If Dubay's partner really had a medical condition that was supposed to prevent pregnancy, then it's likely that she was as surprised by the "miracle," as he was. It's less surprising, though, that her feelings about having a child might not have been fully explored before, when such a thing was only a "hypothetical." One wonders, though, given her later statements that he "knew where babies come from." Who would not be sympathetic to his plight?

It is too bad that someone did not clue him in earlier on that these things happen: birth control methods fail, previously "infertile" women suddenly become pregnant, people's feelings change about having children-- both men's and women's. Unfortunately, these topics are probably not discussed in most sex ed classes, and are even less likely to be discussed in the future, if current trends continue. I am of the camp, that each person should pursue, independently, their own method of birth control, the more the better, since some do fail. Sometimes redundancy is a good thing. Why should a man expect not to use a condom, just because his partner (says she) is on the pill? Or infertile? One should still be concerned about STDs. Period. (That women have borne more of the responsbility both for childbirth and for contraception, is one more example of the usual direction of our sexual double standards.)

One niggling logistical issue that has not been brought up so far, though, is that the courts are unlikely to allow two sets of support/custody laws to be on the books simultaneously.

Currently, even if (usually) a father is seriously in arrears in child support payments, the mother cannot allow that fact to impinge on their visitation agreement. That's because the courts see fit to settle support and custody issues separately and independently of one another. The reasoning, again, is that this arrangement best serves the child, who should not be "punished" by being denied the usual contact with the non-custodial parent, just because he or she is late with child support. The custodial parent really has no recourse in most cases (although some states, e.g., PA, are better at follow-up: reimbursing from tax refunds, etc.).

Imagine the confusion if the courts had to accommodate two sets of laws, one that allowed women and men to sign off on their rights to support, and visitation, respectively... simultaneously, and dependently.

As it is, there are already differences in family law by state and/or region, just as there are similar differences in allowing for reproductive rights. Trying to impose another set of laws, based on "choice," for those who wish to opt out of the existing laws is... probably not realistic.

The timing of this story, instead of being a distraction, might actually serve to make some important points, e.g., the signficant difference between monthly support payments and the actual physical, emotional, and psychic demands of raising a child. And, as has been noted elsewhere, the last time abortion was mostly illegal, there was no DNA testing, which alone may provide incentive for condom use. (Perhaps Trojan et al should include this fact in their advertizing?) Perhaps, the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of those who would criminalize abortion, while prohibiting substantive sex ed classes and inhibiting access to contraception, will be more fully revealed to that vast middle-ground of voters who personally do not favor abortion, but do not want to eliminate such choices completely, though they would like the numbers to start decreasing again. Something that an increasing ignorance about sexual matters will not accomplish.

Perhaps Dubay and his supporters will eventually see fit to put their efforts into the importance of more and better, rather than less and ineffectual, sex education. That is something both groups in this story could surely support.