To answer the OP, no, it’s not justice.
The child is the first victim in this scenario, being born to a woman who is a liar, a cheat, and a schemer, and a father who was nothing more than an unknowing sperm donor (through the mother’s choice), and is not interested in being more than that. I believe the man was also victimized; he could have avoided it, of course, by taking more responsibility for his own sexuality, but he wasn’t given all the information he should have been given either, and he wasn’t given a choice. And paying child support for a child he didn’t even know he was fathering is a pretty heavy penalty to pay. In our stampede to protect the rights of mother and child, it seems like the rights of the father are being somewhat trampled. I don’t know of any easy solution to this; regardless of the circumstances of the conception, once the child is here it needs to be taken care of.
Well, I have no idea if that reasoning is used or not, since I am neither right-winged nor a zealot. I’m not kidding when I say that I am unaware of anyone trying to deny women access to birth control. Are you talking about religious groups?
In my area, condoms, foam, the pill, and Depo-Provera are available for free from Planned Parenthood. No one is stopped from going there and getting services.
My point is, (and I had three different views- I’m obviously torn on this subject), if someone is in the type of relationship where they KNOW they do not want kids under any circumstances and will NOT support them, they shouldn’t take the chance of conceiving one. I’m not saying that anyone should be denied birth control, and I’m confused regarding your point.
Zette
I’m not real pleased with the guy bigotry going on here; like because he excites faster and has a prick he likes to poke into things that if something goes wrong, suddenly he is the bad SOB, to be thoroughly screwed for 18 years out of 1/4 of his money, then damned by everyone because he wants nothing to do with the little b#####d that popped out.
In the OP, I did not say when he decided to leave the chick because of her mouth, but I would think it happened after some time because many girls I know of take at least 4 months before they start showing their true colors in a relationship. That’s like one woman said; ‘once you marry the man, never again will you (the woman) ‘have’ to form her mouth in the shape of an ‘O’ again.’ In short, once you get married, you let your hair down because he’s stuck.
I know a lot of marriages which have broken up because the girl, after marriage, changed radically, either suddenly becoming a mouthy b***h, packing on 100 pounds, taking less care of herself, deciding that frequent sex is no longer necessary or turning into a slob. I know many a relationship that broke up after less than a year for the same reason.
The man is not always to blame here. In this situation, I feel that the woman should have lost her case, that the guy should have not been required to pay for something he did not want, was tricked into and then not informed about until she needed extra cash. This bit about ‘you play you pay’ is crap! She deliberately stopped the pill and did not tell him about it because she wanted a kid and knew that he did not.
Tell me, how many of you lovers out there during sex use more than one contraceptive device ‘just to make sure’? Like, what, less than 5% of you, right? How many of you wives, after finding that hubby wants to wait before having kids, stopped the pill anyhow and eventually ‘surprised’ him? That was pleasant for him, wasn’t it? Was it his fault then?
You folks who just have to always blame it on the guy chap my butt! This OP was a case of deliberate deception and later, nothing else other than usury.
Then keep your dick in your shorts, bub.
Since the original poster is obviously more interested in insulting people, not debating, I’m finished in this thread. It’s a shame that you can rarely find a great debates thread that someone doesn’t ruin.
Zette
I say put a statute of limitations on child support. I don’t know how effective it would be, but its better than nothing.
You’re all going to hate me for saying this, but I have both a son and daughter who are sexually active and what I’ve always taught them is that you cannot rely on the other person to protect you from unintended consequences.
Yes, you can negotiate methods of birth control - none of which are perfect - but at the end of the day, the responsibility for ensuring that you personally do not become a parent is yours. That isn’t a responsibility you can abdicate to someone else - your partner has the right to change their mind about what they do to and with their body. While I may believe that they should inform you if they cease using birth control, or suggest alternative methods of birth control if they are unhappy with the one being used, ultimately, the only person who can ensure that you don’t become a parent by default is you. If you didn’t take that responsibility, you are in no position to complain about the consequences, whether you are male or female.
