turtlespeed 226 #151 September 12, 2013 This is interesting. Lied about using birth control.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #152 September 13, 2013 rehmwa***Now the boy in question claims it was non consensual sex and she was bigger than he was. Not sure I buy it, but it's either rape, or consensual sex. Its certainly not a case of an adult taking advantage of a substantially younger, less mature teenage who doesn't know to say no. Switch it around - boy 18, girl 17, and then state that out loud in the forum and see what kind of response you get. Now the girl in question claims it was non consensual sex and he was bigger than she was. Not sure I buy it pretty much defines the double standard doesn't it? nothing changes - either it is rape, or it is consensual sex. It cannot be statutory rape. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #153 September 13, 2013 Maybe my post was unclear, the Tampa Bay article was about forcible rape, but the article also mentioned that men paid child support also in cases where they were victims of statutory rape.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #154 September 14, 2013 What, exactly, was he charged with? I don't have an agenda or a dog in this fight, but other than some kind of fraud, I don't see what he would have been charged with.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #155 September 14, 2013 BolasHow about this one? http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html Quote The lesson one must take from S.F. v. T.M., however, is somewhat troubling: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up even when he unknowingly and involuntarily engages in a sexual act. Instead of comparing the father's predicament with the mother's predicament in Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), where a mother was relieved of her child support obligation because she was raped, the court imposed a child support obligation because of the fact of paternity. This can only be termed a strict liability theory of sperm.Interesting article, thanks for linking to it. There are some very bizarre cases discussed there. More relevant quotes from the article include: "While it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women ... is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature." and: " As to Stephen's claim that he was tricked into father a child he did not want, no good reason appears why he himself could not have taken any precautionary measures. Even if Roni has regularly been taking birth control pills, that method, though considered the most reliable means of birth control, is not 100 percent effective. Although slight, there is some statistical probability of conception. Thus, to all men who complain about paying child support for children they did not want, the simple advice is, "Shut up and put on a condom. And dispose of it yourself." Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #156 September 14, 2013 GeorgiaDon***How about this one? http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html Quote The lesson one must take from S.F. v. T.M., however, is somewhat troubling: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up even when he unknowingly and involuntarily engages in a sexual act. Instead of comparing the father's predicament with the mother's predicament in Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), where a mother was relieved of her child support obligation because she was raped, the court imposed a child support obligation because of the fact of paternity. This can only be termed a strict liability theory of sperm.Interesting article, thanks for linking to it. There are some very bizarre cases discussed there. More relevant quotes from the article include: "While it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women ... is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature." and: " As to Stephen's claim that he was tricked into father a child he did not want, no good reason appears why he himself could not have taken any precautionary measures. Even if Roni has regularly been taking birth control pills, that method, though considered the most reliable means of birth control, is not 100 percent effective. Although slight, there is some statistical probability of conception. Thus, to all men who complain about paying child support for children they did not want, the simple advice is, "Shut up and put on a condom. And dispose of it yourself." Don The fact is, condoms are not 100% effective either. Where does reasonable come into play?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #157 September 14, 2013 There's LOTS of ways guys can render themselves "unleaded". It can be as simple as the right kind of underwwear. Hot tubs work too. It's rediculosly easy.