Are men getting the shaft?

[Sam_Stone]

What about having an application process for males wherein they can attempt to have their fatherhood status revoked before the baby is born? The only possible way for this to be granted would be to show that either A) you’re not the father, or B) you were deceived or raped. Having the condom break isn’t good enough - that can happen to anyone, and you assume the risk of pregnancy even if you use one.

But in cases where the man truly didn’t give informed consent, I can’t see how you can demand that he carry the obligation for the child. In cases like that, the court could simply tell the woman “If you carry this child to term, you’re looking after it yourself.”, and tell her early enough for her to either have an abortion if she chooses or arrange for adoption or state assistance well in advance of the birth.

I’m just thinking out loud here, so I may be missing something. I just can’t accept the notion that even though a man did not consent to sex he must be burdened for the next 18 years simply because SOMEONE has to pay. That’s the same logic that has led to wild lawsuits. Someone’s injured, therefore someone MUST pay.

Perhaps another solution is a sanction against the mother. What about a system where we require that the father pay support, but only until the woman achieves an income of X amount, in which case he’s off the hook, or until the woman re-marries. That would at least put the status of the man’s contributions into the ‘emergency care’ category, and not as an entitlement for the woman and child. It would also place extra hardship on the mother, which is totally appropriate since she either raped or deceived someone. She should NEVER benefit from such an act.

[Stuffy]

Jodi Thanks for understanding the emotions involved in the situation, actually talking it out helps somewhat though.

I love the child we’re talking about. It hurts a lot sometimes thinking about what it. But what I saw as unfair is that the courts made no efforts to determine the actual birth father.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Kimstu said

True, the point behind Social Security and Medicare is supposed to be that society as a whole is also indebted to the elders who have worked and paid taxes for years; but surely society as a whole is not as indebted as the children who were fed and washed and sheltered by those elders, yet we never sue the children for “elder support”. Is that fair?

One small nit to pick. “Elders” have some 40 years or so to prepare for the time in their life when they are no longer wage earners. Children do not.

I think that it is incorrect to compare someone who never bothers to spend a dime and expects to be given money and a child who is unfortunate enough to have a scumbag absentee father and a mother unable to support him.

[KillerChihuahua]

One common theme which keeps recurring in this discussion is the no-fault father - he who was raped, resulting in pregnancy on the part of the rapist.

Pardon me, but this can hardly be a common occurance, and surely is illegal on several counts (totally separate from any issue of a child).

IMHO, having NOT seen that countless men are living in fear that their sperm will be stolen from them, this is so statistically unlikely that it can (battening down the hatches here, I’m sure there will be a dissenting opinion) be discounted. Allow me to be plain and simple about this: at a wild guess, 99.9999% of the time, the man had something to do with conception. Abstinance works as birth control. Using rape of men as a major theme in this discussion is ducking the main event, which is that almost always, the man was a consentual partner to the sex that resulted in a child. That child is his responsibility should pregnancy come to term. His sperm, his issue, his child, his responsibility. If he didn’t want the responsibility, he shouldn’t have unzipped. So in cases where there was consentual sex, the man is responsible for the result. Period. So is the woman. They both knew what could happen.

In the extremely rare cases in which a man was raped and a child resulted (anyone know of a single case of this ever happening in real life? If so, please post it - with a url so we can examine the details of the case ourselves, please - not Urban Legend style), the man is unfairly burdened with supporting a child he neither wanted, nor which resulted from consentual actions of his own which he knew could result in a child. Well, that is true. Women who are raped and get pregnant are faced with either an emotionally taxing abortion, parting with their child via adoption, or raising the child and having someday to explain to the child “where did I come from” type questions without permanently giving the child a complex. Life is sometimes unfair, and no amount of legislation can make life fair. When a child is a product of a rape, no matter who raped who, it results in innocents suffering - the rape victim and the child. And yes, it is unfair. And as an adult, surely you should rise above your petty selfishness and do what you can to ensure the child - YOUR child - at least has adequate care. Any other argument puts the parent who does not want to care for their own child into the category of an immature self-centered small minded jerk, not an adult with compassion, wisdom, and love for life which happened not by design, but is nevertheless here, innocent and helpless.

I did not touch on the abortion issue not because I have no opinion but in order to keep the focus of this posting clear.

[Sam_Stone]

We’re not just talking about rape, but of situations where a woman intentionally deceives someone in order to get pregnant (i.e. claiming she’s on the pill when she’s not). I think this is much more common, and in fact I personally know of at least one situation like this and perhaps two.

In one case, the woman intentionally got pregnant because welfare rules in Canada at the time stated that if you had three children you could forego your requirement to look for work, but with two you still had to find a job. So she went out and got herself pregnant. The guy involved is still paying for that, years later.

