Topic : 02/23 Exes From Hell

You might have watched the interview but once again, you misquoted. Try reading the transcript. The word infertile was never used. Here's the entire transcript: 

  

M. O'BRIEN: And Roe versus Wade for men? It's the tale of a guy who is fighting to get out of paying for a child he didn't want. Stay with us.

S. O'BRIEN: We first told you about this story on Thursday. It's a lawsuit filed for men's rights, a so called Roe v. Wade for men, if you will. At issue is a Michigan man who has been paying child support for his former girlfriend's daughter. He thinks he shouldn't have to.

More on this, this morning -- Kathy Rodgers, the president of a women's rights advocacy group, Legal Momentum, and Mel Feit, whose National Center for Men is behind the lawsuit.

Thanks to both of you for joining us. We certainly appreciate it.

MEL FEIT, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MEN: Thank you.

KATHY RODGERS, PRESIDENT, LEGAL MOMENTUM: Good to be here.

S. O'BRIEN: Mel, I'm going to have you start. Give me the nuts and bolts background on this case.

FEIT: We call it Roe versus Wade for men because what we want for Matt Dubay (ph) and for all men is what women have had since Roe versus Wade, and that is the right to have intimacy in your life without giving up reproductive choice.

S. O'BRIEN: Well, before we get into the debate over it, I want to talk about -- let's talk about your client.

FEIT: Matt Dubay ...

S. O'BRIEN: Twenty-five years old.

FEIT: ... had a relationship with a young woman.

S. O'BRIEN: Had sex with her and had a baby.

FEIT: Yes. And he's told her before and he says that he did not want to be a father. She knew he did not want to be a father. And she represented to him that she had a disease and could therefore not get pregnant. But there is a pregnancy.

And Matt said, "She knew before I had sex that I did not want to be a dad. It's not now fair to force me to be a father."

S. O'BRIEN: So he doesn't want to pay the $500 a month child support.

FEIT: Well, he doesn't want to be a father. But the issue for us is that as - he should have had what I think women have, is the right to have intimacy without being forced to parent. And I think it must be nice to be a woman and to know that if there's a failure of contraception, no one will be able to take control of the most important decisions in your life. You will have your reproductive rights no matter what, as a man I would like to have the same right.

S. O'BRIEN: So it's not about the money, you're saying. It's about...

FEIT: Well, the money -- the money is part of it because for the next 25 years, presumably, Matt will be reminded with every paycheck that he had no right to control the most fundamental decisions which affect any person.

S. O'BRIEN: Overstating it to call it Roe v. Wade for men, do you think, Kathy?

RODGERS: Oh, I do completely, because the difference here is that, you know, a woman makes these decisions and they impact her for the rest of her life. Whatever decision she makes. And she's going to have responsibility for that child.

It's entirely different when you have the government saying to you, I'm not allowed to have an abortion, I'm not allowed to make my own choices. Here we have two people who are having consensual sex, and there's no perfect solution to this.

And I think part of the issue is timing, because a man, if he really doesn't want to have a child with that woman, well, maybe he doesn't need to have sex with her, or he can use a condom. Or he can have a vasectomy.

FEIT: Well, let's be clear about this. The government is forcing Matt Dubay to be a father. And I don't agree it was consensual sex. Now, that's an important point.

I don't think there was consensual sex, because Matt had sex with this woman under the terms that he would not be forced to be a father. He consented to that. He did not consent to this. He did not consent to this.

S. O'BRIEN: And with all due respect, I'll tell you, this has a lot of the ring of the, "Don't worry, baby, you can't get pregnant," men have said to women for time in memoriam.

FEIT: And you know what? That's wrong. I don't want to defend any man who would lie to a man. Do you want to defend a woman who would like to a man and say, "Don't worry, honey..."

S. O'BRIEN: Oh gosh. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not in the business of defending anybody.

FEIT: Well, I don't think it's right.

S. O'BRIEN: But I'll say this to you -- but I'll say this to you, there are so many people out there who would say, 25 years old, you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. That's kind of the best way to protect yourself.

FEIT: And you know what? And here's the point, a generation ago, when lawyers argued against Roe versus Wade and they argued against reproductive choice for women, you know what they said? They said women have the right not to have a baby by not having sex. And feminists fought against that argument and they discredited that argument.

Why do they now turn around and use it against men when we want exactly the same rights that women have?

S. O'BRIEN: Is there a point, though, that Matt here, really has no voice in what happens to this baby? He said he wants to put the baby up for adoption. Well, you know, he doesn't have a say. She gets to decide.

