Judge Dismisses "Roe v. Wade for Men" Lawsuit

[LiberalHeart]

LANSING, MICHIGAN (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a Saginaw County man who says he shouldn't have to pay child support. US District Judge David Lawson ruled that Matthew Dubay's suit was frivolous and ordered him to pay attorney fees to the state.

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=5167518

[SlipperySlope]

1. Won't be the end of it.

Women have a spectrum of choice here. Abort, offer for adoption, keep w/o child support, keep and sue for child support. Men have no such spectrum of choice, other than "don't have sex". Women are insulted when they are told their choice is to keep their legs shut, men should be insulted too.

This issue will continue to arise until there is more equity in the arrangement.

[beam me up scottie]

2. There'll be "equity in the arrangement" when men can become pregnant.

Until then, getting a vasectomy or abstaining are their "spectrum of choice" for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

[SlipperySlope]

6. There you have it - blatant sexism

Given an obviously inequitable situation, you respond with hostility and without sympathy. But the movement is only getting started. The paternity laws in this country will be changed.

As it stands:

+ Sperm donors have been sued and forced to pay child support.

+ Women have taken sperm from a used condom, impregnanted themselves, and forced the man to pay child support.

+ A man, passed out from alcohol consumption, was unknowing and unwillingly raped by a woman - you guessed it, he has to pay child support.


I accept that biology has started out by creating inequality between men and women in this regard, but the current laws have gone way to far in correcting that inequality. We will reach a point where each sex has a equal spectrum of choice.

Good read: http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/10/19/mens_choice/print.html

[LeftyMom]

7. The point is that kids deserve support no matter the circumstances of

thier conception. Mothers pay support when they are the non-custodial parents. It's not a horrible conspiracy against fathers.

It's just that they don't get the final say because it's not thier body carrying the baby. Grow a uterus and I'll defend your right to have 0 babies or 10 as you choose. Just don't tell me what I can or can't do with mine.

[SlipperySlope]

8. Men are not walking bank accounts...

Men are not walking bank accounts. While the goal of having someone pay for every child is admirable, that does not morally justify the "legal mugging" that some men are put through.

In our current system, it doesn't matter if the man was lied to about birth control or fertility, it doesn't matter if the man was raped, it doesn't matter if the man was drugged, it doesn't matter what precautions the man takes, he is given *no choice* once the woman is pregnant.

The following quote is from planned parenthood:

At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. It is about the value of women in society. Should women make their own decisions about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children? Or is that a government decision?

I agree absolutely that society should value women and empower them to make their own choices about family, career, and their lives. Don't men deserve to be valued the same, don't men deserve equal respect? Apparantly not.

This is a touchy issue, but it is not anti-woman to be pro-man. Imagine it was YOUR twelve-year old son being sued for child suppport.

[rodeodance]

9. to put it bluntly--the choice was already made.

.......Men are not walking bank accounts. While the goal of having someone pay for every child is admirable, that does not morally justify the "legal mugging" that some men are put through.

In our current system, it doesn't matter if the man was lied to about birth control or fertility, it doesn't matter if the man was raped, it doesn't matter if the man was drugged, it doesn't matter what precautions the man takes, he is given *no choice* once the woman is pregnant.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. The list is even more horrific

- A contract that states that if a pregnancy results from a relationship that the man will not have to pay any form of child support will be set aside in the court.

- If you do pay for a child that is not yours you are stuck with it, regards of what DNA test show at a later time

- The woman's word is taken without question. If a man challenges it he will have to pay child support until the issue is decided in a court. If found not to be the father, he will still not get the money returned.

- Visitation rights are not tied to child support. You pay even if your wife runs off with the child and you never see them again.

- No prosecution for malicious claims of abuse.

This is aided and abetted by the Dept of Social Services (or equivalent).

If I sound bitter, its because I was on the receiving end of some of this...Some year ago I was named as the father of a child. I was the wrong race, I had gotten a vasectomy 10 years before and had the medical records to prove it. None of that mattered and a child support order was entered against me. I spoke the to social worker and showed her I could not have been the father. She said it was not her problem, even though she was setting up wage garnishment and had helped the mother file the court papers for child support. I got a lawyer and went to court. I was told I had to pay until it was decided. I refused and the garnishment was blocked (I was in the military at the time). I was refused access to "my child" even supervised visitation (we considered challenging the mother for custody). I was told if I did not pay I would be going to jail, so I paid. Finally got to court and the judge seemed unwilling to believe the evidence, including a fertility test from a local independent lab. He kept asking me if I had reconciled with the mother, a teenager I have never seen before, and was willing to do my social duty. My lawyer got a bit heated and all the state kept saying was they had the mother's word (who never showed up) that I was the father. 30 days later the order was vacated. I was out lawyer fees, was unable to recover the child support I paid, my name is still on the birth certificate, I am/was listed as a deadbeat dad, and it was on my credit report. Yes, I am bitter but with damn good cause.

The current system is seriously FUBAR. Things I think that need to change:
- The current standard of "the good of the child" over rides everything else should be discarded.
- DNA testing at birth should be mandatory and no child support order levied without a DNA match.
- Joint physical custody should be mandatory unless there is clear and independent evidence of serious wrong doing or the parent agree otherwise.
- Joint legal custody should be mandated unless parental rights are terminated or the parent agree otherwise.
- Men and women should be able to contractual define relationships and responsibilities for child support.
- DNA evidence at any time should be considered adequate reason to terminate parental liability.
- Child support should be escrowed when visitation is not being allowed.
- Custodial interference should be a felony and escalated to Federal kidnapping if the child is not returned within 1 week.
- Mandatory jail time for custodial interference
- Permanently removing the child from agreed upon area should result in loss of custody by the offending parent.
- Hold DSS and individual social workers accountable for reckless mistakes and abuse of their authority

Note that none of the above are gender based. They would go a long way to making the current system fairer, and still have the children protected from abusive situations.

[Kixel]

30. I think you raise some valid points...

The custody issue is huge. It should be joint unless its a dangerous situation-which could work both ways. I have a friend who spent WAY too much cash to get full time custody from his deadbeat ex. If he didn't have the resources to get custody his daughter would be in a really bad situation. It should also be noted that the ex was signing over custody-there was no fight and there was still an amazingly complex legal maze. There is a huge bias against men and it needs to be altered.

It was really sad-at one point I knew several dads picking up the slack for dead beat moms. Its not the same world we grew up in. Now, the parent issue of this conversation, well, that's a different story. Sorry guys, but there's no way to logically change this complicated issue.

[Solo_in_MD]

32. My real venom is for DSS

In our situation, the DSS got more combative as we went along. Ignored subpoenas and the law, and the judges often let them get away with it. We finally decided to sue the state and the individuals involved. After we filed notice, all hell broke loose. Union stepped in, and things got down right nasty. We were even investigated for child abuse (without any complaint filed). DSS has less accountability than the police and are shielded by family court from any real scrutiny. Had I not had minor children in the house or lived on base I might have pushed it, but under the circumstances we tossed in the towel. Yes, I do have an axe to grind with them.

[Bassic]

41. That truly sounds like a horrible experience.

The system needs to be readjusted, badly.

[mainegreen]

56. Hear Hear!

Truth!

[Francine Frensky]

74. So, the law should protect the male wallet first, above all else?

The way you wrote your laws seems to scream: KEEP your hands off my money. With no regard for the children who are meant to be protected by the laws.

You really want to get rid of the standard that "the good of the child" overrides everything else??? Personally, I think you have your priorities in the wrong order, my friend, and perhaps you don't have children or don't understand how helpless small children are. There is NOTHING in this world to protect a child except family and the law, and there are so many examples of times when both have failed a child, that it hardly makes sense to rewrite the laws for freak incidents like your situation.

And I'm sorry to hear of your story, but what did it cost you anyway, except money? Think of what it would cost a CHILD to have to enter the foster system (and possibly be abused and molested???) if their parent was automatically jailed for violating child visitation rules (which probably happens all the time in small ways because life isn't simple and clean). What if a child went hungry or missed medical care or schooling while waiting for DNA test results? How many TRUE deadbeat dads would love to use your example your new laws to avoid paying for their legitimate kids?? There's like a million of them, and one of you, but you'd like to change the laws to help them?

Nothing's perfect in this world, no legal situation is going to be exactly fair for EVERYBODY in ALL circumstances, but it's very important to protect the weakest among us, and that is children, so laws should always err in their favor.

[superconnected]

84. It's a men don't want to take responsibility for their actions bill

Just fuck and leave and damn the consequences.

It will continue to be thrown out of court because not all men feel they are *victimized* by women being able to get pregnant from men impregnating them.

[Lindacooks]

154. Yep, you're right.

Men have it so damn easy, that when some of them actually have to pay for the consequences of their actions, they throw a hissy fit.

If you don't want a kid, wear a condom or get a vasectomy.

[gort]

218. A man's right to choose

I can't remember the comic's name who said this:

"A man's right to choose is which color condom to wear"

I've always liked that joke.

[Triana]

226. Bingo again, thanks superconnected...

...I've said it a million times - men need to stop trying to control women and learn to CONTROL THEMSELVES, particularly the area between their legs. That means the area between their ears has to be engaged first but it seems that there is an issue with both of those areas being simultaneously operative.

[Solo_in_MD]

86. No, the laws need to be restructured to use facts not the

the presumption of paternity based soley on the word of the mother or maritial status.

I fully endorse the right of the child to be supported by those responsible for bring it into the world. That is indeed the right thing to do. The problem is that the courts and the law have gone so overboard that the rights of the child are overtaking those of the parents and innocent bystanders. Worse still is when they transfer that responsibility to uninvolved non-parents (which was what happened to me). You are quite right that the real root of this is money. The state, through DSS, wants someone to pay other than them, and my experience has shown they don't care if its the right person or not.

Consider these items:

- Presumption of paternity. Whomever the mother names is presumptively the parent. No notification to the named individual.
- If there are bills associated with the child the presumptive father is responsible for them, even if he is determined later not to be the father. The release from responsibility is not retroactive, its only from the date of the court judgment. Under current law a man who has nothing to do with the child could be responsible for child's bills.
- Interim child support orders are entered automatically without an opportunity to challenge. There is no due dilligence standards used.
- Blatant fraud by the mother is not punished, neither is gross negligence on the part of DSS

Nothing I am aruging for lessens the rights of the child to legitimate support from its legitimate parents. I was a victim of fraud and extortion that the current legal structure actively facilitates. It also cost me a more than just money...I am/was listed as a deadbeat dad, it impacted my career, my credit rating, and my name is still on the child's birth certificate. The stress on my own family was tremendous.

Bad cases make for bad law. Much of the things I have issue with came from bad cases of neglect and other extreme circumstances. However, the pedulum needs to swing back some to be more balanced.

[Francine Frensky]

97. You still miss the POINT

again, I'm sympathetic of your situation, but your philosophy that a child's welfare should come after the parent's or other adults is just backward, in my view. It's like saying: better one innocent man avoid being falsly accused of being a father than 100 innocent children go without care.

I say: better a man to be out $100 than a child to be out of a week's worth of food. I imagine that the laws are written so that a father will start paying as soon as possible; because otherwise, if you wait until every legal issue is resolved, then you hand the father a big bill, and that would throw him into bankruptcy or make him panic or leave, and that's a really bad situation, again for the child.

The one point that I'd maybe agree on would be: if dna testing fails to show a match, or there's fraud by the mother, back-fund any money. Although again, on the flip side, I could see this becoming a financial issue for people who were very poor and this lump-sum payback might place great stress on the mother and child (the child has already eaten, literally, all the support money, to what desparate measure would the mother have to go to pay someone back??). So that's a tough one.

Family law type issues are notoriously messy. But the welfare of the child should be the top concern. No question.

[Solo_in_MD]

106. Actually I do get it

And if it were only $1000, I am not sure I would have a problem if it indeed went to an indigent mother and child. We have certainly given that and more to others in that situation over time.

The key here is balance and due diligence. There is no check on DSS to discourage them from extorting money from innocent people and that is what was most galling. In another post in this thread I used an admittedly inflammatory example that it would have been better for me to be accused of raping the mother than fathering her child since I would have had more rights and someone would have had to look at the evidence before legal action was taken. That is perhaps the crux of my concerns. If there is reason to assume the man named was indeed the father, then I could see the interim support etc going forward. However under the current system if a mother named George Bush or John Kerry and DSS believed them, they would have been in the same circumstances that I was (presuming they had vasectomies). That has to change in the name of fairness, and the best interest of the child should not trump basic facts and fairness.

A little reducto absurdum here...If you take the best interest of the child concept to its logical conclusion you end up with unrelated men being dunned to support a child they never could have fathered because "its in the best interest of the child". Sounds silly, but that is pretty much what happened to me.

The state and DSS exist to provide a safety net for those in need. The short time (as in a week or less) required for due diligence is not going to overly tax DSS. It would insure the safety of the child (key concern) while the steps supported by evidence are taken to support it properly in the future.

[zreosumgame]

160. and if that $100 was gotten by fraud

and may in fact have taken food from the man's REAL kid's you are OK with that? Are you always in the habit of not thinking things through? IMO if a mother falsely tries to extort money from anyone, even under the guise of 'child support' she (just as an man would be) charged and if found guilty give up custody of her child.