And BTW, I guarantee that not a nickel of his money is going to the kids. The woman is a deadbeat who blew all her money on partying and let HER parents look after the children.

[furt]

*Originally posted by Jodi *

I’m not sure I see any point in giving the father the right to be informed of something he has no subsequent legal right to interfere in. Such a notification seems to me to be rather more calculated to foster pain and anger than otherwise: “Hello, I’m pregnant; I’m obliged to tell you so; but I’m having an abortion so I sure hope you didn’t want the child.”

…But I don’t see how you can create such a “right” for men that doesn’t appear to infringe on the woman’s right to make the ultimate decision. …I don’t know the practical value of a right to be heard, without more.

He has the right to be informed. The right to know he had a child (if he is a person who believes life begins at conception). I have the right to see public records about me, even if I can’t change what’s on them.

Besides that, people can change their minds. I’d say it’s analogous to a waiting period for buying a gun. (Actually, I’d support a waiting period for all abortions, but that’s another issue.)

Getting an abortion is such a huge decision, often accompanied by guilt or regret, I think it’s prudent to help her be sure of what she’s doing. Perhaps the guy she assumes wouldn’t support her says he would and somehow proves it. Maybe he offers to raise the child himself. Maybe he talks to her into adoption. Maybe maybe maybe.

The point is that it’s a tough decision, and one that affects more people than just the mother. And while it’s ultimately her decison, I think it is reasonable to require her to think it over.

[Kimstu]

Mr. Z: *“Elders” have some 40 years or so to prepare for the time in their life when they are no longer wage earners. Children do not.

I think that it is incorrect to compare someone who never bothers to spend a dime and expects to be given money and a child who is unfortunate enough to have a scumbag absentee father and a mother unable to support him. *

Hmm, you meant “never bothers to save a dime”, right? Yeah, my point wasn’t that the situations are exactly parallel, just that “elder benefits” are an example of where we as a society are willing to spend money to help support people even if individuals closer to those people (including those people themselves) could perfectly well afford to shoulder that responsibility instead. Even if we feel that their children ought to help support them or they ought to pay their expenses themselves or they ought to have had the foresight to save enough to pay their expenses themselves, we still accept that responsibility as a society.

[KillerChihuahua]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**We’re not just talking about rape, but of situations where a woman intentionally deceives someone in order to get pregnant (i.e. claiming she’s on the pill when she’s not). I think this is much more common, and in fact I personally know of at least one situation like this and perhaps two.
**

Deception or NO deception, consentual sex implies possibility of parenthood. There are also cases of failure of birth control. That is not the point. How simple can I make this? If you have consentual sex, you must accept responibility for the end result. HE: “I thought I could make all the responsibility for birth control hers! I mean, I was producing sperm and having sex and all… But she SAID she was on birth control!”
Its kindof like the old adage of jumping in the swimming pool because someone told you there would be water in it by the time you hit bottom.
Do you see where I’m going here? I’m NOT saying deception is ok… I am saying deception does NOT negate responsibility for your actions. Including the action of sex with someone who promised they wouldn’t get pregnant.

**
In one case, the woman intentionally got pregnant because welfare rules in Canada at the time stated that if you had three children you could forego your requirement to look for work, but with two you still had to find a job. So she went out and got herself pregnant. The guy involved is still paying for that, years later.
**
Ok, so she’s a tramp and an idiot and a deadbeat, and is sponging off the government, no argument here. But how the heck did she “get pregnant” without sperm??? Wasn’t there some sex somewhere? In which a man participated??? (A man who didn’t have much sense either by the sounds of things, having two children already by this paragon of motherhood and virtue - sarcasm mode intentional - unless the first two were not his, in which case again, not much sense to have sex with a single mom of two who surely showed in some way her lack of maturity and responsibility).
**
And BTW, I guarantee that not a nickel of his money is going to the kids. The woman is a deadbeat who blew all her money on partying and let HER parents look after the children.
**

Again, she’s trash, so what does that have to do with this question? Start another thread about inadequate parenting, child abuse, abandonment, rotten mothers. This thread is about “Are men getting the shaft” when they have to pay for care of children who are products of their bodies. Ipso facto, they are not being shafted unless it was rape, which I covered fairly thoroughly in my previous post, I hope. In a case where it is NOT rape, the man is responsible without any qualifiers at all, on where his sperm goes. He had the sex, he knew the potential result. Your opinion may vary, but please argue against this one point rather than trying to muddy the waters with “Well, she was trash and lied to me so I shouldn’t have to be responsible” arguments.