Suddenly, I have this picture of a new mom, walking down the street and randomly pointing out some dude while saying “You! You will pay for my baby!”
It’s a completely idiotic picture, of course, but there you have it.
And I think the subjective decisions on who supposedly has a ‘duty’ to pay child support (biological father unless mother was married to another guy and then it’s the husband even though it’s not his kid and even if they were separated when the kid was conceived) are evidence that your funny scenario really isn’t that far off and the women I’ve heard complaining that the child support payments they get aren’t high enough because they can’t live on it and have to actually have a job are indicative that the child support industry is so flawed that it should be scrapped entirely.
And if it’s such a big deal that the child gets this money owed to it, why is it that there is such a crackdown on ‘deadbeat dads’ (the 26.9% of non-custodial fathers who totally default on child support) while no such crackdown has happened on ‘deadbeat moms’ (the 46.9% of non-custodial mothers who totally default on child support)?
And isn’t it funny that the only ‘responsibility’ that the half of all single mothers seem to think a man should have for raising a child that supposedly belongs to both of them is financial? ( 50% of mothers see no value in the father’s continued contact with his children (Surviving the Breakup by Joan Berlin Kelly))
Again, how can you say that a man has no say in the matter? Are you positing the alien teleported his sperm into her vagina argument? You continue to ignore that the man does have a say in the initiation of the whole process.
I’m not sure. I still do not think you have given any reason at all why the male’s input (again, sorry about the pun) should be ignored. You continue to harp that the female has total control over the pregnancy. Yet you failt to suggest why this should negate, change, or even affect the fact that she cannot become pregnant without help from a male.
I’ve said it several times now, and not one of you has addressed it. Can you name a single case where moral, legal or physical facts make your case? Can you name a single instance where a mutually created entity becomes completely divorce from one of the creators because of the actions of the other?
“No! Since you could have aborted your baby and chose not to, you selfish person, neither I nor any other man should have to pay for it! That duty should fall to taxpayers!”
Are you talking about a specific case, or just blowing something out of somewhere?
And now you are suggesting that men should not have to pay because women do not get enough money??!!??
Now this is a good subject to debate. Are the courts biased against fathers in this area of law? First of all, I’d like to know the numbers. If 27% of 1,000,000 fathers don’t pay while 46% of 20 mothers don’t pay then the answer to your question is obvious. I’m not at all claiming that these are the numbers. Personally I think there is a bias in our society towards women when child custody is concerned.
However, I find it hard to argue against such bias when I hear the claptrap out of the minds of males that you guys have been spewing.
I have to call bullshit on this stat. I have never seen a reputable study which suggests that 50% of all mothers want their children to have nothing to do with their fathers. Most women (in my experience, I don’t have any statistics) want to get married. Partly at least to have fathers for their children. Maybe he meant half of all divorced mothers? Half of all single mothers? Can you link to it or at least indicate where mr. Kelly got this figure?
I forgot to add that there have been crackdown on deadbeat moms. I specifically remember a time here in Arizona when our much maligned Sherrif Arpio decided to get some publicity by arresting some dead beat parents. Quite a bit was made of the fact that he rounded up mothers as well.
Well his sperm sure as hell did the talking for him, now didn’t they? I think I’m the most disgusted at the whole concept of having a son or daughter and feeling nothing for them. No interest, no responsibility, just selfishness. God, I’m getting old. I gotta stop reading this thread.
Now pervert, I’m not saying that Razorsharp’s example is valid, I don’t know. If it is valid, it would seem to me that the genetic father of the child in question is completely divorced from the “mutually created entity” because of the actions of the other “creator”.
Wanna bet? 
It is probably another thread, but I have long felt that men who feel nothing for their children are not men. I’m not really very old. So I’ve only experienced a few very profound things. One of the most profound experiences I’ve ever had, however, was when my son was born. There had been lots of drama surounding the pregnancy. What were we going to do. All of that. I refer to it as my summer in hell. But when that slimy wriggling little bundle was pulled out of his mother, something happened. I don’t understand it completely myself. It was a complete surprise. Suddenly all of the drama became meaningless. A complete phase shift occured in my head. Before, I could not imagine my life with a child. It seemed an unfair burden. Since then, I cannot imagine the hell I would go through if I were seperated from him. The amazing thing about this world view, is that it is not limited. Every time I think my children have surprised me for the last time, they simply do it again in totally new ways. I find myself re experiencing the day my sone was born, or the first ultrasound picture of my daughter’s chubby face.