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #158 September 14, 2013 QuoteThe fact is, condoms are not 100% effective either. Where does reasonable come into play? You know that condoms are not 100% effective. Birth control pills are also not 100% effective, and you know that too. The chances of both failing are low, but not 0, so any intercourse where those methods are used properly will still have some non-zero chance of resulting in a pregnancy, as you know full well. What is reasonable? If you take a risk, you accept the consequences. Suck it up, act like an adult and shoulder your responsibility. What is not reasonable? Expecting to be able to take risks and have others shoulder the consequences if things don't turn out the way you want. Children are not pieces of furniture you can drop at Goodwill or toss in the dumpster if you weary of your responsibility. Women are not sperm dumpsters who exist only to satisfy your carnal desires and then jump to your command when you order them to abort. What is not reasonable is expecting kids to survive without food or shelter because you'd rather fuck and spend your money on skydives. What is not reasonable is expecting taxpayers to take care of the mess you make by sticking your dick in women you aren't prepared to raise a child with. Don't want kids? You have lots of options. Get a vasectomy. Don't have sex. You can reduce your risk, but not eliminate it, by using multiple levels of birth control, and only have sex with people you know well and absolutely trust. And, only have sex with people you are prepared to have an interaction with for a long time, because you might be tied to them for decades (at least financially) by a shared child. I'm always surprised when skydivers say they expect to be able to engage in some activity but assume none of the risk. We all enjoy a sport that could leave you dependent on some TSA reject to spoon feed you pablum and wipe your ass for the rest of your life. Somehow that is a risk worth assuming, but a fathering a child would be the end of the world? Give me a break. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #159 September 14, 2013 Tink1717 There's LOTS of ways guys can render themselves "unleaded". It can be as simple as the right kind of underwear. Hot tubs work too. It's ridiculously easy. I'll bet overall, more babies were caused by hot tubs, than prevented by them."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #160 September 14, 2013 Do you feel it's reasonable to expect rape victims to pay child support?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #161 September 14, 2013 GeorgiaDonQuoteThe fact is, condoms are not 100% effective either. Where does reasonable come into play? You know that condoms are not 100% effective. Birth control pills are also not 100% effective, and you know that too. The chances of both failing are low, but not 0, so any intercourse where those methods are used properly will still have some non-zero chance of resulting in a pregnancy, as you know full well. What is reasonable? If you take a risk, you accept the consequences. Suck it up, act like an adult and shoulder your responsibility. What is not reasonable? Expecting to be able to take risks and have others shoulder the consequences if things don't turn out the way you want. Children are not pieces of furniture you can drop at Goodwill or toss in the dumpster if you weary of your responsibility. Women are not sperm dumpsters who exist only to satisfy your carnal desires and then jump to your command when you order them to abort. What is not reasonable is expecting kids to survive without food or shelter because you'd rather fuck and spend your money on skydives. What is not reasonable is expecting taxpayers to take care of the mess you make by sticking your dick in women you aren't prepared to raise a child with. Don't want kids? You have lots of options. Get a vasectomy. Don't have sex. You can reduce your risk, but not eliminate it, by using multiple levels of birth control, and only have sex with people you know well and absolutely trust. And, only have sex with people you are prepared to have an interaction with for a long time, because you might be tied to them for decades (at least financially) by a shared child. I'm always surprised when skydivers say they expect to be able to engage in some activity but assume none of the risk. We all enjoy a sport that could leave you dependent on some TSA reject to spoon feed you pablum and wipe your ass for the rest of your life. Somehow that is a risk worth assuming, but a fathering a child would be the end of the world? Give me a break. Don Is it reasonable for a woman to have a secret surgical procedure in order to get preggers? Or in your mind is that just "a risk"?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #162 September 15, 2013 QuoteIs it reasonable for a woman to have a secret surgical procedure in order to get preggers?Please enlighten me as to the surgical procedure that would allow a woman to get pregnant without a source of sperm. If your sex partner is hoarding your sperm so she can undergo some mysterious "secret surgical procedure", you need to be much more selective about where you're sticking your dipstick. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #163 September 15, 2013 BolasDo you feel it's reasonable to expect rape victims to pay child support?No. Assuming you're talking about a situation where the guy alleges that he was raped, did he press charges against the woman? Was she convicted? Or is he just claiming "rape" after the fact? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #164 September 15, 2013 GeorgiaDonQuoteIs it reasonable for a woman to have a secret surgical procedure in order to get preggers?Please enlighten me as to the surgical procedure that would allow a woman to get pregnant without a source of sperm. If your sex partner is hoarding your sperm so she can undergo some mysterious "secret surgical procedure", you need to be much more selective about where you're sticking your dipstick. Don Ah, so even though an agreement was made, you went to the doctor together, discussed the options . . . Its still somehow your fault when she deceives you and has the implant removed. I think I see how you think now.