[Evergreen Emerald]

114. That is not the law in all states

It is only presumptive if they are married--at least that is WA law. DNA tests are required otherwise.

[satireV]

148. and if the mother refuses to take the DNA test in WA state

There are no consequences for her. They do nothing to force her to take the test or punish her for being in contempt of court because that would hurt the child.

The the converse is not true. If a supposed father fails to obey a court order, he is punished asap, and thus preventing support being paid.

The system is NOT set up to help the child, but mainly to punish the alleged fathers.

[politicat]

185. To cut through the gordian knot here.... the real issue is child welfare.

Both sides complain about how poorly the other side fulfills its duties to children... so let's just fulfill them -- children get a living stipend that goes with them and will provide adequate housing, food, medical care, and other needs.

The $87 Bn allocated in march would feed, house, clothe and otherwise care for the 45 million children in the US quite adequately. (And yes, I think all children should get the stipend, regardless of their parents' marital state.)

Every child needs to be educated and reared, and we're all responsible for them. (And yes, this is selfish. I have no children of my own, but someday the child born this year is going to be pushing my wheelchair and feeding me my mush. I'd rather that person be educated and competent.)

[dsc]

100. It takes less than a week for a DNA test

it is absurd to say a kid can't wait one week.

[bunyip]

135. Appalling story, Solo_in_MD

Not as uncommon as others here might think. My dad is retired now, but he was a family-law solicitor for thirty years, and I've heard a lot of similar stories. I guess US law is as screwed-up as Australian law in this area.

Glad you came through the legal torture intact. There are a lot of suicides over wrongful paternity cases.

However, I think the pendulum is slowly starting to swing back toward justice.

[trixie]

142. This story seems a little funny

1. If she was a "teen" as you stated. You would have been charged with rape.
2. Vasectomy does NOT mean unable to have children. My husband and I have a 9 year old boy to attest to that. No doctor will "guarantee" you that.
3. You have not mentioned DNA test. Looks like that was not used.
4. The words - Not of the same race - is quite stupid and quite racist. YOu might want to check into genetics and race before making a statement like that.

It seems very, very far fetched.

I will agree that all children should be DNAd at birth.

[dsc]

143. The age of conscent in most states is 16 or 17

that would make 16,17,18, and 19 year olds teens one could sleep with without being charged with rape. In point of fact since the only other teens are 13, 14, and 15 that would make it more likely than not one could have sex with a teen and not be charged with statutory rape.

[blogslut]

206. Wait a tic

DSS didn't make you take a blood/DNA test?

That's not how they do it here in Texas. I had to take a test. My child had to take a test. The father had to take a test.

[zanne]

207. Lots of bitter divorced men here. nt

[LeighAnn]

23. I'd be telling my son, "Keep it in your pants!"

Just think how it was for fellows back in our grandparents' day... at least you don't have to marry the broad. Child support is getting off easy if you're not the family-type.

Best advice is for a man to keep it in his pants. Does anybody tell our young men anymore that sex has consequences? Rarely ever is it a free ride under any circumstances, I say. Sex might be fun, but it's sole purpose for existing is for making babies. Circumvent it all you like, but unless you get a vasectomy, you'd better know that anywhere you put it is bound to cost you one way or another. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

And if your girlfriend or whatever lies or "steals your sperm", well, better make sure that whatever woman you stick it in is of good moral character. Most guys aren't considering that when they're looking for someplace to put it.

:P

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

28. Reverse the genders and that's an anti-choice rant

I'd be telling my daughter, "Keep your pants on!"
Just think how it was for gals back in our grandparents' day... at least you don't have to marry the dude. Child support is getting off easy if you're not the family-type.
Best advice is for a woman to keep her pants on. Does anybody tell our young women anymore that sex has consequences? Rarely ever is it a free ride under any circumstances, I say. Sex might be fun, but it's sole purpose for existing is for making babies. Circumvent it all you like, but unless you get a tubal ligation, you'd better know that anywhere you receive it is bound to cost you one way or another. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

And if your boyfriend or whatever lies or "forces their sperm", well, better make sure that whatever man you let stick it in is of good moral character. Most gals aren't considering that when they're looking for someplace to get it.




Your comments are sexist, simplistic and crass, IMO.

[LeighAnn]

36. Makes sense either way

>>>Your comments are sexist, simplistic and crass, IMO.<<<

That doesn't make them untrue. Seems to make as much sense as you put it as the way I did.

[ThsMchneKilsFascists]

70. If one holds a sexist and prejudical mindset

Then lots of things seem to make sense in a narrow field of vision

[XemaSab]

141. How is it sexist and prejudicial

to tell kids not to go around having sex indiscriminately for fun? :shrug:

[satireV]

149. It may not make them both untrue.

But it certainly makes your original assertion valueless, vacuous, and vile.

[politicat]

186. Actually, I think they're correct.

This coming from a sex-positive advocate who strongly encourages birth control, disease prevention and responsible sexuality.

The best solution to preventing unwanted pregnancy is to keep the pants on. Next best is to manually stimulate with condoms because wigglers and eggs are like Romeo and Juliet (hard to keep apart, and destined for tragedy if they're impulsive). Third best is reciprocal oral sex. Fourth best is sex with both a barrier and a chemical contraceptive. Fifth is barrier only; sixth is pill only and last place is trusting your luck.

The best advice I got from a 2nd generation radical feminist was this: Don't sleep with anyone unless you're willing to share a child with that person. I've used it continually since then.

In this case, simple is best: sex is old and the morals are actually pretty simple: take your time and make sure you've got the resources to get through the winter before you get down and dirty.

As for sexist: no. It's reality. And if reality is crass to you, well.... sorry about that.

[trixie]

144. I married into a wealthy family

And for generations they have taught their sons well. When money is at stake the sons get a very good biology, sex ed and sociology lesson.

[greccogirl]

78. Georgia is one of the few states

that have laws against paternity fraud. There are so many cases of this. Married men being made to pay child support even when they find out the kids aren't theirs. It's disgusting. I read about one man who had five children and only ONE of them was his, and yet, even after he suspected and they had DNA proving the kids weren't his he had to pay.

Nothing but robbery, and I'm a woman.

[Yupster]

125. Same thing happened near me

The case made national news a few years ago.

Man got divorced with three kids. Paid child support while his wife ran off to live with her long-time lover.

Ex-wife tells hubby the kids aren't his anyway, they are lover's. DNA tests show two of three kids were the lover's, not his.

Court orders him to continue to send a check to the lover's home (real dad) each month for the support of the lover's kids. When he refuses his wages are garnished.

Court also orders him not to tell the kids they are not his. When he tells one of the kids he is again arrested and briefly imprisoned.

The rules are going to have to change at some point. The current system is too unfair to survive.

If you aren't the bio dad but acted as dad, you must pay.

If you are the bio dad but never acted as dad you must pay also.

I have a proposed solution, but this post is too long already. Perhaps lower down.

[trixie]

163. That goes back to the ruling

that any child born in the union are of the union. The children were born in their marriage and are his kids. They tried to do dna tests back in the 40s to establish its validity but had to stop when they found that a high number of children were not of the father. Not a new issue.

[L A Woman]

89. hahaha poor men. always being raped by women...

thrown to the ground, beaten, forced into having erections, and then (against their will)impregnating women. it's a huge problem. we really should do something about it.

:rofl:

give me a break. to prove your point, at least try to use non-ridiculous examples.

[AngryAmish]

146. You are so right

What right do men have to complain about being mistreated? They must be silenced. Pay you stupid mofos.

[toopers]

12. Your last statement hits the nail on the head about this issue . . .

and the inequity involved. You do not want men to tell you what to do with your body, but you want to maintain the right to tell men what to do with theirs -- work to pay for the child you wanted, but one the male did not necessarily want!

[LeftyMom]

16. Nobody pays me anything.

Sometimes life isn't fair. If it's got to be unfair to somebody, it's better it's an adult who made thier choices, rather than a kid who is a victim of circumstance. And as I said, non-custodial mothers pay too. It's not sexism, it's fairness to the kid.

If it bugs you, a vasectomy is cheaper than two months child support. It's also cheaper than an abortion and easier recovery.

[toopers]

17. Though I should not have to tell you . . .

these discussions are not specific to you.

So when a male is forced to pay child support, where is his choice in the matter? When a male is perfectly willing to raise a child on his own, but the female doesn't want to be bothered with the pregnancy, where is the male's choice in the matter? Generally, non-custodial mothers only lose custody because they are complete wackos, or they choose to give up custody.

A male has to end his ability to have a child forever through a vasectomy is the way you see it . . . some choice!

[LeftyMom]

18. "be bothered"

Holy shit, that was the best understatement of pregnancy ever. Congrats! :eyes:

[toopers]

19. Good argument . . .

Congrats to you!

[trixie]

164. Is that the only choice?

How about knowing who you have sex with? How about condoms and spermacides? How about maturity?

In our area the latest thing is nesting. Child has the home and the parents come in and out for 1/2 week visitation. That takes maturity, money and putting the child ahead of the adults.

[superconnected]

88. My mom paid child support.

Thesse creeps are not being facutal. Only pathetic.

All the charm of a limp...

[trixie]

165. AGREED!

[LincolnMcGrath]

29. "It's not a horrible conspiracy against fathers. "

You are correct! It is not a conspiracy, Unfortunately it is right out in the open.

And for the record, I am a custodial father.

[Llewlladdwr]

202. My children's mother didn't.

N/T

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. Please

If he can't take responsibility for his actions, he should keep it in his pants. Use a friggin condom.

[Yupster]

126. Well that's the pro-lifer argument

very succinctly, but at least they're not sexist about it. They say the same thing for men and women.

[fishwax]

131. women have to take responsibilty too

Women, too, have to take responsibility for their actions, whether it's carrying the baby to term or having an abortion. For women, the responsibility they must take for having casual sex carries both physical ramifications and financial obligations. For men, it carries only a financial obligation.

I don't think there's anything sexist about saying "men have to take responsibility for their actions when they don't keep their pants on," unless a woman having an abortion is inherently irresponsible. Of course women have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Those consequences have physical effects that--unlike the financial obligation--one can't simply refuse to acknowledge.

[Yupster]

136. When a couple has casual sex

I don't believe either one is accepting the responsibilities of parenthood.

The current law is that the man is and the woman isn't.

That's too blatantly sexist to stand forever.

[fishwax]

137. they ought both be aware of the potential for pregnancy

seeing as it is a not uncommon consequence of casual sex. It simply isn't physically possible for women not to take responsibility for that. When a couple has casual sex, I think both are accepting the responsibilities of potential pregnancy. For women it is a physical reality, for men, potentially a legal one.

[Evergreen Emerald]

138. what? The woman has life-long consequences!

You are advocating that the men have no consequences and put the whole of the affect of the "casual sex" on women's shoulders.

[Yupster]

155. I'm pro-choice

I don't believe that a woman having casual sex is agreeing to be a parent. Therefore she hould retain the right to an abortion.

I don't believe a woman should be forced into parenthood without her consent. A man either.

[Evergreen Emerald]

139. you misunderstand

My comment was this: this thread is suggesting that the woman take the whole of the responsibility for both the man and woman's actions.

I am suggesting that there are consequences for both of you and it is unacceptable for you to walk away leaving the burden of your actions onto someone else (the woman and child).

I am suggesting that if you are unwilling to take on your share of the responsibility for your acts--don't do your acts.

It is selfish, irresponsible, and frankly stunning that there are such numbers of men who are advocating dumping the whole of the consequences for their actions onto the woman and child and society.

It is not sexist to suggest that you too have a responsibility and that if you are unwilling to take on your share of the responsibility--zip it up or make damn sure there is protection.

[Yupster]

156. I just don't believe that having sex

is agreeing to be a parent. That's why I'm pro-choice.

It can't just work for the woman though. Each peron is entitled to the decision on whether they will be parents or not.

No one should be forced into parenthod without their consent and having sex is not giving consent to parenthood. It sure isn't for a woman. It can't be for a man either.

The laws must be changed to be more fair.

[trixie]

166. I disagree

I am pro-choice but I know that if you have sex you have the chance of being a parent. Knowing that might happen might make people more careful, educated and protected.

[Evergreen Emerald]

167. that is exactly it.

Many of the men on this thread surprise me. They want the female to shoulder the burden of not only their own decision, but the male's decision as well. Some actions have more consequences than other's. Having sex risks pregnancy.

[Yupster]

183. Aren't women demanding

to make the decision for temselves and the man as well?

I thought that was the whole point of "A woman's right to choose."

I believe a woman should have that right to decide whether she becomes a mother or not, but that's where the right should end. She should not also have the right to choose that a man must be a father whether he wants to or not.

[fishwax]

189. she is making a decision that effects her body and hers alone

they already made the decision that effects both of them via the pocketbook. Because, as Evergreen Emerald said, having sex risks pregnancy, which carries with it a potential financial obligation.

Even under this system, men have it better. They might not incur any financial consequence (if the woman has an abortion or if she decides, as some women do, not to seek child support). And under no circumstances are they obligated to be a parent in any way other than financial.