He could have said, gee, I prefer not to be a father, why don't you have an abortion? You know what? He didn't have a say. This child is his child, and yet he really lacks a voice in what is going to happen to the baby.

RODGERS: There isn't a solution here that allows Matt and the girlfriend to have everything that they want. There is no perfect solution.

Once the baby is born, there's a new element, which is the welfare of the child. And that's really how the government looks at it, which is that the father has to pay something to the support of the mother.

She will be doing much more. She will be paying much more. She will be taking care of that child 24/7. He's not being asked to change his life.

FEIT: That's her choice. That's her choice.

RODGERS: He's not even being asked to change a diaper.

FEIT: That's her -- no, no, he's being -- well, you pay the child support for him and see what...

RODGERS: Don't interrupt. He made a choice when he had sex with that woman. And he's got the timing wrong. He could have made his decisions then. He had total control, and to rely on somebody else, if that was that important to him, that was his mistake.

S. O'BRIEN: Do you think...

FEIT: Can I suggest a solution here? Because Kathy said there's no perfect solution. I think there's a solution that's in the best interest of the child and that will give men and women equal choice. And that is adoption. I think if a woman...

S. O'BRIEN: So you think adopting this baby, taking her from her natural mother is the best -- is the best choice for the child?

FEIT: Well, you know what? Do you think it's a good choice to force a person to be responsible as a parent if he chooses not to be? I don't think that's a good thing either.

S. O'BRIEN: That's -- so sending the baby off to adoptive parents...

FEIT: Well, that's what's in the best interest of the child.

S. O'BRIEN: ... when the mother would like to keep the baby is a better choice than having...

FEIT: Yes.

S. O'BRIEN: ... the natural father paying $500 a month?

FEIT: Forcing someone to be a father, a parent, against his will, is not a good answer. Is not a good answer.

S. O'BRIEN: Well, a parent, versus someone who is financially paying, right? I mean, he's not parenting, he's paying.

FEIT: He's paying a lot of money, and he will be reminded for every week for the next 25 years that he had no say and no voice and no choice. His choice was to not be a parent.

S. O'BRIEN: I think that this -- this very case is really -- I mean, you can tell by this debate it's opening the door of really an issue about, you know, rights, parental rights on both sides.

I thank you both for coming in, because clearly we could continue this discussion for a long time.

Thank you very much.

FEIT: Thank you.

S. O'BRIEN: Mel Feit, the executive director of the National Center for Men, Kathy Rodgers, the president of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum -- Miles.
 

This excerpt is from Ken Connor, chairman of the Center for a Just Society. He is a trial and appellate attorney, known for his successful representation of victims of nursing home abuse and neglect. He is a past president of the Family Research Council. The full article is at http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13305  Mr. Connor is pro-life (anti-abortion) and discusses the Matt Dubay lawsuit. He concludes: 

  

This case not only exemplifies the shallow logic of the pro-choice position, but it also reminds us of a terrible problem in America: irresponsible men. In the pro-life movement we must never forget that for every woman who chooses abortion there is a man who fathered a child. Sometimes the men involved are heartbroken, sometimes they desperately want to keep the baby, but all too often these men are either entirely indifferent, or they pressure the mother to have an abortion.

How many babies would have been saved from abortion if their fathers actually took responsibility, helped the mother through the pregnancy, or even offered to marry her? Here's a news flash: it takes both a man and a woman to create a baby. Over the last thirty-three years since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion men have been all too quick to abdicate their parental responsibilities. In a just society real men take responsibility for their actions... and their children.  

  

  

I've never heard of a Director of any Nonprofit, Public Housing, or Section VIII Housing to be a an unpaid position for all of the regulations and responsibilities that they are in charge of.  Now the board of directors are usually voluntary... you sure you're not holding one of those positions?

Exactly... IF she was lying, then it would be in the findings of fact.   I would not automatically assume that she was lying.  There may very well be a valid reason where she was told by her doctor that she couldn't conceive or maybe she misinterpreted what her doctor said.  Nonetheless, she was using contraception herself as precautionary measures which was also not disputed in the federal complaint.  The burden of proof is on the person accusing her of lying.  Just because he was told she was infertile, does not mean that she was purposefully deceiving him as she may have believed that herself.

And what's with him paying child support for the next 25 years?  What happened to what's written as law to providing support until the child turns 18 or completes high school, whichever is later?  It's only longer if both parents consent to that length of time and if a parent changes their mind, they can request a modification to change the order to reflect it and the court must default down to what's in statute.

kinda like the abortion debate I guess.. for you the ends justify the means.. and you hide behind your courts not being able to address the issue...so you pretend people need to "grow up" over it. 

you are on the wrong side of the issue. 

