Topic : 07/06 Baby Wars

The story about the father who didn't want to be a father in baby wars is very contraversial, but this is how I see it. 

  

I have a story about me that I think is very similar to Matt's.  

  

3 weeks ago I was angry and fed up with a bully, so I decided to go on a website for making websites and make one about him. When I was signing up, the website asked for my full name and PROMISED me my name would remain confidential, so I gave my name. Making the website made me feel good for a while. 2 days later, my computer teacher heard rumors about the website i had made and went to see it. She talked to me after class and said she had done something to make my name show up as the author of the hate website, after I had been promised it would be a secret. Then I was told I HAD TO BE RESPOSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS. I was banned from computers for 2 weeks and was unofficially suspended for a day. I didn't go around saying "I was promised my name would be secret so it's unfair that I have to get punished" I, a 14, knew that I had done something and I have to be responsible. Matt should do the same.  

  

I think Matt is very immature. He didn't use protection. My mom has told me when I was conceved my parents were using protection but I am alive anyway. My mom and dad weren't ready for me but they kept me and we're all just fine. Matt is very selfish. I know it will be hard for him to provide for a child at this time in his life, but it was hard for me to have the teachers yell at me and punish me. We both did somthing and we both should have to just deal with it. My punishment wasn't a piece of cake either. I was balling my eyes out the whole time. 

  

Anyway, that's all I have to say. 

I can't believe how unfairly men are treated when it comes to unplanned pregnancies.  First off, I'm a 55 year old married woman with two grown children.  When it comes to having babies, women get to call all of the shots.  Sure they are the ones carrying the child, but a man should still have equal input.  If a man does not want to have a child and the woman does, it is totally her right to do so, but it should be totally his right to sign away ALL parental rights.  That's what happens when there is an adoption, so why shouldn't it be the same for the male?  If a man says he doesn't want to have a child, and a woman says she does, it should totally be her responsibility if she wants to keep that child and they are unmarried.  Just as a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion and not have the child, the woman should not be allowed to force a man to take on a child that he does not want. If a woman didn't want to have the child, she just wouldn't have it, or give it up, and the man can be left out of the decision making.  How is any of this fair????? The man is always the bad guy and the woman is the "innocent".

The whole concept of human sexuality needs to be further explored by our think tanks.  We know that inserting the penis into the vagina is a fertilization process resulting in babies. To think that people are not going to engage any sexual exploration is like sticking your head in the sand. There are other ways to satisfy sexual urges without actual intercourse. It’s time that we begin a more complete education of our young people about sexuality and that we begin it at a very young age and that it be ongoing. We are not faced with the imminent demise of our species anymore, at least not through lack of progeny, so let’s examine responsible and realistic sexual alternatives. There is no doubt that men are sometimes treated unfairly regarding the birth or non-birth of a child, but I am loath to see  “avoiding fatherhood” enshrined in the constitution. Moreover, my experience has been that men, given the chance, love and nurture their children every bit as much as females, so women please abandon the notion that you are the ONLY one that cares for offspring.  

 

  

 

The most important relationship to a child is a strong and loving bond between mother and father. So, please get the baby out of you and your husband’s bed and bring your husband back into the house and begin doing some quality bonding with him. Too, often, and I cringe every time I hear this, mothers saying, “my children are first to me”. This is incorrect thinking and will lead to trouble every time. The MOST IMPORTANT relationship a couple has --BAR NONE-- is to each other. It is through the nurturing and maintenance of a strong husband, wife bond that the child is ensured the best possible upbringing and successful entrance into adulthood because you BOTH have equal commitment to your children.   

 

  

 

Dan you have four lovely children and a beautiful wife. It was also quite clear you’re your family in the current configuration is thriving. Lisa has said that she is at the optimum limit that she can reasonably manage with the four children—Lisa is doing a tremendous job as a mother and wife and much MORE than most females do. Lisa needs some room for herself in there. The days of huge families are long gone, so I would listen to Lisa. My suggestion to you Dan is four is plenty. Those four children will provide you with plenty of grandchildren when that time comes. Grandchildren will also be a responsibility to you so don’t overextend yourself. In the meantime, there are other ways to extend your “family” without having another child yourselves, so that you can satisfy your desire to have big family gatherings without upsetting what you already have with each other.   