[L A Woman]

87. do you have a link re: the sperm donor paying child support?

that sounds like something that would have headlined the male-run news, to be sure! and i have never heard of such a thing.

[satireV]

150. If evidence is provided to show that sperm donors have been made to pay...

Would you change your beliefs to fit the facts, or would you ignore the facts so your beliefs stay intact?

Cognitive dissonance knows no boundary.

Just curious... no need to reply

[trixie]

169. Sitll waiting for your facts!!!

[Yupster]

194. Here's an article about California

http://www.ancpr.org/california_paternity_justice_act.htm

Here's another

http://www.ancpr.org/once_a_father.htm

A more generic article

http://www.ancpr.org/dna_shakes_up_child_support_law_.htm

Here's a guy paying $ 320,000 a month for a id who is not his

http://www.ancpr.org/truth_is_no_defense_in_state_pat.htm

and here's a website on the issue of paternity fraud

http://paternityfraud.com/

[trixie]

208. You actually disavow your theory

These men had wives who had children duiring a marriage. Different thing altogether.

[Yupster]

212. These were examples of men

being forced to pay child support for children that they proved were not theirs. Was that not what you were looking for? The posts these are responsive too aren't more specific than that.

[trixie]

215. children involved in marriage is a whole different ball of wax

It shocks me how people do not know the laws of marriage and from this thread they actually think that sex does not equal pregnancy. The dumbing down of America!

I found it funny that the original poster with the sob story has much of the same characteristics with the overall view of his links. Hmmmmmmm sounds like it is made up.

[Yupster]

220. I'll go with RFK

"Some people see the world the way it is and ask why? Others look at the world the way it should be and ask why not?"

If a woman has an affair without telling her husband, then has a kid by the lover and tells her husband the kid is his when she knows or at least suspects that it isn't, then divorces her husband and goes to live with her lover, I don't think the ex-husband should have to send a check every month to the home of the lover who happens to be the kid's real dad.

Call me a dreamer, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that's a crazy law, and abusive to the ex-husband.

[Centered]

244. simple google search

yielded lots of hits.... so it has happened at least once

[RandomKoolzip]

109. Oh come on.

:eyes:

Those are incredibly rare and exceptional instances compared to the many many cases of women who get unwanted pregnancies and have the fathers walk out of them. Forgive me if I'm not gonna shed a tear for these guys.

[AngryAmish]

147. I agree completely

You should shut up and pay, you assholes. No complaints, only checks please.

[Biernuts]

182. Glad you put your picture on your post - I'll get sex elsewhere n/t

[Irreverend IX]

252. When cops viciously murder an innocent black man...

It's an incredibly rare and exceptional instance compared to the many many cases of crack dealers and gang-bangers righteously taken down by the boys in blue. Forgive me if I'm not gonna shed a tear for those guys.

[Lindacooks]

153. Uh, if a man is passed out because of alcohol, chances are

very good that he can't have an erection, let alone ejaculate.

Do you have any links to support your claims? At all??

[rocktivity]

24. DING DING DING! Beam Me Up Scottie, you're our grand prize winner!

...getting a vasectomy or abstaining are (mens') "spectrum of choice" for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Or use condoms. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even if you know she's using birth control, too. And ESPECIALLY if you DON'T know. Life is not a subscription to Playboy, where men live sex-rich, parenthood-free lives.

:headbang:
rocknation

[beam me up scottie]

33. Thanks, but according to the whiners, I'm being "sexist" for saying so.

What a bunch of pathetic crybabies.

They know what causes pregnancy now, boys, stop acting so surprised and indignant.

Don't expect sympathy from us because you want to have all the fun and none of the responsibility.

I reiterate, if men do not want to become fathers, it's up to THEM to make sure their partner doesn't get pregnant.

Whining about it after the fact is ignorant and immature.

[LanternWaste]

71. does not appear to be implying ...

Many of the posts I see in this thread do not appear to be implying at all that men are looking to have fun w/o responsibility. The way I've been reading them is that many on this thread believe the choice of men is limited to within the parameters of an already predetermined descision by the woman.

I.e., "...as the female, I make the ultimate descision-- regardless of what you want, regardless of what you can or cannot afford; and ultimately, all descisions regarding this, however indirect are mine. Your choice was to either do it or not to do it, *everything* after that is my choice and you live with the consequences of my choice"

I'm neither agreeing nor diagreeing with this interpretation, simply saying that I haven't seen too many posts forwarding the statement, guys "want to have all the fun and none of the responsibility".

[L A Woman]

92. don't you know anything, Beam Me Up Scottie????

...the 9 months of pregnancy, complete with major body and hormone changes; the excruciating labor; the staying up with the child, feeding, clothing, teaching, nurturing the child; the sacrifice of your own life and career choices - that is the easy part.

It's MEN who have the hard part. They have to have an orgasm. Why should they have to do any more than that? It's just not fair!!

[CTLawGuy]

221. oh, I guess

Men are adults and are expected to have the mental and emotional capacity to handle responsibility whereas women apparently are not, according to some "feminists."

That is nonsense. If we value in this society that people should not be forced to be parents against their will, we should enforce that right equally, and not only for women.

[fishwax]

229. what responsibility is it that women are foresaking?

Men are adults and are expected to have the mental and emotional capacity to handle responsibility whereas women apparently are not, according to some "feminists."

In what way aren't women expected to be responsible? I don't understand how this post makes sense, unless of course you consider abortion an inherently irresponsible act.

[CTLawGuy]

233. when you say

"men, if you don't want to have children, keep it in your pants" you are telling them they have to be responsible for their actions.

If you don't say the same thing for women, then you are implying that they shouldn't bear that responsibility. That begs the question "why?"

If you believe that it is ok to force people to be parents, then fine. But part of the rationale for the abortion right is that women shouldn't be forced to be mothers. If that's true, then men should not be forced to be fathers.

[fishwax]

235. women DO have to be responsible for their actions. Nature forces them to

Women risk the physical consequence of pregnancy when they have intercourse. Those physical consequences exist whether a woman has an operation to terminate the pregnancy, or whether she carries the fetus to term. The consequences can't be avoided.

Both men and women risk the financial consequences of pregnancy when they have intercourse. The extent of that financial consequence depends on how a woman chooses to address the physical consequences. That choice is hers alone because the physical consequences are hers alone.

[CTLawGuy]

236. nothing to disagree with

but do you believe people can morally be forced to be parents?

[fishwax]

242. no, I don't think a man can morally be forced to be a parent

I don't think a father can morally be forced to be a parent. I don't think he can be forced to show up at birthdays or the kid's school play. I don't think he can be forced to talk to the kid on the phone or help him with his math homework or coach his little league team.

But I do think he can be forced to provide support for a life which he is partially responsible for creating.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the argument that "you shouldn't force a man into fatherhood against his will" actually boils down to "you shouldn't force a man to pay support to his child if he doesn't want to."

For example, let's look at two different cases:

The first is what's widely under discussion here--under the current system, the woman gets pregnant; the man doesn't want to be a father, but courts require him to pay child support. He is forced to be a father against his will in that (a) he has a biological offspring he had no interest in having and (b) he has an extra monthly expense in the form of a support check.

The second case relies on the alternate system which, it has been suggested, would be more fair--the woman gets pregnant, the man says "have an abortion or have the kid with no support from me"; the woman decides that she will have the kid. He is still forced to be a father against his will in that he has a biological offspring he had no interest in having.

To what degree should we consider "ashcroft," a man who has no interest in his biological offspring but who (under duress and a court-ordered automatic withholding from his paycheck) pays support for the child he doesn't care about to be more of a father than "rumsfeld," a man who has no interest in his child and is under no obligation to provide financial support. Except to the extent that one considers ashcroft more of a father than rumsfeld, men are no more forced into fatherhood (sounds like a made-for-tv movie ;)) under the current system than they would be under the alternative.

(Editor's note: names used in the scenario above were changed in order to protect the innocent :rofl:)

[Yupster]

127. I have one kid

and he was the result of a condom slipping off.

Luckily we were married at the time so it was okay, but I can attest that it happens.

[Yupster]

191. As long as you agree those are enough choices

for a woman too, then you're consistent. I guess that would make you a pro-lifer. If you believe those are enough options for a man but not for a woman then that makes you a sexist.

[fishwax]

195. those are also the only choices a woman has

BMUS said: getting a vasectomy or abstaining are (mens') "spectrum of choice" for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What other choice is there to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? Abortion doesn't prevent a pregnancy.

[Yupster]

196. No but abortion prevents parenthood

which is what I was talking about.

[fishwax]

204. but the simple fact of parenthood doesn't effect men

both have an equal amount of choices when it comes to preventing pregnancy.

A woman has a choice about whether to subject her health in carrying the baby to term. (Since the man will never be in this situation, he doesn't have that choice as a fact of nature.)

Both of them have equal choice when it comes to whether or not they will be a parent. If the mother doesn't wish to be a parent, she can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. If the father doesn't wish to be a parent, he needn't be involved in his child's life in any way, shape, or form, other than a monthly check, through which he addresses the financial repercussions of the choice they made together (the choice to risk pregnancy) all those months ago.

You have said repeatedly that a man shouldn't have parenthood thrust upon him. But if a woman has a child that he doesn't want, he has parenthood thrust upon him, whether he pays a dime or not. He is, biologically, a parent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that perhaps what you really mean is that a man shouldn't have the financial obligations of being a parent without his consent. But when he has sex with a woman, he should know that pregnancy, and thus a financial obligation, is a very possible consequence.

[lumberjack_jeff]

219. Self-delete

[satireV]

145. You obviously do not understand support laws

A vasectomy has no bearing whatsoever, in many states, with respect to child support decisions. And actually neither does abstaining.

Many states have laws that state it is irrelevant who the biological father is when it comes to child support. All that matters is who the biological mother says is the father. There have been a number of decisions in state courts, where the man has been proven to NOT be the biological father by DNA testing, and the court still makes the man pay child support.

Until that inequity is changed, and mothers who fraudulently demand for financial support are punished, the children will continue to suffer.

[trixie]

168. This is when the child is born in a marriage

I am sooooo sick of the "I had a vasectomy.." Crap! In our case vasectomy was not effective but condoms were.

Can you link us to the case where a father was not married to the mother, was not of the dna and had to pay the child support?

[fishwax]

180. which states are these, that have laws saying whoever the mother says

is the father has to pay, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary?

[Triana]

224. Bingo - thank you beam me up scottie! (n/t)

[notadmblnd]

3. I don't think men should keep their legs shut....

women either for that matter. But what I do think is that if you are going to engage in recreational sex as opposed to procreative sex, then it is both the man and the woman's responsibility to engage in measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Don't leave it the up to the other person. Certainly women have more options than men, but there are options for men too.

[wellstone dem]

4. Once the baby is born, men have lots of options

Bring an action for custody. Be a good dad. Be a bad dad. Pay child support without being sued. Exercise visitation. Don't involve the kid in the fight between mom and dad. Say nasty things about mom to hurt mom, but really hurt the kid.....

The only one in this scenario who has no choice is the kid.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. very well said!

Thanks for bringing up the fact that kids involved in divorce often don't get choices; this was my case when my parents divorced in 1957.

[LuckyTheDog]

22. Abso-freakin-lutely

Once the kid is there, that kid has a claim on both parents. Period.

[Yupster]

192. But all those choices

makes the man a dad without his consent.

I don't think anyone here would support forcing a woman to be a mom without her consent, yet so many seem to think it's okay the other way around.

[depakid]

10. "Men have no such spectrum of choice" ??

How about- be responsible and use a condom.

[RawMaterials]

15. their is a female condom that can be used

and anti sperm cream, women have just about the same abilty to stop a baby from being conseved. If its all the mans choice then maybe its not consentual sex maybe its rape then the man should be in jail, and why would the woman want to keep a baby that she was impregnated bye in rape.

[rocktivity]

47. That's why BOTH partners should use ALWAYS birth control

ESPECIALLY if the sex is meant be be casual/recreational.

Like it or not, the possibilty of becoming a parent goes hand in hand with every single decision we make to have sex. Deal with it responsibly or get yourself neutered.

:headbang:
rocknation

[dsc]

49. actually I have never been in danger of becoming a parent from

an act of sex. I get your point but there are other types of people you know.

[rocktivity]

50. I meant the kind of sex that can RESULT in a pregnancy, of course!

;)
rocknation

[dsc]

52. I know I am just being jerky

[satireV]

151. That's why homosexuals should think twice about . . . .

Legalizing Gay marriage.

Do they want all this crap too?

[dsc]

158. any child I have would end up being meticulously planned

or adopted. I don't think there would be any worries in that regard.

[wiley]

243. Sorry heterosexuals have such problems with marriage, but

homosexuals should not be prevented from having access to the same rights and benefits that heterosexuals do. You can keep the "marriage" name. It's all really just about two people and their relationship. Obviously some end in a very ugly manner, yet compensation or support for the results of past actions (like children) doesn't just go away.

[Yupster]

128. Condom didn't work for me

He plays second base now in Little League.

