Matt Dubay thinks life is unfair, and who among us could disagree?

Some casual flings, after all, bequeath only wistful memories; others yield lifelong mementos with names like Jennifer or Jack and needs like diapers, braces and college tuition.

Dubay, a 25-year-old computer technician from Saginaw, Mich., says he made it clear he wasn’t interested in the latter kind of souvenir when he began dating a cell phone saleswoman back in 2004.

Dubay says she assured him that wasn’t a problem, explaining that (1) a chronic physical condition had left her incapable of conceiving, and (2) she was using contraception.

That seeming redundancy (Nonflammable. Fire extinguisher included.) might have given a more skeptical fellow pause.

But Dubay says he took her at her word, never suspecting he needed to take his own contraceptive precautions.

Imagine his surprise when, a few months after their breakup, the woman presented him with a baby daughter.

Last year, a Saginaw County Circuit Court judge ordered Dubay to pay $475 a month in child support, plus half of his daughter’s health expenses.

On Thursday, Dubay challenged the order in federal court, asserting in a lawsuit that Michigan’s paternity law denies him the freedom of reproductive choice that women have enjoyed since Roe v. Wade.

The resulting inequity, Dubay’s lawyers say, violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause by imposing “responsibilities and obligations on men such as Dubay while affording certain privileges, rights and choices to be unilaterally made and exercised by females.”

“Matt was responsible; he was clear about his intentions,” Dubay’s lawyer, Jeffery Cojocar, said Thursday. “We don’t believe men who do what he did should be forced into parenthood.”

If Dubay’s ex-girlfriend deliberately misrepresented her susceptibility to pregnancy, as Dubay asserts in his lawsuit, he has every right to feel betrayed. But I suspect no judge in the United States is about to penalize their infant daughter for her mother’s alleged lack of candor.

Unfortunately for Dubay, courts have been equally reluctant to recognize fraud claims against women who deceive their sexual partners about their use of contraceptives or their inability to conceive.

So Dubay is unlikely to get much satisfaction in court, unless he considers inciting water cooler debates its own reward.

The National Center for Men, which is bankrolling Dubay’s suit, says it’s time courts recognize how Roe v. Wade has placed men at the mercy of women’s choices.

After the suit was filed Thursday, the center began distributing a form that it said men could use to assert their reproductive rights in court.

Concise enough to carry in a wallet, the Reproductive Rights Affidavit “is not yet an official legal document,” the center warns. “But it may be submitted to a court having jurisdiction over family matters as a symbolic protest against unfair and unjust paternity laws.”

Until the revolution comes, though, you might want to carry something else in your wallet.