A friend of mine brought this story to my attention, and it sparked some great conversation...
Basically, some "men's rights activists" are saying if a woman legally has a choice to keep a pregnancy, end it, adopt, etc., then a man should be able to choose if he wants to pay child support.
In this particular case, the woman knew her partner did not want children, and as far as she knew (I'd like to know more details here), she was unable to get pregnant due to a medical condition.
Apparently, she beat the odds and - voila - she is with child.
To be honest, when my friend first told me about this story, I laughed. A lot. It all just seemed too ridiculous to bring before the courts. Apparently, the judge thought so, too...
"State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents."
This case brings up a good point that many feminists don't want to talk about: men's involvement in child-creating, bearing, and rearing.
In a perfectly stable, loving relationship with open communication (which seems incredibly rare nowadays), if the woman becomes pregnant, she will most likely talk over her options with her partner. It's the respectful thing to do, but really, the final choice should be the woman's, since she bears most of the responsibility of carrying, birthing and rearing the child. This all goes on in her body, not his.
However, when I was discussing this story yesterday, it occurred to me how many women don't want their men involved at all in talks of pregnancy - yet when the child arrives, they're upset that men aren't very involved or helpful fathers.
Not really sure if there's a good answer for this...just bringing up a point...