he urban legend of getting “trapped” by a kid just went up a notch. A woman is forcing a man to pay child support for a baby she had without his knowledge. How did she do it? She performed oral, saved the sperm, put it in a tube, and impregnated herself.
Obviously, her former love is outraged that the woman is attempting to receive financial assistance for a child that he not only had no knowledge about, but also was not exactly a willing participant in creating. He would like to claim theft, but can’t, since the law states he did willingly give his sperm away, even if it wasn’t in the natural way a baby is made.
black-couple
The woman: Dr. Sharon Irons, accused of a “calculated, profound personal betrayal.” The man: Dr. Richard O. Phillips, suing for emotional distress as he was ordered to pay $800 a month in child support after a paternity suit that Dr. Irons filed proved he was the father of her child. Dr. Phillips had no idea about the child for almost two years. The child is now 5-years-old.
Fraud and theft claims have been dismissed by lower and higher courts. Apparently, there’s a thin line between deceitfully engaging in physical acts and consensual relations.
According to the law, Dr. Phillips’ sperm wasn’t stolen; it was given away, for Dr. Irons to use as she pleased.
The ruling stated, “When [the] plaintiff ‘delivered’ his sperm, it was a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a done. There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”
There is no word on whether or not Dr. Phillips is an active participant in the child’s life, as he continues to state that he feels “trapped in a nightmare”.
What do you think? Should Dr. Phillips have to pay or is this an outrageous crime committed against him?
By this logic a women could track down a sperm bank donor and force him to pay child support. I do believe that has already happened at least once actually.
There's a point where accountability ends, and crazy stalker "I want to wear your skin" psycho begins. And saving the backwash from oral sex just to impregnate oneself tends to go well past that line.
Did you actually read that article you linked? It says very clearly that the issue wasn't the donation, it was the fact that the donor didn't follow the proper procedures for getting it done and was therefore indistinguishable from a father saying "but I'm just a sperm donor" to get out of child support. Is it a stupid law? Yes, but that doesn't mean it says what you claim it does.
Did you actually read that article you linked? It says very clearly that the issue wasn't the donation, it was the fact that the donor didn't follow the proper procedures for getting it done and was therefore indistinguishable from a father saying "but I'm just a sperm donor" to get out of child support. Is it a stupid law? Yes, but that doesn't mean it says what you claim it does.
It's a technicality and it was handed according to the law, albeit a bit disappointing that the couple is apparently unable or unwilling to raise the child without outside financial support. The first case is the completely absurd one.
trexmeyer wrote: Cut and paste from the website. They had the following image in the article and image title is black-couple.
You know, I still find that a lot more interesting than the story.
Not that I'm not interested in the story, I mean what kind of crazy lady plots such a strange was to get pregnant, and how much crazier is it then claim child support two years later? And what kind of jerk then leaves his kid with such a crazy lady, fighting her for theft and emotional distress but not custody. Weird stuff.
But I'm still more interested in the 'black couple' thing. Why pick some random black couple for the article? Were the actual couple black? And why not use a picture of them? Weird stuff.
trexmeyer wrote: Cut and paste from the website. They had the following image in the article and image title is black-couple.
You know, I still find that a lot more interesting than the story.
Not that I'm not interested in the story, I mean what kind of crazy lady plots such a strange was to get pregnant, and how much crazier is it then claim child support two years later? And what kind of jerk then leaves his kid with such a crazy lady, fighting her for theft and emotional distress but not custody. Weird stuff.
But I'm still more interested in the 'black couple' thing. Why pick some random black couple for the article? Were the actual couple black? And why not use a picture of them? Weird stuff.
I don't know if you looked at the website, but I'm pretty sure it is targeted at African-Americans based on the other pictures and articles.
trexmeyer wrote: Cut and paste from the website. They had the following image in the article and image title is black-couple.
Not that I'm not interested in the story, I mean what kind of crazy lady plots such a strange was to get pregnant, and how much crazier is it then claim child support two years later? And what kind of jerk then leaves his kid with such a crazy lady, fighting her for theft and emotional distress but not custody. Weird stuff.
I wouldn't exactly be jumping with joy with the idea of an "out of the blue" child, either. Those 800$ a month would certainly be my biggest worry too, I mean, wtf, he's being ripped off in such a shameless way, this is nuts.
he urban legend of getting “trapped” by a kid just went up a notch. A woman is forcing a man to pay child support for a baby she had without his knowledge. How did she do it? She performed oral, saved the sperm, put it in a tube, and impregnated herself.
Obviously, her former love is outraged that the woman is attempting to receive financial assistance for a child that he not only had no knowledge about, but also was not exactly a willing participant in creating. He would like to claim theft, but can’t, since the law states he did willingly give his sperm away, even if it wasn’t in the natural way a baby is made.
black-couple
The woman: Dr. Sharon Irons, accused of a “calculated, profound personal betrayal.” The man: Dr. Richard O. Phillips, suing for emotional distress as he was ordered to pay $800 a month in child support after a paternity suit that Dr. Irons filed proved he was the father of her child. Dr. Phillips had no idea about the child for almost two years. The child is now 5-years-old.
Fraud and theft claims have been dismissed by lower and higher courts. Apparently, there’s a thin line between deceitfully engaging in physical acts and consensual relations.
According to the law, Dr. Phillips’ sperm wasn’t stolen; it was given away, for Dr. Irons to use as she pleased. The ruling stated, “When [the] plaintiff ‘delivered’ his sperm, it was a gift — an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a done. There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”
There is no word on whether or not Dr. Phillips is an active participant in the child’s life, as he continues to state that he feels “trapped in a nightmare”.
What do you think? Should Dr. Phillips have to pay or is this an outrageous crime committed against him?
By this logic a women could track down a sperm bank donor and force him to pay child support. I do believe that has already happened at least once actually.
Nothing wrong with this judgement, except that 800$ in monthly child support seems really high. I guess it isn't by Dr standards... If the father wants to avoid making those payments, he can sue for custody.
She performed oral, saved the sperm, put it in a tube, and impregnated herself.
I really can't understand how you can go from that to thinking that such a judgment is acceptable.
Because attributing child support is done in the interest of the children. If that man wanted to fight that (clearly unhinged) women, the proper method was to sue for custody of the child. That way, she doesn't get child support, he does, and he's protecting the child.
There was no ground to sue for theft or fraud because it wasn't theft nor fraud. It was deceitful, but that's not in itself illegal.
She performed oral, saved the sperm, put it in a tube, and impregnated herself.
I really can't understand how you can go from that to thinking that such a judgment is acceptable.
Because attributing child support is done in the interest of the children. If that man wanted to fight that (clearly unhinged) women, the proper method was to sue for custody of the child. That way, she doesn't get child support, he does, and he's protecting the child.
There was no ground to sue for theft or fraud because it wasn't theft nor fraud. It was deceitful, but that's not in itself illegal.
So, he'd be forced to take the child? What if he didn't want kids? Now he MUST take the kid because the woman decided to do such a blasphemous plan? It's ridiculous!
Also, child should be taken away from that woman, either by the father or child protective services.
I have to agree here. Protective services seems like the best bet. It sounds like the father has no interest in the child, and this woman is clearly not entirely in the right mind.
Doubtful, as they already ruled that he left a "gift" for her that was given freely.... However, I can see where you're coming from in regards to the ultimate outcome of that "gift". Plus, there weren't really any other indicators, or mentions of body parts normally "required" for a rape to occur.
Doubtful, as they already ruled that he left a "gift" for her that was given freely.... However, I can see where you're coming from in regards to the ultimate outcome of that "gift". Plus, there weren't really any other indicators, or mentions of body parts normally "required" for a rape to occur.
So it's not rape if you use a different hole? Good to know.
Doubtful, as they already ruled that he left a "gift" for her that was given freely.... However, I can see where you're coming from in regards to the ultimate outcome of that "gift". Plus, there weren't really any other indicators, or mentions of body parts normally "required" for a rape to occur.
So it's not rape if you use a different hole? Good to know.
Laws are funny like that, I guess... and yes, I'd say child protective services are the best bet. It's the woman who came up with this plan that fethed up both the man and the child that was born because of all this mess; he shouldn't be forced to take a child if he doesn't have any interest in raising one. That's another recipe for disaster.
If you give someone a gift and they use it to beat someone to death, do you go down for murder, or does the responsibility for what is done with the gift rest with the person who got the gift?
SilverMK2 wrote: If you give someone a gift and they use it to beat someone to death, do you go down for murder, or does the responsibility for what is done with the gift rest with the person who got the gift?
Depends on the gift. I don't think giving someone a WMD as gift would be a gray area like this.
Though I don't think I'd ever see sperm as a gift.
This is clearly an donkey-cave move on the ladies part here. However, I'm not so sure the kid should be left out in the cold because their mother is an donkey-cave. It sucks for the dude I guess but at the end of the day you have to go into knowing every time you ejaculate there is some non-zero chance it's going to get somebody pregnant, no matter how convoluted the series of events for that to occur is. You've got to keep that baby juice inside you, or accept there is some chance however small you're winding up a dad.
At the end of the day it's just about managing your risk.
Culpabit Victima! If only the sperm had had a gun, we would have known what the son with a toothbrush moustache would have looked like. Or something like that.
This reminds me of a defence that a serial rapist tried to use.
His defence (I kid you not.) was that twenty years previously he had a sexual partner. She would give him oral sex so on so forth and kept the sperm frozen over time. When they broke up she waited for 20 years to have her revenge. Then she would break into old peoples houses with a massive syringe and use it to pump his sperm into them (because this would explain why his sperm was located on their bodies.)
The lawyer who defended him said he was proud of the fact that he was able to convince two members of the jury that this story was true.
I'm truly liking this judges ruling, apparently all neighbours parcels are up for grabs. Delivered it next door?? That's ok you meant to put it on my doorstep.
Seriously, this is completely nuts. I'm almost speechless , how can he be forced to pay child support for a child when he did not even participate in the creation of it. Should this not be treated as though he was a sperm donor and not a birth father ?Truly , truly bizarre. So in effect if you have safe sex with someone you better be damn sure you get securely rid of the condom and don't just tie a knot and sling it into a bin.
Doubtful, as they already ruled that he left a "gift" for her that was given freely.... However, I can see where you're coming from in regards to the ultimate outcome of that "gift". Plus, there weren't really any other indicators, or mentions of body parts normally "required" for a rape to occur.
So it's not rape if you use a different hole? Good to know.
Actually, there are states in the US where the law is/was written in such a way that a man cannot possibly be raped. (growing up in Oregon, my home state was one of them, I dont know if that has changed since I've been gone in the military)
I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father. The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure you had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
And the interests of the child likely do not rest in the care of a woman who is clearly several kinds of crazy.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure you had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
And the interests of the child likely do not rest in the care of a woman who is clearly several kinds of crazy.
This sad case is an good example as to why the law contains grey areas.
The point that should be remembered first, yet was added only as an afterthought for sensationalist reasons is thr child support is due for the child, not any parent.
Its an odd day when it takes Frazzie to put this point across.
My first comment would be whether the father can insist all the lawfully due child support is paid into an escrow account for the childs education. As while paying for the support of the child is still his responsibility, even if it isnt his fault, but he should be under no obligation to provide any sustenance directly or indirectly for the welfare of the mother.
Therefore he should be able to insist that his portion of child maintenance is spent as he sees fit.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.
The father isn't being punished. The child is being protected.
Probably doesn't make a difference to you, but it's a huge difference in the intent of the law and the ruling.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.
He isn't being punished. He's being forced to support a child he is responsible for.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.
The father isn't being punished. The child is being protected.
Probably doesn't make a difference to you, but it's a huge difference in the intent of the law and the ruling.
The mother is notably a doctor (it is not specified if it is of medicine or a PHD). I question whether or not the $800 is actually needed in order to support the child.
He isn't being punished. He's being forced to support a child he is responsible for.
Lesson 1: Don't feth crazy.