 

  

 

NICE work from the sleep therapist!!! I thought that was a very effective and gentle way to get baby to sleep in his own bed. I have always thought letting baby cry to sleep every night cruel and unhealthy.        

Here's a fascinating article about this case: http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david17.htm  

  

I've never seen this entire situation explained so well.  Usher goes clear back to  the advent of the birth control pill and the subsequent sexual revolution of the late sixties and shows how we managed to end up with a rate of illegitimate birth that has soared as high as 70% in some urban areas.    

  

We now have a society where women are ready to be as sexually free and agressive as men once were, skipping right over the conventions of marriage, while confident that,  if they get pregnant,  the government will treat them like helpless Victorian maidens, and track down the men they have had sex with to make them pay through the nose for the next 18 -20 years.  

  

It is the children who are suffering.  They are growing up without fathers because their mothers have skipped the marriage step, knowing they will have money without marriage and money seems to be the only part of fatherhood some women value.  

Many people have written expressing the viewpoint that it is difficult to understand how Matt Dubay can just walk away from his child. One reason why he can do this is because he is entangled with Mel Feit's organization. Lest anyone forget where Matt Dubay's backer stands on Matt's fatherhood, consider his dialogue with Bill O'Reilly: 

  

FEIT: We're forcing Matt to be responsible. Why are you not concerned about that? 

O'REILLY: Because he made the baby. 

FEIT: No. He had sex with a woman. He made a fetus. He made a collection of cells that she chose to keep. 

  

Matt Dubay has chosen to emotionally remove himself from the postconceptual fact of his daughter's birth. He could not exercise any choice in eliminating that "collection of cells" that could never have existed without him. But, because the mother had that choice, Matt feels that the "equal choice" for him should be to eliminate financial responsibility for that "collection of cells" that became his daughter. 

  

The choices are not just pre and post conception. Postconception includes birth and that's where the situation becomes so murky because legally, a third person has entered the picture. (In some states, that legal status of personhood may be granted prior to birth. For those who believe, like Lauren Wells, that life begins at conception, that third party entered the picture at conception and  defined thereafter all of the postconception choices. 

  

And, for just one minute, I think that we should all close our eyes and visualize Matt, the long sought-after plaintiff. Feit searched for over a decade for his "suitable plaintiff." He posted newspaper advertisements in the northwest and middle America. Now, also visualize Lauren Wells and Elisabeth. Finally, now let's imagine that all three of them are not white. Make them African-American, Hispanic, Arabs, or any non-English speaking group. Do you still feel exactly the same way about father's rights, obligations, and choices? 

  

Keep in mind, before you go ballistic on me, that I am not accusing anyone of bias here although if there is some hesitation while visualizing, it should be cause for consideration.  

  

I am saying that I have a huge problem with Feit trolling around for over a decade to find a "suitable plaintiff." I'd like to know what his definition is of a "suitable plaintiff."  In my law practice and in the practice of most of my colleagues, people come with problems and, if necessary, we file a lawsuit. I don't draft up a model complaint and then search high and low for a plaintiff so that I can pursue my own agenda. 

  

I really do feel sorry for Matt Dubay. He is being used as a pawn to further an agenda. I'd be a lot more convinced of Matt's commitment to this litigation if I could hear Mel Feit say that the National Center for Men would be willing to withdraw their federal complaint if Matt expressed such a wish. If Matt were to say, "sorry, I changed my mind" then would Mel Feit support his decision? 

