If the National Review is going to send someone to do the Bill Maher show, why not send a conservative?
The case of Matt Dubay, who has filed a historic lawsuit euphemistically dubbed the Roe v. Wade for Men, was brought up on Bill Maher’s show this week.
The case involves a young man whose girlfriend got pregnant by lying to Dubay about her ability to have children. For this reason, birth control was not used.
The central issue of the case is this: if the woman represents to the man that she is physically incapable of getting pregnant, and this is a misrepresentation of fact, then should the man be held financially responsible when she gets pregnant?
Gloria Steinem issued the expected insults, but conveniently forgot to mention the central issue of the case. She also made appear that Dubay wanted the child aborted (We can expect hyper-feminists who support abortion rights for women to insult a man even if he doesn’t want it).
Then, Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for the National Review chimed in. He also failed to mention the fact that Dubay was essentially raped. I almost fell out of my chair that Ponnuru called Dubay a deadbeat dad, and rendered absolutely no conservative analyis on the issue.
What Ponnuru should have said is this: If the woman lies to the man about her reproductive capacity to become Murphy Brown and then steal his money, the man she reproductively raped should receive automatic custody of the child at birth. And we should consider prison for the woman.
There is no other relief possible that does not reward the woman for taking advantage of the man. To suggest that Dubay must pay his rapist for committing an act of rape is outrageously liberal and radically feminist.
Reproductive fraud is an extremely serious and life-affecting issue. I do consider it rape. When a man forces his reproductive capacity on a woman, we call it rape. When a woman forces her reproductive capacity on a man, it is also rape. I cannot bring myself to lessen the offense to something cute like “paternity fraud”, simply because the perpetrator happens to be a woman.
The only difference between the two is the means that a particular sex uses to get what they want. Whether fraudulent means or physical force is used is substantively immaterial to the case. Clearly, men should never be forced to pay their own rapists for the acts they committed.
Illegitimacy is still at record levels, despite the fact that we have the best birth control methods in the history of civilization. Most of them are invisible – making it very easy for women to rape men. Automatic awards of welfare and child support make this a profitable activity.
It is my experience that the vast majority of men do not want to have a child out of wedlock. It is quite clear that the vast majority of illegitimacy is actually predatory reproduction for income and to achieve status as a brave “single mother”.
When conservatives widely expect fair treatment of men in family law and society, illegitimacy will decrease steeply and marriage rates will improve drastically.
Conservatives who assume a professional feminist position on family issues prevent conservatives from reaching their goals. When we blame all of society’s problems on men, we turn the family over to feminists and big government.Federal social expenditures necessarily rise. Social statistics, have not improved under Republican leadership.
Self-entitling federal social expenditures that are driven by husband-absence, such as welfare and heath care,are a tremendous portion of the federal budget.We cannot have a balanced budget while fighting the war on terroruntil we stop driving husbands out of the family and entitling permanent non-marriage.
The Dubay case is clearly a step towards rebuilding a sound social infrastructure and resolving many otherwise unsoluble federal budgetary problems.
David R. Usher is President of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition