NEWS: The Case of the Reluctant Baby Daddy

CULTURE: The Case of the Reluctant Baby Daddy

Have you met Matt Dubay? He's the 25-year old baby daddy from Saginaw, Michigan, who filed suit last week in an effort to avoid child support. Backed by The National Center for Men, an organization dedicated to the advocacy of, ahem, men's equal rights, Dubay's case, which has been nicknamed Roe vs. Wade for Men TM argues that:

Matt claims that the baby's mother, Lauren Wells, promised that a physical condition made it impossible for her to conceive. That's fine, but it doesn't take an OB/GYN to know that, well—you never know. The infertile have been known to conceive. It's not that shocking.

Said Mel Feit, director of The National Center for Men:

Well, Mel—I've got news for you and your little buddy Matt. You're barking up the wrong tree. How about focusing some of this energy on, oh—I don't know— the male birth control pill? Male contraceptive alternatives to condoms and vasectomies have been in the works for a long time now, but unlike the female birth control pill /patch / ring, of which there are innumerable choices, a comparable male contraceptive has yet to hit the U.S. market.

All you have to do is listen to a little Kanye West to know that this is a serious issue:

After scouring the National Center for Men website, I found no mention of the male birth control pill. Instead, on a page titled Our Issues, I found this:

Yeah, right. Women enjoy sexual intimacy completely free of the fear of unwanted pregnancy—especially what with all of the upstanding young men like Dubay out there. Men have notoriously had no problem swallowing a jagged little pill known as Viagra. How about giving male contraceptives the same chance in the marketplace?

And until the glorious day when men can pop their own pill, a hint: if you don't want to be a baby daddy, don't have sex, or at the very least, no matter how infertile you think you or your partner is, use a damn condom.

Uh, hello, condoms?

[Edited on Mar 16, 2006 3:36PM]

This topic already got done to death on the boards...

[Edited on Mar 16, 2006 6:39PM]

Ohhh, I'm not getting in to this one again.

More power to him.

the dude still has a point, if he didn't want to have it. She had the choice and chose to have the baby, if he was in charge of making the choice of an abortion or not, he would have.

I'm not sure what's more pathetic, the fact that they're trying to compare this to Roe vs. Wade, or the fact that they actually trademarked "Roe vs. Wade for Men." What a bunch of dicks.

Uh, hello, anal and oral?

And numerous other things which are only limited by one's imagination, none of which changes the fact that the guy was tricked.

What if it was defective birth control? Is he still not responsible?

That was not the case.

But if the couple agreed beforehand that they did not want a child (which is understood by the fact that birth control was used) and she reneges on that agreement, then no, he should not be responsible.

[Edited on Mar 16, 2006 10:21PM]

How far from being on the market IS the male pill?

Indeed.

As far as I am concerened about child support, i am half and half. I support it to an extent!! If a new father comes in the picture and he is the man of the family, then what the fuck do you need "extra" income for??? I understand it can differ if the real father is still involved with the child.

I remember a similar case (reported on these boards as well) where a woman actually saved a man's semen after oral sex and used it to get pregnant.

He was still held responsible for child support (last I heard.) That was a much more reasonable case.

Just swallow a tack.

You can't say that much..I mean once the girl is having the baby she has a choice because it is in her. It's much easier for a guy who doesn't have to really deal with it to make decisive decisions. example: well i don't want it.. damn that was fast. Men are tools in any case, but we make that decision to stick our dick in so we just don't have that much of a say as we think.

You're (again) connecting two entirely seperate issues. Whether men start taking the pill or not doesn't negate the questions over men's rights in the case of accidental birth, any more than it did when women started taking theirs. But then it's just a lame rhetorical manuver, so nm.

[Edited on Mar 16, 2006 by Jeff_Fries]

I think what might be being overlooked is that he just wishes that there were the chance to plead the case, prior, to say, a court. That it should be case by case, and not generalized. And what's so wrong with that? He's just looking for more efficient justice. If it's just some sleeze trying to get out of shelling out money, then the judge denies him the pardon.. but if it's a case where the male protests the pregnancy (maybe files a motion while abortion is still a viable option), then it could opt the male out of child support payments. I think it'll finally make pregnancy an equal decision, and it will leave less kids screwed up in bad/broken homes, placing a new decision on birth/abortion which hasn't yet been legally defendable. People will be forced to make more rational decisions.

It shouldn't be an excuse for unprotected sex, and an uprise of unplanned pregnancies/future abortions- but it should give both parties a fair share of rights. Considering the baby IS the biproduct of BOTH parties.

I mean, that's just his perpective, I assume. I think it's a great idea, but I don't think it will fly, and if it even did, I don't think it would ever be implimented properly, and would thusly be abused and run into the ground by slacker deadbeats.

We've been bitching all week in my Sociology class over this...surprising what some people have to say...

I agree...wrap it up man, wrap it up. And thats all I want to say right now.

But as they want this to go through, I don't think it will happen since they are trying to take away Roe V. Wade anyway. If we don't get it, then I guess hey, neither do they.

I don't want to get into this particular argument, since people in the other thread have said most of what I want to say on the subject. I don't think men having some say as to whether they want to be a parent is unreasonable, generally speaking, but I recognize that there are potential abuses and concerns vis-a-vis the child's welfare.

These "men's rights" people seem to be assholes, though.

Well ladies and gents, I can't resist not posting, especially with the commentary from Helennaomi on the news story about Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., who has filed a lawsuit dubbed by the National Center for Men "Roe v. Wade for Men."

Yeah, this guy is filing a lawsuit to address the issue of male reproductive rights, because he doesn't want to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend who told him that she was infertile.

He sounds like a bit of a loser right? Well, lets not go too rough on him, quite yet. It's easy for ladies (and some gentlemen) to scorn Mr. Dubay's actions as just another irresonsible buy, or dead-beat dad. Why is it so easy?

I'm not religious, but the Bible has got some good lines. Here's three of them from the book of Matthew:

7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
7:3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

The real problem I have with Helenaomi's commentary isn't with her opinion. She writes clearly and well, but the issues that she has raised aren't the issues that I'd like to see get talked about.

Let's talk about gender inequality. It's a massive issue hanging over our society's collective heads. Divorce rates are up, single mothers and youth pregnancies abound.

Let's not complain and point fingers. Let's talk about the issue of fatherhood. Motherhood is easily defined by the biological and emotional responses women undergo as they are pregnant, give birth and become mothers. But in today's society, where men are considered useless except to pay child support, fatherhood needs some major redefinition.

Dubay's case asserts: "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."

I don't think this is a great solution, but its the beginning of a dialogue that I think is important if the role of fathers and the whole notion of fatherhood is going to change for the better.

Peter Wakeman

[Edited on Mar 16, 2006 by Wakeman]

[Edited on Mar 16, 2006 by Wakeman]

[Edited on Mar 16, 2006 by Wakeman]

...so now women can say "he said he was on the pill! i swear! " lol.