Sunday, March 12, 2006

King Solomon and the Roe-Men

March 9, 2006. The opening volley was fired across the bow of NOW by the National Center for Men. That was the day they filed a suit in a U. S. District Court in Michigan —

on behalf of a man’s right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy
The Center for Men has trademarked this suit as “Roe vs. Wade for Men” and they are filing on behalf of Michael Dubay, of Saginaw, Michigan.

Mr. Dubay is being ordered to pay child support for a small human being he never intended to bring into the world, and whose existence — he was assured by his former girlfriend — could never materialize since his partner was unable to bear children. Mr. Dubay also claims that his girlfriend knew full well that he did not choose to have children.

So. The Center for Men is asking for “reproductive equality.” They have begun distributing (for a fee) a document entitled “Reproductive Rights Affidavit” which could be filed by men in court. It says, in part:

“I will not recognize the moral authority of a court to strip me of my constitutional right to reproductive choice. I will challenge any court order that seeks to impose a parental obligation upon me against my will by asserting my right to equal protection of the law.”
Leaving aside the wimpy tones of “moral authority” — what are they going to do, flee the country?— Mr. Dubay and the Men’s Center don’t expect the win this one, and they are prepared for the long, expensive slog as the case wends its way up the system to (they hope) the Supreme Court.

Mr. Dubay is angry, obviously. He probably feels he was duped. As a computer technician, he may consider his financial resources inadequate to bear the costs of raising a child. And if what he reports is accurate, at the very least his former girlfriend has some characterological issues she needs to address…especially if she is raising a male child.

But since Mr. Dubay has chosen to lay his affairs on the table, the intimate sexual arrangements he and his former girlfriend entered into bear thinking and talking about. There are several generational layers here.

In the very old days, Mr. Dubay would have had a shotgun wedding that may or may have not endured. Then, beginning with the great sexual license freedom of the pill, women began to have the same “choices” as men, even if those so-called “choices” were not anything they were biologically or emotionally equipped to handle. However, with the rise of the politically correct women’s groups, there suddenly came into being the modern convenience of easy abortion. What had they to lose?

What indeed…but that is for another post. At the moment, we have the troublesome knot of Mr. Dubay, his former girlfriend, and his miracle child. Miraculous and inconvenient, and not a St. Joseph in sight to relieve him of his burden.

King Solomon &the Roe MenWe need a Solomon here. Someone to cut the knot of the problem. Except that he would simply divide the child between them, perhaps the right side to Mr. Dubay and the left side (or the left-overs) for the child’s mother. This might suit Mr. Dubay, but it couldn’t be termed a decision in the best interests of the child and his former girlfriend -- that five hundred dollar a month albatross -- would no doubt be most unhappy.

So it seems we have sexual freedom and utopia gone sour. Very sour, bitter, and with no possibility of resolution. Is there help for Mr. Dubay? Probably not. Is there hope for Mr. Dubay’s child? Decidedly not. Every child needs a father, but this is one case where half a loaf is indeed worse than none at all. For his money, Mr. Dubay is certainly entitled to reassurance that his former girlfriend will be legally restrained from speaking ill of him to his offspring. And if not for his sake, at least for the sake of the poor kid. His karma already sucks, big time.

My hope is that this suit blows the whole stinking mess sky high, with the sanctimonious “better-than-men-girls-rule” agitprop finally reduced to smithereens. Confetti. Were hardcoore feminists not so obviously anti-male, men like Mr. Dubay would not be in the position they’re in now. But the man-bashing, cultic women’s studies culture has brought this on themselves. Now their partial-birth, easy out abortions have hit a great big logical snag. For if a woman becomes pregnant, then her partner deserves some say in the outcome of her pregnancy. And that definitely complicates the equation geometrically. The rules are going to change before Mr. Dubay and his ilk are done.

Here is my suggestion to men: if you are unthinking enough to enter into unrecognized, informal, and societally uncontrolled relationships with members of the opposite sex you need a lot more than a condom and your good will to protect yourself. You had better start carrying legal forms with your contraceptive devices. They could read something like this:

We, John Doe and Jane Roe, are consenting to sexual congress on this date. Jane Roe agrees that should any issue result from this sexual engagement, she will not pursue John Doe for any child support or medical care arising from complications of pregnancy.
Signed and witnessed and notarized on this date.

Then, upon meeting a woman with whom you wish to engage in sexual congress, you could whip out the forms and your notary before you unzip and whip out anything else. Otherwise, I suggest:

marriage to someone you can stand to build a life with,
paternity insurance.

Yes, if you’re a busy man, the third choice could result in costly premiums, but surely no more than what Mr. Dubay has sadly and unwittingly contracted to pay for during the next eighteen years.

It is sad that the tensions between men and women have reached this exploitative and explosive level. What we are experiencing again is the Law of Unintended Consequences. All that “freedom” was more than we were mature enough to handle. We saw the freedom, but we ignored the responsibility. Again.

The old ideas of covenant and contract between men and women need to be resurrected, dusted off, brought up-to-date, and introduced once more into public conversation. It used to be they needed no explaining.

But that was before NOW.


Nancy Reyes said...

Pope Paul VI was right...