Is it “fair” that you should have to pay child support? Probably not. But it was pretty much within your power to avoid the circumstances under which you would be required to do so.
And before anyone even asks, yes, this is a conversation I have had with my own children and their respective partners. I tell my daughters never to risk pregnancy based on any romantic assumptions about the future, that if they are going to risk pregnancy they should do so assuming that they would be solely responsible for raising and supporting any resulting child (they grasp this because I am a widow who never expected to be raising children alone either). I tell my son (who is utterly emphatic that he never wants children) that contaceptives are imperfect and human beings fallible, so he can never assume that his partner has taken or should bear all the responsibility for preventing pregnancy.
I do not see this debate as an issue of gender, but rather one of responsibility.
Ah. So you mean that men are ruled by their penises, and they just can’t help what happens? So I suppose if he “excites faster” and “likes to poke into things” that he might as well be justified in “poking” into, say, a 13 year old girl? A poodle? A fire hydrant? (Hmmm…gotta think about that one…) Poor fella. He was excited. He had a prick. He likes to poke into things. He was completely powerless to stop his prick from poking into the nearest available hole, obviously.
If a guy wants “nothing to do” with the CHILD that “popped out”, the solution is simple. Don’t “poke into things” that can possibly produce babies. Stick it in blow up dolls. Very simple.
So, because he has no brain, just ruled by his prick (which MUST poke into things, no choice there, GOTTA poke into things) then he just started poking into a female he didn’t really know yet, because he hadn’t waited a mere 4 months to see what her “true colors” are? So, who is to blame? He’s an idiot. He should have kept poking the blow up doll for a while longer.
:rolleyes:
Why? Why shouldn’t people be actually responsible for their actions?
He was stupid, and doesn’t want to be responsible for his own bad choices. Boo hoo hoo.
G’bye Zette. Don’t get hit by the door on your way out.
The thing of it is that the guy let the woman know up front that he did not want kids, but, from what I could gather, shortly before they broke up, she stopped the pill to deliberately get pregnant, probably knowing he was leaving because just before he broke it off, she had become pregnant and said nothing about it. Obviously she did not want anything to do with him because for 5 years she never told him she had a kid, until she needed money, and she was living with a guy at the time she took the kid’s father to court. The kid did not even know that the guy was his real dad!
This sounds virtually criminal and like entrapment to me. If she had wanted support from him, she should have let him know she was pregnant and battled it out in court then. The unfortunate thing is that whenever something like this happens, no matter what, the Dad has to pay. When he gets that summons, he knows that he is going to have to pay and all he can do is argue over how much.
There should be some form of exceptional circumstances to this rule. Like, one man got screwed this way – though it did not take 5 years to give him the unpleasant news, but by the girl saying she could not have kids because she had a hysterectomy done. See, around 10 years ago, such surgical procedures left a visible scar, but these days they can do it all from within the vaginal opening, leaving no scar! You can’t tell when you’re having sex that things have been changed around inside! She lied. A baby arrived. He got stuck with the bills and payments.
She was reprimanded. That’s all, just given a lecture by the judge, who also reprimanded the guy for not taking due care, but he thought he had! Why use a rubber when she has had her baby factory shut down? The guy, no matter what, still has to pay. I think it’s time for there to be some mitigating circumstances applied to the law.
If he informs the girl he wants no kids, if there are no plans for marriage, if precautions like the pill are used, if the relationship is short term and she secretly initiated the pregnancy with no desire to have him in the child’s life and doesn’t tell him about the kid after it is born, then Poppa should not be liable for anything.
It’s kind of like – and this has happened – a guy using a rubber, and after he leaves for the can or whatever, the girl taking a turkey baster, sucking out the sperm and shooting it up herself and getting pregnant. (Remember that incident? Done with the guys permission, though, to produce a baby for his barren wife via her mother. Only, he just wacked off into a condom and she did the rest.) Then, going after the unsuspecting dad later for child support.
Even in that instance, with those circumstances, he stands a great chance of being hit with a bill.