By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS
The mother is notably a doctor (it is not specified if it is of medicine or a PHD). I question whether or not the $800 is actually needed in order to support the child.
By that logic, does the $800 a month affect the father that dramatically, if he's also a doctor?
But there are venues for challenging the need for child support. Of course, many state laws simply have guidelines based on income of the father, not the need of the child.
By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS
I will now spend my life hoping your moral and logical conclusions never effect me in anyway, because you're being neither.
His life isn't ruined. He has to pay child support. I know plenty of guys doing that right now, and so do you, I"m sure.
Intent has no matter in child support. A burst condom isn't hte intent of the father, but he still pays. (or a dislodged IUD, which I learned can actually happen).
As for CPS.... well, there's a difference between a person doing something crazy, and a person being crazy. CPS is traumatic to children, and nearly every study has shown that keeping a child with it's parents in cases outside of abuse/neglect is better than foster care.
This is bad luck. It's not a system run amok, it's not a perversion of justice, and its not ruining anything. It's unfair, but lots of things are unfair.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.
The father isn't being punished. The child is being protected.
Probably doesn't make a difference to you, but it's a huge difference in the intent of the law and the ruling.
The mother is notably a doctor (it is not specified if it is of medicine or a PHD). I question whether or not the $800 is actually needed in order to support the child.
Well, the good news is that the person that decided that is an actual judge with access to actual facts and access to actual finances to make an actual decision for an actual human being.
You however are a random guy on a forum dedicated to pushing little plastic/resin/metal/restic soldiers across the table while going "pewpewpew". There is a reason why you didn't make the decision for the well-being of this child.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure the OP had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
Why again is the "father" being punished? In a situation such as this, assuming child support is actually needed, isn't it the purpose of the state to provide any additional aid? The "father" is a victim. The child is a victim. The mother is the perpetrator of an utterly insane crime. I'm confused as to why you are so hellbent on punishing one of the victims in this scenario.
Its not punishment. Why do you not get this? Its funds to support the 3rd party baby you just made.
The State has a compelling interest in protecting the life and health of the child. That support is for the health and maintenance of the child.
If Baby Mamma was just walking along, accidentally dropped an egg in the river, and Baby Daddy came along, accidentally fertilized the egg and then died, the State still would have an interest in taking funds from both to support the baby Salmon er child.
You don't like it? Life's hard. Put on your big boy panties before you go outside. You're going to need them.
Frazzled wrote: I'm sure you had a point, it was just, you know wrong and stupid.
Child support is to support the child. It is put in place IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. It has nothing to do with the mother or father.
The Court protects the interest and maintenance of the child.
Now go back to your basement and rage at the cruelty of it all.
And the interests of the child likely do not rest in the care of a woman who is clearly several kinds of crazy.
EXACTLY!
Moral of the story: don't sleep with crazy.
W, I'm agreeing with frazzled....
They said this day would never come *looks at post by christain not anymore friend with picture of self with anti-christ symbol*
explanation:
I used to be friends with a heavily christain girl, when I showed her warhammer, and told her I'm not christain, she litterally screamed and denounced me as the anti-Christ. Hence, me agreeing with frazzled, would be equivelent to a chaos space marine and an ultra smurf having a beer together.
Bad joke...
Ot: what frazzled said.
But listen to the man, anyone who's sacrificing to singlehandedly raise the birth rates in both Japan and Europe back to sustainable levels must be listened to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS
Because its half his dna dimbledore. Not quit thinking of ways to be deadbeat dad already. Sorry but I have real issues with this type of attitude, having raised two kids from who had vermin for a bio father.
agreeing with frazzled, would be equivelent to a chaos space marine and an ultra smurf having a beer together.
Hey I played Zinc (Iron) Warriors and all Demons before there was a Demon list boyo. So lets grow some tentacles and pass the beer!
As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:
The State has a compelling interest in protecting the life and health of the child. That support is for the health and maintenance of the child.
If Baby Mamma was just walking along, accidentally dropped an egg in the river, and Baby Daddy came along, accidentally fertilized the egg and then died, the State still would have an interest in taking funds from both to support the baby Salmon er child.
It also has a compelling interest in not paying for the child's support. Now, there's probably not as much of that in this case, assuming the mother is working, but a lot of child support is based on the idea that the father, not welfare, should pay for children.
On an unrelated note, I"m guessing this woman's life is pretty lousy right now. I mean, everybody is going to know her for this. there are reputations, and then there's this.
I prefer the UK jurisprudence on this topic, that there is no property in a body. Thus the using of the sperm against the donor's will and intentions (I'm sorry folks, if you engage in oral sex then on the facts it would strongly suggest that you are not interested in helping conceive a child) cannot be a "gift".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I prefer the UK jurisprudence on this topic, that there is no property in a body. Thus the using of the sperm against the donor's will and intentions (I'm sorry folks, if you engage in oral sex then on the facts it would strongly suggest that you are not interested in helping conceive a child) cannot be a "gift".
Well, the case discussing the use of a gift related to the father suing for fraud/ and infliction of emotional distress, not the actual child support.
A lot of posters here seem to be confusing the two.
Soladrin wrote: So, how much of that money is actually going to end up helping the child? Cause I think that's the bigger issue here.
I don't think anyone is niave enough to think that the woman in this case isn't pocketing some of that money for herself. That's a lot of money for child support, and I get the sense that the well being of the child, is not a priority for her. Its a problem in the US where child support is sometimes used to punish a parent, or simply as a form of legal fraud. Courts don't really check to see if someone getting child support payments is actually using that money to support the child.
But while I think this is wrong (morally, ethical, etc) and a miscarriage of justice for a man who was essentially DNA raped and extorted for money, not much to be done about it. Anything done about it hurts the child who has no control over the situation. A change in the laws and how we handle these situations would be needed to resolve stuff like this (namely a social program specifically for supporting single parents). Just one of those situations that kind of sucks for the person on the wrong end of it.
This is crazy, but like said before, Don't feth crazy is the easiest way to avoid the situation. The problem is there are a lot of crazy people, its hard to avoid them all.
I think its terrible law, and sets a terrible precedent. The fact that the woman's deceitful act caused the situation should be taken into account. If it can be proved that she doesn't need the support, her punishment should at least be to not receive it. If she gets away with this its comparable to a man slipping a someone an abortion pill and getting away with it.
His life isn't ruined. He has to pay child support. I know plenty of guys doing that right now, and so do you, I"m sure.
You however are a random guy on a forum dedicated to pushing little plastic/resin/metal/restic soldiers across the table while going "pewpewpew". There is a reason why you didn't make the decision for the well-being of this child.
You don't like it? Life's hard. Put on your big boy panties before you go outside. You're going to need them.
Are personnel insults and character attacks really necessary?
The rudest of which would be Polonius'. Do you commonly insinuate that other posters are promiscuous PUAs gleefully impregnating women left and right?
As to D-USA, the very words you wrote can be applied to yourself. Given the massive the disparity in our numbers of posts I would venture that they would be much more applicable to you.
Frazzled is a boor.
Is this common for this site or did I simply stumble upon a pack of grumpy old men by happenstance?
d-usa wrote: As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:
Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.
The rudest of which would be Polonius'. Do you commonly insinuate that other posters are promiscuous PUAs gleefully impregnating women left and right?
No. I do commonly insinuate that people have problems reading. I was saying you know people that are paying child support. Which if you are an adult male with more than a handful of aquaintences, is likley true.
I also only escaped it myself due to a fairly horrific miscarriage. So I know a bit about these things.
As to D-USA, the very words you wrote can be applied to yourself. Given the massive the disparity in our numbers of posts I would venture that they would be much more applicable to you.
Probably, but he's not making sweeping statements about the fitness of others to be parents, or the merits fo the entire legal system. You're acting like the only sane moral one, when you probably aren't.
Frazzled is a boor.
Ok, you nailed that one
Is this common for this site or did I simply stumble upon a pack of grumpy old men by happenstance?
to be fair, you ran into at least two lawyers, so you know, expect to be corrected.
d-usa wrote: As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:
Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.
To go back, telling for what?
What's the cause of action? What's the remedy?
he was suing for fraud and theft, neither of which remotely apply here. You can't drop a load into a person's mouth, and then say she stole it. No more then you can charge a person with theft after they shoot you with a gun you gave them.
The rudest of which would be Polonius'. Do you commonly insinuate that other posters are promiscuous PUAs gleefully impregnating women left and right?
No. I do commonly insinuate that people have problems reading. I was saying you know people that are paying child support. Which if you are an adult male with more than a handful of aquaintences, is likley true.
Communication is a two way street. If the sender fails to encode the message properly it is hardly the fault of the decoder for failing to grasp the original meaning.
Please don't tell me that you believe that mother has any business being a parent after the actions she took in order to conceive the child.
d-usa wrote: As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:
Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.
The post makes it clear that if your intend is to "not get her pregnant", then none of these actions (like oral) are an effective way of keeping her from getting pregnant. If you are doing anything sexual, then pregnancy should be an expected outcome.
d-usa wrote: As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:
Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.
To go back, telling for what?
That he had no intention to impregnate her if she did it behind his back and concealed the material fact after. You know, the topic that the post you quoted dealt with exclusively.
Polonius wrote: What's the cause of action? What's the remedy?
he was suing for fraud and theft, neither of which remotely apply here. You can't drop a load into a person's mouth, and then say she stole it. No more then you can charge a person with theft after they shoot you with a gun you gave them.
I'll take things that I was not commenting on for $500 please
d-usa wrote: As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:
Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.
The post makes it clear that if your intend is to "not get her pregnant", then none of these actions (like oral) are an effective way of keeping her from getting pregnant. If you are doing anything sexual, then pregnancy should be an expected outcome.
There is a difference between something being effective (like oral as a method of not conceiving), and something being absolute (like not having sex). If two partners use condoms, spermicide, and a diaphragm the clear expectation is not to conceive and each of those methods are effective. However pregnancy may still occur because the partners are not in an absolute position of not having sex, and birth control failures do happen.
TheDraconicLord wrote: Right, so, moral of the story, we have to change the school books because apparently a woman can get pregnant if oral is performed.
Yes it can. I explained how oral (and many other ways of "not putting your penis in her vagina") can get you pregnant. If you're not smart enough to realize that then you shouldn't be trusted to handle your penis around women.
This is nuts, he's being ripped off when common sense tells us how this is ridiculous. They didn't have sex, the condom didn't break.
He did have sex.
And if you think that "I put my penis in her and the condom is broke" is the only way to get pregnant then your school books really need to be changed...
trexmeyer wrote: Communication is a two way street. If the sender fails to encode the message properly it is hardly the fault of the decoder for failing to grasp the original meaning.
Well, you got me there. Let me help you:
His life isn't ruined. He has to pay child support.
Okay, here, I'm stating a premise, that the father has to pay child support. the action of paying child support is going to come up in the next sentence, so prepare yourself.
I know plenty of guys doing that right now,
Here, I'm saying that I personally am acquainted with men I know casually (to use the slang, "guys"), that are also engaging in the act of paying child support (remember what I talked about in the last sentence?)
and so do you,
OK, this is the same sentence, in which I"m discussing my familiarity with people engaging in paying child support. Remember, the object of that sentence was myself, and the action was knowing people.
So, when I said, "so do you," I mean that you also know people that are paying child support.
I"m sure.
this was to emphasize the liklihood that you also know guys paying child support, emphaszing my earlier point that it doesn't ruin a life.
Now, I can see how that's complicated. I mean, I put the clause involving you in a sentence discussing my perosnal knowledge, not the paying of support. I also said "so do you," not "so are you." I mean, I gave so many clues that I meant you know people, I can see how you were confused.
Please don't tell me that you believe that mother has any business being a parent after the actions she took in order to conceive the child.
I actually would say I can't judge that. I don't know her, or her fitness to be a parent. Odds are good that she's fine, or at least better then foster care.
Doing something bad does not make you a bad parent. Otherwise hardly anybody would be a good parent.