  

It is not about the morality questions surrounding homosexuality..lying about homosexuality does not empty a persons wallet for 20 years while the liar collects a cheque. 

  

  

Yes by the way... I feel that if you came to rely on the LIE.. and then further she goes to your secretary and gloats about it.. hangs around your neighbours houses introducing herself.. terrorizes someones 70 year old mother.. I guess we need to grow up. 

  

Everybody wants Matt to "stand up.. be a man etc".. well the kid has a point.. he was lied to .. the whole process starts with a fraud... If you commit fraud in a Mans world.. you can end up like the CEO of Enron 

  

By being a cheerleader for  women who commit fraud against men you set back the ability of men to believe women can be held to the same level of accountability... by holding women to the same standards as men you will go a long way to enhancing equality. 

  

We hold women to contracts.. we take them at their word.. we enforce contracts involving them.. we send them to jail when they lie in court.. we dont treat lying women differently from lying men... people who seek to excuse fraud in women are really saying.. they cant be trusted .. not like men anyway.. and you know.. thats wrong.. but still you seek to call the lies that women tell.. that derail a mans life as trivial... 

it is morally wrong.. and from an equality standpoint it sets women in general back. 

saying " dont know the first thing about moral wrongs" is too funny.. you are standing on the deck of the titanic  defending the iceberg 

  

In a just soceity... both men.. and women.. take responsibility for their actions... 

  

trying to make men responsible.. while looking the other way at lies women tell.. is neither "just" nor "responsible" 

  

You make me laugh about Roe making Men abdicate their responsibility..roll on the floor laughing...last time I checked women got abortions... not men... a surgical ducking of responsibility.. her choice.. and I support that.. but really... abortion does not make men irresponsible.. the option of terminating a pregnancy affords far more irresponsibility to the person who actually gets pregnant.. they can have a choice to mitigate their responsibility after the fact... 

  

you should move off the "be a man" rhetoric and try... to encourage people to be fair with each other. 

we have already looked at and litigated the "lying" part of this case.. so even if the lying was the central part of the "issue" it would not get into court.. so the lawyers look at the equal protection under law.. its a bit complex.. but the lawyers want to put forward the part of the case that has the greatest possibility of success. 

If she was told she was infertile.. he might have still used a condom..not wishing to takr the chance.. it may be that she needed to forther assure him of the impossibility of pregnancy by adding the " i am using contraception too".. remember it is critical to the pregnancy that she finds some way to stop him from using protection ( assuming her motive was pregnancy and assistance in paying for  what she wanted). 

So you're finally taking responsibility (ownership) for your own actions to voluntarily sexually consumate with a partner without wearing protection for yourself, resulting in a child who needs the support from both parents to grow into a healthy productive adult?

Just because "we" have already looked at the lying issue for this case, it does not mean that "we" agree with your concepts.  Again, you're making assumptions for the case.  If the basis of the hearing stemmed from her "lying" it would've been addressed in the complaint to begin with as that would need to be taken into consideration.  The only issue that was brought forth was his "lack" of equality in the decisions made after conception occurred.  No where does it state that she was "trying" to conceive.  In this case, is no basis for the motive of conception deception established.  No where does it state that she deceived him in any way or looked for ways to prevent him from using his own protection.  Stop assumming there was conception deception in this case.

I dont think I ever said that I did not have sex with her..  

she represented that she was on birth control.. that representation was relied upon as factual..in so relying I was satisfied that the issue of birth control was adequately handled and we had a meeting of the minds in that regard. 

Her intention was to become pregnant and that intention was served and made possible only through the  misrepresentation. 

without the misrepresentation I would have taken steps to prevent pregnancy, she was an adult with experience in telling the truth in various other areas of soceity and as such treating her equally with all other members of soceity I found her to be believable. In believing her representation I unwittingly assisted her in achieving her goal. 

 am I responsible.... well I guess i am .. but the implications of that responsiblity have far reaching consequences in the equal treatment of men and women. 

If you seek to hold me responsible you are saying that lying is ok for women.. ( or you would seek a remedy for the lie) but not ok for men.. 

In reality.. lying is not ok for either. 

As far as the child needing support from both parents.... it is not "the" child that needs support.. it is "all" children. We will have LESS children born into poverty if we reduce the financial incentive involved to conception deception moms who seek to manipulate the system such that they can receive assistance in paying for the child they want.. it is easier to do if you get help. 

As far as "ownership" of my actions go .. Yep.. I owned the action..