You may have heard that there is a man in Michigan who is taking his ex girlfriend to court. She told him she could not become pregnant. Then after having unprotected sex with each other. The woman became pregnant.

The woman decided to keep the baby. The man said he was not yet ready to become a father. So he feels that he should not be responsible for paying any support to the child that he does not want to parent.

I find this very interesting. It could really make some changes in parental laws. The state would be bearing all the burden of raising children of low income mothers, who do not work. They would be forced to release the biological father from any responsibility of supporting the child.

I had read up on this and viewed a Dr. Phil show on this man and listened to his attorney talk. Good old Dr. Phil and his wisdom......asked "What about the child?"

I don't think the attorney or the biological father even cared that a human child was involved in this dispute.

From what I have heard the mother is challenging and fighting this in court. I hope she wins. I know that fathers rights are very important. However if you decide not to use protection then you choose the responsibilities that come from an unplanned pregnancy. The mother did not conceive the child alone.

What do you think? Should men be able to challenge the right to parent and supply support to a child that he conceived but does not want?

Women have the right to abortion. So it is fair to say that the man has less rights to the choice of being a parent if the woman decides to carry the unwanted child.

I just have an issue with any child being unwanted.
Unplanned yes. But life is life. Someone some where will always want a child. There for no child ever conceived and born is unwanted.

It should be interesting how the Supreme Courts rule in this case.

What do you think? All comments welcome.