I’m sorry to hijack this thread for such a sappy post. But I can’t stand that an impression of neanderthal males is perpetuated any more than necessary. Don’t despair, IWLN, I propose that many of these men are so pasionate about this subject for the very reason that they are in fact intimately attached to their children. I believe they have concocted this vast facade of no responsibility as a perverted way to shield them from the anguish of being seperated from their children. It is not healthy. It is not as common as it sometimes seems. And as you have seen, it is certainly not rational.
If you find a way to stop looking in here, please tell me. I’ve been trying to stop for days.
two things to note about his example. First of all, of course is that he made it up. Did he ever mention an actual court case when this exact thing happened?
Secondly, is that even if it did happen just that way, the genetic father was not divorced of responsibilities because the mother refrained from abortion.
Thirdly, I don’t think his example suggests that the genetic father is completely divorced from all responsibility. Only that the cuckolded husband may have responsibilities as well.
I guess that’ll teach me. Too chicken to call “Cite?” and winding up with my foot in my mouth.
I’m a little confused by this… I think you should have quit with “he made it up”- 'nuff said. There was no mention of abortion in your question,* “Can you name a single instance where a mutually created entity becomes completely divorced from one of the creators because of the actions of the other?”* and in the hypothetical situation in question I assumed that the “actions of the other” were just choosing to raise the child with the cuckolded father rather than the genetic father. That seems to me to fit the criteria of your request.
This all depends on the details of the situation, and as it’s hypothetical there is no way to determine this without creating details from thin air. He certainly has responsibilities, whether he wants them or not, the question would be if he is aware of them.
All that being said, I don’t think the example in question has any value if it has no bearing on reality. So Razorsharp, if you’re following this… cite?
[QUOTE=coven]
I’m a little confused by this… I think you should have quit with “he made it up”- 'nuff said. There was no mention of abortion in your question,* “Can you name a single instance where a mutually created entity becomes completely divorced from one of the creators because of the actions of the other?”* and in the hypothetical situation in question I assumed that the “actions of the other” were just choosing to raise the child with the cuckolded father rather than the genetic father. That seems to me to fit the criteria of your request.
[QUOTE]
Yea. Probably. My language gets more and more flowery when I become frustrated. Last time around on this subject these guys were full of if a man and woman created a pointy stick and the woman killed someone with it sort of examples. I found them difficult to refute last time because I did not understand my position as clearly then.
So, I agree that being married to another is certainly an action of the mother. And so the hypothetical applies in that way. I still don’t think it divorces the genetic father of all responsibilities, however, so it does not prove the case in that way. For instance, aren’t there cases of genetic fathers suing for custody rights of their children? Certainly there are cases of suragate mothers suing to get rights to children.
I’m not opposed to hypotheticals, BTW. I’d take that. I suppose I should amend my requirements to say that I want an example where a mutually created entity (not necessarily a child) is divorce from one of the creators because the other partner has temporary custody of it. Including the legal and even moral right to destroy the thing. So it has to be this power of the second partner rather than any action at all.
Still looking! Thanks for reminding me that all men aren’t slime. 
[Keanu] Whoah! [/Keanu] I’m gonna have to check that out. I thought this thread was getting esoteric! I don’t know why I posted anyway, just got sorta swept up in the debate. From what I’ve gleaned from this debate, the “non- responsibility” side needs to remember one thing- the baby is going to be made up of a 50/50 split in genetic material. The baby will look like the man, share mannerisms, ways of acting, thinking, weird little quirks… and if he puts in any effort at all will LOVE him more fiercely than any friend. Maybe that’s an appeal to emotion, but think about it guys.
No. I’m saying that’s evidence that so-called child support isn’t about children at all. It’s about selfish women who want things they can’t afford and then want someone else to pay for it.
When women complain about legal inequity, it’s something to argue against, but when men do it, it’s just claptrap?
Are you aware that it would be rather difficult, in fact impossible, for me to spew anything out of the ‘mind of a male’? Dismissing an argument against legal inequality as spewing claptrap would be called misogynist if it were women complaining, so right now that statement looks like misandry.
First of all, ‘Mr.’ Kelly’s first name appears to be Joan. Why did you assume an author named Joan Berlin Kelly was male? By the way, the book was co-written with Judith Wallerstein. Its full title is Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. It’s available over the web, or if you don’t want to spend any money, you can probably borrow it at the library. I have provided a reference for my numbers. If you don’t like them, prove me wrong.
I think as long as we don’t tell a woman that her ‘eggs did the talking for her’ that this argument is utter bullshit.
Your misandrist speculations are not evidence. Nor does it matter what the motivation of a man is who wants to choose his own version of abortion. It doesn’t matter what the reason is that a woman wants to abort. Are you going to call those women unhealthy and irrational too, or do you reserve these insults only for men?
