Roe v. Wade for men

By
April 10, 2006

Recently the National Center for Men has made it public that they intend to help Matt Dubay in his legal battle against his ex-girlfriend for having their baby. Dubay contends that his ex-girlfriend understood that he didn't want to have children. He said she promised him because of physical health reasons she was unable to have children. Guess what? She got pregnant and now he feels he's being forced to pay $500 for child support for a daughter he didn't want then and doesn't want now. Is anyone really surprised that she got pregnant? We're surprised that Dubay is surprised. It's the oldest story in the book.

Now, the National Center for Men is spearheading a campaign and legal battle for men's reproductive rights. They want to establish a legal precident that could affect the lives of countless women and children. They want men to have the ability to basically sign away their rights and responsibilities for the children they produce. Just what we need – legal deadbeat dads. If Dubay's girlfriend understood that he didn't want children, then we assume that Dubay understood that he didn't want children. He should have taken all means necessary to make sure that he didn't procreate. Perhaps he should have gotten a vasectomy or used a condom? If he didn't want children that bad he should have taken measures to make sure it didn't happen. Why blame his girlfriend?

And, what about the little girl who is now in this world? Or the one's who will be in this world one day and are going to understand that their fathers – their flesh and blood – went to court to make sure that he would never be considered her father. In Dubay's show of complete selfishness he hasn't even talked about how the little girl may need a father now, regardless of how it happened. She's here now. It's too late for him to back out and it's not right to have children and not provide for them – whether you wanted them or not.

What if a man and woman get pregnant together, consensually? And then he changes his mind? What then? Is she supposed to be forced to provide for the child alone just because he changed his mind? With social services rapidly declining is she supposed to have an abortion or chose adoption because she can't afford to care for a child on her own? We think this is a sneaky back door tactic to limit women's ability to make choices and have control over their bodies. It's quite possible that next men will sound the cry for wanting babies women have decided they don't want. Are we going to force these women to carry babies to term? Reproductive rights should be a decision between two consenting adults, however in reality we cannot force the people whose body is at stake to do anything she doesn't want to.


Roe v. Wade for men was published on April 10, 2006 in Editorial

Print this page Print this page