[RawMaterials]

245. so sue the condom make not the DNA donater n/m

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. There never was a beginning to it.

The whole idea is so intrinsically stupid it's laughable.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. LOL.

Who do you think is taking you seriously?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

27. we all know women who want kids for tax breaks?

Were you being sarcastic, or are you serious?

I don't know any women who try/have tried/are hoping to try to get pregnant for the tax breaks.

[Broken_Hero]

122. I actually know a couple

one was an ex of mine...thank heavens, I never did anything...with her...eek.

[fishwax]

129. thank heavens indeed

:scared:

all in all, there have got to be easier ways to get tax breaks :)

[redqueen]

57. "we all know women out thier who want the kids for tax brakes or ..."

are you out of your ever-lovin mind?

:crazy:

[fishwax]

118. yeah, what an insane comment?

:wtf: I want to assume someone forgot the sarcasm tag :shrug: (does that make me naive? :rofl:)

[wickerwoman]

31. You're confusing two separate issues.

1.) When we're talking about a woman's right to choose we're talking about an internal physical process that has life-threatening consequences. It's absolutely necessary to give women the final choice about whether or not the embryo will become a baby because the alternative is to either force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term (and risk her own life and health in the process) or to seek an unsafe back-alley abortion. Forcing a woman to become a parent when she doesn't want to be one puts her health (and the baby's health) at risk. What's the motivation for a woman in that situation to give up drinking alcohol and smoking? Why should she take care of herself when she's lost control over her own body? The result will be more babies with fetal alcohol syndrome, birth defects, low birth weight, etc. Forcing a man to become a parent when he doesn't want to be one doesn't have the same risks either to his physical health or to the baby's. The only thing at risk is his wallet.

2.) When we're talking about a man's right to choose we're talking about a baby who has already been born. There's no ambiguity here about whether we're talking about a living thing or a clump of cells. And child support is about the child, not about the mother. Why should he or she be punished because of things his or her mother did that were dishonest? It's in the interest of the state that somebody foot the bill for the baby (otherwise the mother and the child will probably be plunged into poverty and it's the state that will be paying). So either the sperm donor or the man who married the woman when the kid was born is going to have to take financial responsibility for the kid.

So to sum up, it's a biological problem. You have to give women the final choice about whether the conception will result in a baby or not because the alternatives are monsterous. So men's choices have to come in at a different time. Either make damn sure that conception doesn't happen in the first place, or take responsibility for the life you half-created.

[redqueen]

58. Exactly! n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

61. So you penalize a man and reward the mother for dishonesty

Which is what the current system does. The current "in the best interest of the child" mantra is used to trample on people who have no involvement with the child and there is no accountability for the mother or DSS.
- True sperm donors (not one night stands) have been gone after for child support
- COntracts between men and women that specified child support are invalidated by the courts
- DSS goes after men for child support based solely on the word of the mother. It is presumptive that she is telling the truth and the man bears all costs of proving otherwise.
- A mother who lied to get child support can not be forced to return it to her victim (best interests of the child)
- Debts incurred by the child while false paternity are being litigated are payable by the man, even if he is later found not to be the father
- If a man pays child support for children he did not father, he is stuck with it for life. There is no recourse for fraud against the mother either

My personal horror story is in post #20.


You hit the nail on the head when you said:

It's in the interest of the state that somebody foot the bill for the baby (otherwise the mother and the child will probably be plunged into poverty and it's the state that will be paying).

The state is not interested in paying, so it wants to pass that responsibility on to some man, whether or not its the right person does not matter.

[fishwax]

119. your issues are quite separate from the case in the OP

I mean, I think the situation as you describe it in #20 is unfair, and I understand your frustration.

But in the OP, there doesn't appear to be a question of paternity. The man claims to have been mislead, and it's possible that he was. Still, when a man and a woman have intercourse, pregnancy is a well-known and not uncommon result. I don't see why either the man or the woman should be let off the hook for the financial ramifications of that decision, and I think that's true regardless of the woman's choice with respect to the physical impact.

Because she and she alone bears those physical risks (of either abortion or pregnancy), it only makes sense that she and she alone make that decision.

Because they both knew that pregnancy is a logical result of intercourse, it makes sense for them both to bear the financial consequences.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. No it's also a financial problem.

A woman who wishes to have a child independently has to consider a variety of issues: Is it worth the medical risk to bear a child? Am I emotionally suited to being a parent? Can I afford it?

In the current legal paradigm, only the first two are considerations, because the state will hold the person of her choosing financially responsible for the child she wants.

Setting aside for the moment issues of justice for the dad, it amounts to the state promoting single parenthood. The state will support the child of a poor mom anyway, the question is not the financial wellbeing of the child, it's if the state will be reimbursed for that expense.

It appears that legal situation has been established for the purpose of punishing a gender for biological inequity.

I don't think it's unreasonable for parenthood to be noncoerced.

[DCCyclone]

39. Bullshit, this ruling was the only correct and just one......

Years ago with a girlfriend we foolishly had unprotected sex, her period was late, and we sweated it out for awhile...she finally had her period and it was a false alarm. Now I'm a husband (different woman) and the father of a 5-month old baby girl; both my wife and I are in our late 30s, and we feared we could have trouble conceiving only to have my wife become pregnant just a month after our wedding.

And I learned what pregnancy is like for a woman...it's a BIG DEAL, people, more than any guy can begin to imagine until actually living with a pregnant woman every day for 9 months. Obviously I can't identify with it, but I understand it as much as a guy can from observation and interaction, and it is, physically and emotionally, more difficult than anything a guy could go through short of combat service in the military (which I've never experienced, but I'm granting that the horrors of war trump pregnancy). And ours was a case where we both PLANNED AND WANTED the baby!

So understand, anytime a guy chooses to have intercourse, he better be prepared for the possibility--however remote in the case where birth control is used--that he's going to knock up the lady and and have to accept the consequences of that. And one of the consequences is that having to go through the fact and trauma of pregnancy, especially an unplanned one, justifiably gives the woman the unilateral decision of what to do.

This Dubay guy is a brat, nothing more. He and that organization supporting him just need to grow up. I'm a liberal, including on sexual matters, but I still recognize that sex is grown-up stuff, not to be taken lightly.

[politicat]

187. My sister has done both combat support and pregnancy....

She was army before she got married and pregnant (her husband was army, too, so one of them had to quit when she got pregnant with my nephew. My sister, though an officer, had less seniority than my Master Sergeant BIL. He stayed, she quit.)

She did combat support for a six month rotation in Bosnia. She was effectively in combat several times, but not "legally" by DoD rules.

I've asked her which she'd rather do again, and she says she will do pregnancy again (she wants two, though she keeps threatening to ship me any girls she has; she's a good boy-mom, but not so much for a girl) but if she could get a baby after 6 months of combat support, she'd take combat any day. She says ducking and covering and staying alive is far easier than pregnancy.

[closeupready]

40. I agree 100%, Slippery.

I don't feel the laws are fair w/r/t this issue.

[CornField]

25. Good for the judge... It is laughable.

There are two things:

1) Understand the possible consequences of your actions
2) Know thy sex partner

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Moral of the story; fraud is good!

[jberryhill]

34. Once more, with feeling...

Child support is about CHILDRENS' right to support. From both parents. If the mother makes proportionately more, then she is responsible for providing greater financial support.

Surprise, the way it works out, women are less likely to be the one making more money.

But it is disgusting that the "grown ups" don't understand the basic principle of child support - it is about the equal obligation of BOTH parents to provide for the support of the child. Period. End of story.

It is not about mens' rights, nor is it about womens' rights. It is about childrens' rights, but I guess we aren't going to see too many children getting a voice in here among the selfish and self-centered adults of both sexes.

[Solo_in_MD]

54. Actually its not about rights of the children or the adults involved

The standard is "best interests of the child" which overrides everything, including basic fairness. It needs to be overturned:

- It is in the best interest of the child to have a father named on the birth certificate regardless of whether that person is the true father (per DSS)
- It is in the best interest of the child to override any contractual relationship the father and mother have(Courts)
- It is in the best interest of the child to have child support paid by the man, even if that man is proved not the father (Courts and DSS)
- It is in the best interest of the child not to have child support paid based on false claims by the mother repaid to the innocent man
- It is in the best interest of the child to have the mother's word taken as fact and assess child support payments before testing is done
- It is in the best interest of the child to have child support paid even if the person paying it is being denied their parental rights including visitation (Courts and DSS)
- "In the best interest of the child" is a capricious standard that needs to replaced with a more rationale and deterministic framework that protects ALL parties
- "In the best interest of the child" is the trump card that DSS uses to break the law.

See post #20 in this thread to see why I feel this way...

[jberryhill]

63. No sympathy for you from this support-paying father

Sorry pal, whether the law is correctly applied in any individual case is not a valid criticism of the law.

Someone was wrongly convicted of murder, so let's make murder legal. No, that's not the way it works.

Either the parents support their offspring, or the state does. As long as there are two breathing people who are that child's parents, then they are obligated to support that child. It is the child's right to be supported. And it is the parents' responsibility, whether they want it or not, long before it is the taxpayers' responsibility.

[dsc]

65. The law wasn't wrongly applied in this case

which is his whole point. The DSS apparently followed the law as it is written.

[jberryhill]

68. First off:

A contract that states that if a pregnancy results from a relationship that the man will not have to pay any form of child support will be set aside in the court.

That's absolutely correct, and as it should be. If I have a contract with Bob wherein Bob and I agree to deprive YOU of a right, that contract will not be enforced. The PARENTS don't get to decide whether they both have an obligation to support their child. The subject matter of the contract is the child's independent right to support. OTHER people don't get to decide what the childs' rights are.

Nobody... but nobody in these discussions advocates the child's position. Fat surprise there.

What Solo is complaining about is a bit hard to discern from post #20. There are certain presumptive rules about legal parenthood. His problem sounds like he got a bad decision. Bad decisions happen every day. Bad decisions do not demonstrate a flaw in the underlying law. Sorry.

[dsc]

72. The contract thing he is referring to is sperm donation (I think)

and unless you wish to ban that practice then I think that contract should be enforcible. As to this situation it seems at the very least he should get the unfairly paid money back and legal fees given that she totally lied.

[jberryhill]

104. Some states may have exception for this...

But you have to understand that when children are involved, and the choice is between having a responsible party support the child or having the state support the child, the choice made by our society is that the parents are on the hook first.

Regardless of whether an individual wants to have a child and not be entangled with some other party, the simple fact of biology is that two individual parents are normally required to produce a human child. The simple fact of probability is that when you have two people, then there is 50% less likelihood of financial failure than if you have one person.

Regardless of how well off that single parent may be at any point in time, s--t happens. And when that happens, then every taxpayer is the ultimate insurance policy against the financial inability of parents to support children. In exchange, the policy embodied in the general law of child support is that first the parents are on the hook before the rest of us are.

I don't "wish to ban" any practice. But one sure as heck should consult one's state laws before being a sperm donor.

Now, if the sperm donation relates to a situation where a couple is married, but the husband is infertile, then most states impose a presumption that a child born to a married couple is the child of that couple. The bottom line there, if it is not your child and the father can't be found, is "you married her, Joe Taxpayer didn't".

But, sure, there are bad decisions that are made under any set of laws, since laws only define a rough approximation of "what works out most of the time to be something approaching 'fair'". There are all sorts of unfair situations and bad decisions made.

But to say that the general concept of child support is "unfair because women have a choice that men don't" entirely misses the POINT of child support. It's not about the grown-ups, their choices, or any of their nonsense, it is about the rights of the child. I find that a lot of adults are hostile to various aspects of the rights of children.

Of the following statements, which of these have you EVER heard and tolerated from your friends or people you know:

"I don't like women."

"I don't like African Americans."

"I don't like children."

That last statement is perfectly acceptable, and the others aren't. Why? Why is it okay to "not like children" and to discriminate against them in, say, housing developments that have deed restrictions based on the age of residents?

You want to even up all the grown-ups choices so that everything is "fair"? Fine. Tell me. What choices does the child get in any of this circus of self-absorption with the grown-ups' rights?

[dsc]

108. I am not saying end child support

but I am saying use reasonable steps to stop fraud. It takes a short time to do a DNA test. I fail to see why before a child support order is entered there can't be a DNA test if the putative father asks for it if he is willing to pay for it if he is the father.

[jberryhill]

112. What makes you believe....

...that what you describe is not, in fact, the reality in most states?

Yes, most states absent other circumstances such as longstanding established support or marriage to the mother, will consider even a simple blood type impossibility as conclusive evidence of lack of paternity.

Which state are you talking about?

Tell you what... How about YOU pick a state, and then we'll look up the code.

I live in Delaware, and what you describe is precisely what is done.

§ 8-502. Order for testing.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter and subchapter VII of this chapter, the court shall order the child and other designated individuals to submit to genetic testing if the request for testing is supported by the sworn statement of a party to the proceeding:

(1) Alleging paternity and stating facts establishing a reasonable probability of the requisite sexual contact between the individuals; or

(2) Denying paternity and stating facts establishing a possibility that sexual contact between the individuals, if any, did not result in the conception of the child.