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #165 September 15, 2013 QuoteI think I see how you think now.I doubt that. You come across as having a much more black-and-white view of the world. No implant has a perfect success rate. Norplant, for example, has a 99-99.5% success rate, and that is the most effective implant available. The male partner in your little passion play would therefore have been aware that there was a chance, as high as 1%, that pregnancy would still result even if the implant was functioning normally, had he actually gone to the doctor with his partner. If he chose not to use a second birth control method, he implicitly accepted a 1% risk of pregnancy. Further, if his partner did have the implant removed and he was completely unaware of that then he is having sex with someone he does not actually know. It's hard for me to believe that he would have had absolutely no indication that his partner desperately wanted a child; few people are such good liars as be able to completely conceal such a basic desire. It seems more likely that she agreed to the implant to placate him, reluctantly and under duress. Even if she was intentionally deceptive, it's likely that he believed what he wanted to believe, and overlooked evidence to the contrary. Also, if he did not use a backup method of birth control, it's clear he regards birth control as the woman's responsibility and not his. Finally, I have to say that you and others have been arguing this issue as a dispute between sex partners, completely ignoring the fact that (by the time this kind of dispute becomes an issue) a third person has a stake in the outcome, the child. A child is not a piece of furniture. The child had nothing to do with circumstances of it's creation, made no choice, took no action, assumed no risk. Our society in general, and the courts in particular, have judged that the only innocent party in this tragedy should not be the one to bear the brunt of the adverse consequences. A child is (in our society) entitled to food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education, and someone has to pay for that. Who should bear primary responsibility for that, the adults whose actions created the child, or the State? If the mother is unable to provide for an acceptable standard of living, why should the father escape responsibility? Otherwise the choices are grim: society turns its back on the child, and allows it to suffer neglect of even basic necessities, or else the State assumes responsibility for child rearing, taking responsibility and also freedom to decide what is best for the child away from all parents. Sometimes no completely "good" or "fair" solution to the problem is available, and the courts have to choose the solution that does the least damage overall. The worst solution would be to deny the child basic necessities of life, and courts will never choose that solution. Sometimes the alternative is to take the child and make it a ward of the state, but that is done reluctantly, in circumstances where the court believes leaving the child with a parent or parents poses an imminent risk to the child. So, in some circumstances, the solution that does the least damage overall is to require the biological father to contribute to the basic needs of the child, at least financially. That may not be "fair" to the father, if he was deceived (or even, if we are to believe the story, raped). It's just the lesser of the various possible evils available to the courts. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 226 #166 September 15, 2013 GeorgiaDonQuoteI think I see how you think now.I doubt that. You come across as having a much more black-and-white view of the world. No implant has a perfect success rate. Norplant, for example, has a 99-99.5% success rate, and that is the most effective implant available. The male partner in your little passion play would therefore have been aware that there was a chance, as high as 1%, that pregnancy would still result even if the implant was functioning normally, had he actually gone to the doctor with his partner. If he chose not to use a second birth control method, he implicitly accepted a 1% risk of pregnancy. Further, if his partner did have the implant removed and he was completely unaware of that then he is having sex with someone he does not actually know. It's hard for me to believe that he would have had absolutely no indication that his partner desperately wanted a child; few people are such good liars as be able to completely conceal such a basic desire. It seems more likely that she agreed to the implant to placate him, reluctantly and under duress. Even if she was intentionally deceptive, it's likely that he believed what he wanted to believe, and overlooked evidence to the contrary. Also, if he did not use a backup method of birth control, it's clear he regards birth control as the woman's responsibility and not his. Finally, I have to say that you and others have been arguing this issue as a dispute between sex partners, completely ignoring the fact that (by the time this kind of dispute becomes an issue) a third person has a stake in the outcome, the child. A child is not a piece of furniture. The child had nothing to do with circumstances of it's creation, made no choice, took no action, assumed no risk. Our society in general, and the courts in particular, have judged that the only innocent party in this tragedy should not be the one to bear