I don’t think this is fare and the ‘keep it in your pants’ crowd is kind of nuts. If a guy likes the girl, finds her attractive, is sure protection is being used and has a regular relationship with her, sex is going to happen and, eventually, without a rubber if she uses the pill or some form of insertable spermacide. Girls like the ‘real feel’ just as much as men do, especially the end ejaculation. Using a rubber, they don’t feel that end part.
So, it is quite possible for a guy to get trapped into producing a child. I don’t think he should have to pay for an unwanted child under these circumstances.
Courier 2:
Give it a rest. You’ve restated your case several times.
How often do I have to tell you kids? Having sex sometimes creates babies! How many times do I have to hit you in the head to have it stick? Sheesh. Could any warning be simpler?
If you do the crime, you do the time. If you impregnate someone, you bear some responsibility no matter how you’re lied to or what the circumstances might be. Get it yet?
Now, that wasn’t too difficult, was it?
like because he excites faster and has a prick he likes to poke into things.
You do know, of course, how many times that same line has been used to justify rape.
I said earlier, and I will say again - the only person on this planet who can prevent a specific individual becoming a parent is that specific individual.
It sounds to me like the OP needs to find out far more information about contraception anyway. While I accept his version of the events which happened to his “friend”, is he at all of aware of the various things which can interfere with the effectiveness of the contraceptive pill? Because my kids sure as hell are. They know that diarrhoea, vomiting, antibiotics, late dosage, and vitamin C supplements can all diminish the effectiveness of oral contraception.
Does the OP know how many women have found themselves pregnant because they believed their boyfriend when he said he wouldn’t ejaculate inside them? :rolleyes: Or how many women found themselves pregnant after consenting to sex only because their boyfriend promised “eternal love”? Is the OP also going to maintain that those women were deceived and should therefore be perceived as victims and not held accountable for their own decisions? Do women sometimes lie about reality when having sex? Yes. Do men sometimes lie about reality when having sex? Yes. Do people of both genders sometimes choose to accept those lies rather than take personal responsibility? Yes.
Welcome to reality.
BTW Courier - if he was so emphatic he didn’t want kids, it was his responsibility to ensure it couldn’t happen, not hers. I don’t approve of her actions, but he chose the easy route of abdicating the responsibility to her - she isn’t responsible for where his sperm ends up, he is.
The “keep 'em in your pants” crowd is actually advocating a mode of behavior that GUARANTEES that no guy will EVER be stuck paying support for a kid he didn’t want. All you are doing is whining because you think that it’s unfair that wehn a guy acts irresponsibly, he is actually expected to deal with the consequences.
If he likes her, she’s a nice girl, he has a “regular relationship” with her, then he’d better be damned sure that he doesn’t mind the (hopefully slight) risk he runs of fathering a child by her. The chance is always there. No birth control is foolproof. If he is so horrified of the possibility of being a father, that extra protection of using a condom seems worth the effort and peace of mind. Or, (God Forbid) just keeping his zipper shut. If it’s not worth the self control - well, you play, you pay.
And, after all, he “likes the girl”, and there is a “regular relationship”. So presumably he is pretty damn confident she is someone with character? He knows her well enough, he’s waited long enough for her “true colors” to show? There should be very little chance that she’ll “trick” him into impregnating her? Right? Because, after all, he LIKES her, and he oughta KNOW her, right? And if he doesn’t really KNOW her, he’s an idiot to be having sex with her anyway, and risking impregnating her.
And even if he really KNOWS her, the risk of pregnancy still is there. Better use that condom, just in case. If not, he’d better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
That is what Bill Maher says:
“I think this will be the second coming of the sexual revolution because no longer can women ‘accidentally’ get pregnant.”
[sub]Just don’t kill the messenger ladies.
:::Cyberhwk takes cover anyway:::[/sub]
I think that as long as a woman has the right to deny all responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, a man should as well, unless it can be proven that both parties agreed that they wanted to have a child at the time of the intercourse.
The sperm may come from a man but the decision to bring a baby into the world is solely the woman’s. She can have an abortion or not as she pleases and the man has no say. Wouldn’t that make it her baby? especially if the biological father was opposed to having a baby? If a woman obtains sperm from a sperm bank the biological father is released from liability but if she obtains it from him by fraud he is not… I don’t get it.