He was suckered ...because CA. law stated that if he donated sperm, at a sperm bank where he signed away his rights and obligations  he believed he would not be liable.  CA. Family Code 7613B.
The sperm bank never asked him any legal questions to determine if he was married,  and thus get spousal consent for the gift transaction which could affect marital properties. ( Ca. FAMILY CODE 1100 B)      All they asked (other than his medical history) was  if he had had sex with her in the last 90 days...which was a wavier for the woman to not have a six month wait period for HIV testing, etc...it was protection for the Sperm Bank if she got some disease by using a known sperm donor.  
Do you realise that any man can be taken into a sperm bank in CA. by "a woman friend" with no questions asked !   She can lie about all of her relationships, no one will demand she prove anything....to make a baby.
Yet if you are a woman they demand you reveal your intimate partners/ husband and require his signature to donate your eggs !  What Double Standards !  

This discussion is about legal questions and the liability of men against their wishes.....It's not about how stupid my husband was....( HE WAS).......but because he was threatened with the exposure of an affair, which under the law  Is considered duress. He tthought he was doing no harm and was protecting himself from damage to his marriage and family and financial ruin ...as the woman promised "NO one would ever know of his involvement".   Well the next actions showed how her intents of the contract she made were a lie.     He trusted her ...but she is a psychopath......    But now all the laws are "possibly" on her side...because of the baby!   No it is not fair !  She is an extortionist.     I am angry at her...because she lied and made a deal with the devil...and yes my husband trusted that all she wanted was to be a single parent.    I guess I am just trying to   warn men not to believe any woman who says she "JUST" wants your sperm...and don't trust feminist laws on the books which are only there  to protect women , not MEN.

It was not just the fault of having an affair...it is that there are misleading laws and sperm banks out  there that take advantage of men...for profit.   Yes, He was stupid..yes he will probably end up paying....but the problem is the power and abuse of laws designed to protect only the mother. It is not really about the child...it is about the abuse of power concerning children.   I still have a hard time understanding that if there are criminal codes  ..."UNDER penalty of perjury clauses"...in filling out state/Gov't documents....WHY THEY are not enforced...and why is there no way one can contest that false document and make the system go back to the person and demand she prove her claims to the state..........like show us a marriage certificate to prove she was married to my husband.......when I contested that claim ?

If Matt did not want to have a child then he either should have 1.) refrained from having sex or 2.) taken responsibility himself and worn a condom. Once a person decides to have sex (and unprotected at that!), they risk the chance of a pregnancy. To quote Dr. Phil - "If you choose the behavior, you choose the consequences." Matt is the REAL BABY here. Really, he should stand up and be a MAN! I told my boyfriend this story (a widower with two children - who did not abandon his children when his wife died suddenly - even though he had to work full-time, solely care for two grieving children and deal with his own grief) and he told me that if he and Matt were friends prior to the pregnancy, he would not be able to continue with the friendship due to Matt's irresponsible and callous behavior. He was disgusted at Matt's treatment of his daughter. By the way, I must say that his daughter is one beautiful little girl!

I thought it a tall tale too........but the more I did "discovery" for my divorce...the more unbelievable the documents that I uncovered to prove my husband was manipulated....etc.   He was not lying...I have the paperwork where he signed his rights away "supposedly" at the sperm bank.   and yet I have this woman going all over the place claiming a marriage to my husband ,  on documents/forms ! 
 But unfortunately  my husband  may not be protected under CA. sperm donor law because he was known, and she did not buy the sperm from the bank....who knows how this will play out....no case where a known donor is sued for support has happened in CA.   THIs will be a JUDge's decision interpreting a case of first impression ! .....And my husband wants to avoid being the FIRST idiot placed on trial !    So much for a strategy of appeasement !   ....  and Yes, women can set up accounts to store frozen sperm.......what century  to you have your nose buried in?
By the way , he has said if a judge holds him responsible he will pay...but the OW has waited so long and denied visitation or involvement...we believe the judge would still give her full custody.
So any way there is no way to stop the harm to this child...because of the selfish interests of women like this who use the Law to Cover their wrongdoings...I say if it was her intent to have a child alone...she should have to abide by that decision.....But the law is a double standard as it is now....and it needs to be addressed as we no longer live in the 19th century !

That argument cuts both ways ......the woman decided too to have sex...otherwise it's called rape.
And when a man gets aroused..they tend not to think with the right head...But women always have complete control at that point to stop his "Poor control".