That he had no intention to impregnate her if she did it behind his back and concealed the material fact after. You know, the topic that the post you quoted dealt with exclusively.
Zing! Ok, telling to what end? So what? She tricked him into getting her pregnant. What should be done about it?
If your point is that she did something really awful, then I'd agree.
Please don't tell me that you believe that mother has any business being a parent after the actions she took in order to conceive the child.
She may be an awesome parent. You have no clue to the facts of the situation. The court did.
Again, don't sleep with crazy. Better to give wiener dogs your fajitas instead. You know you want to. They deserve it. But they prefer beef to chicken if there's an option. If the option however is to give them both your beef and chicken fajitas, they will choose THAT option.
d-usa wrote: As far as the whole "he had oral, he didn't have any expectation for her to get pregnant" stupidity, I will just direct you to a grown-up post that I wrote for grown-ups to think about the consequences of their grown-up activities:
Awesome, your post dealt with the mechanics of how pregnancy can occur from oral, not the expectations of depositing your sperm in the opposite end of a partner's body from the egg. I would say that the evidence strongly suggests that the donor did not intend for the recipient to get pregnant. The fact that she purposefully impregnated herself and the donor did not know about the fact for quite some time should also be telling in this instance.
The post makes it clear that if your intend is to "not get her pregnant", then none of these actions (like oral) are an effective way of keeping her from getting pregnant. If you are doing anything sexual, then pregnancy should be an expected outcome.
There is a difference between something being effective (like oral as a method of not conceiving), and something being absolute (like not having sex). If two partners use condoms, spermicide, and a diaphragm the clear expectation is not to conceive and each of those methods are effective. However pregnancy may still occur because the partners are not in an absolute position of not having sex, and birth control failures do happen.
True. But even being 99.9% effective means that the man has a 0.1% expectation of her getting pregnant and having to take responsibility for the child.
Of course, judging by your earlier post I also think we are talking about this from two different perspectives.
I'm mostly just talking about it to counter the "he shouldn't have to pay child support" argument. He performed a sexual act with her and he knew (or should have known) that there was a risk for her to get pregnant (even without the addition of her being a crazy woman).
I think you are mostly talking about it from the "he is suing her for mental anguish" angle and saying that her actions countered his "risk mitigation" techniques.
I do agree that she is crazy and that he probably has a case with his legal actions. So I think we are in agreement there.
But I do think he is responsible for the child as well since he didn't have "zero" expectations of her not getting pregnant to begin with.
TheDraconicLord wrote: Right, so, moral of the story, we have to change the school books because apparently a woman can get pregnant if oral is performed.
This is nuts, he's being ripped off when common sense tells us how this is ridiculous. They didn't have sex, the condom didn't break.
So what? They did however have a child. Artificial ensemination still results in a child, and thus support. Child support is not about who did what, who thought what, or who promised to do or not do anything. Its about the protection and maintenance of the child (and as Polonius noted, the State not having to do it for you you deadbeat).
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me the whole thing was sneaky and underhand, however if the law as it stands requires the father to pay the support, he is stuck with it.
If there are lots of cases like this, the government might want to think about changing the law.
Probably very rare, though.
It's happened at least once before, in State of Louisiana v. Frisard.
As in literally the exact same thing - oral sex, woman saved sperm, inseminated self later, etc.
Man do something insane/crazy, woman don't want child, kill the child.
Woman do something insane/crazy, man don't want child, man pays child support.
Why are we thinking of the child only when it's beneficial to the woman?
1. Only you are getting that. 2. Its not beneificial to the woman. Its for the child's benefit. they are separate issues. Again life is hard. If you're stupid you gotta be tough. Moral of the story, don't be stupid. Or you can be like me, as tough as nails...
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me the whole thing was sneaky and underhand, however if the law as it stands requires the father to pay the support, he is stuck with it.
If there are lots of cases like this, the government might want to think about changing the law.
Probably very rare, though.
It's happened at least once before, in State of Louisiana v. Frisard.
As in literally the exact same thing - oral sex, woman saved sperm, inseminated self later, etc.
Ok you said Louisiana. You do know Louisiana is an entire state that is flying rodent gak crazy right? But they do have a good time.
trexmeyer wrote: Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy.
Oh Dakka.
Spoiler:
I think what's challenging about this case is that it reminds us that the mechanistic biological explanation for impregnation doesn't translate one-for-one into the social phenomenon moral responsibility. Socially speaking, pregnancy is the result of intensely complex human relationships rather than some kind of diagrammatic ideal from high school sex ed.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me the whole thing was sneaky and underhand, however if the law as it stands requires the father to pay the support, he is stuck with it.
If there are lots of cases like this, the government might want to think about changing the law.
Probably very rare, though.
It's happened at least once before, in State of Louisiana v. Frisard.
As in literally the exact same thing - oral sex, woman saved sperm, inseminated self later, etc.
Man do something insane/crazy, woman don't want child, kill the child.
Woman do something insane/crazy, man don't want child, man pays child support.
Why are we thinking of the child only when it's beneficial to the woman?
Welcome to the world of precendent of laws. Basically, some legal rights trump others, and that's just how it goes.
A woman can abort a child because she has the constituional right to. Dont' like it? Get the Supreme Court to reverse Casey vs. PP. Allowing fathers to compel abortions is about the creepiest thing possible, and would definiately violate a woman's rights.
A man has to pay child supprot because every state in the union has laws that require it (and I'd imagine the common law required it going further back). The problem is simple: there is a child, there's a father, there's diapers to buy, and an easy solution: make the dad pay.
that's the reason. If you prefer to think that the system is rigged against men, feel free to. In a sense it is, but not because the system (which is run by men) hate men.
Soladrin wrote: I like how the solution the almost any legal issue that turns up here has to be solved by " we need to change some laws".
Is it just me or is America just bad at making laws?
Its the nature of government. Write law -> New law creates problem -> make another law to fix problem -> new law creates another problem. It's the circle of life
d-usa wrote: True. But even being 99.9% effective means that the man has a 0.1% expectation of her getting pregnant and having to take responsibility for the child.
Of course, judging by your earlier post I also think we are talking about this from two different perspectives.
I'm mostly just talking about it to counter the "he shouldn't have to pay child support" argument. He performed a sexual act with her and he knew (or should have known) that there was a risk for her to get pregnant (even without the addition of her being a crazy woman).
I think you are mostly talking about it from the "he is suing her for mental anguish" angle and saying that her actions countered his "risk mitigation" techniques.
I do agree that she is crazy and that he probably has a case with his legal actions. So I think we are in agreement there.
But I do think he is responsible for the child as well since he didn't have "zero" expectations of her not getting pregnant to begin with.
Yeah my next post was going to be that we are discussing this from two different viewpoints (intention v mechanics) and we are sort of talking past each other with no real prospect for resolution. I don't recall making any argument one way or the other concerning the paying of child support. My only comments here concerned comparing the UK and US jurisprudence on treating bodies as property, and what the intention of the donor could be based on the facts as reported.
Soladrin wrote: I like how the solution the almost any legal issue that turns up here has to be solved by " we need to change some laws".
Is it just me or is America just bad at making laws?
Its the nature of government. Write law -> New law creates problem -> make another law to fix problem -> new law creates another problem. It's the circle of life
Yeah, but most of the laws don't seem to work at all.
But listen to the man, anyone who's sacrificing to singlehandedly raise the birth rates in both Japan and Europe back to sustainable levels must be listened to.
Yeah, but most of the laws don't seem to work at all.
Well if you go around fixing the world's problems no one will need to pay you to write new laws, not to mention the book tours and movie deals from all the political controversy. In short; failure makes the economy go
Yeah, but most of the laws don't seem to work at all.
Well if you go around fixing the world's problems no one will need to pay you to write new laws, not to mention the book tours and movie deals from all the political controversy. In short; failure makes the economy go
Yeah. It feeds on itself Like an Oroboros, which means that the US economy is like a Philosophers stone inside a homonculus. Sucking all those little souls dry to keep itself going. Don't worry. We have plenty left
trexmeyer wrote: Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy.
1. To avoid pregnancy 100% of the time, don't feth.
2. "Pulling out" is not reliable, whether it goes in the mouth, in the hair, into a rag, onto her shirt she's still wearing...
3. Even the 2-hole is no guarantee of non-pregnancy.
And that's just getting preggers. That's not mentioning the nasty things you can get from "flourishing your magic wand" where you shouldn't!
This is one of those situations where public policy gets bent over a barrel and receives an unscheduled prostate exam.
On the one hand, we want to do what is in the best interests of the child.
On the other hand, if you set up rulings like this, you create a blank check for mayhem for the crazy women out there.
Use a condom? Well if she takes it from the trash and impregnates herself you're on the hook. The situation in the OP. If she tells your she's on the pill and lies, and then pokes holes in your condoms because you just want to be sure.
There needs to be something to deter this kind of activity. Maybe criminalizing it as "deception and misuse of reproductive fluids?" You could still require child support from the guy, but I imagine cases like this would pretty much never happen (instead of just being rare) if 5 years in the state pen were attached to it.
And going out on a limb that is sure to rile some, but if a woman is convicted of "deception and misuse of reproductive fluids" while still pregnant, mandate abortions. He didn't want it, she lied to get it, clearly neither deserve it.
DogofWar1 wrote: This is one of those situations where public policy gets bent over a barrel and receives an unscheduled prostate exam.
On the one hand, we want to do what is in the best interests of the child.
On the other hand, if you set up rulings like this, you create a blank check for mayhem for the crazy women out there.
Use a condom? Well if she takes it from the trash and impregnates herself you're on the hook. The situation in the OP. If she tells your she's on the pill and lies, and then pokes holes in your condoms because you just want to be sure.
Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.
We don't need to change public policy. We don't need new laws. We don't need to protect men. The solution is already there: Don't do anything even remotely sexual unless you are prepared to have a child.
There needs to be something to deter this kind of activity. Maybe criminalizing it as "deception and misuse of reproductive fluids?" You could still require child support from the guy, but I imagine cases like this would pretty much never happen (instead of just being rare) if 5 years in the state pen were attached to it.
The man has recourse. The man in the original article took her to court.
And going out on a limb that is sure to rile some, but if a woman is convicted of "deception and misuse of reproductive fluids" while still pregnant, mandate abortions. He didn't want it, she lied to get it, clearly neither deserve it.
Congratulations on posting the dumbest think on Dakka so far for the year 2014.
There needs to be something to deter this kind of activity. Maybe criminalizing it as "deception and misuse of reproductive fluids?" You could still require child support from the guy, but I imagine cases like this would pretty much never happen (instead of just being rare) if 5 years in the state pen were attached to it.
This is what I like to call a "solution without a problem."
Look, stuff like this is detestable, and if somebody passes a hat to buy this guy a fruit basket or something, I'd chip in a few bucks.
But criminalizing behavior like this opens a lot of doors to allow fathers to charge ex-lovers with crimes if they get pregant.
there are literally Hundreds of thousands of child support cases a year. Changing the laws dramatically forhandful that are dumb is poor policy.
This is what I like to call a "solution without a problem."
Look, stuff like this is detestable, and if somebody passes a hat to buy this guy a fruit basket or something, I'd chip in a few bucks.
But criminalizing behavior like this opens a lot of doors to allow fathers to charge ex-lovers with crimes if they get pregant.
there are literally Hundreds of thousands of child support cases a year. Changing the laws dramatically forhandful that are dumb is poor policy.
Sounds like tyranny of the majority. Just because the law kind of works in the vast majority of the cases doesn't mean that you should just let edge cases like this fall through the cracks.
I'm not saying that the child shouldn't receive money to care for it (though I think those things should be based upon genuine need) as ultimately the purpose and goal of these laws are to protect the child, but the woman is a certainly a terrible person.
Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.
We don't need to change public policy. We don't need new laws. We don't need to protect men. The solution is already there: Don't do anything even remotely sexual unless you are prepared to have a child.