BTW, my best friend was trapped this way by the woman he was dating. She wanted to become pregnant and he didn’t so she just stopped taking the pill and didn’t tell him. Because the guy is more kind hearted than I would be, he stayed with her. Now the kid is about 7 and a PITA. Every time we talk my friend tells me his life was ruined by this…
I think that as long as a woman has the right to deny all responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, a man should as well, unless it can be proven that both parties agreed that they wanted to have a child at the time of the intercourse.
How, pray tell, does a woman get to “deny all responsibility”? It seems to me that she has to make a decision between 1) terminating the pregnancy 2) proceeding with the prgnacy and raising the child or 3) proceeding with the pregnancy and having someone else raise the child. Precisely which one of those options allows her to “deny all responsibility”? Precisely which one of those options does not involve her in an active process? Precisely which one of those options allows her to simply walk away from the pregnancy and do nothing and have her life continue as if it had never occurred?
I agree with you on most things Badtz and I certainly do not support women using pregnancy as a means to “trap” an unwilling financial or emotional partner, but nor do I support men or women who have reached the age of adulthood using as an excuse for not taking responsibility for a child who had no say in their conception or birth “he/she lied to me”. I feel extremely sorry for the children who are born into these circumstances, because it’s inevitable that their very existence is a matter of contention.
Would you really support the taxpayer picking up the tab for the cost of raising ever child who was born into a situation where one or the other parent lied?
I’m clearly suffering from the spooje disease of being unable to spell when I’m angry.
I’ve known SO many people who have been trapped by women who trick them into impregnating them by lying about birth control. It’s happened to one of my current friends, and I can’t tell him about it because I promised not to tell before being told about how this woman decided to go off the pill and not tell him. Of course, I’ve known men who lied about having vasectomies too.
As to the ‘all responsibility’ phrase that was jumped on, maybe I misstated it, but I think you know what I mean anyway. When this topic came up before, I stated that I think the biological father should be obligated to share the expense of abortion or adoption in situations like what I’m talking about.
I just think it’s wrong for two people to be forced to share the responsibility for a pregnancy equally when only one of them has any real control over the outcome of the pregnancy. With rights come responsibilities. Were abortion and adoption illegal, I would have no problem with forcing men to take responsibility for a child they did not want. Luckily, women have options and nobody should be forced to support a child they do not want.
I was going to stay out of it but this is crap. Men have the same option as women, don’t want kids? Don’t have sex. It’s that simple. You play, you pay. Everyone knows that. Gee your friend got trapped? What did the girl do, sneak him inside of her while he wasn’t looking? It takes two to make a baby. The woman has to deal with it for the rest of her life no matter what she decides to do, the man should be the same. You men want sex? Guess what sex causes pregnancy, nothing is perfect. Be a man and deal with it.
Badtz, I would totally agree with you if only one party had any control over whether the woman gets pregnant in the first place. That simply is not the situation. Both parties (barring rape) have control over whether the kind of sex they are having involves the risk of pregnancy or not, and either party can unilaterally decide to exclude themselves from that risk. The choice not to exclude that possiblity is exactly that, a choice. Like everything else in life, if you choose to participate in an activity knowing the risks and not doing everything you can to minimise ro exclude them, then you pay the price if probability works against you. This applies equally to females as it does to males.
I know heaps of males who have been deceived under the circumstances outlined above. I also know heaps of married females whose husbands stopped caring and providing for their children (who were much wanted at the time they were born) the day they became ex-husbands.
Children are not pawns or weapons who should be made to pay for their parents immaturity or inability or outright refusal to be responsible. Nor are they weapons to be used in sick power games between adults whose romantic ideals weren’t quite met by reality.
I am not saying don’t have sex unless you want a baby; I’m saying that if you’re old enough to be having sex, then you are sure as shit old enough to take responsibility for ensuring that doing so doesn’t bring into this world children whose only purpose is to be used in a power game by one resentful, disillusioned parent against another.