Papa Ray said...

I can't reference a link now, haven't had time. Sunday Mornings with an almost 5 y/o GrandDaughter are interesting.

Anyway, The link showed an informal poll (web based) on prostitution. Standard Questions and surprising answers..

As from my memory:

Have you ever used the services of a prostitute?

over half responded- yes.

What is the major reason you used a prostitute's services?

The various answers I don't remember, except for this one, which your post reminded me of.

Because I don't have to worry about post sex entanglments or problems.

In other words, you come in, pay your money, get your product and go on your way.

Notwithstanding, STD's (which are your responsibility and most prostitutes demand that you use a condom.) it appeared that this poll highlighted the main reason men use professionals for sex.

I my self availed myself of these available services ( AFTER my divorce) at various times in my long life for that reason. But mainly because it was much cheaper and fit my very busy life (I worked 12-14 hour days, plus emergency callouts at any hour in the night and weekends).

As you can see, during my marriage, I didn't see my family much and after the divorce even less. But one time I tried to have a relationship with an older divorced lady and she kicked me out too after about three months.

Her reason? She wanted a man that she have "meaningful time" with more than a few hours a week or on the phone.

You never get that kind of problem from a professional. They will take you when ever you have the money and the time and never complain.

And you never have to worry about calling and saying - " Sorry, but I'm still working".

Papa Ray
West Texas

Tamara said...

I think Mr. Dubay should stop acting like a victim, and take responsibility for his role in this whole sorry affair.

I don't blame him for being angry, since it seems he was deceived by his ex. Nevertheless, he chose to enter into an intimate relationship with this woman, thinking he could avoid all consequences.

The fact remains that the so-called sexual revolution still benefits men much more than women. The legalization of abortion and the easing of the stigma of single parenthood have enabled men to have access to women on a scale men in previous generations could only dream about.

I think both men and women need to understand that relationships that involve sex are never free of entanglements, and to think carefully before becoming intimate with someone.

Papa Ray said...

If I may, I take exception this this thought:

"The fact remains that the so-called sexual revolution still benefits men much more than women. The legalization of abortion and the easing of the stigma of single parenthood have enabled men to have access to women on a scale men in previous generations could only dream about."

I have had a long life and an active sexual life. I have many male and female friends that span from mid twentys to those in their seventys. Plus I have three Grandsons that have discovered "girls".

Abortion and single parenthood have nothing to do with their sexual urges, desires, attitude or behaviour.!!

I won't go into what does.

Papa Ray
West Texas

Tamara said...

Papa Ray, please let me clarify. You are absolutely correct. Abortion and single parenthood, per se, do not affect men and women's attitudes and desires. However, these have vastly changed the dynamics of sex between men and women.

As the Baron points out, up until fairly recently, when a man got a woman pregnant more likely than not a marriage followed soon after. There were several such cases in my own family. Today that is no longer a consideration.

BTW, I am not advocating a return to the 'good old days.' Nevertheless, we do younger people a disservice if we lead them to think that it is possible to have a sexual relationship with another human being that is free of physical, emotional, or other entanglements. (Of course, whether they believe and/or listen to us is another matter LOL).

Muslihoon said...

Although I see the objections people have, the fact remains that he is trying to implement the oft-repeated refrain of feminists that men and women should be equal. In other words, if women are granted special privileges when a child is conceived, why not men? Why is a woman duped able to terminate her predicament but a duped man will be shackled? Not equal.

Which to me exposes the fundamental flaw in the "sexual revolution" - although this may feel good, it may not in fact be good for a person or for society. We have come to the point where intimate unions have become exercises in expressing one's unbridled lusts.

shoprat said...

Sexual liberation was a bad idea from the start. We are now reaping the fruit of two generations of moral stupidity with no end in sight.

Sexual freedom fails for the same reason welfare fails. Freedom and responsibility most be proportional to each other; too much of one without the other leads to trouble.

bordergal said...

Everyone seems to be treating this as a man woman issue.

There is a third party here, the child. The only one in this sorry state of affairs to be completely innocent.

To be blunt, to hell with the whiny, selfish adults. The needs of the child come first.

Fat Man said...

"Jane Roe agrees that should any issue result from this sexual engagement, she will not pursue John Doe for any child support or medical care arising from complications of pregnancy."

Won't work. The child support obligation does not run from the father to the mother. It is from both parents to their child. It cannot be waived by the child, who has not yet been concieved, nor reached adulthood.

William Zeranski said...

No-fault copulation was what the Sexual liberation was, and is, all about.

If the justice system does what it has been designed to do regarding causal sex, Mr. Dubay will be released from financial burden of any kind.

Face it: It’s the woman’s body, and she has the control--that’s what the revolution was all about. Any responsible judge should say: You could’ve gotten an abortion.

For my part, sexual relations is NOT a game and only mature people should participate.

Everyone reading this post knows that if the woman wants an abortion the man cannot stop her. Why should that man be held responsible at the whim of any woman, judge or court?

A marriage man who is with his wife from conception of the child, through the nine months, and is there at birth, still is not legally responsible until he signs the paper.

Interestingly, Mr. Dubay is the bad guy, but what of the woman? How did she end up with victim-status?