Let’s say we have 3 people: Peter, Paul, and Mary.
Both Peter and Paul are having sex with Mary. Not at the same time, mind you, but let’s say she’s having 2 independent sexual relationship with the 2 of them.
Mary gets pregnant and has a baby.
Why is only ONE of them - Peter or Paul, depending on the DNA test - responsible for the child? Why does DNA play such a huge role in paternal responsibility?
Let’s say NEITHER Peter nor Paul wanted the baby - and were misled to believe that Mary was on birth control and did not want a baby either. Why should 1 of them - or either of the men at all - be responsible for the child?
Let’s say John is married to Jill. They’re actively having sex with the hopes of having a baby. Jill cheats on John with Mark, however, and gives birth to Mark’s baby.
John is not responsible for that child, but Mark is. Why?
Why is DNA so important? And if it is… why don’t Mark’s PARENTS have any responsibility for the child?
The role DNA plays is to identify the father. In our society, parents are generally responsible for their children.
Somebody has to be responsible for the child. Infants by their very nature can’t care for themselves. Why not the two people who created it? Who else would be responsible?
Mark is the father and John isn’t. John was probably not involved in the situation at all. Why should he be responsible? Because of a relationship with the mother that is not connected to the pregnancy?
John and Jill are a “2-person family” looking to have a child. Jill then has a child. Why is the DNA of the child relevant (legally, financially, socially, etc)?
Let’s say 2 people have consensual sex. Both agree they do not want a baby. The woman says she would pursue abortion/adoption if there was an “accident”. The woman says she is taking a birth control pill.
Let’s say she lied, and wasn’t on the pill… or let’s say that she was part of the 1% for whom the pill isn’t effective. She gets pregnant. She then carries the baby to term, gives birth, and chooses to keep the baby.
Why should the father be liable for any responsibility in this case? I don’t believe he should be.
If Jill and John were looking to have a child, and Jill had the baby with Mark, is Mark being made the sperm donor for the couple, or is Jill misleading John to think it was his biological child?
As with other activities in life like cooking, driving or owning a home your mitigate your risks by your actions and by contractual agreement.
However those mitigation do not absolve you of your responsibilities if things do not go as planned.
You can intend to drive to work and not get in an accident but if you do you have a responsibility to pay for your mistakes.
The Child support is not for the woman, it is for the child.
She may have ultimate control on terminating or going through with the pregnancy but that does not absolve you of your responsibly to the child.
If you want to limit your exposure to that possibility you can abstain from sex or take measures to insure that pregnancy doesn’t happen through the use of birth control that you have direct control over.
By those standards, would a woman whose partner failed to withdraw quickly enough, or felt the condom break but kept going, or replaced her birth control pills with those delicious little St. Joseph’s aspirin for children be off the hook as well?
In that case it would fall under “marital presumption” a child born in wedlock is presumed to be that of the husband unless he takes the positive step of disputing it.
Perhaps this was a bad example on my part. I think #2 in my original post better illustrates my point:Two men have sex with 1 woman… and through the flip of a coin, one of them gets chosen to be the genetic father of her child. My question is if both of those men are effectively equivalent, why does only 1 get to bear the responsibility? Why is luck the deciding factor in responsibility?
That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t seem to answer the question of: If ONE single person independently decides to have a child, how can TWO people be responsible for it? That doesn’t seem logical nor reasonable.
Partially yes. But it’s irrelevant because it’s the woman’s body, and she has 100% control over whether to have the baby or not, or whether to give it up for adoption.
In other words, if the man deceived her and she became pregnant, she shouldn’t be responsible for the child. (And she - in most cases - doesn’t have to be.)
I’m not sure about how the law in different countries deals with this, but if you are effectively the father of “someone else’s” child for an extended period of time (eg 10 years), and you then discover you are not the genetic father, you would still be responsible for child support, etc.
So far as society is concerned, if you don’t want to have to deal with the outcome of your actions, then don’t commit those actions. If that day comes where you lose your gamble, well tough. Sure, in this instance, only Peter (for example) struck out, but Paul’s time is coming as well. Given enough time and enough sex, Paul’s going to have to pony up to support a child as well.
Society doesn’t need to intervene because playing the game is its own punishment.