Oh please, what a joke.
You're telling me that if you take exceptional precautions to avoid insemination, such as oral sex which under normal circumstances carries NO chance of pregnancy, or ask her if she is on birth control and she lies AND you wear a condom which functions as it ought to, but she takes it off you and saves it without your knowledge, you're still on the hook?
THAT is the dumbest thing I've EVER seen posted on Dakka, and I've seen some of the global warming threads on here, so that a high bar to jump over. Unprotected sex has its consequences, and if there's a blind spot in the protection, then fine, put him on the hook. Taking significant precautions to avoid insemination that the partner then circumvents through deception NEEDS to be criminalized.
This is the kind of BS that results in EVERYTHING requiring contracts. You have a GF who has told you she's on the pill and you wear condoms? Well you better still get her to sign a contract waiving all responsibility if she should appropriate your sperm, because otherwise if she's just a little crazier than you think you're a dad.
If we REALLY want to get into the legal weeds, if you discard property, it's not yours, and you have no control anymore. Throw out a condom? You've discarded it. Woman picks it up and inseminates herself? CONGRATS, you're on the hook. You MASTURBATE and throw away the tissue? You've abandoned it and it can be taken by someone. You haven't even fethed in that case.
The whole concept of "well, if she ends up pregnant, and it's yours, you're on the hook, no matter how it happened" legal approach leaves all sorts of holes because it removes the "how" of insemination and simply asks "is there a kid?" When you do that, you leave situations like this on the table.
The man has recourse. The man in the original article took her to court.
There is a big difference between taking someone to court to avoid paying child fees, and the woman being charged by the state with a crime. Big difference.
Congratulations on posting the dumbest think on Dakka so far for the year 2014.
Why the hell not mandate it (in accordance with other state laws surrounding abortions)? If this kind of deception was criminalized (as it should be), you're still punishing the guy despite precautions taken and a deception performed upon him.
Of course, there would be small windows in which this could happen, courts don't tend to move that fast, especially if/when appeals factor into it, but come on. You're punishing one partner, and the other one committed what would be a crime. If it's not yet born or beyond the legal line where abortions are not allowed, then it frankly is the best solution.
Alternatively, just don't require child support, but then the child is punished for the sins of the mother. It's an easier solution to implement, but one people wouldn't like because now a child is involved.
there are literally Hundreds of thousands of child support cases a year. Changing the laws dramatically forhandful that are dumb is poor policy.
The thing is, it is a problem, since the OP's case is real. The other article on gifting sperm and then being put on the hook is dumb because he didn't get any contracts signed or anything, but the fact that the first case from the OP actually happened means there is a problem, even if it is rare.
The law would need to be extremely narrow so as to not scoop up legitimate child support cases.
You would need to gear it towards situations where the chance of impregnation from the conduct was reasonably expected to be zero (oral sex, handjobs, etc.) and activities were performed thereafter to cause insemination by one party without the other party's consent or knowledge, or to situations where significant precautions were communicated (saying they're on the pill) AND other precautions were taken (wearing a condom in addition) and that all things functioned as expected (condom doesn't break).
A condom alone wouldn't be enough, since they can break, and birth control likewise wouldn't be enough since that can fail. But if it can be shown that the condom wasn't defective, and there were other potential safeguards in place, the likelihood of pregnancy without some sort of deceptive activity can be reasonably expected to be zero.
I think with such a comprehensive definition, the number of cases where this would happen would be narrow enough not to create problems with other child support cases.
Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.
We don't need to change public policy. We don't need new laws. We don't need to protect men. The solution is already there: Don't do anything even remotely sexual unless you are prepared to have a child.
Oh please, what a joke.
You're telling me that if you take exceptional precautions to avoid insemination, such as oral sex which under normal circumstances carries NO chance of pregnancy, or ask her if she is on birth control and she lies AND you wear a condom which functions as it ought to, but she takes it off you and saves it without your knowledge, you're still on the hook?
Oral sex carries the risk of pregnancy. I've explained it in graphic detail at the earlier link.
You are clearly not knowledgeable enough to have responsible sexual activity.
THAT is the dumbest thing I've EVER seen posted on Dakka. Unprotected sex has its consequences, and if there's a blind spot in the protection, then fine, put him on the hook. Taking significant precautions to avoid insemination that the partner then circumvents through deception NEEDS to be criminalized.
Having safer sex is still having sex, and you are still engaging in it knowing full well that it can result in pregnancy. It's not the fault of the criminal system that you don't realize that any sort of sexual activity that includes your sperm can result in pregnancy no matter what foolproof precautions you imagine you are taking.
This is the kind of BS that results in EVERYTHING requiring contracts. You have a GF who has told you she's on the pill and you wear condoms? Well you better still get her to sign a contract waiving all responsibility if she should appropriate your sperm, because otherwise if she's just a little crazier than you think you're a dad.
Or you realize that you have all the power in this and you can make the decision to not become a dad by not having any kind of sexual activity.
If we REALLY want to get into the legal weeds, if you discard property, it's not yours, and you have no control anymore. Throw out a condom? You've discarded it. Woman picks it up and inseminates herself? CONGRATS, you're on the hook.
You participated in an activity that you know 100% could possibly result in the birth of a child.
You MASTURBATE and throw away the tissue? You've abandoned it and it can be taken by someone. You haven't even fethed in that case.
Not the fault of the child.
The whole concept of "well, if she ends up pregnant, and it's yours, you're on the hook, no matter how it happened" legal approach leaves all sorts of holes.
If you participate in a sexual activity and provide the material required for pregnancy, then you share a responsibility for a baby that is carrying half the DNA of your deposit.
The man has recourse. The man in the original article took her to court.
There is a big difference between taking someone to court to avoid paying child fees, and the woman being charged by the state with a crime. Big difference.
And that is there for a reason.
We are not throwing every man that gets a woman pregnant in jail either.
Congratulations on posting the dumbest think on Dakka so far for the year 2014.
Why the hell not mandate it (in accordance with other state laws surrounding abortions)? If this kind of deception was criminalized (as it should be), you're still punishing the guy despite precautions taken and a deception performed upon him.
Well, pass a law requiring forced sterilization on a man that gets a woman pregnant when she didn't want to become pregnant and we'll talk.
Or you could realize that you keep on typing dumb things...
Of course, there would be small windows in which this could happen, courts don't tend to move that fast, especially if/when appeals factor into it, but come on. You're punishing one partner, and the other one committed what would be a crime. If it's not yet born or beyond the legal line where abortions are not allowed, then it frankly is the best solution.
Forcing anybody to undergo forced surgical procedures that are way disproportionate to the non-crime being committed is stupid.
Alternatively, just don't require child support, but then the child is punished for the sins of the mother. It's an easier solution to implement, but one people wouldn't like because now a child is involved.
Alternatively, keep your junk in your pants and don't engage in any sort of activity that can result in a child if you are not willing to support it.
Maybe it would be easier to just mandate forced sterilization of men that are not mature enough to participate in sexual activities without accepting the risks. Why punish the woman because somebody is dumb enough to think "if I stick it in her mouth she can't get pregnant".
Warning: the following is an absurd example, but then again so is the entire situation.
A man and a woman wants to have children, but for one reason or another hasn't managed to concieve naturally. They decide to go for artificial insemination and for the use of a surrogate mother. The man is a qualified medical expert in the field, and so extracts egg cells from his partner. Before the egg has been inseminated and planted in the surrogate, the two break up. The man decides to go ahead with the process anyway and 9 months later a baby's born. Do we ask the mother to pay child support?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Warning: the following is an absurd example, but then again so is the entire situation.
A man and a woman wants to have children, but for one reason or another hasn't managed to concieve naturally. They decide to go for artificial insemination and for the use of a surrogate mother. The man is a qualified medical expert in the field, and so extracts egg cells from his partner. Before the egg has been inseminated and planted in the surrogate, the two break up. The man decides to go ahead with the process anyway and 9 months later a baby's born. Do we ask the mother to pay child support?
You MASTURBATE and throw away the tissue? You've abandoned it and it can be taken by someone. You haven't even fethed in that case.
Not the fault of the child.
And this is where you lose ALL credibility. If you are legitimately suggesting a man should be on the hook for an activity without a female involved except where she takes property and inseminates herself after the fact, then you clearly don't have the sense to be involved in this debate.
Leave. The adults who actually understand the problems and legal ramifications of the current system are talking.
You basically want everyone to go back to the stone age sexually, instead of actually crafting reasonable legal solutions.
It doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant, it'll never be acceptable to force a woman to abortion, and shouldn't be. It's simply not right to force medical procedures upon someone.
Furthermore, how would you ever satisfactorily prove deceit on the part of the woman unless she admitted everything? How can you prove she took the condom from the bin or saved the semen after oral? Or that she made holes in the condom or otherwise interfered with contraception in order to get pregnant? The burden of proof had better be good if you're suggesting mandated abortions or even cutting off support. The problem with allowing anyone to cut off support will primarily punish the child and give some men the opportunity to evade their responsibilities.
These cases are rare but I don't see that the man should be allowed to refuse support. Though I don't think the woman should be allowed to go entirely unpunished for such cruel deception. I'm not sure what would be appropriate though.
Furthermore, how would you ever satisfactorily prove deceit on the part of the woman unless she admitted everything?
That's the biggest problem, and why new laws would end up hearsay nightmares, but in a case such as the one in OP where she admits to having performed a deception some sort of state criminal penalty would be appropriate and reasonable.
And this is where you lose ALL credibility. If you are legitimately suggesting a man should be on the hook for an activity without a female involved except where she takes property and inseminates herself after the fact, then you clearly don't have the sense to be involved in this debate.
Leave. The adults who actually understand the problems and legal ramifications of the current system are talking.
Okay, so I get where d-usa is coming from on this, and I understand why he's saying what he is.
It's a matter of perspective. You're looking at child support as if it's a punative thing. d-usa is looking at child support as if it's a means of, well, providing support for a child.
It's kind of like liability insurance. You effectively pay for the damage to car caused in the collision, whether you're at fault or not. In the same sense, even though she's a terrible person who's done something absolutely horrible and could even be seen as genuinely traumatic, at the end of the day, it's about the child, not the monster.
You MASTURBATE and throw away the tissue? You've abandoned it and it can be taken by someone. You haven't even fethed in that case.
Not the fault of the child.
And this is where you lose ALL credibility. If you are legitimately suggesting a man should be on the hook for an activity without a female involved except where she takes property and inseminates herself after the fact, then you clearly don't have the sense to be involved in this debate.
If you can show me a case where a woman stole a tissue from a man and used it to get pregnant then I will take this scenario seriously. Until then I will remain consistent with my statements that I will never advocate the punishment of a child for the actions of both parents.
Leave. The adults who actually understand the problems and legal ramifications of the current system are talking.
Leave. Adults who actually understand that there is no way to have any kind of sexual activity that is 100% effective at preventing a child are talking.
You basically want everyone to go back to the stone age sexually, instead of actually crafting reasonable legal solutions.
Trying to invent laws forcing a woman to undergo risky surgical procedures because you couldn't keep it in your pants are not "reasonable legal solutions".
The only "reasonable solution" in this scenario is this: don't do anything with your penis near a woman if you are too dumb to realize that it always has a chance of getting her pregnant and you are not mature enough to handle that risk.
The whole concept of "well, if she ends up pregnant, and it's yours, you're on the hook, no matter how it happened" legal approach leaves all sorts of holes
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.
TheDraconicLord wrote: So, he'd be forced to take the child? What if he didn't want kids? Now he MUST take the kid because the woman decided to do such a blasphemous plan? It's ridiculous!
Do you know how many fethtons of adults have to take care of infants they didn't want? They still don't want? They'll never want? Yes, now he MUST take care of the kid, the only question is weither he'll do it properly or not.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
And I agree completely on that. I've never heard of such a large monthly amount awarded for child support, and I really don't see what essential needs adds up to that much.
