Male based Roe-v-Wade ...

March 18th, 2006  
Chief Bones

Topic: Male based Roe-v-Wade ...

Lawyers for Matt Dubay (Saginaw, MI) have filed papers in a local court that may end up having national connotations and impact the Supreme Court decision of Roe-v-Wade.

Matt Dubay (single) told his girlfriend he had absolutely no interest in becoming a father because he was not ready for the responsibility. She told him he had absolutely no worries on that score because she had a 'condition' which precluded any possibility of her getting pregnant.

I am not sure of the next series of events .. break up and then find out she's pregnant (or) find out she's pregnant and break up ...... but ...

Whichever way it came about, she had a baby girl, took him to court for child support and now the court has ordered Matt to pay $500.00 a month child support. The first time Matt saw his daughter was in court.

Matt is suing his ex-girlfriend and the State of Michigan using a reverse Roe-v-Wade theory. Matt contends "Why should he have to pay for a child which she knew he didn't want and that she said wasn't possible in the first place". "She had Roe-v-Wade to fall back on ... but ... what about him?" "All of her rights were protected but his rights were violated by her and the State of Michigan".

1) Does he stand a chance of winning in the lower courts?
2) If he wins (or) loses ... will he stand a chance with the US Supreme Court if it should come to that?
3) Do you think his contention holds water? ... remember ... his ex-girlfriend knew he didn't want kids and she told him she couldn't have kids.
4) Should the State of Michigan have found in favor of Matt Dubay, even though he is the biological father of the girl?

Remember ... this is an unusual situation which may (or) my not ever come up again. Saying this ... it could still impact Roe-v-Wade. If other 'prospective' fathers tell their girlfriends that if they get pregnant they WILL NOT be responsible for the child's maintenance, the courts MAY rule that a 'contract' type agreement was reached between participants ... NICE HUH?????
March 19th, 2006  
My first thought is that when you sleep with a lady babies sometimes get born 9 months later. We all had biology in class and know what could happen when you entertain a woman. The only lapse in this thought is that she lied to him about the ability of concieving.
In most other circumstances my advice would be: if you don't want children with a specific woman don't sleep with her! IF you choose the play hankypanky with her.....well, you pay for it when it goes wrong!
March 21st, 2006  
Duplicate thread