(b) A support-enforcement agency may order genetic testing only if there is no presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father.

(c) If a request for genetic testing of a child is made before birth, the court or support-enforcement agency may not order in-utero testing.

(d) If 2 or more men are subject to court-ordered genetic testing, the testing may be ordered concurrently or sequentially. (74 Del. Laws, c. 136, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

Oh, and don't forget identical twins:

§ 8-510. Identical brothers.

(a) The court may order genetic testing of a brother of a man identified as the father of a child if the man is commonly believed to have an identical brother and evidence suggests that the brother may be the genetic father of the child.

(b) If each brother satisfies the requirements as the identified father of the child under § 8-505 of this title without consideration of another identical brother being identified as the father of the child, the court may rely on nongenetic evidence to adjudicate which brother is the father of the child. (74 Del. Laws, c. 136, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

[dsc]

115. and before the test is money collected or not?

I don't see an answer here. Cleary the poster above paid before the test.

[jberryhill]

116. You know... you can look this stuff up on the internets...

§ 8-506. Costs of genetic testing.

(a) Subject to assessment of costs under subchapter VI of this chapter, the cost of initial genetic testing must be advanced:

(1) By a support-enforcement agency in a proceeding in which the support-enforcement agency is providing services;

(2) By the individual who made the request;

(3) As agreed by the parties; or

(4) As ordered by the court.

(b) In cases in which the cost is advanced by the support-enforcement agency, the agency may seek reimbursement from a man who is rebuttably identified as the father. (74 Del. Laws, c. 136, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

[dsc]

117. that isn't what I asked

I asked does the father have to pay support before the test is given?

[Solo_in_MD]

75. Actually I was a victim of fraud and extortion

And I did not get a decision for 4 months. What happened was DSS decided I was the father of the child since I had a name similar to the one the mother gave the social worker and it snowballed from there. The tale is somewhat long and very non-PC. Short version:

- I was named as the father of a child I could not possibly have fathered
- I paid through the nose to clear my name
- I paid to support a child that was not mine
- I was prevented by law from recovering any of the money paid for child support
- Had the child had major medical bills or other costs I could have been forced to pay them.
- It had a negative impact on my career
- I was listed as a deadbeat dad, it impacted my credit rating, and my name is still on the child's birth certificate
- DSS and social workers are unaccountable to anyone. They actively ignored the law with the support of family court since it was in the "best interest of the child"

This was all made possible by the current legal structure is flawed in several key ways, primarily that the "best interests of the child" take precedence over facts. Legally I would have been better off being accused of raping the mother than fathering the child. Then the police would have looked at the evidence and realized that a similarity in name (which all of it hung on) does not a perp make...DSS just doesn't care.

[greccogirl]

80. I'm sorry

for what you've been put through. It was WRONG.

[Yupster]

130. There was a show on tv similar to your case

It was in California and a 70 year old Mexican immigrant was being garnished for child support for a child of a woman he never met.

Problem turned out to be a mistyped social security number and the same name as the mother gave, which was a very common name (Enrique Hernandez if I remember right).

Anyway, the state worker was explaining to the newscaster that Mr Hernandez had to pay child support even if he never met the woman because there was a period of time for him to challenge the ruling and it had passed and therefore a default judgement was automatic.

I'm assuming the thing was overturned, but only saw that one short newscast about it.

[blueatheart]

205. maybe missed something

You state in your subject "Actually I was a victim of fraud and extortion" yet in your message "What happened was DSS decided I was the father of the child since I had a name similar to the one the mother gave the social worker and it snowballed from there."

If this is so, that the mother gave DSS a name similar to yours, how is it fraud? Sounds like someone had a similar name and oops mix up. Maybe I did not get the whole story, but where's the fraud?

[Solo_in_MD]

73. And the current law is wrong.

I fully endorse the right of the child to be supported by those responsible for bring it into the world. That is indeed the right thing to do. The problem is that the courts and the law have gone so overboard that the rights of the child are overtaking those of the parents and innocent bystanders. Worse still is when they transfer that responsibility to uninvolved non-parents (which was what happened to me). Its also clear that the real root of this is money. The state, through DSS, wants someone to pay, and my experience has shown they don't care if its the right person or not.

- Presumption of paternity. Whomever the mother names is presumptively the parent. No notification to the man.
- If there are bills associated with the child the presumptive father is responsible for them, even if he is determined later not to be the father. The release from responsibility is not retroactive, its only from the date of the court judgment. Under current law a man who has nothing to do with the child is responsible for their bills.
- Interim child support orders are entered automatically without an opportunity to challenge. Money paid under them will not be returned regardless of verdict.
- Blatant fraud by the mother is not punished, neither is gross negligence on the part of DSS
- It is impossible to recoup payments extorted under the current system
- The state/DSS advocates for the mother and child, the man has to pay all his defense, even if the accusation is clearly bogus/fraudulent.

How does fixing those kinds of issues impact the rights of the child? It will prevent state supported extortion and fraud.

[greccogirl]

81. Thank God

not in Georgia. One of the two states with laws against Paternity FRAUD. And many other states are taking it up, so this won't be the case forever.

[jberryhill]

99. Those sorts of details are matters of state law...

...and, again, it sounds that you received the shaft here. That does not make the law bad, nor does it make the general principles involved wrong.

I do not understand how your problem relates to the larger concept under discussion here - that men should be able to opt-out of child support obligations under nearly any and all circumstances.

No, there is no opt-out from being part of this species.

[Solo_in_MD]

107. I do not support opting out after the fact

And nothing I have advocated does that. But there needs to be some balance of the assigning of parental responsibility and consequences for recklessness and fraud that do not exist today. I am not advocating a wholesale changes but some push back on DSS liability for gross misconduct and on DSS and mothers for fraud.

[jberryhill]

113. Have you done a 50-state survey of laws on this?

This is the law in Delaware. What do you want to change about it?

§ 8-502. Order for testing.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter and subchapter VII of this chapter, the court shall order the child and other designated individuals to submit to genetic testing if the request for testing is supported by the sworn statement of a party to the proceeding:

(1) Alleging paternity and stating facts establishing a reasonable probability of the requisite sexual contact between the individuals; or

(2) Denying paternity and stating facts establishing a possibility that sexual contact between the individuals, if any, did not result in the conception of the child.

(b) A support-enforcement agency may order genetic testing only if there is no presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father.

(c) If a request for genetic testing of a child is made before birth, the court or support-enforcement agency may not order in-utero testing.

(d) If 2 or more men are subject to court-ordered genetic testing, the testing may be ordered concurrently or sequentially. (74 Del. Laws, c. 136, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

[satireV]

152. John... what are the consequences for not providing a DNA sample

for a court ordered profile?

Just curious. Has any mother ever been punished for not providing a sample?

[dsc]

159. Why would they need a sample from her?

I guess it would make it easier but you can do such tests with one parent and the child.

[satireV]

161. ahhhh the avoidance response

Reply to a question with a question, thus avoiding the tough facts.

If the mother has custody, she has to provide the child for the DNA sample as well as for herself.

For a definitive result all three must provide DNA samples.

[dsc]

162. no she doesn't

the kid has to go to the dad sometimes and then he gets the sample. As to your other point, I don't believe it is accurate. I am sure all three makes it easier but I don't think it is necessary. If it indeed is necesary then there is this wonderful thing called contempt of court. The thought of jail time usually ends that kind of behavior.

[satireV]

175. Let's make this 100% clear

You have to have a DNA sample from all three. I have a degree in molecular biology and worked in a DNA profile lab, and you would be surprised how many times the RFLP or PCR of the MOTHER did not match the child's. Most people ASSUME the woman presenting herself as the mother is indeed the mother. they think... ahh yeah she must be because people saw her deliver.. Sorry to say it just isn't so. We actually saw one case where neither the man OR woman who submitted samples were the biological parents. Anything is possible.

In custody cases, mothers have been ordered to give DNA samples from themselves and from the child. They have refused under penalty of contempt of court. And STILL refuse. And you know what the judge does? Nothing. Why? Because taking the mother away from the child is not in the child's best interest. What do YOU think is the reason a woman would refuse a DNA test? ummmmm?

yet somehow, putting the man in jail, and preventing him from making an income is considered having the child's best interest in mind.

[dsc]

177. I admit to not being a molecular biologist

but if the woman delivers the child and wasn't a surrogate, then wouldn't she have to be the mother. I can see a case where for some odd reason both parents are decieving a child as to parentage but I can't see how the mother could realisticly decieve the doctor.

[jberryhill]

178. I'd be more interested

...in examining the license of the OB/GYN that delivered the child, under those circumstances.

In which of the circumstances you describe did you (a) not have a certified copy of a birth certificate and (b) involved persons born in the United States.


yet somehow, putting the man in jail, and preventing him from making an income is considered having the child's best interest in mind.

Obviously if he is not a custodial father, and is not paying support, then the child is not harmed by putting him in jail, no. Putting a custodial parent, whether or not that parent is biological or in-fact, in jail, quite obviously harms a child.

I'm trying to fathom a circumstance, in the context of child support, where a custodial party would be ordered to have a DNA test done. If I am housing, raising, and supporting a child, regardless of whether that child is mine, then it is utterly irrelevant whether I am that child's biological parent. The biological parents are still responsible for providing financial support, unless I have adopted the child.

That sort of situation happens all of the time as well. If mom is in jail, dad is disqualified as a custodial parent for some reason, and the child is living with a cousin, then dad still has a support obligation.

Again, there are all sorts of oddball cases, unfair judgments, and situations in which application of the rules results in an injustice. That's simply the nature of Law as a one-size-fits-all final solution for people who can't solve their problems on their own. If I imagined for one red-hot-second that this country is filled with custodial mothers living in mansions and spending their weekends on yachts, while the slums were full of destitute non-custodial fathers dutifully handing over their entire paycheck each month to support those mothers, then I'd say we need to re-examine the underlying policy of child support.

I don't really see that, on average.

In custody cases,

Are you talking about custody cases, or are you talking about support cases?

Those are two different kettles of fish. Yes, in a custody case, you might have all sorts of people claiming to be a parent (of the kid who just inherited something, or a variety of other reasons). In a support case, you have a custodial parent already. It doesn't matter at all whether that custodial parent is a biological parent.

Sheesh... I took in a teenager for a year and a half after his parents kicked him out of the house. I could have claimed him on my income taxes, among a variety of other things, but didn't. The fact that he was not my biological child had no relevance to whether his parents were theoretically liable for his support (among a number of other things).

You also seem to be confusing the notions of "proving these two individuals are the parents of this child" with "disproving that any one of these individuals is a parent of this child". I can be disqualified as a child's parent by blood type, long before we get to DNA. And that takes five minutes and costs, what, a buck and half? If my blood type is consistent with parentage, then we have to go on to something else, since you can disprove parentage by blood type, but you can't prove parentage. And I believe you are making a similar mistake about the burden and direction of proof in support cases.

[greccogirl]

79. Exactly.

It's really disgusting.

[trixie]

170. see my response to your post

I think you have made the entire thing up or have completely missed out on a pr frenzy.

[Bridget Burke]

35. Child support is for the benefit of the child.

The needs of both adults are secondary.

It appears that men are not just concerned about pregnancies resulting from one night stands. Therefore, they need to require compulsory DNA testing of any child in the pre-nuptial agreements. Why wait for a law? Protect that sperm!

[Solo_in_MD]

55. Courts override such agreements with regularity

[jberryhill]

69. What agreements?

Support agreements? You bet courts do.

If Mom says she'll take a new convertible automobile today in exchange for support until the kid is 18 then, you bet, that's an agreement the court is going to throw out.

[fishwax]

38. both men and women have a choice

they have a choice about whether or not they have sex. Pregnancy, it is well known, might be a logical consequence of that action. For the man, that pregnancy may mean a child that they are legally obligated to support. For the woman, that pregnancy may mean a child or it may mean an abortion.

I don't think the contention that women have some great range of choices and men have no choice at all makes any sense.

[Threedifferentones]

95. The woman now has control over a huge part

of the man's life. If she chooses, he is obligated finanncialy for eightteen years whether or not he ever sees her or the child ever again. It is the woman's choice whether or not to have the child. With that right comes the burden of sometimes having to make that choice knowing the child's father won't be there.

If a man does not object to his lover's plans to carry a pregnancy to term, he is agreeing to the financial obligation of supporting the child. But if he objects and requests an abortion, and the woman
does not want one, then it is his right to walk away, ESPECIALLY if the two agreed beforehand that pregnancy was not the goal of the sex.

[fishwax]

110. he controls his own life if he controls his zipper

He has every bit as much control as a woman does. Excluding rape, they both have the choice to keep their pants on, and they both have the choice to take birth control precautions.

But once they do have sex, they can't completely avoid the risk of pregnancy, whether they want to have a child or not. For the woman, this means pregnancy, which might result in a child (with all the inherent stress, physical risk, and financial obligations) or an abortion (with all the inherent stress, physical risk, and financial obligation). She doesn't have a choice to avoid the consequences of her actions any more than the man does.

