Matt Dubay feels he should have had a choice in becoming a father. Instead of taking precautions such as condoms or helping his partner pay for birth control or lobbying for a horomonal contraceptive for men he wants to have nothing to do with the child his ex chose to keep.
Dubay feels he should have the legal right to choose not to be financially or otherwise responsible for his child, leaving the mother with 100% of that burden. Men can already refuse to provide physical care for their children and it is all too easy (but illegal) for them to simply not pay child support. Now this man, with the backing of the National Center for Men, feels he should have the legal right to opt out of any responsibility for his actions whatsoever.
With women's right to legal abortions currently being whittled away in the US, this ridiculous lawsuit only places another constriction on women. Women who cannot abort (like those in South Dakota) have two choices: keep the child or put it up for adoption. While adoption is the right choice for some it isn't for every woman. However, the choice to keep a child will become that much harder to make if the mother knows she will have to be the sole provider for an unwanted child.
It is an economic reality that many women are unable to financially support a child. Being forced to raise a child is also a huge time commitment, one that will cut into her ability to continue school or work, assuming she can afford childcare, thus even further lessening her economic independence. This garbage can only hurt women and their children.
But hey, why should a man have to deal with a kid he didn't want? It's not his fault the birth control failed is it?