'Male' version of Roe vs. Wade pending - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

GermanStar · #1 03-14-2006, 06:13 PM

A Saginaw, MI man is drawing national attention Thursday afternoon for filing a controversial lawsuit in federal court.

Matt Dubay, 25 says in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, men should be able to opt out of paying child support.

It's being called the male version of Roe vs. Wade. The man at the center of the lawsuit, Matt Dubay, contends that the court ordering him to pay child support violates his constitutional rights.

And there's no doubt that it's beginning to spark a major nationwide debate.

Dubay's argument stems from his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Wells, who he says told him that due to a medical condition, she was unable to have children.

That was fine with Dubay, who says he had no interest in becoming a father at the time. Wells ended up pregnant. And Dubay ended up with a $500 a month child-support bill.

"I do feel like I was blindsided by this woman," Dubay said. "She is now making me pay for a child when she knew up front that I was not ready to be a parent at the time."

"He chose that risk and everybody knows where babies come from," Wells said.

Dubay is being backed by the National Center for Men. They say it's unfair that women have more legal rights in the event of an unintended pregnancy.

Dubay's attorney filed the suit Thursday in a federal courtroom in Detroit.

The National Center for Men said they see the suit as a long shot, but Dubay's attorney sees it differently.

Dubay's ex-girlfriend has now been advised by her lawyer not to comment on the issue. Dubay has been in meetings all day since the suit was filed.

Nate · #2 03-14-2006, 06:44 PM

finally

John Doe · #3 03-14-2006, 06:51 PM

Could make me a ton of money if he wins. I hope he loses.

Nate · #4 03-14-2006, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Could make me a ton of money if he wins. I hope he loses.

why?

MTI · #5 03-15-2006, 12:36 AM

What does "being duped" have to do with "the best interests of the child?"

If he feels he was misled or defrauded, his suit should be againt the woman for fraud, not to duck child support, which is not an obligation to the woman, but to the child.

Angel · #6 03-15-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

The National Center for Men said they see the suit as a long shot, but Dubay's attorney sees it differently.

Wow.

I never knew that we had a "National center for men" I'm gonna have to google them up and see what other topics they take a stand on. (espn ? Beer ? Car legislation ?)

chuckle

-John

el presidente · #7 03-15-2006, 07:51 AM

What a putz.....another idiot jackass not wanting to accept any responsibility.

#8 03-15-2006, 08:30 AM

Whether he is a jackass or not it takes two to make a baby and he should have equal choice for an abortion. I hope it throws some mud at the pro abortion crowd.

pxland · #9 03-15-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Matt Dubay, 25

Dubay's argument stems from his ex-girlfriend, Lauren Wells, who he says told him that due to a medical condition, she was unable to have children.

That was fine with Dubay, who says he had no interest in becoming a father at the time. Wells ended up pregnant. And Dubay ended up with a $500 a month child-support bill.

"I do feel like I was blindsided by this woman," Dubay said. "She is now making me pay for a child when she knew up front that I was not ready to be a parent at the time."

Not ready to be a parent then don't put it in. This guy will go in my book as one of the ****tiest people of all time.

I really feel bad for the girl. She got boinked by this idiot not once but twice, and now she is going to have to deal with the bloodthirsty media *******s everyday until another baby falls down a well.

And the child....If she really wasn't able to get pregnant, and did, it is a blessing, even if it didn't come at the right time for either of them.

Think of the life this little kid is gonna have to lead because of daddy.

pxland · #10 03-15-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

and he should have equal choice for an abortion.

I too believe that he (Matt Dubay) should have been aborted!

#11 03-15-2006, 08:58 AM

Michigan is ground zero for fathers rights cases. This is fact so google it if you would like, if you have a women has a child and says it is yours and you have no reason to doubt that it is yours you are responsible for that child until it is 18, unless you request a DNA test, even if it is found later that the child is not yours.

Cases like this are popping up amongst married couples every day around here and the non-father is still being stuck with the bill.

You guys can beat the good guy all drum all you want but when a system gets as lop sided as Michigan this stuff happens.

el presidente · #12 03-15-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

Michigan is ground zero for fathers rights cases. This is fact so google it if you would like, if you have a women has a child and says it is yours and you have no reason to doubt that it is yours you are responsible for that child until it is 18, unless you request a DNA test, even if it is found later that the child is not yours.

Cases like this are popping up amongst married couples every day around here and the non-father is still being stuck with the bill.

You guys can beat the good guy all drum all you want but when a system gets as lop sided as Michigan this stuff happens.

You need new judges then. My focus is on this case, given the limited details as listed above.

My deal is this: YOU help make a baby, YOU help raise/pay for it. PERIOD!

Non-fathers should not be stuck with any bills. Get yourself some new judges elected/appointed to the bench and get some sense into their decisions.

It seems this guy is the one attempting to shirk his own responsibility...that's the issue I have with this case.

Nate · #13 03-15-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

Michigan is ground zero for fathers rights cases. This is fact so google it if you would like, if you have a women has a child and says it is yours and you have no reason to doubt that it is yours you are responsible for that child until it is 18, unless you request a DNA test, even if it is found later that the child is not yours.

Cases like this are popping up amongst married couples every day around here and the non-father is still being stuck with the bill.

You guys can beat the good guy all drum all you want but when a system gets as lop sided as Michigan this stuff happens.

so is WI, but a little better

Takes 2 to make a baby... equil rights, not special rights

~Nate

#14 03-15-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el presidente

You need new judges then. My focus is on this case, given the limited details as listed above.

My deal is this: YOU help make a baby, YOU help raise/pay for it. PERIOD!

Non-fathers should not be stuck with any bills. Get yourself some new judges elected/appointed to the bench and get some sense into their decisions.

It is not the judges it is the law and you can imagine the political hot potato womens right can bring in the UAW state. Changing the law will never happen outside of the highest court in the land.

#15 03-15-2006, 09:25 AM

http://web.raex.com/~mrsid/newsflash.html

the news in the link is old but is pretty much par for the current condition.

and get this if you find out that your 5 year old child is not yours you do not have the right to visitation but you still have to pay support....real good deal there