We are all familiar with the civil rights movement and women's rights, but has anyone heard of men's rights? The National Center for Men has picked up an interesting case dealing with the rights of a man during and after pregnancy, which they have titled Roe v. Wade for Men.\ After trying for more than a decade to find a suitable plaintiff, Matt Dubay is now their man.
Dubay was in a relationship with his girlfriend for three months. She told him she was using contraception and could not get pregnant due to a physical condition. Now Dubay is the father of an 8-month-old daughter and, with $500 a month to pay in child support, is fighting back.
The lawsuit claims that, since women have so many options when it comes to pregnancy, men should have the same options to renounce fatherhood of a child they did not want. Citing a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause, Dubay brings up an interesting point which could throw a wrench into the controversial machine of reproductive rights.
""It's just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no options and am forced to live with her choices,"" Dubay told The Detroit News. ""The whole issue is, she made the decision based knowing that I wasn't going to be there for the child in any part and she said she could raise the child on her own.""
While I agree, in theory, men should have more say in the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy, I do not think there is any plausible way for it to occur. If this case were decided in favor of Dubay it would send a signal to deadbeat dads everywhere that they have no obligation to fulfill their responsibilities as a father.
Raising a child is hard, no one can deny that. Having a child at an unwanted time can be a burden on both the mother and the father equally. A single mother has to work and support her child while the father need only send a check. There is no reason Dubay should get out of the financial responsibility for his daughter. When push comes to shove he could have just kept it in his pants.
Dubay has selfishly put his own interests ahead of those of his daughter. Of greatest concern here is the child who needs support from both of her parents. Right now there is $100 billion dollars in unpaid child support nationwide. If he were to win his case, this number would increase substantially and the government would have to pick up the cost of raising millions of children, putting even more single mothers on welfare.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in ""On the Social Contract,"" argues that in order to live freely in a society we need to subordinate our will to the common will. In appealing to the common good, there is no practical basis for this lawsuit to succeed. Dubay may be free of child support, but millions of children nationwide would be disadvantaged if fathers were able to abdicate their responsibilities. It would do much more harm than good.
Erik Opsal is a sophomore majoring in political science. His column appears every Tuesday in The Daily Cardinal. We value your opinion. Please send comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
\