If the father had an estate? The estate would pay.
If the father had life insurance? The life insurance would pay.
And if the father had no estate or insurance?
It's that the child isn't punished.
Oh, I was unaware that a Dr. could not support her child on her own.
The woman is a villain, not only for getting pregnant, but for actually having the nerve to come after support. She should be thrown in jail and have her money put into a trust for the child. She should also have to pay for the emotional distress caused to this guy.
Do you know how many fethtons of adults have to take care of infants they didn't want? They still don't want? They'll never want? Yes, now he MUST take care of the kid, the only question is weither he'll do it properly or not.
Yes but thats because they were engaging in behavior where pregnancy is a reasonable outcome. There really is no reasonable chance if getting pregnant from oral.
If the father had an estate? The estate would pay.
If the father had life insurance? The life insurance would pay.
And if the father had no estate or insurance?
Well, what happens if we have a happily married couple with children and the father passes away without any sort of estate of insurance?
It's really not a difficult concept.
It's that the child isn't punished.
Oh, I was unaware that a Dr. could not support her child on her own.
She could. And a child with two wealthy parents has an even better life.
So you don't punish the child by removing the income from one parent just because the other is wealthy just as you shouldn't take more from one parent because the other is poor.
The woman is a villain, not only for getting pregnant, but for actually having the nerve to come after support.
And the state is a villain for forcing a man to take care of his genetic offspring. We get it.
She should be thrown in jail and have her money put into a trust for the child.
Our jails are already overflowing from men that were thrown in jail for getting women pregnant who didn't want to be pregnant to begin with...oh wait...
She should also have to pay for the emotional distress caused to this guy.
Which he is currently suing for. So less rage and more reading the facts please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote: There really is no reasonable chance if getting pregnant from oral.
It's amazing how often this stupid statement gets typed out in this thread.
You MASTURBATE and throw away the tissue? You've abandoned it and it can be taken by someone. You haven't even fethed in that case.
Not the fault of the child.
And this is where you lose ALL credibility. If you are legitimately suggesting a man should be on the hook for an activity without a female involved except where she takes property and inseminates herself after the fact, then you clearly don't have the sense to be involved in this debate.
Leave. The adults who actually understand the problems and legal ramifications of the current system are talking.
You basically want everyone to go back to the stone age sexually, instead of actually crafting reasonable legal solutions.
What part of "this has nothing to do with the child" do you not get? Its akin to strict liability, same as if you were playing with dynamite or other attractive nuisances (puns fully intended).
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.
Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.
If I had to spend $2400 a month on my children (all 3 of them), then we'd be flat out broke. $800 is incredibly excessive. After just a portion of my bills (rent, auto loans, etc...) I end up with $2,000 a month roughly. Then I still have to pay credit cards, internet, insurance, food, etc...
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.
Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.
Plus school, doctor appointments, saving for college, etc..
If you can show me a case where a woman stole a tissue from a man and used it to get pregnant then I will take this scenario seriously. Until then I will remain consistent with my statements that I will never advocate the punishment of a child for the actions of both parents.
You've crafted a legal principle that allows such an activity to take place. Explain to me how your legal principle prevents the above scenario from happening, and I'll take your arguments slightly more seriously.
The legal principle is important, and you're just ignoring the potential unintended consequences of it.
Frankly, the idea of mandated abortions in accordance with state laws on abortion in criminalized cases of DECEPTION is not really that different from what the state already does to criminals. When you commit a crime, certain rights and privileges are stripped from you. Your freedom is constrained, you can be mandated to take medication, etc. Removing a bunch of non-living cells that only came to be because of a criminal activity doesn't suddenly jump across some huge line.
But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem: "In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."
Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.
Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
Again, caring for the child is important, which is why the laws I originally proposed being enacted still required child support, but also punishment of the one who enacted the deception.
The problem with the current situation is that is REWARDS DECEPTION via the holes it leaves open. We have crafted a system that rewards the morally repugnant activity of lying and deceiving with NO punishment, legal or civil, for the one who enacted the deception, punishment on the one who was deceived, and in fact rewards the deceiver monetarily and through allowing them to keep the child.
It's a simple rule: if the child is yours, you owe child support.
There are a few rare instances where it is unfair or stupid, but nearly any complications to the system would probably result in more men that should pay getting away then protecting reasonably innocent fathers.
If we want to have the broader argument about how child support is determined, and how it is spent, that's fine, but that's nothing but quicksand.
But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem: "In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."
You already never have to pay any support or compensation to the mother, deception or not. So that part of the law is not even needed. The child never gets punished and gets the support he or she deserves from both biological parents.
Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.
Problem solved. Sucks for the dad, but maybe he shouldn't have taken it out of his pants.
For what crime? It's not rape, its not fraud, it's not theft... You can try all day but you wont find a charge that will stick. And there's no reason whatsoever she should be jailed. She started a legal proceeding in which she was awarded child support. Claiming she should be jailed for this is akin to claiming that the judge was her accomplice.
Andrew1975 wrote: Yes but thats because they were engaging in behavior where pregnancy is a reasonable outcome. There really is no reasonable chance if getting pregnant from oral.
Responsibility doesn't stem from expected or reasonnable outcomes. The man who ejaculates in his pants while grinding his girlfriend and somehow gets her pregnant despite all the layers of cloths had no expectation of conceiving with her. He is still fully and completely responsible for the child.
DogofWar1 wrote: [ Frankly, the idea of mandated abortions in accordance with state laws on abortion in criminalized cases of DECEPTION is not really that different from what the state already does to criminals. When you commit a crime, certain rights and privileges are stripped from you. Your freedom is constrained, you can be mandated to take medication, etc. Removing a bunch of non-living cells that only came to be because of a criminal activity doesn't suddenly jump across some huge line.
You've gotten away this for a while, but you need to stop. Forced abortions are simply monstrous to suggest. Voluntary abortions are only legal because a woman's right to bodily autonomy is more pressing then the state's interest in the unborn. And that's by an eyelash. Fetuses and Embryos are still beings of moral value. Actually forcing abortions is a heinous act that is not only a terrible punishment to a woman, but also ends a potential life.
But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem: "In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."
Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.
I find it interesting where you draw the line on "morally repugnant."
It's probably not a terrible rule, but what deception? that's a huge grey area.
The problem with the current situation is that is REWARDS DECEPTION via the holes it leaves open. We have crafted a system that rewards the morally repugnant activity of lying and deceiving with NO punishment, legal or civil, for the one who enacted the deception, punishment on the one who was deceived, and in fact rewards the deceiver monetarily and through allowing them to keep the child.
Again, only if its in the best interest of the child. If a mother is that horrible, then the father can get custody and sue for child support.
In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.
The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.
If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.
The woman can regain right of custody (assuming the father has refused custody, and the child is in the care of the state) upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.
The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.
Frankly, the idea of mandated abortions in accordance with state laws on abortion in criminalized cases of DECEPTION is not really that different from what the state already does to criminals. When you commit a crime, certain rights and privileges are stripped from you. Your freedom is constrained, you can be mandated to take medication, etc. Removing a bunch of non-living cells that only came to be because of a criminal activity doesn't suddenly jump across some huge line.
Do an opinion poll on this. I'm fairly sure you'll find that state-mandated forced abortions is pretty high up on the list of 'things that suddenly jump across some huge line'.
But here, I'll craft a legal principle that solves the problem:
"In child support cases where deception is proven on the part of one party, the party that committed the deception shall not receive any support or compensation from the party that was deceived, NOR shall the deceived party be liable to the state for the costs incurred by the deceiver's child."
Problem solved. Sucks for the kid, but maybe the parent shouldn't have committed a morally repugnant activity in order to bring the kid about.
''Sucks for the kid'' is why I'm fairly confident you'll never be in any position to legislate on the issue. Also, because your statement is so goddamn large, I could wave my responsibility to pay child support because my partner faked orgasm during the baby-making.
In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.
The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.
If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.
The woman can regain right of custody upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.
The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.
You still aren't really getting how family law works. No one factor should (or does) control custody. If the mother was deceptive, but the father is a travelling salesman with a drinking problem, should the dad autumatically get custody?
And the child would be better off with the mother most of the time, then with the State.
Like I've said, it's a solution without a problem. This guy got struck by lightening. Sucks to be him, but he's obviously reasonably well off if he's paying $800 a month in child support, and he walks away.
In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.
The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.
If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.
The woman can regain right of custody (assuming the father has refused custody, and the child is in the care of the state) upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.
The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.
Here's my compromise. THE LAW.
keep it in your pants. This is not difficult for most men. If you can't keep it in your pants you might become a Baby Daddy and have to deal with the consequences.
Its a rule so simple even a drunken fratboy could figure it out.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.
Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.
Plus school, doctor appointments, saving for college, etc..
Children are expensive. There's clothes, which you have to buy constantly for growing children, vaccines, medicines, all sorts of things. And what if there is more than one child?
In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.
The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.
If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.
The woman can regain right of custody (assuming the father has refused custody, and the child is in the care of the state) upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.
The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.
Also can the woman charge "deception?" In that case a lot of Da Menz are going to be in Da Penz.
And Child support is based on the income of the father, not the needs of the child.
Which, to be fair, is one way to regulate it. But... it makes the crude assumption that a person shoudl pay roughly the same for non-custodial children as for those in his custody.
This is an area where the law figures that an upper middle class person should support his child at roughly that level. I'd listen to reasoned arguments that we should scale it down.
Children are expensive. There's clothes, which you have to buy constantly for growing children, vaccines, medicines, all sorts of things. And what if there is more than one child?
This is why Frazzled's view was that: you need either
1. really strong one you can send off to the coal mine at 8. Kid's gotta EARN. 2. have two smart ones. One of them will be #8 in their class or get all A's in college and can procure that genuine Vought F4U Corsair with fully functioning automatic paintball guns you always wanted to strafe the soccermobiles with.
how come when a man deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, its sexual assault,
but when a woman deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, she is rewarded with money?
men are jailed when they do this... un the uK, canada, where ever, just google "man thrown in jail for poking holes in condom" there are plenty of examples...
and there are numerous examples of women committing comparable crimes, with a complete 180 as they get rewarded instead of punished.
easysauce wrote: the lady should be charged with sexual assault,
how come when a man deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, its sexual assault,
but when a woman deceitfully circumvents contraception with the inent of causing unwanted pregnancy, she is rewarded with money?
men are jailed when they do this... un the uK, canada, where ever, just google "man thrown in jail for poking holes in condom" there are plenty of examples...
and there are numerous examples of women commiting comparable crimes, with a complete 180 as they get rewarded instead of punished.
In cases of proven deception, the woman is charged with a felony, and loses the presumptive right of custody.
The father is given the first right of custody, and the woman must pay child support in such a case.
If the father refuses custody, then the right of custody passes to the state, and BOTH parents must pay child support.
The woman can regain right of custody upon serving her time and showing she is financially and emotionally competent to raise the child. Once that is done, the mother gains custody, and the father will have to pay child support.
The child is cared for in this case, and it ensures that deception is punished.
You still aren't really getting how family law works. No one factor should (or does) control custody. If the mother was deceptive, but the father is a travelling salesman with a drinking problem, should the dad autumatically get custody?
And the child would be better off with the mother most of the time, then with the State.
Like I've said, it's a solution without a problem. This guy got struck by lightening. Sucks to be him, but he's obviously reasonably well off if he's paying $800 a month in child support, and he walks away.
Perhaps I should have clarified that competency requirements should be in place for the father, in that if he is unfit to be the father he is not given the right. That being said giving presumptive first right of custody to an individual who has created a deception (as many states and courts lean in favor of the mother when rewarding custody; ideally there'd be no such lean) should not be the rule either, especially if such deceptions are criminalized. Perhaps allowing for a comparative competency hearing upon the mother's release could work even if custody is awarded to the father while the mother pays her societal debt.
At the end of the day, the child would end up with a parent who was competent, or, if neither parent is considered competent, with the state, which isn't ideal, but would be in the best interests of the child.