the brunt of the adverse consequences. A child is (in our society) entitled to food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education, and someone has to pay for that. Who should bear primary responsibility for that, the adults whose actions created the child, or the State? If the mother is unable to provide for an acceptable standard of living, why should the father escape responsibility? Otherwise the choices are grim: society turns its back on the child, and allows it to suffer neglect of even basic necessities, or else the State assumes responsibility for child rearing, taking responsibility and also freedom to decide what is best for the child away from all parents. Sometimes no completely "good" or "fair" solution to the problem is available, and the courts have to choose the solution that does the least damage overall. The worst solution would be to deny the child basic necessities of life, and courts will never choose that solution. Sometimes the alternative is to take the child and make it a ward of the state, but that is done reluctantly, in circumstances where the court believes leaving the child with a parent or parents poses an imminent risk to the child. So, in some circumstances, the solution that does the least damage overall is to require the biological father to contribute to the basic needs of the child, at least financially. That may not be "fair" to the father, if he was deceived (or even, if we are to believe the story, raped). It's just the lesser of the various possible evils available to the courts. Don The question is who should REALLY be responsible for the child's welfare. The answer is obvious to me, but split in two. 1. Morally - Anybody but the biological father, he was deceived and defrauded. 2. Legally - Obviously the courts don't have the money to take care of the kid. There are even circumstances I have heard of that a non bio dad is court ordered to pay child support. The courts aren't interested in the truth or culpability, they care about cash. If you have cash - they want it. So they don't have to paI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #167 September 15, 2013 Child support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case. Very little of that money is spent on the child, most is spent on the parent. Some of the "deadbeat" dads just grew tired of paying child support that the mother spent on herself and then buying the things the child needed on top of that so they skipped for the former for the latter. If a woman is so selfish to commit pregnancy fraud or even rape, do you think this type of person is going to magically change and put the child first? Remove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 380 #168 September 15, 2013 QuoteThe question is who should REALLY be responsible for the child's welfare. The answer is obvious to me, but split in two. 1. Morally - Anybody but the biological father, he was deceived and defrauded. OK, I nominate you to be responsible. Quote2. Legally - Obviously the courts don't have the money to take care of the kid. There are even circumstances I have heard of that a non bio dad is court ordered to pay child support. The courts aren't interested in the truth or culpability, they care about cash. If you have cash - they want it.The courts are interested in culpability, but they also have to be interested in the interests of the child. The courts get their funding from the taxpayer, as does Child Protective Services and the welfare system. Holding the courts or the state responsible for the expense means holding you responsible. So the first choice to be made is, should the child be entitled to have its basic needs met, or not? Most people would say yes, but if you feel the proper answer is no, have the balls to say so. If the answer is yes, the question becomes who pays for that? Traditionally, the answer has been the biological parents. It really doesn't matter that the father doesn't want to. Also traditionally, it has been legally assumed that the married spouse of the mother is the father of the child, because no definitive method was available to prove otherwise. Such technologies are available now, of course, so an argument could be made that the law has to catch up to the technology and hold the actual biological father responsible. That is an issue for legislatures, the courts have to follow existing law. Bear in mind that it's not uncommon that fathers find out after years of caring for children that they were not the actual "sperm donor"; examples have been posted here in Speaker's Corner. Then a question arises about who is the "real" father, the person who cared for and loved that child, or the "sperm donor"? Do we want laws that sever the rights of the person who cared for and loved the child, baring them from contact with the child even if they want to continue it, and by force of law substituting someone who has never had any contact with the child, but only contact (perhaps a single incident) with the mother years before? Given that there are no good solutions to the problem, which one is worse: taking kids from the only father they have ever known so as to hold financially liable a person who had sex with the mother but who has no interest in a child they have never seen, or sticking some unfortunate cuckold with the expense of raising a child that is not (biologically) his? Although the mother perpetrated the situation, there is no resolution that does not have major, potentially life-altering (in a bad way) consequences for the child. Why should the child be the main one to suffer? A related question is, what does it mean to be a father? Is sperm the only factor that bears on the question? Caring for the child, nursing them through illness, teaching them to ride a bike and shoot a gun and drive, all those things should count for nothing? Personally, if I were to find that any of my children were not fathered by me, that would change my relationship with my wife but not at all with my children. I love them as people, not as "blood lines". One solution might be found through the civil courts, where biological fathers could be found liable for some portion of the financial expenses without making them the custodial parent. I suspect that law would have to legislated to allow for that. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #169 September 15, 2013 QuoteChild support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case.Yes, if a guy has sex with someone like that, then they might get a mother who has fun at the child's expense. OTOH, sometimes that higher rent is to provide a 2-bedroom instead of a 1-bedroom apartment. Or maybe work clothing for the mother as well as clothing for the child, so that the mother can continue at a job with hours that work for the daycare situation. I suppose a serious control freak could work out a deal where their child support was paid via a prepaid debit card that they had to right to examine (i.e. make sure that only baby formula was bought at the grocery store, and NEVER Tampax). The only 100% certain solution is sterilization (with post-procedure confirmation of the effect). If you want 100% certainty, then it's available for both men and women (BTW it's far easier and cheaper for men). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 380 #170 September 15, 2013 QuoteChild support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case. Very little of that money is spent on the child, most is spent on the parent. Some of the "deadbeat" dads just grew tired of paying child support that the mother spent on herself and then buying the things the child needed on top of that so they skipped for the former for the latter. Well, sure. By the same token, many many dads just really resent the mom, and don't want to give "them" a dime. How do you propose the courts distinguish between these motivations in every case? What system can you suggest where money is paid in child support, but the custodial parent does not have any access to that money? Should 6 months old have to go out and buy their own diapers? Sometimes the interests of the parent and the child coincide. If the parent needs a car to get the child to school or extracurricular activities, is it an abuse of child support to use some of that money to buy a dependable car? If the dad has evidence that mom is using child support to pay to go on cruises to Tahiti, leaving the child in the care of sketchy friends, then he needs to go to court with his evidence and challenge the custody arrangement. QuoteRemove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape. How do you propose doing that without affecting the child? Or is this a case of fuck the mom (literally), then fuck the kid (figuratively)? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #171 September 15, 2013 GeorgiaDon No implant has a perfect success rate. Norplant, for example, has a 99-99.5% success rate, and that is the most effective implant available. The male partner in your little passion play would therefore have been aware that there was a chance, as high as 1%, that pregnancy would still result even if the implant was functioning normally, had he actually gone to the doctor with his partner. If he chose not to use a second birth control method, he implicitly accepted a 1% risk of pregnancy. And that's 1% PER YEAR, not for your lifetime using this method. (or roughly 10 times the risk of death for the 'average' skydiver or motorcyclist). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #172 September 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteRemove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape. How do you propose doing that without affecting the child? Or is this a case of fuck the mom (literally), then fuck the kid (figuratively)? If the mother does not want to shoulder the full financial responsibility her deception/crime she has the options of abortion (within standard guidelines) or adoption.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 380 #173 September 15, 2013 QuoteIf the mother does not want to shoulder the full financial responsibility her deception/crime she has the options of abortion (within standard guidelines) or adoption. If the mother is guilty of rape or fraud, she may have a hard time shouldering the financial responsibility from prison. If she is not in prison, we have to wonder why? Did the male victim not press charges? Does the evidence not back up his story? As far as deception/crime is concerned, is lying about birth control a crime? If so, is saying "I'll pull out before I come" or "I won't come in your mouth", and then doing the opposite, also a crime? Should men go to jail for promising to do something, then not doing it? No method of birth control is perfect. If the guy absolutely does not want children, he has options, the least of which is to take responsibility for birth control himself. Demanding access to sex without any of the responsibility is like demanding to be able to skydive without any risk of injury or death. Such a thing does not exist in the real world. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #174 September 16, 2013 GeorgiaDonDemanding access to sex without any of the responsibility is like demanding to be able to skydive without any risk of injury or death. Such a thing does not exist in the real world. Don Accidental risk is not the same as intentional sabotage.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites oldwomanc6 60 #175 September 16, 2013 I'm still trying to figure out how this went to the guy was raped, has his sperm stolen, and he should have used a condom, anyway. lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 7 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