She does have some control over which consequence will come to be, but this makes perfect sense, since the stress and physical risk are hers and hers alone. The man faces no physical risk, and significantly less stress, no matter what the woman chooses. But, either way, neither has an easy out from the financial ramifications of the CHOICE they both made.

[Yupster]

132. My suggestion to make the system more fair

When a woman finds out she is pregnant, she must make a reasonable attempt to notify the potential father (father's) within a specific amount of time.

The potential father must then file a form with the local courthouse either accepting responsibilities and rights of fatherhood or declining them.

The potential mother is then given a copy of the potential father's form and then makes her decision as to whether the baby is birthed or not, knowing whether she will have a father participating in parenthood with her or not.

The reasons I like this plan are ...

The woman has absolute decision making authority on whether she births the baby or not.

The woman is not forced into parenthood without her permission.

The man is not forced into parenthood without his permission either.

-_________________________________________________________________

But what about the baby?

All participating parents should put a fixed percentage of their income into a state child support pool and each eligible child should recieve the exact same check each month from the pool. To me it's ridiculous that one child gets 200 times more support than another child just because one woman bedded a rich guy and the other a poor guy. Each child is equally valuable.

What if there's not enough in the pool?

Then general state funds should make up the difference because a hungry child is the responsibility of all of us, whether our condoms broke or not.

[trixie]

171. This is where you are sooo wrong

It is biologically impossible to promise that you would have sex and pregnancy would not occur. As soon as you get that through your head you might just mature and take care of the situation.

Pregnancy is not the goal of sex :rofl: Now I have heard everything.

[Threedifferentones]

174. Ummm

Read the sentence about "the sex" again. And stop laughing at me.

And the choice the man has is to give-up on an unwanted pregnancy. The choice the woman has is whether or not to continue without his support, in addition to the right of abandoning it without his consent. That is fair.

[Pithlet]

198. It's not fair to the child, though.

It's the child who is entitled to the child support. Not the mother. The problem with the lawsuit is the people involved are looking at child support as some sort of punishment for becoming a parent. The woman does make the decision to have the child because it's her body involved, but that doesn't negate the child's rights. However they came to be, a child is entitled to financial support from both parents. Take away that child's right, and you more than likely plunge them into poverty. Destroy the child support system (a system where both men and women pay), and you condemn millions of children to poverty. That is exactly why these cases are thrown out of court. They seek to take away support that a child is entitled to.

[Yupster]

200. I believe the child has a right to suport, but

from where is the question.

I'd say from society as a starving child is the concern of all of us. I also believe that every child should get the same sized child support payment. I can't see how it can be defended that one kid gets $ 60 a month and another kid gets $ 15,000 a month just because the one mom bedded a rich guy.

All children are equally valuable.

[Pithlet]

201. Some kids get more than others, whether their parents are together

or not. This case wasn't about whether this child received more or less than any other child. This particular lawsuit sought to completely take away that entitlement for this particular child. The court rightfully threw the case out. Don't you agree? I mean, if we ever see socialism as reality, then of course the need for child support becomes moot. But, right now, it isn't a reality, and this particular child - living in this universe where absolute socialism isn't currently a reality in the US - won the battle, despite the efforts of the men's rights group backing this lawsuit.

[trixie]

211. Oh just read it again

and it sound even more stupid the second time around. If a man and a women agree that pregnancy is not the goal of sex. I say both are extrememly idiotic and very uneducated.

[Bozita]

42. iirc, Tom (Domino's) Monaghan and his Thomas More Law Center funded this

[Odin2005]

43. Reverse sexism is not a solution.

But the man-haters don't want to admit that because they know it's always us evil men's fault. :eyes: BOTH sides have to consent to sex, saying it's only the man's job to "keep it in his pants" is insulting.

[Hosnon]

44. I can't believe how sexist the women on this site are. It's not always the

man's fault 100%...come on.

[Lilith Velkor]

67. Come on yourself

Then it'll never be your fault.

[fishwax]

120. bwahaha!

:rofl: that

:rofl: was

:rofl: hilarious

[greccogirl]

83. Hey

I'm a woman and I agree that pregnancy shouldn't be used in fraud to milk a guy.

[Yupster]

133. You can't believe it and you have

over 1,000 posts?

[dsc]

45. While I don't have much sypmapthy for this particular man

I do have some real problems with these cases.

"Did the woman ask him to impregnate her and sign an agreement relieving him of any financial obligations? He's still liable if she changes her mind. Was he underage and legally a victim of statutory rape? Makes no difference. (One such case, in Kansas in 1993, involved a 12-year-old boy molested by a baby sitter.) Did the woman have her way with him when he had passed out from drinking and brag to friends that she had saved herself a trip to the sperm bank? Tough luck, said Alabama courts. Did she retrieve his semen from the condom she had asked him to wear during oral sex and inseminate herself with a syringe? Yes, it's a true story, and in 1997 the Louisiana Court of Appeals told the man to pay up, saying that a male who has any sexual contact with a woman -- even oral sex with a condom -- should assume that a pregnancy may ensue."

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/10/19/mens_choice/print.html above is quoted from link

I realize the argument that the child has a right to support but I fail to see why that trumps criminal conduct. Two of these cases are clearly criminal conduct. No court would seriously entertain the notion that if a mother was a low level drug dealer the state couldn't go after her assets because it might impoverish her children. Why should this child become the beneficiary of its mother's criminal conduct if the other child can't? A man can be tricked into supporting a child who isn't his by a woman's fraud yet if that same woman embezzled money to support her child no court would say the child was entitled to some share of that money as support. What is the difference between a woman fraudulently claiming Mr. Smith is the father of Mr. Jones' baby and embezzling from Mr. Smith to pay for Mr. Jones' baby? Why is Jones' baby protected in the first instance but not in the second?

The number of cases involved would be very small overall but I do think we need to think about those cases.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rocktivity]

48. Being careful about who to screw and always using birth control

are choices that men can and should make, too.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Yupster]

157. Woen too, but

we still have over 1 million abortions a year so obviously being careful can't be the last choice made.

[Bridget Burke]

51. Most women know they have to be careful.

According to you "since women are the ones that get pregnant, they need to be careful who they screw and birth control they use." Unlike you, most men are smart enough to know that they, too, should be careful.

Some people are foolish. That's no reason to make thejr children suffer.

[KingFlorez]

53. Then you should be careful not to have a child

Child support isn't only paid by men, the person who does not have custody of the child must pay support to the custodial parent. If he didn't want to pay support, he should have never gotten the woman pregnant.

[Solo_in_MD]

62. Sometime they come after you even if you did not have a thing to

do with getting the mother pregnant. Been there, had it done to me. See post #20 for my horror story

[trixie]

172. So which paper ran your story?

What court heard your case? Come on! I smell a made up story a mile away.

[redqueen]

59. DNA testing before a child support jugment? Sure.

Beyond that, childish BS.

[Solo_in_MD]

76. It would be a start

Punishing fraudulent claims and misbehavior by DSS would be good too.

No one wants to take away the rights of children to be supported by their parents, but the current system is fraught with misuse and needs some cleanup.

[union_maid]

103. I guess it depends on the state

You have to establish paternity in New York. I get calls from people with child support problems every day. I have gotten calls from guys who were disabled and too much is being taken from their disability, and those are legitimate problems. I've talked to men whose kids are in their thirties and they're still paying, but that usually turns out to be arrears. I've never, ever had one from someone who claims not to be the father. I have had many from both men and women trying to find out if they can get the DNA testing for nothing.

This is how it's done in New York, and it really does seem to work this way.
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_york/new_york_paternity

[Tight_rope]

60. Interesting....Just read about Pro-Lifers buying up Abortion Clinics!

So, if a woman can't have an abortion and a man refusing to pay child support, what will happen to the child. Should it live in poverty because of a fucked up society.

[MessiahRp]

93. Actually they already are

Republicans have cut social welfare so much that it cuts into basic programs for all children. Head Start, School Lunch, HUD/Housing Programs all victims of the shift towards CORPORATE welfare.

Rp

[closeupready]

64. How does paternity law compare with Europe's?

Or the various European states? anyone know? Thanks.

[Yavin4]

66. A Very Simple Solution To This Problem

Men, if you want to engage in recreational sex, hire a prostitute and be done with it. Problem solved.

[superconnected]

82. Or god for bid wear a condom.

Glad they dismissed the law suit. I'll consider it tossed out of court.

[MessiahRp]

94. I'm not trying to lob a bomb but...

Women should hold that condom standard onto themselves too. Men shouldn't be the only ones to blame when something goes wrong and the woman is pregnant. Yet it seems most women in this thread are saying that should be the case.

I am firmly in the Condoms Suck camp but my girlfriend would die if she got pregnant so I wear one regularly. She has the same flippant attitude displayed on here. She doesn't use birth control and won't wear a female condom so it's up to us to protect both of us. Should that condom break we will be the one taking the blame thank you very much. And while the comfort factor doesn't seem to register here we are the ones who sacrifice the majority of the sensation in the sexual experience because we always have to adorn the protection.

Seems to me Women need to turn the responsibility into a 50/50 issue rather than just automatically turning the blame onto anyone but themselves...

I disagree with the lawsuit above but Women need to claim some responsibility in these situations as well.

Of course maybe I am jaded because my ex-wife said she was on birth control and disposed of her pills daily to trick me into getting her pregnant and now I have a son whom I raise alone and whom she refuses to visit. Oh and the court system which told me that I would have to pay $252 a month in child support had Jill taken him at less pay then she makes now, forces her to pay just $84 a month. So yeah maybe I have seen how the system works and while this guy's idea was ridiculous, it needs to be a level playing field for both Men AND Women.

Rp

[fishwax]

121. how is it that women are pushing all the responsibility onto a man?

Both the man and the woman have an obligation to deal with the financial consequences of their mutual decision.

Since the woman alone has to deal with the physical ramifications, she alone has the choice of whether to carry the baby to term.

But either way, the idea that the woman somehow skates for free while the man has to deal with all the responsibility is absurd.

[trixie]

217. no offense but....

looks like you are in a relationship with the wrong person. Immature, irresponsible etc. You are just asking for trouble. Why would you bother with a person of such bad character? You have the choice not to have sex with someone who is irresponsible. Looks like you have a history of being with very, very unreliable and irresponsible women. Change your ways but don't make the same mistake over and over again and then blame all women.

[Yupster]

134. Condom is good advice

Didn't work for me though.

[greccogirl]

85. Problem Solved?

And prostitutes can't get pregnant and DNA disappears in that case??

[PansophicOne]

111. Yeah!!! LOL..

wait, are you serious?

[Llewlladdwr]

203. What?!? Prostitutes can't get pregnant?

n/t

[NotGivingUp]

90. I'm female and I say that men sometimes do get the short end of the

stick...no pun intended. Choices should be available to them, too.

[treestar]

91. Is it really that bad for the men?

The problem with this is, that if it goes through, you might see women motivated to go back to much stricter standards. It puts them back in that place where they're not going to take the risk. So men will have less access to sex, generally, I would think.

Ultimately, abortion is legal today because of the convenience to men. Do we suppose it wouldn't still be illegal otherwise?

It is shortsighted not to see that. These men are only demanding more, that is, we should never have to pay child support unless we want the child. And how are they going to prove they didn't want the child any more than the woman did?

[L A Woman]

96. Women are the primary parents...like it or not...here's the solution:

I say it should be this way. First we recognize what it is not politically correct to say, but we all know - the woman is the PRIMARY parent. There is no equality here. If you don't like it, blame the "creator." If she is partnered with a responsible man who wants to be a proper father, GREAT. Men like that don't question whether or not they should take care of their children. Men who do should be excluded from the child's life. They are not morally or intellectually qualified to be fathers, anyway. That means they don't pay and they are not permitted anywhere near the child. And good riddance to them.

[Francine Frensky]

98. The problem is that a child needs looking after

which means the mom has to: a. stay home fully or at least partially which involves a big paycut and a drop in standard of living, which all the studies show is bad for the child,

or b. keep working and put the child in daycare which, depending on the mom's salary level (or hourly pay?) might mean a dangerous/poor daycare set up, plus that the mom has a great deal of stress (work all day, care for child all night, no outside life to speak of).

Your idea is nice if you are independently wealthy or have great family support. For the other 50%, this is simply not going to work.

[vogonjiltz]

101. Except when she isn't.

[Sapere aude]

102. I don't agree. If a man has sex and it results in a pregnancy, he is

as responsible as the woman for the welfare of the child. Do we need to put up billboards around town letting men know that they are responsible for the children they bring into this world?

It is also not politically correct to say that if you play you should pay? Don't have sex and you won't be a parent, that is also the creators fault I guess.

A man who wants irresponsible sex should have himself neutered just as I have my dogs neutered.

[vogonjiltz]

105. Err, I don't disagree.

Personally, I pay child support for my oldest child. I am the custodial parent of my two youngest sons(from a different relationship). I don't get any child support from thier mother. She can definately afford it. She came into and inheritance. I don't press the issue because I'd rather have her continue to fritter her money away on her drug habit instead if legal representation should she decide to get argumenitive about it. I'm just saying that men aren't the only dead beats.