Also can the woman charge "deception?" In that case a lot of Da Menz are going to be in Da Penz.
If a woman can prove she was deceptively impregnated (which would probably involve further sexual assault and/or rape), then certainly. I'm trying to think of a hypothetical where a man could impregnate a women via deception that wouldn't already be a felony though.
Maybe if he injected her with sperm while she was sleeping or something? That's probably a crime somewhere in the books, but I don't think it fits under the traditional definition of rape.
Regardless, if such a case arose, I would be all for fairness under the law.
easysauce wrote: the lady should be charged with sexual assault,
how come when a man deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, its sexual assault,
but when a woman deceitfully circumvents contraception with the intent of causing unwanted pregnancy, she is rewarded with money?
men are jailed when they do this... un the uK, canada, where ever, just google "man thrown in jail for poking holes in condom" there are plenty of examples...
and there are numerous examples of women committing comparable crimes, with a complete 180 as they get rewarded instead of punished.
Well, for starters, it's different jurisdictions. And that's a minty fresh case that is going to be overturned, because as the dissdenting judge in that case pointed out, a woman that forgot her birfth control could be charged with rape.
No US jurisdiction defines sexual assualt in that way.
I'd go easy on the outrage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?
What about married couples that use fertility treatments that eventually divorce?
......or did I simply stumble upon a pack of grumpy old men by happenstance?
I don't think we are grumpy old men, just gamers with opinions.
Don't mock it, the wargaming community is apparently the second highest IQ by hobby group after astronomers.
Stick around in Off Topic long enough and you will learn something, enough people here know how to formulate
an intelligent argument and are worth listening to, even though you may vehemently disagree with them.
You found Dakka, one of the best net communities out there with a very wide cast opinion base but a generally
a decent lot. Do yourself a favour and stick around, and, yeah: Welcome to Dakka!
Perhaps I should have clarified that competency requirements should be in place for the father, in that if he is unfit to be the father he is not given the right. That being said giving presumptive first right of custody to an individual who has created a deception (as many states and courts lean in favor of the mother when rewarding custody; ideally there'd be no such lean) should not be the rule either, especially if such deceptions are criminalized. Perhaps allowing for a comparative competency hearing upon the mother's release could work even if custody is awarded to the father while the mother pays her societal debt.
At the end of the day, the child would end up with a parent who was competent, or, if neither parent is considered competent, with the state, which isn't ideal, but would be in the best interests of the child.
Well, odds are the best interests of the child aren't to have his mother do time while he is young, and then carry a criminal record going forward.
it's not that I don't agree with you that peopel who do this should be punished, its just really hard to think of ways that don't just hurt the kid.
And since it is so terribly rare, it's just not worth trying that hard.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Warning: the following is an absurd example, but then again so is the entire situation.
A man and a woman wants to have children, but for one reason or another hasn't managed to concieve naturally. They decide to go for artificial insemination and for the use of a surrogate mother. The man is a qualified medical expert in the field, and so extracts egg cells from his partner. Before the egg has been inseminated and planted in the surrogate, the two break up. The man decides to go ahead with the process anyway and 9 months later a baby's born. Do we ask the mother to pay child support?
I believe in such circumstances the prospective father would not be able to go ahead without the permission of the ex-wife. Not under British law, anyway.
Cheesecat wrote: Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?
Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.
Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.
Woman is on the pill and has a cold. She takes antibiotics and the effectiveness of her birth control is decreased. She gets pregnant.
"She didn't tell me she was on an antibiotic. It's fraud. Throw her in jail. I'm not paying for the child!"
Woman has a gastrointestinal infection making her birth control less effective. She gets pregnant.
"She didn't tell me she had the runs last week. It's fraud. Throw her in jail. I'm not paying for the child."
Man thinks he doesn't have a small penis. Doesn't buy the right size of condom and it slips off causing her to get pregnant.
"It's fraud. He acted like he had a bigger penis. Throw him in jail!"
Man ejaculates prematurely before he could pull out.
"He told me he would last longer than 30 seocnds! Fraud. Throw him in jail."
"He was supposed to ejaculate on my breasts, but he spilled it on my thighs. Now I'm pregnant!"
"Fraud. Throw him in jail:"
If your only solution to a law that is unfortunate for the man that couldn't keep it in his pants but exists for the protection of the child is to introduce laws that are pants-on-head stupid and ripe for abuse, then you better leave things alone...
The victim of this scenario is the child who is the only unwilling participant in this whole situation. The couple was engaged in consensual sexual activity now if she some how with out his permission forcefully harvested his sperm to produce this child than there is precedent that he should not pay child support but he wasn't. He did technically give that women his sperm willingly i climaxing in someones mouth is not willingly giving them sperm I do not know what is. In this situation the child needs support event though it looks like both parents are wealthy, I would ask the court that the money be placed in a trust fund to pay for the child education that the mother can not have access to this could be used to save up money for when he goes to college or used to send the child to a private school. This would already lift a huge financial burden from the mother allowing her to focus on other aspects of the child's care, and would make sure that the money the father is providing is not being abused by the mother. That to me is the best outcome of this scenario I would also have the mother receive counselling so that she knows what she did is wrong and hopefully she would not do it again.
Cheesecat wrote: Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?
Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.
Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.
I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.
Cheesecat wrote: Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?
Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.
Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.
I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.
Most jurisdictions have exceptions for sperm donors in situations like that. But not all artificial insemination is the result of a sperm donors. Most is actually done between couples with fertility problems.
Cheesecat wrote: Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?
Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.
Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.
I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.
Most jurisdictions have exceptions for sperm donors in situations like that. But not all artificial insemination is the result of a sperm donors. Most is actually done between couples with fertility problems.
Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?
Cheesecat wrote: Why not make a new law that the biological father doesn't have to support the child if the biological mother is artificially inseminated?
Why not just make a law stating that a man is never to be held accountable for the results of sexual activity because men have no self control. Some of you have to be trolling this thread.
Honestly how has this gone past "If you don't want to support your children don't have sex?" Yes, oral sex is sex, and yes anytime you have sexual activity of any sort (where a man and woman are involved duh) you run the risk of pregnancy.
I think men should be accountable if they've had actual sexual intercourse with a woman, but a sperm bank is a service to help other women to have a kid it's not designed with the purpose of financially supporting your child.
Most jurisdictions have exceptions for sperm donors in situations like that. But not all artificial insemination is the result of a sperm donors. Most is actually done between couples with fertility problems.
Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?
My lesbian cousin got a friend of theirs to ejaculate in a cup and then they used a turkey-baster to inseminate her.
How would the man even prove that his sperm was secreted away after receiving oral sex? Did he have witnesses? It appears that before the trial, the woman claimed that the child was conceived the usual way. What reason do we have to doubt her?
This is all just a mental exercise in what *would* be fair if such a thing as "sperm-theft" was provable.
If your only solution to a law that is unfortunate for the man that couldn't keep it in his pants but exists for the protection of the child is to introduce laws that are pants-on-head stupid and ripe for abuse, then you better leave things alone...
All of these are situations where deception wasn't the but-for cause. Accidents happen, contraceptive failures happen. If you don't buy the right size condom, or it breaks, or you don't wear a condom because you believe her contraception is enough, there isn't deception there, it's an accident, and one where proper contraceptive steps weren't taken (condom in addition to the pill, and the condom functioning correctly). The goal would be to craft a law where, when willful deception is proven to be the but-for cause of the pregnancy, it goes into effect. Simple mistakes wouldn't fall under that.
If your only solution to a law that is unfortunate for the man that couldn't keep it in his pants but exists for the protection of the child is to introduce laws that are pants-on-head stupid and ripe for abuse, then you better leave things alone...
All of these are situations where deception wasn't the but-for cause. Accidents happen, contraceptive failures happen. If you don't buy the right size condom, or it breaks, or you don't wear a condom because you believe her contraception is enough, there isn't deception there, it's an accident, and one where proper contraceptive steps weren't taken (condom in addition to the pill, and the condom functioning correctly). The goal would be to craft a law where, when willful deception is proven to be the but-for cause of the pregnancy, it goes into effect. Simple mistakes wouldn't fall under that.
They were all deception.
The woman didn't share her full medical history with the guy so he had to rely on her saying "I'm on the pill". If she wasn't so deceptive and told him "hey, I had the runs last week" then he could have made the educated decision to double-glove since he knows that diarrhea makes birth control less effective.
The man deceived her by not buying the right size condoms. She figured that his penis was big enough for the condom he purchased, but it wasn't.
The man knew he would blow his load after only 30 seconds. If she would have known that she wouldn't have agreed to the "pull-out" method. But because he deceived her into thinking he would last at least two minutes she agreed to it.
The man knew he didn't have the mental fortitude to pull out early enough to get a couple of strokes in before he aimed for her chest. So when he finally pulled out he was so close to ejaculating that he sprayed on her thigh when he pulled the condom off. Deception.
You see what happens when you try to write stupid vague laws to fix a problem that only exists because men don't think they should keep it in their pants unless they are 100% ready to support a child?
Not knowing the right size condom isn't willful deception, it's a silly mistake. Not telling someone you have a sickness that causes decreased effectiveness of contraception is not a willful omission, it's an unintended one.
Birth control isn't 100% effective anyway, so sick or not further precautions would have needed to have been taken.
Not to mention, you'd have to get above the "proven" part, which means the accusing party would have to demonstrate facts that show beyond a reasonable doubt that a WILLFUL act of deception has occurred. That would be VERY difficult in most cases since a lot of hearsay is involved, and would require most likely some sort of hearsay exception (like the woman telling her friends that she took the used condom and inseminated herself with it, with the friend being called to the stand and the testimony admitted as an admission against interest). In most cases, the person lying would be sufficient to keep the bar below the proven level, which is unfortunate, but the way the hearsay laws work.
Not knowing the right size condom isn't willful deception, it's a silly mistake.
"Your honor, we have the testimony of two girls that have had sex with the defendant who stated that the condom slipped off. The defendant had to have known that his penis is to small for condoms designed for the average US penis. The fact that he produced a box of regular sized condoms shows that he willfully deceived this poor woman into thinking his penis was average sized and that the condom would be effective.
Not telling someone you have a sickness that causes decreased effectiveness of contraception is not a willful omission, it's an unintended one.
"Your honor, the defendant has been on birth control for 2 years. Every month she gets a refill and every month she gets a package insert that informs her that her birth control would be less effective with this particular sickness. The fact is that she had this illness and willfully deceived this poor man by not sharing the facts of her illness so that he could take additional precautions."
Not to mention, birth control isn't 100% effective anyway,
And neither is oral sex, but that hasn't stopped you in this thread.
so sick or not further precautions would have needed to have been taken.
None of which are 100% effective and can result in pregnancy. And all of which could result in court charges for a variety of stupid reasons if the laws you propose were actually on the books.
Not to mention, you'd have to get above the "proven" part, which means the accusing party would have to demonstrate facts that show beyond a reasonable doubt that a WILLFUL act of deception has occurred. That would be VERY difficult in most cases since a lot of hearsay is involved, and would require most likely some sort of hearsay exception (like the woman telling her friends that she took the used condom and inseminated herself with it, with the friend being called to the stand and the testimony admitted as an admission against interest). In most cases, the person lying would be sufficient to keep the bar below the proven level, which is unfortunate, but the way the hearsay laws work.
Well, in that case the woman in the original story goes free and the man is still on the hook because:
"I gave him a blowjob and I swallowed and then he left. But I was so hot and turned on after giving him the blowjob that I decided to masturbate. I licked my fingers to get them moist before going to town and when I did that I must have had some of his sperm still on my lips and accidentally picked it up and when my finger was down there his sperm must have come down there as well. It certainly wasn't willful..."
(edit: also one of the many legitimate reasons why "oral sex doesn't get you pregnant" is a stupid statement and a clear sign that people who say that are not ready to handle the responsibility of fething. )
DogofWar1 wrote: Not to mention, you'd have to get above the "proven" part, which means the accusing party would have to demonstrate facts that show beyond a reasonable doubt that a WILLFUL act of deception has occurred.
