LANSING, Michigan (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, agreed with a lower court judge that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous.

Dubay, 25, had said ex-girlfriend Lauren Wells knew he didn't want to have a child and assured him repeatedly she couldn't get pregnant because of a medical condition.

He argued that if a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Bay City disagreed, rejecting Dubay's argument that Michigan's paternity law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause because it didn't extend reproductive rights to men.

The suit was prepared for Dubay by the National Center for Men in Old Bethpage, New York., which dubbed it "Roe v. Wade for Men." The nickname drew objections from women's rights organizations.

State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents.

Court rejects 'Roe v. Wade for Men' - CNN.com

When starting a thread,it's a good idea to add your comments along with the post...

This is an interesting case and I'm sure we will hear more about this issue!

__________________
"Destiny must be shaped and not left to mere chance."..Spencer Collins ..

There have been a number of these cases that have hit the court.

Here is why, IMO, they all fail...

The arguement is generally 'making me pay for this child is a violation of my reproductive rights.' The problem with that arguement is that, biologically, the male role in reproduction itself ends after conception.

The question is not whether he is being forced to reproduce (or denied that right) since he did indeed reproduce.

That's the way I see it...

Coersion to supply sex (for reproductive purposes or otherwise) is no excuse...The action was still based on the man's decision to drop his pants...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I see a exception if the sperm was taken from him illegally, instead of just "accept" a "donation".
May sound crude, but when a guy leaves his sperm in a woman after sex, he's not really entitled to demand it back or complain about what happened to it.

Kind of like throwing a baseball in what you think is an open field. Just because you thought it was open doesn't deny you the responsibility of the outcome if the baseball hurts something.

An exception I see is if the sperm is taken illegally.
A potential exception could be if a guy uses a condom, and the girl takes what's in the condom for impregnation after the fact. Even then I can't help but wonder if the guy is still "legally" responsible.

Actually I personally agree with that exception. The only problem, IMO, is that such a point would be virtually unprovable. Even if someone physically FILMS the woman take sperm from the used condom, it would be impossible to show conclusively that the pregnancy was not caused by leakage earlier or by a previous (or later) sexual encounter.

Bear in mind that there have been cases where sperm donors have been forced to pay child support. Here is an interesting article on the subject: Straight Dope Staff Report: Can a sperm donor be forced to pay child support?

Sperm donors forced to pay support? I though sperm donorship was anonymous?

That just isn't right. There's a big difference between a man having sex with a woman and not being careful and a man who goes and donates at a sperm bank. Yes, he knows that his sperm will end up as a baby, but he's doing it to help a woman, and a woman who goes to a sperm bank goes there explicitly to get pregnant, and knows the costs and consequences right up front.

__________________
Jesus Was A Liberal

If a certain course of action makes the mouth-breathers furious, then that’s a good policy. – The Practical Environmentalist

As I understand it, these cases have been from personal arrangements not through anonymous donation.

I do VAGUELY remember that there was a case a few years back in CA where a donor in a clinic was forced to pay child support, but I can't find any reference to it.