[jerry611]

123. I have seen some pretty crappy mothers....

You are talking as if the mothers are always responsible and the fathers are all dead-beat dads. I assure you that stereotype isn't true at all. I've seen mothers who were abusive or negligent. I've seen mothers that were on drugs or addicted to alcohol.

[trixie]

173. Now that is something I can get on board with

People suck!!!!

I can't stand when immature, drug addicts have children. Men or women!

[MissMillie]

140. I think the issue is of true control

The bottom line is that we only have control over ourselves. That's a reality. The reason why women have choices after becoming pregnant is because it's HER body. We can't give men control over soemthing like that--either directly by banning abortion or through diress by saying "yeah, you have a choice but choose the child and pay for it yourself (a choice made under diress is not a choice).

In a perfect world every child would be wanted and cared for by both parents. There are inequities to be sure. And yeah, they suck.

It sucks when men don't get shared custody. It sucks when they have to pay for children they didn't consent to have. It sucks when they can't raise a child a woman would choose not to bear.

It also sucks that by virtue of having a uterus a woman is paid less for equal work. Even if a woman chooses not to have children, she is worth less on the job market than a man until she is beyond childbearing age.

I just don't know how the courts can do anything more than recognize the biological reality that we can only control ourselves. What is the cost if we start giving men the legal ability to hijack a woman's choice like this? I can tell you who pays the cost... it's the kids. And I know that one first-hand.

[atomicdawg38]

124. Yep

I agree with this. Puts on flame proof suit.

[davidinalameda]

176. if you don't want to father a kid

don't have sex or use a condom

don't put all the responsibility on the woman

[Yupster]

184. And if a woman doesn't want to have a kid

then don't have sex.

See how easy it is. Now let's go protest the Planned Parenthood Center.

[davidinalameda]

214. go back and read the original post

it was about men

nothing about women

[CTLawGuy]

222. it doesn't

she may have an abortion.

I am in favor of "contribution" (legal term meaning forcing someone to pay their fair share of some expense) to fathers for the cost of abortion. He should be liable for half.

Women shouldn't have to bear the full cost of the abortion, and also men should not be forced to become parents.

[Pithlet]

223. A child shouldn't have to be forced to give up

the support of their parent just because the parent wants to pretend he/she isn't a parent because he/she didn't want to be (remember, both men and women pay child support, a fact that seems to be easily forgotten in this thread). If a person has sex, and a child results, man or woman, they're a parent. And the child is entitled to support from that parent. The choices the adults made that resulted in that child coming into being do not negate that entitlement. Neither parent, at any point, should be able to just say "I didn't want to be a parent; I'm out of here" and leave the child, *who had no choice*, holding the bag. Some people seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of these men's rights groups that push these lawsuits under the guise of fairness, and ignoring the consequences that winning these cases would bring. More impoverished children.

It's why these lawsuits never go anywhere. The burden on society that trashing child support would bring would be too much. It's not as if parenthood happens completely spontaneously, for either men or women. And talk about unfair. It's the ultimate in unfairness to leave a child at the mercy of the state in an economy where two incomes are almost always required, simply because they were unlucky enough to be born to an adult who wants to plug their ears, close their eyes and say "I didn't want this, therefore I'm not a parent!" Want has nothing to do with it when it comes to parenthood. You either are a parent or you aren't. Either a child was born of a union you participated in, or one wasn't. The child doesn't suffer any less because one didn't want to be a parent. No one gets to decide after a child is born that they aren't the parent, man or woman. Want has nothing to do with it, once that child is living and breathing and needs to be fed and clothed.

[CTLawGuy]

225. well

once it reaches the point when women may not have an abortion, neither should the man be able to divest his responsibility.

Once women are forced to be responsible, men should be too.

[Pithlet]

228. You're ignoring the child.

Both men and women should be held responsible for any child that comes into being from consensual sex that men and women engage in. From what I gather, you say that because a woman has ultimate control over what happens to her body, she should bare the 100% consequence. But, by doing that, you also place part of that consequence on the child, who had no choice in the matter. When a woman decides not to physically become a parent, and has an abortion, then there is no child. When a man exercises that choice that you propose, and the woman decided to have the child, then that leaves a child living off the income of one parent in a dual income world. Women can't give birth, and then walk away without responsibility. Why should men be able to. The child is the fly in the ointment of the men's rights movement. That fly isn't going anywhere. Until children instantly disappear or are magically invisible and no longer have needs when both parents aren't enthusiastic, child support will be a necessity.

[CTLawGuy]

231. but the woman would know that

if she wanted to have the child, she'd have to support it on her own. and if she didn't want to do that, she could get an abortion. I agree that the man cannot be allowed to divest his responsbility when the woman could not also do so by abortion.

[Pithlet]

237. So, the woman knows that

and has the baby anyway. The baby gets punished along with the woman. Sorry, baby, but your momma shouldn't have had you. So, you get to struggle right along with your momma. Tough break, kid.

The fact is, once you see that glaring pink line on the old EPT, the choices and consequences are not easy, not matter what decision is made. What the men's rights groups backing the lawsuit are proposing is putting all of that 100% on women. Half the cost of an abortion is peanuts in the grand scheme of things, no matter the decision. What they propose is, when that pink line of despair creeps into view, the woman is effectively on her own. Women are the only ones who can ever be made to be financially responsible for the children in this world. Having babies is a woman's burden only, and men are only along for the big O. It's an especially egregious movement considering abortion is harder and harder to get. Do you know that, last time I checked, there was one (1) abortion clinic for the entire state of Mississippi? And I don't even know if that one still exists. And things aren't much better in most red states.

Do you really think that male parenthood exists solely at the whim of legislation? That the only "real" parents are the women? Men are only fathers if they want to be? See, I think that's a rather sexist, anti-male way of looking at things. If I were a man, I'd be insulted at the notion that I'm only a father to my child because I wanted to be, and that it isn't a basic, fundamental fact, the way it is with women. If men's rights activists get their way (not that they really have much of a chance, but for the sake of discussion), then it will damage the cultural shift that men and their children have been benefiting from the past couple of generations where fatherhood, and the involvement of men in their children's lives is seen as more equal to that of mothers. The men behind this movement definitely do not have a favorable viewpoint when it comes to men as fathers. They're clouding the issue with all this talk of fairness, but their agenda hurts men as well as women.

[CTLawGuy]

238. do you believe that people should be forced to be parents?

NT

[Pithlet]

239. People aren't forced to become parents.

They *become* parents, when the child is born. Both the man and the woman are equally biologically the parent of the child. Basic facts of nature. You have sex, and child is born of that union, you are the child's parent, man or woman. 50/50. In our capitalist society, it costs money for that child to be cared for through to adulthood. In our current economy, it's extremely difficult to raise a child on a single income. Unless that income is far above average, the child will suffer the loss of the second income. You simply cannot ignore that. You cannot pretend that either parent isn't really the parent because they didn't want to be without wreaking financial havoc. We have a problem with caring for poor children as it is; add millions more to the roll, and they all suffer even more.

Bottom line is women and children shouldn't have to bare 100% of the responsibility just because women are the ones who get pregnant, and aren't willing to give over control of their bodies. Otherwise it's a damned if they do, and damned if they don't kind of thing. We either control our bodies, but have to go it our own with the kids, or our bodies become public vessels at the mercy of others? I don't think those are the only two choices. I think another, making both men and women equally financially responsible for their offspring, is the best compromise.

[fishwax]

232. women ARE forced (by this little thing called biology) to be responsible

unless, of course, you consider abortion an inherently irresponsible act.

When engaging in intercourse, both the man and the woman should be aware that their actions make pregnancy a very real possibility. For both parties, that pregnancy may present financial obligations. But for the woman, the pregnancy also carries physical stress and risk which simply can't be avoided, whether or not she carries to term.

[CTLawGuy]

234. that is true

and the woman should be allowed to collect half of the expenses for abortion and for the phsycial stress from the man.

That way, you can "captialize" the biological burden on women and transfer some of it to the man. After all he is also responsible for the need of the woman to make the decision.

BTW this has been an amazingly civil discussion. I'm surprised actually.

[fishwax]

240. I'm not sure that solution is workable, and I don't think it's ideal

I don't think it's workable because of the timeline involved. It seems possible to me that a man who didn't wish to pay for an abortion could challenge paternity. Prenatal DNA testing isn't possible before the 2nd trimester. By the second trimester, if I'm not mistaken, states are allowed under current law to restrict access to abortion, making an abortion at that point potentially impossible. But the biological father doesn't want to be a father. Is he now forced into financial support? Additionally, even if an abortion is available, the woman has been pregnant for three months, undoubtedly incurring costs in addition to the second trimester abortion. Would she also be able to collect on these? In the meantime, unless she just wants to avoid the hassle and pay for the abortion herself, her womb is essentially being held hostage.

And, of course, after being forced by such legal machinations to carry a fetus for one third of a pregnancy, the abortion could potentially be a much more difficult decision and procedure (both emotionally and physically). The woman in this case isn't really in control of her own body, and is unable to exercise choice over the physical consequences that she alone bears. Either she pays for the abortion herself, or simply subjects her body to the whims of the legal process.

But ultimately, I don't think it's ideal because I don't think it addresses the situation fairly.

When two people share equal responsibility for one person incurring a disability (and pregnancy is a temporary disability), then each person should be equally financially responsible for the resolution of that disability. But when more than one reasonable avenue exists to address the disability (such as either having an abortion or bearing and raising a child), I think the choice should belong exclusively to the afflicted party, since they are the only one really affected. Regardless of that decision, I think the financial responsibility remains proportional. (This is not a perfect analogy, I know.)

Both parties are equally responsible, and I think it fair that a man know his financial obligation may depend on how the woman chooses to address her temporary disability.

BTW this has been an amazingly civil discussion. I'm surprised actually.

When I first saw this thread, I never imagined it would get to over 230 posts without being locked :) :hi:

[Pithlet]

241. I will say that I do think it sucks

that men don't have the direct, physical means of choice the way women do once a pregnancy occurs. It actually sucks for women, too. It's a sucky situation all around. It's an unfairness shoved upon us all by mother nature. It's physically impossible to make things 100% fair. All we can do is make the best of it, and try to make it as equitable as possible for all involved, once the pregnancy, and possible subsequent birth occurs. It isn't fair that men can become parents against their will once a pregnancy occurs. So, we could strip women of their rights to control their bodies, but that's just substituting one gross unfairness for another. We could go the other route, and put everything financially on women, but that's not fair either, is it? Especially not to the kids involved.

Because we can't make it physically equitable, we can only make it financially so. And even then, it isn't exactly even, but it's as close as possible. When a child is born, it has needs to be met regardless of the feelings and intentions of either of its biological parents. Make both biological parents financially responsible. It's the closes to fair we can get for all parties involved.

[fishwax]

230. men aren't forced to become parents

they are simply forced to take financial responsibility (as is the woman) for their mutual choice to risk pregnancy.

He doesn't have to love the child. He doesn't have to see the child or interact with the child. He doesn't have to parent the child in any way other than as a biological ancestor.

[ismnotwasm]

179. Hmm

I've been watching this thread for a day or so, and it's turned out about how I expected.

The male "choice" is this case would be a)Have the right to force a women to get an abortion or terminate parental rights (adoption) b) Have the right not to provide child support because of simplistic wish to not become a parent.

I don't see any other male options in this case. Either it's control of a different sort over a women's body and life, or the ability to opt out of one of consequences of ejaculating in, or around a vagina. Neither is acceptable. No wonder the case got tossed out.

[superconnected]

181. Beautiful post! You nailed it.

And very quote worthy.

[VelmaD]

188. It is ALWAYS about...

men having control of women's bodies and lives. They can't BEAR the thought that we might EVER have some modicum of control over our own lives and GOD(DESS) forbid we should ever have even the tiniest bit of control over them. *sigh*

[Triana]

227. Men need to learn to control themselves...

...and stop trying to control women. There may be some horrendous cases where a man ends up paying for a child not his but those are undoubtedly rare. The rest of the time, they need to take full responsibility for their own actions and their own lives and the lives of the children they father (financially and otherwise) and stop trying to control OTHER people and OTHER people's lives (namely women).

[Yupster]

193. I haven't seen anyone in these 180 posts advocate

your choice A. Did I miss it somewhere.

On your choice B, I would not agree with you that the right to decide whether you become a parent or not is a "simplistic wish." I see it as one of the most important decisions a person should make in his/her life.

I also don't agree with you that parenthood is the consequence of ejaculation. I believe parenthood should be a choice.

[RawMaterials]

246. agree and both men and women

should have equal choice on weather or not to be a parent, and if on wants to be a parent, and the other doesn't then the parent that wants it should not be able to hold the parent that docent want to it to a life time of slave avery.

[Bridget Burke]

249. DOUBLE POST

(Please ignore.)

[Bridget Burke]

250. Since when does a monthly child support payment---

only until the kid is grown--equal "a life time of slave avery"?

[RawMaterials]

259. 18 years of payments

can actually equal more then a life times worth of money earned, if you figure compounding interest on money saved or invested.