That is not difficult, it is practically impossible. Even if you disregard d-usa's rather compelling examples, where do you get your hearsay witnesses? Friends doing their own friend in at court? Very unlikely without a prior personal conflict between said friends which in turn jeopardises the account. A waiter who overheard the conversation? He might as well be bribed by the father.
What you are proposing may have some merit in theory, but just does not work in practice.
But listen to the man, anyone who's sacrificing to singlehandedly raise the birth rates in both Japan and Europe back to sustainable levels must be listened to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS
Because its half his dna dimbledore. Not quit thinking of ways to be deadbeat dad already.
Sorry but I have real issues with this type of attitude, having raised two kids from who had vermin for a bio father.
agreeing with frazzled, would be equivelent to a chaos space marine and an ultra smurf having a beer together.
Hey I played Zinc (Iron) Warriors and all Demons before there was a Demon list boyo. So lets grow some tentacles and pass the beer!
You are completely misunderstanding what a willful deception would be, and stretching the definition beyond what a court would do.
Frankly if any of your hypos came to pass in court, it would be appealed and almost certainly reversed.
Willful deception would require that a representation was made to the deceived that the deceiver knew to be false, and was not otherwise reasonably verifiable (for example, in the small penis condom hypo, could the woman not see the penis, and did the man buy the wrong size condom specifically to ensure it would slip off?) and was outside common knowledge.
Ergo, anything based purely on "the pill" failing falls short, since based on the bazillion commercials we've all seen they include the disclaimer that they aren't 100% effective. (edit: that's why you would need something further for protection and some further willful circumvention for it to work)
In a case of oral sex where some ends up in the woman, that's where you would need some sort of admission in court, because the example you cite is not willful deception.
The bar in a court of law for proven willful deception that is the but-for causation, that survives hearsay objections, is MUCH higher than you are making it out to be.
That is not difficult, it is practically impossible. Even if you disregard d-usa's rather compelling examples, where do you get your hearsay witnesses? Friends doing their own friend in at court? Very unlikely without a prior personal conflict between said friends which in turn jeopardises the account. A waiter who overheard the conversation? He might as well be bribed by the father.
What you are proposing may have some merit in theory, but just does not work in practice.
Well, many of the same problems come up in regular hearsay situations. After all, pretty much anyone could hypothetically bribe another to say something on the stand about what someone else said that would be considered an admission against interest. It's something that has no doubt been contemplated by the judicial system, but it nonetheless remains an exception.
In this thread we have shown that the current laws are not stupid and impractical.
We have made it pretty clear that your "solution" is impractical, and unenforceable.
Of course the fact that you insist that "oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy" while also going on about "birth control isn't 100% effective" makes it pretty obvious that there is some weird disconnect in you brain that not only prevents you from seeing the obvious but it also prevents you from making an argument that is consistent to begin with.
All of your problems are solved by "keep it in your pants unless you are willing to pony up the cash to take care of the result." End of story. It doesn't get any simpler than that. All these "bad unfair things happening to a man" are the direct result of his decision to do something or have something done with his penis. He is not the victim here, he was a fully willing active participant in the activity that resulted in his sperm leaving his body and creating the risk that a child may be created.
The only victim is the child. And the laws are designed to make sure the child is provided for.
Even if we decide to somehow make willful deception leading to pregnacy a legal theory, what's the cause of action? Is it criminal? Civil? How does this affect the child?
You seem so hell bent on "punishing" people that do this, that you ignore the collateral damage. Which is the opposite of family law's point.
DogofWar1 wrote: Well, many of the same problems come up in regular hearsay situations. After all, pretty much anyone could hypothetically bribe another to say something on the stand about what someone else said that would be considered an admission against interest. It's something that has no doubt been contemplated by the judicial system, but it nonetheless remains an exception.
Usually though, a hearsay witness is not your only piece of evidence, is it?
A hearsay witness' account can only be useful in the context of wider evidence, which will not exist in the situations you imagine.
The current laws aren't necessarily stupid or impractical, but they do have a blind spot. A total overhaul is not needed, merely a small patch.
The solution is no more impractical and unenforceable than many other situations that have a high bar of proof and where hearsay could enter into it. People admit more truth and lie less in a courtroom or when confronted with police than what most people think happens.
If you read my above post carefully, you would see that I said that the oral sex example you gave would not meet the bar, which means I agree with you that oral sex, via dribbling, etc. can cause pregnancy. It is not really normal, but can happen. Hence the need for something more than that such as an admission.
And again, people can and do lie in court, but people give up a lot more than most people think.
In addition, I find it very interesting that you are willing to defend a willful deception by someone, and even reward the deceiver. That is the result of your "per se" keep it in your pants rule.
The compromise I offered a page or so back plus the proven willful deception law for criminal offenses would work fine. The deceived (in most hypos the father) is not let off the hook in any way, he is either required to pay support or take custody. The deceiver is punished (which may or may not involve jail time), and once free (which could be immediately, after all not all criminal penalties involve jail time) could seek a custody hearing, and is required to also pay child custody if they are not in custody.
DogofWar1 wrote: Well, many of the same problems come up in regular hearsay situations. After all, pretty much anyone could hypothetically bribe another to say something on the stand about what someone else said that would be considered an admission against interest. It's something that has no doubt been contemplated by the judicial system, but it nonetheless remains an exception.
Usually though, a hearsay witness is not your only piece of evidence, is it?
A hearsay witness' account can only be useful in the context of wider evidence, which will not exist in the situations you imagine.
''Hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States, unless one of about thirty eight exceptions applies to the particular statement being made.''
Hearsay can be evidence, but only circumstancial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists. In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt)."
Therefore, if you only have hearsay, and no supporting facts, you cannot make the necessary inference, and the testimony is useless.
Polonius wrote: Even if we decide to somehow make willful deception leading to pregnacy a legal theory, what's the cause of action? Is it criminal? Civil? How does this affect the child?
You seem so hell bent on "punishing" people that do this, that you ignore the collateral damage. Which is the opposite of family law's point.
For the sake of the child, it wouldn't be civil. It would be better off being criminal, and the punishment doesn't necessarily have to be that great. It need only serve as a deterrent.
It would have little effect on the child, since both parties would still be liable in some form (either having custody or paying support). The biggest effect, I imagine, would be if evidence of conviction was allowed into custody hearings, depending on how much weight it carried.
Usually though, a hearsay witness is not your only piece of evidence, is it?
A hearsay witness' account can only be useful in the context of wider evidence, which will not exist in the situations you imagine.
Right, you would need additional evidence to prove that it wasn't merely an accident. Again, I'm not saying it isn't a high bar, but you'd be surprised what people will admit, to friends or in court, resulting in what might have otherwise been classified as merely circumstantial evidence becoming solid admitted evidence. It's like when someone is driving a friends car, places weed in the back seat, and then admits to a cop that it's his weed, even though he could have argued he didn't have possession of it.
Of course the fact that you insist that "oral sex doesn't cause pregnancy" while also going on about "birth control isn't 100% effective" makes it pretty obvious that there is some weird disconnect in you brain that not only prevents you from seeing the obvious but it also prevents you from making an argument that is consistent to begin with.
Arguably, a woman shoving her sperm-covered fingers up her vagina does not constitute oral sex. That's not her getting pregnant as a result of oral sex, that's her getting pregnant as a result of stupidity, just as it'd be the result of stupidity on the part of the man to assume that he could pull out in time.
Polonius wrote: Even if we decide to somehow make willful deception leading to pregnacy a legal theory, what's the cause of action? Is it criminal? Civil? How does this affect the child?
You seem so hell bent on "punishing" people that do this, that you ignore the collateral damage. Which is the opposite of family law's point.
For the sake of the child, it wouldn't be civil. It would be better off being criminal, and the punishment doesn't necessarily have to be that great. It need only serve as a deterrent.
It would have little effect on the child, since both parties would still be liable in some form (either having custody or paying support). The biggest effect, I imagine, would be if evidence of conviction was allowed into custody hearings, depending on how much weight it carried.
I'd worry about the affect a conviction has on the parent to later provide. You could make it a misdemeanor with community service, and I suppose it might be a deterrent.
I don't think we're here to defend people being deceptive. I just think that this is a strange place to start toughening up the laws in domestic situations. It is one more motion for every father to bring up to try to win custody. Further, it places police and prosecutors in the middle of a domestic situation, which is never where anybody wants to be. Do we think prosecutors want to take these cases to trial?
If there were an epidemic of this stuff, sure, we need to stop it. It appears to be isolated cases. And I think the damage done to women with false charges would totally outweigh any societal benefit the law would introduce.
A misdemeanor would likely be fine. I'll step back from it being a felony, since you're right, that does likely go too far.
I don't think custody hearings would see much of this though. If you need probable cause to arrest someone and lack of reasonable doubt to convict, and only after that is the evidence entered into custody hearings, that's tough to pull off.
The biggest drawback on the whole is the fact that such cases are rare and isolated. So indeed legislative action that could serve as a solution might create more concerns than it solves.
That being said, contemplating legislative action on issues, even isolated are rare thing isn't bad. I mean, at the end of the day, we're an off-topic forum, ideas are meant to be thrown around. If a bunch of legislators read this thread and did something without doing a thorough cost-benefit analysis, then that would be a problem, but I doubt that would happen.
Oh, OK wasn't aware of that I stand corrected then. What other methods are used for artificial insemination outside of sperm banks?
Apparently spitting things into cups, and inserting later works... did you not read the OP?!
I'll be honest, I read the maybe a bit of the OP and forgot what the story was about. That being said with this being outside the environment of a sperm bank then I guess the guy is still accountable even if the circumstances are unfair.
Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.
So.... This argument only applies if you're not talking abortion?
Well, if you don't want an abortion, the argument of "don't feth" also works. Not fething is a 100% effective way of abortion avoidance, STD avoidance, baby-mama-dramma avoidance, and baby avoidance.
Don't want to have this happen to you? Easy, don't feth.
So.... This argument only applies if you're not talking abortion?
Well, if you don't want an abortion, the argument of "don't feth" also works. Not fething is a 100% effective way of abortion avoidance, STD avoidance, baby-mama-dramma avoidance, and baby avoidance.
And my original "don't feth because here are the reasons how any sexual activity could result in pregnancy" post came out of an abortion thread.
Vasectomy, probably only if you really don't want kids and never will. Plus think of the added hilarity when she says she's pregnant! Either you've been incredibly unlucky or she's lying!
DogofWar1 wrote: Again, I'm not saying it isn't a high bar, but you'd be surprised what people will admit, to friends or in court, resulting in what might have otherwise been classified as merely circumstantial evidence becoming solid admitted evidence. It's like when someone is driving a friends car, places weed in the back seat, and then admits to a cop that it's his weed, even though he could have argued he didn't have possession of it.
No, but I would be surprised if anybody who wilfully deceived a sexual partner and has legal counsel ruined his case himself when there's only his testimony, that of the partner and potentially a hearsay witness. A friend admitting to his own guilt is something else entirely.
Your "high bar" will simply never be met, so while I agree with your intentions, I fear that your proposed law is useless.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Its actually quite the contrary. This sort of approach is taken specifically because it doesn't leave holes. Maybe its unfair, but in this case, fairnest is actually not the court's objective. It gives a blanket protection for the child, and because, relatively, he's the one who needs caring, not the adults.
At $800 a month, the child ain't the only one that's going to get caring.
My family pays about $400 a month for food. Then there is stuff like materials for school, doctor appointments, saving for college ect.
Key point is your FAMILY eats on $400 a month. Not a single child.
If I had to spend $2400 a month on my children (all 3 of them), then we'd be flat out broke. $800 is incredibly excessive. After just a portion of my bills (rent, auto loans, etc...) I end up with $2,000 a month roughly. Then I still have to pay credit cards, internet, insurance, food, etc...