Florida state law is that any child born in a marriage is legally the child of the husband, regardless of biological paternity. In the case of a divorce, if the mother has custody the ‘legal father’ is the one who pays support.
There was a case in Iowa in which the Iowa District court ordered a man to pay support for a child conceived in his wife’s affair with another man, because according to Iowa law, the fraud committed by the wife was not relevant to who the legal father of the kid was.
In Louisiana, the following ruling that makes irrelevant the fraud committed by the mother:
And the case of Patrick McCarthy of New Jersey, who was not only ordered to pay child support for a child that was not his biological child, he was not even allowed present evidence of the fraud committed by his ex-wife in court when he learned of the deception and paid out of his own pocket for a DNA test. Also the cases of Carnell Smith, Decatur, GA. and another man, unnamed in the article who were denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue are of men paying child support for children that are not biologically their chilcren.
Before you accuse me of making it up: Is ABC News reliable enough for you?
Child support is a scam.
You’ll say that to a man who wants his version of an abortion. What do you say to a woman who wants to abort? Do you try to guilt her into wanting to support a child?
False. The whole purpose of “Roe” was to give women autonomy over their pregnancies. It was a PRIVATE issue, as put forth by counsel for the plaintiff. The Court agreed, it was a PRIVATE concern. That’s why John Stackous had no remedy to prevent the aborting of the fetus that he helped create and wanted to raise as a child. He was not considered responsible for the sexual act, in fact, he was prevented by law from being responsible for the sexual act, and he certainly was not responsible for the abortion that ensued, that was his fiance’s “private choice”.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Since it is her private decision, she should shoulder complete responsibility for the results of that decision. See, it does make sense. It makes so much sense that you can’t help but come to that conclusion, even if you really don’t mean to.
BIG SPRING, Tex. It should have been good news when Morgan Wise’s doctor told him that genetic testing showed he was not a carrier of cystic fibrosis, the disease his youngest child, Rauli, has struggled with since birth. But instead, the 1999 test results led to the complete unraveling of Mr. Wise’s relationship with Rauli and his three other children. “For a child to have cystic fibrosis, both parents have to be carriers,” Mr. Wise said. “When I got the results, my first thought was maybe we’d misdiagnosed Rauli. But the doctor came around from his desk and said, `I’m just going to come straight out with it: Is there any reason to think this boy may not be yours?’ He advised me to have DNA paternity testing. I was in such shock I couldn’t even drive home.” The paternity tests showed that Mr. Wise had not fathered Rauli or his two other sons, Marti and Rowdi. Of the four children born during his marriage to Wanda Fryar, which ended in 1996, only the eldest, daughter Carli, was biologically his. But the court that had handled his divorce would not consider the genetic evidence and refused to allow him to stop paying child support for the boys. The court also cut off his visitation rights, even with his biological daughter. http://listarchives.his.com/smartmarriages/smartmarriages.0103/msg00015.html
“According to the American Association of Blood Banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted in 1999, three times as many as a decade earlier. And in 28 percent of the tests, the man tested was found not to be the father.
But in most states, the law has not caught up with the science. And in dozens of cases around the country, divorced men like Mr. Wise - and single men who have previously acknowledged paternity - are having their genetic evidence of non paternity rejected by the courts. They are also being ordered to continue supporting children they did not father.” http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/whosdad.htm
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a woman try and deny partial responsibility for her pregnancy unless rape was involved. Poor innocent sperm. I think we got to utter bullshit on page one and went downhill from there. Abortion never would have been legalized under the terms you’re suggesting.
Thank you Razor. I had not been following your legalese debate very closely. I would like to point out the salient point here.
The point, of course, being that rejecting a child after having supported it for some time is problematic. That is, when a parental responsibility has been accepted it can not be discarded easily.
Also, I’d like to acknowledge this statistic from your quote:
This seems like a very small amount for the fuse being made in this thread. Unless we assume that paternity tests are ordered as standard practice, it seems the only 28% of all cases where sufficient doubt exists to test is the doubt actually well founded.
Now, as for cutting off his visitatation rights, I’d have to read the decision. Some people can take news like this (his wife bore 3 children not his own while married to him) very badly indeed. Are you sure in that specifica case his visitation was cut of merely because he was not the genetic father? Or did the court sever such ties because he became abusive when he found out? According to your cite ( a post in a message list BTW) “The judge made it clear to all parties that they were not to talk to the children about this, and when Morgan did so, that’s why he cut off visitation”. So it appears to have had nothing to do with any principle of divorcing him from his children.