[geniph]

190. Guys, if you have some paranoia about a condom breaking

or your sperm being retrieved from one (you ARE using that condom every time you have sex with someone and do not wish to procreate, right? otherwise, you have no voice in this debate), then get a can of spermicidal foam. Make it part of foreplay to apply the foam for her and have her apply the condom for you. If you're uncomfortable with that degree of intimacy, um, then you probably shouldn't be having sex with that person.

Condoms + spermicide is 100% proof against pregnancy when both are properly used.

When we get the male version of Norplant - a long-term injectable birth control for men - then both sexes can take an equal part in preventing pregnancy, and if one partner isn't 100% sure the other is using their bc, well, it won't matter, because YOU'LL know that YOU used YOURS.

Both partners are equally responsible for birth control. If you don't trust your partner to use theirs correctly, use a method for yourself too.

[RawMaterials]

247. not true it just dops to 1-100

Always more effective if used with a spermicide. According to studies if latex condoms are used consistently and correctly, about 3 in 100 couples will become pregnant. When used with spermicide that number decreases to 1 or less in 100 couples.

http://www.coolnurse.com/malecondom.htm

nothing is 100% effective.

[Seabiscuit]

197. The headlines sucks. It should be "Deadbeat Dad lawsuit".

The suit had absolutely nothing to do with Roe v. Wade and the article's author degrades the principle that case stood for by such a title. It was a callous and frivolous attack on child support laws by deadbeat dads.

[Yupster]

199. Insulting labels shouldn't be used

in the year 2006 in my opinion.

There are many, many reasons why a man wouldn't pay court ordered child support. Some might be very legitimate, others not. Lumping them all together as deadbeat dads seems pretty simplistic, and insulting to me.

[Seabiscuit]

209. The suit was an attack on the state child support law.

It had nothing to do with individual situations where someone might consider a particular child support order unjust. They wanted to do away with child support altogether.

I agree that no insults were necessary in the title to the article - it's just that the insult that was included was very misleading - a more apt insult would have been to label the lawsuit "deadbeat dads", as the purpose of the lawsuit was to eliminate child support laws altogether.

[LiberalHeart]

210. About that headline...

That's the name those filing the case gave it: Roe v Wade for Men.
The headline writer didn't just make it up.

[Yupster]

213. Maybe if we'd all stop using the insulting term

"Deadbeat dad," and treat people as individuals, we'd all be better off.

[BlueCollar]

216. damn activist judges...

:sarcasm:

[The Animator]

248. Normally I avoid wedge issues like this... or I suggest a compromise

to ease the infighting. It does little good to fight amongst ourselves when there are more perilous, and vital battles to fight. If we can a find common ground then we can stand together to face the greater dangers.

That being said, I'm smelling alot of bullshit being flung around on this thread, and it's starting to piss me off.

I have not read every post on this thread, nor have I committed to memory who has said what to whom. It occurs to me, however, that the "debate" here is seriously onesided. I've read some posts here that indicate that the laws regaurding child support, and the beuracracy in place to support those laws need some serious re-evaluation. Some posters have communicated first hand accounts of the flaws in this system, and some posters have suggested some improvements that could be made to the system.

These statements appear to be reasonable, and pretty passive as far as forum threads go.

Some of the responses to these posts, however, seem to fly completely off the handle. As I've said I normally try to maintain balance by seeing both sides of every argument. This however is getting out of hand, time to even things up, I don't care if both sides hate me by the time I'm done.


The impression I got from some of the more rabid posts indicate that having sex is something to be avoided if you don't want children. Worse yet, if you enjoy having sex, and you're a man. True enough, sex does have it's risks, there are many horrible fates that await the ill informed, the unprepared, and the unlucky. The are a host of sexually transmitted diseases that thrive in the ignorance of unprotected sex, diseases like Aids, Herpes, Syphillis, Gonoreah, and worst of all, children. I don't like children much. They smell, they're annoying and they make entirely too much noise. However the potential threat that children pose to my way of life does not deter me from having sex, why, because sex is entirely too much fun... that's right... I said it.


SEX IS FUN.

AND YES, I AM A MAN.

I will not appologize for enjoying sex, nor will I appologize for being a man.

I am not going to sit on the sidelines and listen to someone rationalize an injustice, if for no other reason, I invole myself in this fight out of fear that this same injustice could be inflicted on me.

If a man accidentally impregnates a women, and it can be proven that man is indeed the father, then he needs to step up, and if he doesn't then it's in the laws hands. However, if a man is not the biological father, he should not be bound by law to support the child. And then there are the really fucked up cases...

Like the guy who got oral sex, and after he leaves the woman saves his serm and artificially inseminates herself. The guy still has to pay child support. I'm sorry, but if you engage in a sexual act that under normal circumstances could not possibly result in pregnancy, you should not be responsible for the support of that child. Likewise cases that involve pregnancy through deception. Consider it the Wackjob Clause: If you were granted the forsight to detect that your sex partner to-be was a total wackjob, capable of pulling some crazy crap like this, you probably wouldn't go ahead and have sex with this person.

The rationalization that institutionalized injustice is okay if it is in the "best interest of the children" is utter bullshit.
Injustice is never OK.

But what about the children?
Who will stand up for the children?
How will this affect the children?
Will someone please think of the children?

In the words of George Carlin "Fuck the Children"
If I'm in a situation where the government is forcing me to pay child support for a child that isn't mine, I'm not thinking "what about the children?" I'm thinking "What about me?"

Sex does not equal children. Sex, given the wrong circumstances, equal children. If you take all reasonable precautions to avoid parenthood, you should not have to be prepared for parenthood before engaging in sex. I never want to be a parent, I'd make a lousy parent, and the last thing this planet needs is miniature version of me running around. Does that mean I should live the rest of my life without sex? Hell no! And if it does, tough shit, I'm having lots of sex whether you like it or not. So, to those who think I should take responsibilty for any charliespawn accidentally produced, don't have sex with me. I'm not going to take responibility, because I'm not a responsible person, I can't even be responisble for myself have the damn time. I don't have any money to speak of so you're shit out of luck with child support too. I'm the last person you want being the father of your child, so if you want a family don't come knocking on my door, I'm busy enough as it is.

[Bridget Burke]

251. Please memorize this statement & repeat it to every woman you meet.

I guarantee that chances of "accidental parenthood" will decrease dramatically. As will chances of any sex at all.

If you are sure that you NEVER want to be a father--please consider a vasectomy. By the way, I'd also advise any woman who NEVER wants to be a mother to see a surgeon.

[The Animator]

253. I assure you every woman who ends up having sex with me

has been around me long enough to know where I stand (I'm kind of picky that way). And as far as my chances of having sex decreasing, don't you worry about that sweetheart. I enjoy sex far too much to stop having it, and there are plenty of women out there that enjoy me too much to affect a sucsessful boycott. I'm like Krispy Kreme donuts for Godsakes, quite possibly the worst thing in the world for you, but that's probbably half the charm right there.

[Bridget Burke]

255. So--after she "ends up" having sex with you...

That's the end of the story.

(Your choice or hers?)

[bleedingheart]

254. People keep forgetting that Sex has Consequences....

1. Pregnancy
2. Sexual Diseases
3. Creates emotional bonds for some folks


So let us address 2 first... If some guy sleeps with a girl he has no interest in marrying and she gives him herpes ..which will severely screw up his future sex life. He will be pissed. In fact he may be so pissed he might just take her to court and sue her if it can be proved that she did so purposely. However if he impregnates this woman, he feels he should be let off the hook....hmmmm

Let us look at number 3. While there a lot of folks out there that view sex as just a pleasurable act with no bonds...there are still a fair number of folks out there that view it as the next step in a relationship.

Personally I think that if someone wants to screw around with everyone they meet, they had better seriously view the consequences and make sure that they are using at least two methods of birth control...it's the grown up thing to do. Making it someone else's responsibility is stupid and just plain selfish.

Unfortunately, there are still women and men out there that view pregnancy as a way to trap a partner. There are men who want to keep their "woman" so they will insist on no condoms and if the woman isn't using something else...she will end up in a predicament. There are women who do the same....that is the risk. We all know it happens and when it does, it means you have to face the consequences.

In the end, this is about the child and the child once born can't be thrown away because the parents don't want to support it.

[The Animator]

256. When children become a trap, then it's a problem.

If a women has sex with a guy she has no intention of marring, and that guy that gets her pregnant in an attempt to trap her, she can get an abortion and leave the schmuck, and she should.

But if a guy has sex with a women he has no intention of marrying, and she tries to trap him by getting pregnant he has no alternative but to pay up? Bullshit. If the guy/girl in question thinks that pregnancy is a sure fire way to snag a partner for life, they are seriously deluded.

If two people engage in "no strings sex" they can go there seperate ways if they choose, or hook up again because the sex was good. There is an understand in no strings sex that if a pregnancy results, there are still no strings... that's why they call it no strings sex! What the woman decides to do with the pregnancy is up to her.

If a guy fools a women into having sex by offering the illusion of a life long relationship, then walks out when she starts to show... its dishonest, and dishonorable, and he should be made to pay. If a women get pregnant by way of deceit or some other unforseeable method as a way of trapping a man, she should be prepared to raise the child alone because what man is gonna want to stick around a women he can't trust. That's the crux of it right there. The violation of trust. From either side of the coin, man or women if there is trust involved, and that trust is violated...

At least the women I know can trust me. I'm honest with them. They know up front that I have no intention of sticking around if there are "complications".

Don't try that "For the sake of he child" crap on me either. The world doesn't revolve around children for everyone. And don't preach to me about the dangers of sex, I'm an adult, and I'm well aware of the risks. I've been doing it long enough to know I don't have to be afraid of it, or ashamed of it.

[Bridget Burke]

258. No contraceptive is 100% effective.

The possible worst situation for you? Child support checks until the kid is born.

Whether or not you agree.

[Marie26]

257. This thread will never die, will it? nt

[Alacrat]

260. Devils advocate

I am pro choice 100%, but for arguments sake: A woman can have an abortion without the consent, or notification of the father. The mother has no obligation to take responsibility for the child, the father does. What if the father wanted the child, and was willing to take complete custody, and all responsibility, including financially, sorry, it doesn't matter. The father has no rights, in the decision process, but is legally obligated to support the child if the mother decides to have it. There are many pro choice arguments that can apply to the father as well as the mother. Other than the 9 months of pregnancy, and it's effects on the mother, neither the mother or father are needed for the child's survival. A child is equally, a life long, life changing event,for both parents. I would never want my child aborted, but I stand by a woman's right to choose. Again, this was playing devil's advocate. I believe a father should take care of his obligations, physically, emotionally and financially, always.

[Yupster]

261. I agree that no matter how hard you try

to be fair, you're never going to get there on this issue.

If a man desperately wants a child, and a woman agrees to have a child with him, but then the woman changes her mind, the woman must have 100 % of the say on whether the child is birthed or aborted. Even if the man really wanted it. Even if the man agreed to pay 100 % for it and care for it with no help at all from the woman.

It's not fair, but you can't have a 1-1 tie vote on whether to abort or not. The decision must be completely the woman's.

However, in my opinion, that's where the woman's decision-making power should end.

She should decide 100 % whether she will be a mother or not regardless of what the man says.

However, she should not also have the right to decide whether the man will be a father or not. That must be his decision.

So if she wants it aborted, then it should be aborted regardless of the man's decision.

If she wants the baby and the man does too, then fine, we have a team each responsible for the baby's upkeep.

But if she wants the baby and he doesn't, then she should be responsible for the baby's upkeep.

With choice comes responsibility.

The current situation of "My body, my choice, our responsibility," I don't think is logically or morally defensible.

[Pithlet]

262. "A woman's decision making power"

I think the way you worded that is interesting. You're pro-choice as you say upthread, but you feel a price should be exacted for that choice. You can't make it fair because it's physically impossible, so make it completely lop-sided against women because women shouldn't have that much "power".

You seem to want to equate telling a woman what she should do with her body, and holding a man financially responsible as both equally egregious. That's where I think you and people who share your position are completely and utterly in the wrong. Because I concede that there is no way to make things completely equal because of how mother nature works. But I will not concede that there is anything fair or right about putting the burden completely on women and children because making a man pay child support is on par with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy full term.

There isn't anything fair or logical about letting men completely off the hook when it isn't exactly a mystery how pregnancy occurs. Yes, the argument "Don't have sex if you don't want to become a parent" is trite, whether the person saying it is arguing against abortion, or for holding men financially responsible for their offspring. But, again, we get back to the simple fact that a person has certain rights to one's own body that simply don't apply to one's wallet. So, when someone in this thread is confronted with "That sounds just like the pro-lifers" when they say men should keep it in their pants, I'll concede that it is indeed the very same argument (which is why I never argue that point). The only difference is, the pro-lifers use the argument in the attempt to control a person's body, while the people in this thread are using it to argue that a child shouldn't be deprived of their parent's support. Big difference.

Biological fatherhood is a fact that can't be pretended away after the child is born, and the fact is right now we require both men and women to be financially responsible for their biological offspring however they came to be. Allowing men to walk away from a biological child scott free while never allowing women that same choice (because abortion is not the same thing) is not fair in any logical or moral sense. When a woman has an abortion, she isn't leaving a biological offspring hanging.