This whole discussion: Child support amount is NOT based on basic life necessities at the bare minimum level. It is based on appropriate care per the income of the parents. Rich parents pay more because they have more resources. Poor parents pay less because they have fewer resources. That is all there is to it. Also, its not just about food, supplies, health and education, it also is for maintaining the child in living conditions appropriate per the available resources of the parents. Both parents.
All the individual examples of how the $800 amount appears high is saying nothing about that amount in the case. If you think that is too much for one child, its really only saying something about your own income and lifestyle. As a working pleb myself, I can't imagine the lifestyle of a pair of doctors that would merit $800/month child support, but I'm sure it involves exclusive preschool, private lessons, etc that will give the child connections and resources appropriate to its parents' stations in life.
And this is where you lose ALL credibility. If you are legitimately suggesting a man should be on the hook for an activity without a female involved except where she takes property and inseminates herself after the fact, then you clearly don't have the sense to be involved in this debate.
Leave. The adults who actually understand the problems and legal ramifications of the current system are talking.
Okay, so I get where d-usa is coming from on this, and I understand why he's saying what he is.
It's a matter of perspective. You're looking at child support as if it's a punative thing. d-usa is looking at child support as if it's a means of, well, providing support for a child.
It's kind of like liability insurance. You effectively pay for the damage to car caused in the collision, whether you're at fault or not. In the same sense, even though she's a terrible person who's done something absolutely horrible and could even be seen as genuinely traumatic, at the end of the day, it's about the child, not the monster.
Edited for clarity. Too many d names.
Actually, liability insurance for cars means the policy only pays out if the policy holder is found liable/at fault. Comprehensive pays out regardless of fault but then seeks liability reimbursement if the other party is at fault. I tried to figure out how to apply this concept in this situation, and couldn't figure out a way. Unless it involved the Aflac duck paying out for a surprisebaby (that isn't liability, its event based, so it doesn't work either)...
Welp, from now on, I think it's important to make sure that whenever you get a blowjob, make sure she either swallows it all or spits it into a receptacle such as a toilet or sink. The intelligent lesson in this is to always get blown by a swallower, and failing that, as Frazzled suggested, don't feth crazy. Thankfully, all my crazy ex's believed in swallowing.
nkelsch wrote: The only thing I learned in college was to always keep custody of your sperm and use your own condoms. Too many 'locals' looking for an M.R.S Degree.
I knew a guy in college who caught a girl taking a condom out of the trash while sleeping and trying to impregnate herself.
The law basically says once the sperm leaves your body, you lose all rights...
Are you serious? Good lord, some people are absolutely insane. I still disagree with Polonius, D-USA, and Frazzled's stance on the child support payments, but I agree wholeheartedly with the don't feth crazy sentiment. Sex outside of a committed relationship can easily lead to major problems all parties involved.
I can safely say that my sperm, in college, went in a lot of different places. None of it where it should (condom-> toilet-> sewer). Girl's stomach->tissue->trash was the typical setup in my dorm. Really surprised I got out of there without an STD...
What I want to know is why it took her 2 years before contacting the father and why she contacted the father?
In my experience most of these cases are either started right at birth, or are motivated by either personal malice or by third parties. (In the cases that I was aware/involved in it was the good ole CSA who started it all. Guilty unless proven innocent!)
TheDraconicLord wrote: I wouldn't exactly be jumping with joy with the idea of an "out of the blue" child, either. Those 800$ a month would certainly be my biggest worry too, I mean, wtf, he's being ripped off in such a shameless way, this is nuts.
Who said anything about being happy about it? Lots of things happen in life that people aren't happy about, and what decent people do is man up and make sure that their child gets a decent upbringing.
If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?
In truth to me it sounds like she wanted a kid and took whatever (deceitful) action she wanted to to get it. A few years on someone whispered in her ear "you should get child support" and so she filed. She chose to be a single mother, leave the guy out of it, she can explain later to the child why s/he has no father.
Bullockist wrote: If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?
In truth to me it sounds like she wanted a kid and took whatever (deceitful) action she wanted to to get it. A few years on someone whispered in her ear "you should get child support" and so she filed. She chose to be a single mother, leave the guy out of it, she can explain later to the child why s/he has no father.
This is by far the most mature post in just about the entire thread. I think we're done here. He's right.
TheDraconicLord wrote: I wouldn't exactly be jumping with joy with the idea of an "out of the blue" child, either. Those 800$ a month would certainly be my biggest worry too, I mean, wtf, he's being ripped off in such a shameless way, this is nuts.
Who said anything about being happy about it? Lots of things happen in life that people aren't happy about, and what decent people do is man up and make sure that their child gets a decent upbringing.
A decent upbringing that he was forced into by deceitful deception. He should have the option to place it up for adoption so that a loving family would prefer it.
trexmeyer wrote: By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS
It's his kid. It's his genetic offspring. If you don't understand why that matters, please return to your moon people. Your time here on earth is done, you can learn no more about humans and our ways.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: A decent upbringing that he was forced into by deceitful deception. He should have the option to place it up for adoption so that a loving family would prefer it.
Seriously, the moon people are among us.
It's a basic biological drive to care for a child you raised. Even when the woman completely lied about being on the pill, even from something as bizarre as harvesting sperm from a blowjob. When that doesn't happen, and the father just doesn't care, that's quite a rare thing, and something we should look at with interest.
Note that doesn't mean disputing child support, that happens all the time, but is a product of bitterness and a dispute over how the money is spent (and on whom it is spent), simply not caring if the child is looked after is not common at all. Nor does it mean almost everyone is a good parent, like everything in life there's a big difference between what we want to do, and what our lazy asses actually deliver day by day.
But there's just no denying that when a child comes in to the world, it's parents almost always love it and want it to be looked after. No matter how it got there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?
While it depends on the specific jurisdiction, if one parent wants the child given up for adoption and the other does not, the parent who wanted it given up for adoption can still be expected to provide child support.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: To be fair, it means little to me either, but I at least appreciate the significance it means to others.
That's it exactly - a person can feel no obligation themselves and that's not completely bizarre, but to be completely unaware of the default state of most of humanity? That's moon people stuff.
It's a basic biological drive to care for a child you raised. Even when the woman completely lied about being on the pill, even from something as bizarre as harvesting sperm from a blowjob. When that doesn't happen, and the father just doesn't care, that's quite a rare thing, and something we should look at with interest.
I think you are overstating the rarity here. I mean, I see children who's fathers play absolutely no role in their life, if anybody even bothered to find out who the father was.
If the family actually needed the money I might think about it a little more, but again, the mother is a doctor, so money really shouldn't be an issue for her. The father is also a doctor, so really monsy should not be a big deal for him either. However by basically forcing this guy to accept responsibility for this child, you are trying to create a relationship that does not exist, nor should it unless he wants it to. This is not a child born from a loving relationship or even an accident, this is a child born from the most willful deceit. This isn't like lying about being on the pill, or anything else, this is a complete and utter abuse. To be reminded of that every time you write a check or see the child would just be devastating to me.
If it happened to me I'd be pissed, but I would also take the kid from an obviously crazy mother. But that's me. I don't think this guy should be forced to be responsible for a child he clearly played a minimal role in creating. I personally could not imagine the emotional strain that this issue would put me through. Could you imagine finding out 2 years later that some psycho stole your sperm to get herself pregnant. Now you have a child that is half you and half bat gak crazy woman. Awesome sauce!
It's a basic biological drive to care for a child you raised.
Raised, yes. Fathered, not necessarily.
Certainly lots of men care about the children they father, but there are also lots of people who don't care about them. And I honestly think it would very difficult to conclusively establish that one side outnumbers the other, for the simple fact that there are factors other than the father's state of mind that enter in to why he would want to stay around, or why he would dispute child support.
Honestly, your argument seems to be grounded in the projection of your own sense of morality onto others, rather than in empirical evidence.
Andrew1975 wrote: I think you are overstating the rarity here. I mean, I see children who's fathers play absolutely no role in their life, if anybody even bothered to find out who the father was.
Such cases are by no means uncommon, but cases in which the reasons for the father's absence is indifference to the child's welfare? I'd say they are quite rare.
If the family actually needed the money I might think about it a little more, but again, the mother is a doctor, so money really shouldn't be an issue for her.
I agree with you there. It seems, to my completely non-legal eyes, that there is something of a loophole here.
I mean, it seems reasonable that if both parties played an equal role in the decisions that led to creating a child, then both parties are responsible to financially provide for the child, no matter if one parent could provide for the child by themselves. And it seems reasonable that even if the child was conceived through deceit, if the mother couldn't provide for the child by herself, then the father needs to contribute no matter if deceit or anything else was used to conceive the child - the welfare of the kid comes first, and any notion of fairness to either parent is secondary to that.
But in this case, where the child was conceived through deceit, and the mother (presumably) has the income to provide for the child by herself, well there doesn't seem any reason to justify him paying, beyond the law being written as it is without any regard for this combination of factors.
If it happened to me I'd be pissed, but I would also take the kid from an obviously crazy mother. But that's me. I don't think this guy should be forced to be responsible for a child he clearly played a minimal role in creating.
Should he be forced? I have no idea, and I don't even know how to begin answering the question - what kind of legal system are we talking about where a person can be legally required to look after a child? Not just pay for a child, but actually forced to raise it... that's a bit of a mind boggle.
My comment was purely on whether or not a person ought to feel a personal obligation towards a child they fathered, and what kind of a person would not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Raised, yes. Fathered, not necessarily.
Yeah, fair pick up on my loose wording. I should have said 'fathered'.
Certainly lots of men care about the children they father, but there are also lots of people who don't care about them. And I honestly think it would very difficult to conclusively establish that one side outnumbers the other, for the simple fact that there are factors other than the father's state of mind that enter in to why he would want to stay around, or why he would dispute child support.
Honestly, your argument seems to be grounded in the projection of your own sense of morality onto others, rather than in empirical evidence.
It is from observation, in two parts. The first is that where the relationship between parent and child is poor or non-existant, then where the cause is known I've never seen it explained as indifference. There is
The second part is that when you look at the way our legal system and our morality works
Now, it is entirely possible that my observation has been too limited, or coloured by personal bias. I doubt that, but then of course I would, or else I wouldn't have that opinion in the first place You are of course free to believe differently.
I've been on the fence between rebuilding my aquarium with African Cichlids again or getting an Arowana, and reading this thread has convinced me to get an Arowana.
The first is that where the relationship between parent and child is poor or non-existant, then where the cause is known I've never seen it explained as indifference.
Right, because a parent who actually admitted to being indifferent would suffer horribly in any suit regarding child support.
The second part is that when you look at the way our legal system and our morality works
And here I thought it was a "basic biological drive" for a man who fathered a child to want to care for that child. Now I'm discovering that the moral and legal systems of "our" come into play.
The second part is that when you look at the way our legal system and our morality works
And here I thought it was a "basic biological drive" for a man who fathered a child to want to care for that child. Now I'm discovering that the moral and legal systems of "our" come into play.
Is morality to some extent biologically driven? If it's been driven by upbringing, then by virtue of surviving beyond childhood, would you be able to tell the difference?
Bullockist wrote: If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?
In truth to me it sounds like she wanted a kid and took whatever (deceitful) action she wanted to to get it. A few years on someone whispered in her ear "you should get child support" and so she filed. She chose to be a single mother, leave the guy out of it, she can explain later to the child why s/he has no father.
You're not good with this whole "adults act like adults and stand up for their responsibilities" thing are you. Your argument is the reason why the law is put in the place in the first place, to protect the child from worthless deadbeat dads.
trexmeyer wrote: By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS
It's his kid. It's his genetic offspring. If you don't understand why that matters, please return to your moon people. Your time here on earth is done, you can learn no more about humans and our ways.
When Sebster and Frazzled both vociferously agree, clearly counterarguments are...without merit.
I really should stay out of this thread, but there are a couple misconceptions that really need to be cleared up:
