Archive for Sunday, March 19, 2006


March 19, 2006


To the editor:

It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. Here's this young man (please, don't call him a gentleman) in Michigan who is protesting his legal responsibility to contribute to the support of his soon-to-be-born child.

It would seem that Mr. Dubay must have been present and consenting to his role in the conception of the infant. I doubt very much that he was reluctant to participate, but now that a child, soon to be born, will need his financial support, he isn't man enough to step up to the plate. He acknowledges the baby is his, but says he did not want a child. If he truly did not want to become a father, then he was in the wrong place, since creation of a new life is the very likely outcome of placing one's self in that situation.

One can only conclude that he has never learned that actions have consequences, something every child should learn at an early age. Such irresponsibility is appalling.

Marjorie Kincaid,



Jamesaust 12 years ago

Isn't it ironic that this letter (and an even more histrionic one a week ago) make arguments identical to anti-abortion objectionists ... except one must cross off "man" and replace the word with "woman"?

"If he truly did not want to become a father, then he was in the wrong place, since creation of a new life is the very likely outcome of placing one's self in that situation." Don't we mean 'If she truly did not want to become a mother, then she was in the wrong place, since creation of a new life is the very likely outcome of placing one's self in that situation"?

While I don't agree with the self-centered Michigan brat, his objection raises fundamental questions about the bias inherent in existing abortion law. I have no illusions about the law being symmetrical while nature is not, however, I do expect some vague equity for both parties.

For example, the law does not allow this man to escape financial liability. But the law does allow the mother to choose to allow the man to escape financial liability. 52% of never-married single mothers have sought no financial award from the father. Doesn't, however, society at large have an interest in a child having financial support from two parents when practical? Why does ALL choice lie with the mother? How does the mother's right to privacy extend past the womb and into all of a child's minority?

And indeed, the author LEAVES OUT the unique basis of the man's legal claim (I'll assume the author isn't aware of this rather than trying to manipulate readers) -- the man claims essentially that the woman defrauded him into impregnating her (the legal basis for his claim is (a) he made clear to her he did not want children, and (b) she claimed to be incapable of conception, apparently (c) contrary to her certain knowledge otherwise). In short, the mother treated the father as merely a sperm donor. I can't tell from the facts whether this is either true or provable (fraud is extraordinarly difficult to demonstrate), but if so, isn't the more elegant legal solution the assumption of the financial liability by the father offset by an award to the father against the mother for damages?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 12 years ago

The perfect solution for a man who doesn't want to be a father? Keep the pants zipped, bozo. I can't believe the men and women who don't want to ever face the consequences of their actions, and not just in the sex arena.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years ago

"Keep the pants zipped, bozo."

Hey, I resent that insinuation. We bozos recognize that an unwanted child is very un-amusing, so we are very careful about zippers (although we prefer velcro.)

Linda Endicott 12 years ago

It seems to me that since BOTH of them chose to have sex, then BOTH of them are somewhat responsible.

However, if he's telling the truth, then she knew information that he didn't. And it would seem that she knew the risk of pregnancy was much greater than he did.

If the story was a little different, and the woman was pregnant but wanted an abortion, and the man didn't want her to abort, then what would everyone think?

No, the law isn't equal when it comes to reproduction or divorce.

Lepanto1571 12 years ago

Well itchling, now you're concerned about "what's best for the child." Isn't that grand!

You little neo-Marxists are so amusing!

Perhaps you could explain how it's "best for the child" to have his little body ripped apart by a vacuum tube?

Better yet, where is this concern for "what's best for the child" when the good doctor jams surgical scissors into the back of her little head?

Financial support vs. Having your arms and legs ripped apart or brain punctured? Hmmm. "What IS best for the child?"

The political expedience demanded by neo-liberalism does insist upon one splitting hairs I suppose.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.