnin' her man
Now you know why I ain't wit that shit, Lieutenant
Ain't no pussy good enough to get burnt while I'm up in it
 

The Tesseract

TRIBE Member
I think it's fair, but should only be fair through reasonable means.
If the woman says she's unable to get pregnant, with a valid medical reason, and becomes pregnant regardless, then he should have say.

I'm a little behind in the abortion debate... but i can say this is somewhat on par with that.

All of that notwithstanding, it's really up to the man to put a friggen condom on. Seriously, it's not that hard. And if it breaks or slips off... well... nothing should stop a guy from convincing the girl to get a Day-after pill.



Now... contrasting this with equal-access rights for fathers to their children after divorce... i think this might be a good step. We have a long way to go before we achieve true egalitarianism.
 

janiecakes

TRIBE Member
Littlest Hobo said:
Once safe, reliable birth control for men is developed, society will change drastically. Like it or not, pregnancy is a trump card that can be played without the man’s input. Male birth control will forever change of the dynamic between man and woman.
Uhh... what's a condom?
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

quantumize

TRIBE Member
I agree with kmac. If this woman was playing a game of deception than the father [Matt Dubay] should have no legal obligation to financially assist the baby.

If she did have a medical condition that prevented her from becomming pregnanat and she went to a doctor about it it should have been documented and that file would prove that she was told by a doctor she was infirtile.

I know that this case will most likley loose, however it does illustrate a very maternally biased system when it comes to custody battles and financial assistances in domestic cases.
 

quantumize

TRIBE Member
a man was divorcing his wife after 15 years of marriage and 3 children.

she had been cheating on him, abusing the kids, and leaving for extended periods of time

the case was heard recently and was discussed withme by a counsellor friend of mine, he actually had the transcripts at the time, so I can assure you he told the details of the case as they appeared.

Custody was awarded to the mother

The children have since been remanded to a foster home due to her many many citations for neglect of them.

The father is still fighting for custody, he gets weekend with them, and they spend the week with the fosterhome/mother.

this is an extreme case, but a good one illustrating my point of maternal bias by the courts in Ontario.
 

janiecakes

TRIBE Member
quantumize said:
If she did have a medical condition that prevented her from becomming pregnanat and she went to a doctor about it it should have been documented and that file would prove that she was told by a doctor she was infirtile.
That's all well and good, but how would you prove that she told the guy who knocked her up that she was infertile?
 

starr

TRIBE Member
kaniz said:
Well, if she claims that she is 'physically unable to get pregnant' - I'd assume that she had seen a doctor about it? and, wouldnt a doctor have that on file?
I don't think you understood my objection.
How would you prove that she ever made that claim....would it not simply always disintegrate into a "he said, she said."

Which problem do you think is more prevalent today:
Women lying to men about their fertility status to get pregnant on purpose.
Or men avoiding their child support payments.

AND which issue do you think negatively impacts society more?

As well, if you think that 99.9% of the cases will end up siding with the woman, then is this really a valuable use of the courts time and resources?

I would argue that it is more important to have children not fall into poverty for a healthier society and that setting this precedent will do more harm than good.
 

quantumize

TRIBE Member
janiecakes said:
That's all well and good, but how would you prove that she told the guy who knocked her up that she was infertile?
i guess you couldnt unless there were emails or text messages or voicemails [which i highly doubt there were]

so he will probably loose the case, as the onus will be on him to prove she made thee claims
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Littlest Hobo

TRIBE Member
janiecakes said:
Uhh... what's a condom?
Condom’s are different because lots of men (and women) don’t like them and thus won’t use them when they really should, and rely on the women soley for birth control. The potential for shenanigans are larger with condoms than with a birth control device used solely by men at their discretion.

With the male pill, men would not have to rely on women to control their parenthood destinies. Most men would likely live out a perpetual adolesence.
 

LeoGirl

TRIBE Member
The Tesseract said:
All of that notwithstanding, it's really up to the man to put a friggen condom on. Seriously, it's not that hard. And if it breaks or slips off... well... nothing should stop a guy from convincing the girl to get a Day-after pill.
I think that's where things get really grey. What is she refuses the take the Morning-After pill?

Generally I'm in agreement, but only in very specific cirCUMstances.

And at the same time, I think a man should have a right to be a part of his childs life. I think too often men are given a bum deal when when parents separate (ie. custody, visitation, etc. )
 
Last edited:

grumblegirl

TRIBE Member
two points:

if a man wants to make sure he's not gettin' a chick knocked up, he should have a vasectomy. otherwise - he's either trusting her, or trusting condoms, and if you're so incredibly opposed to having children that you even refuse to support any accidental kids that arise - you shouldn't be trusting her, or condoms.

also - everyone is concentrating on the parents' rights... once a kid is born - it has rights. and they supercede the parents. sorry. but they do.

so dad didn't want kids - well - he should not have had sex then. kids are a pretty common side-effect to sex.
 

Amy_J

TRIBE Member
In this case, if he just up and believed that she was telling him the truth and decided to not take the precautions anyhow, it's his own fault and he should own up to that.
 

starr

TRIBE Member
Littlest Hobo said:
With the male pill, men would not have to rely on women to control their parenthood destinies. Most men would likely live out a perpetual adolesence.
I don't think I'd trust a guy with a male pill unless we were in a commited relationship and even then.

I love how it's always the women who "traps" the man.

Each individual is responsible for their own reproductive rights. If some guy I was dating said he was on the male pill OR was infertile is it okay for me to be all dumbshit and think great? No, I'm still responsible for my own body. I'd still insist we used condoms, until we more more serious and even then I'd likely go on the pill when we stopped.

Accidents happen even with people that think they are infertile. Be responsible for yourself and be prepared to deal with unexpected consequences. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top