Saturday, March 11, 2006


This lawsuit makes a lot of sense. Yet I don't think the young man will win.

Still it will open up discussion and people will begin re-thinking the position on allowing recreational sperm donors, who are basically just interested in getting in some womens' pants, any legal rights to children that could accidentally result from the carelessness of BOTH parties.

A recreational sperm donor should have the same rights as any other sperm donor, basically none.

Nor should he have responsibilities either, meaning women should NOT be allowed to hit him up for child support.

The bottom line is that with many reliable methods of birth control available for women to use and recreational sex encounters at an all-time high, we cannot continue treating men we have no real connection with as if we were married to them. Expecting child support and continuous contact via visitation with your child, is just not sustainable over the long haul without a lot of trauma for everyone involved especially the children. These kids are often dumped off on unsuitable and uncaring men, with no real interest or connection to them, just the result of a casual relationship or worse yet a one-night stand.

It's not fair to children and can lead to situations where kids, at best, are handed over for long periods to men with no interest in them whatsoever. At worse, it can lead to a horror like what happened with that poor kid Jerica Rhodes. Some jackoff, who lived with her mother for a short period, got named as a 'defacto' father and Jerica was handed over like a puppy to him. Seven years later, stabbed 16 times in the face, neck and head by this defacto monster...

Some Judge wanting to experiment with this kid's life was responsible for this.

But the ultimate responsibility was the laws that allows recreational sperm donors any rights to children created during 'sports sex' marathons.

Fathers get rights through a legal marriage.

Those men who chose to procreate outside of that institution risk having no rights.

It's pretty simple.

Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy

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.

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.

No comments: