Male based Roe-v-Wade ...

Chief Bones

Forums Grumpy Old Man
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.(Roe-v-Wade for Men)

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 $250.00 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".

WHAT DO ALL OF YOU THINK:
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?????

For more information:

www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/


(or) Search CNN for article about Matt Dubay.
 
Last edited:
Interesting situation to be sure. My wife states she has a condition that precludes her from getting pregnant. I would be overjoyed for her to become pregnant though.

All things being equal and fair, why did the man take the woman at her word? Why didn't he use birth control or make sure she did? There is always that one small chance that something can go "right" in the wrong way and BAM...life's little gift pops up and you become a parent.

I sympathize with the guy in a way. But in another way I have to say that if he was so adamant about not being a father ,then he should have used some form of birth control to be more certain that she would not become pregnant.

If the judge views it that way I don't see how he can win. Even if it comes to the supreme court.

A contract perhaps. But I don't see it going that way. I have a feeling the judge will rule in favor of the mother and it will go on from there. Afterall, don't most courts view the mother as the "best parent" for the child in most custody cases. Isn't the mother the "underdog" and viewed in a more benign light than the father? I personally hope the guy wins his case.

In the end the guy will have to pay back so much child support he will be destitute for the rest of his life.

On a side note:
If any of you men out there do not want children let me make a small suggestion: Get a lawyer, have a legal document/contract drawn up so that if the woman gets pregnant that you relinquish any and all rights to the child and she agrees to not pursue you for child support. Something like a prenuptual agreement. This way you can counter sue her for XXX dollars for breach of contract etc. Nice plan? You may not be in that relationship very long after but you may be protected ,,*snicker*
 
Last edited:
Afterall, don't most courts view the mother as the "best parent" for the child in most custody cases


that is true, the only time not true is if the mother runs away from the child. She will not get partial custody at all, because for a mother to do that, says that there is seriously wrong with her. Many psychologists also think that if a woman says that she doesnt want children, theres something wrong with them also...(im deeply interested in psychology, thats how i know these things)
 
He has a point, at least it will draw awareness to this particular plight of men.

I have said it before and I will say it again: It seems man is becoming the victim when it comes to having certain inalienable rights like women.

How about a Man's Suffrage Movement? Something along the lines of this story?
 
Are you aware that there are two equal threads regarding this topic? And for some reason I can't copy-past my post to this link.......

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!

edit: Never mind my first remark... :)
 
Last edited:
The poor dope doesn't have a prayer.

Lawyer - Quickly walks toward Dope, "Did you have sex with ms X" ?
Dope - "Yes, but..."
Judge - "Please just answer the question yes or no Mr. Dope."
Lawyer - In a soothing and slick voice, "Ms. X, did Mr.Dope have consentual sex with you?"
Ms X - "Yes on numerous occasions." Sniff.
Lawyer - Walks to each woman in jury box. "So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what you have before you is a sniveling, rat of a little man trying to use this poor young girl for pleasure and then run out on her when she is most vulnerable. At the least, he is a child support deadbeat parent. If it wasn't against the law, I'd shoot him myself (Wipes a tear at this point) but, it's up to you to catch this rat in his own filthy trap."
Jury - "Get a rope."
 
I figure this whole thread needs to be in the "joke" section as it is difficult for me to take this case seriously.
 
bulldogg said:
I figure this whole thread needs to be in the "joke" section as it is difficult for me to take this case seriously.
I realize that some of us have stooped to the 'joke' ... but ... I posted it because it 'could' have some ramifications vis-a-vis Roe-v-Wade.

I also can think of a few good punchlines in a humorous vein ... but ...
 
Chief Bones said:
I realize that some of us have stooped to the 'joke' ... but ... I posted it because it 'could' have some ramifications vis-a-vis Roe-v-Wade.

I also can think of a few good punchlines in a humorous vein ... but ...

I think it does have many future remifications. Get a lawyer willing to go out on a limb and has the financial backing to do so and we may see the male version of RvR.

I have mixed feelings about this. In one way I sympathize with the guy, but in another way I sympathize with the woman. Mostly the guy in all honesty.
 
How can we fit this again the Boris Becker-affaire? He got a woman pregnant without even knowing or wanting it. He ended up paying something like 6 million euro to the mother...... You go figure!
 
Ted said:
How can we fit this again the Boris Becker-affaire? He got a woman pregnant without even knowing or wanting it. He ended up paying something like 6 million euro to the mother...... You go figure!


But there is a huge difference in the Becker Boris Affair and this one.

This gentleman seemingly made it clear that he wanted no children and his girlfriend reassured him that she was unable to become pregnant.

Becker went out and dallied while drunk. From what I have read Becker did not have a llong term relationship like the gentleman in question. Nor did Becker make any comments to the effect that the woman told him she could not become pregnant.
 
Becker was only mildly intoxicated when the woman offered ********. He accepted but she didn't swallow. She run straight to the clinic, got inseminated and give birth to a lovely daughter. Not really relevant but quite comic..... (sorry for the deviation of this topic :))
 
Last edited:
Not off topic...

Ted said:
Becker was only mildly intoxicated when the woman offered ********. He accepted but she didn't swallow. She run straight to the clinic, got inseminated and give birth to a lovely daughter. Not really relevant but quite comic..... (sorry for the deviation of this topic :))
It fits the topic in a left handed way ... we are still speaking about a man's rights versus a woman's rights when there is an unwanted pregnancy on the part of the man.
 
I just think that if the man explicitly stated that he didn't want a child and the woman has said, on more than one occasion, that she is not capable of concieving (either via birth-control, medically or physically) and she knows that she is lying...... then you have a case.

If it is: he don't want it, she can't have it, but she gets pregnant = he'll have to pay. (as long as she is not lying)

Problem : how do you prove whether is was a premeditated pregnancy or not.
 
Ted said:
Becker was only mildly intoxicated when the woman offered ********. He accepted but she didn't swallow. She run straight to the clinic, got inseminated and give birth to a lovely daughter. Not really relevant but quite comic..... (sorry for the deviation of this topic :))

Seem very comical given the chance that most, if not all the sperm, would have been killed or compromised by the acids and bacteria produced by the human mouth.

Mildly intoxicated or drunk is a matter of semantics. He was under the influence of alcohol whereas the other guy was not.

But I agree with Chief, this is a left handed approach but it still applies (if this was what actually happened). But in this case I would definitely side with Becker as it was oral sex only. Wasn't it?
 
Back
Top