Mich. paternity law dispute: A weak man, weaker case

Another idiot that just doesn't get it - even though he fully admits that
Dubay was swindled, ".. the child's mother, told him she was infertile and
was using a contraceptive "as an extra layer of assurance and protection.""

Good grief, even the likes of Homer Simpson could figure this one out.

You'll also notice how there is no listing of contact info for this
pin-head. He wouldn't include it with his article.
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ham-edit_x.htm



Mich. paternity law dispute: A weak man, weaker case

Memo to Matthew Dubay: When it comes to sex between a man and woman, the man
is - in the parlance of corporate America - a general partner with a
minority ownership stake in the outcome of that relationship.
A woman, on the other hand, is the partner who owns the controlling
interests over the product of that union.

That's the message someone should have sent to the Saginaw, Mich., man
before he filed the lawsuit in federal court last week that has been called
"Roe v. Wade for Men." Dubay wants the court to rule that Michigan's
paternity law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

What he's really trying to do is weasel out of making support payments for
the child he fathered out of wedlock. Dubay says he shouldn't have to
provide for his offspring because Lauren Wells, the child's mother, told him
she was infertile and was using a contraceptive "as an extra layer of
assurance and protection."

Dubay says his sexual relationship with Wells was predicated on his belief
that she didn't want to - and couldn't - get pregnant. To make him support a
child he didn't consent to have is a form of gender-based discrimination, he
contends.

I think he's overdosing on testosterone.

Favor the woman

Sure, you can argue that men and women are equal contributors to the
procreation process. It takes a woman's egg and a man's sperm to produce an
embryo. And men certainly have a right to decide whether they want to do
their part to make childbirth possible. But consciously or unconsciously, a
man gambles with the possibility that intercourse might turn into
procreation every time he has sex with a woman.

That's the risk Dubay took in his liaison with Wells. While women and men
should be protected equally from being forced to have sex, once they
voluntarily commit to the act, the scales of justice do - and should - tilt
in a woman's favor. That's because women, not men, bear the physical burden
of pregnancy and childbirth - and are almost always left with the job of
child rearing if the relationship that produced that offspring dissolves.

In his lawsuit, Dubay says men have "the right to procreate as well as the
right to avoid procreation." I think that argument is sterile. To uphold
that view is to enshrine into law the barbarian notion that men can force
themselves upon unwilling women. How else could a male's "right" to
procreate be guaranteed?

Waste of money

Any money spent on this frivolous lawsuit could be better used to care for
the child Dubay fathered. Instead, he is asking the court to award him an
unspecified amount of monetary damages. Dubay also wants Michigan's
paternity law overturned so that he and "other similarly situated men"
wouldn't be required to support the children they father.

It sounds to me that he wants the court to treat his relationship with Wells
like a partnership - one in which he has equal rights but can duck
responsibility for any action or decision she made that he doesn't like. In
the corporate world, that kind of partnership doesn't exist.

It's true that in a general partnership, the partners share responsibility
for decision-making. But they also share the liability and debts of the
partnership - even when one partner acts without the approval of the other.

I don't know whether Wells' pregnancy was an accident or an act of
deception. That's the risk Dubay took when he had sex with her. He says he
had no desire to be a parent, but he did nothing to stop himself from
impregnating Wells.

While Dubay could have used a male contraceptive, he didn't. He relied
instead on assurances from Wells that she couldn't get pregnant. Now,
Michigan is pressing him to help support the child he fathered.

That's not only a good law; it is as it should be.

DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY.