Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

trexmeyer wrote:
Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy.

Oh Dakka.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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

Two cases is very rare.

 Slarg232 wrote:
What I'm getting out of this topic is:

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Lesson 1: Don't feth crazy.

Hey I already said that!

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.

I'm doing my job. For the greater good.

 Soladrin wrote:

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

 LordofHats wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

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

But your economy is a bit of a failure isn't it?

 Soladrin wrote:

Yeah, but most of the laws don't seem to work at all.

Hah. If we're lucky. The danger are the laws that work as intended.

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

/FMA reference

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!

Moral of the story: there's no such thing as 'too much' masturbation.

...Unless some pregnant-crazy psycho happens to be sifting around your garbage bins...

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.

 kronk wrote:
What a sticky situation.

Oh Kronk, with your 'lowest common denominator' joke

Still made me chuckle though.

 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.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

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.

 Polonius wrote:

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.

(programmer, not lawyer)

 d-usa wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

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.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

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?

Is she the biological mother? Then yes.

.

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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

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.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

.

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 problem with allowing anyone to cut off support will primarily punish the child and give some men the opportunity to evade their responsibilities.

But its not his responsibility, and if the woman makes enough money which in this case it would seam she does, he should not have to pay.

Who would pay if the father was dead? Nobody.

This woman is clearly the villain in this situation, and is being rewarded for her actions.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

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.