turtlespeed 226 #166 September 15, 2013 GeorgiaDonQuoteI think I see how you think now.I doubt that. You come across as having a much more black-and-white view of the world. No implant has a perfect success rate. Norplant, for example, has a 99-99.5% success rate, and that is the most effective implant available. The male partner in your little passion play would therefore have been aware that there was a chance, as high as 1%, that pregnancy would still result even if the implant was functioning normally, had he actually gone to the doctor with his partner. If he chose not to use a second birth control method, he implicitly accepted a 1% risk of pregnancy. Further, if his partner did have the implant removed and he was completely unaware of that then he is having sex with someone he does not actually know. It's hard for me to believe that he would have had absolutely no indication that his partner desperately wanted a child; few people are such good liars as be able to completely conceal such a basic desire. It seems more likely that she agreed to the implant to placate him, reluctantly and under duress. Even if she was intentionally deceptive, it's likely that he believed what he wanted to believe, and overlooked evidence to the contrary. Also, if he did not use a backup method of birth control, it's clear he regards birth control as the woman's responsibility and not his. Finally, I have to say that you and others have been arguing this issue as a dispute between sex partners, completely ignoring the fact that (by the time this kind of dispute becomes an issue) a third person has a stake in the outcome, the child. A child is not a piece of furniture. The child had nothing to do with circumstances of it's creation, made no choice, took no action, assumed no risk. Our society in general, and the courts in particular, have judged that the only innocent party in this tragedy should not be the one to bear the brunt of the adverse consequences. A child is (in our society) entitled to food, shelter, clothing, health care, and education, and someone has to pay for that. Who should bear primary responsibility for that, the adults whose actions created the child, or the State? If the mother is unable to provide for an acceptable standard of living, why should the father escape responsibility? Otherwise the choices are grim: society turns its back on the child, and allows it to suffer neglect of even basic necessities, or else the State assumes responsibility for child rearing, taking responsibility and also freedom to decide what is best for the child away from all parents. Sometimes no completely "good" or "fair" solution to the problem is available, and the courts have to choose the solution that does the least damage overall. The worst solution would be to deny the child basic necessities of life, and courts will never choose that solution. Sometimes the alternative is to take the child and make it a ward of the state, but that is done reluctantly, in circumstances where the court believes leaving the child with a parent or parents poses an imminent risk to the child. So, in some circumstances, the solution that does the least damage overall is to require the biological father to contribute to the basic needs of the child, at least financially. That may not be "fair" to the father, if he was deceived (or even, if we are to believe the story, raped). It's just the lesser of the various possible evils available to the courts. Don The question is who should REALLY be responsible for the child's welfare. The answer is obvious to me, but split in two. 1. Morally - Anybody but the biological father, he was deceived and defrauded. 2. Legally - Obviously the courts don't have the money to take care of the kid. There are even circumstances I have heard of that a non bio dad is court ordered to pay child support. The courts aren't interested in the truth or culpability, they care about cash. If you have cash - they want it. So they don't have to paI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #167 September 15, 2013 Child support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case. Very little of that money is spent on the child, most is spent on the parent. Some of the "deadbeat" dads just grew tired of paying child support that the mother spent on herself and then buying the things the child needed on top of that so they skipped for the former for the latter. If a woman is so selfish to commit pregnancy fraud or even rape, do you think this type of person is going to magically change and put the child first? Remove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 380 #168 September 15, 2013 QuoteThe question is who should REALLY be responsible for the child's welfare. The answer is obvious to me, but split in two. 1. Morally - Anybody but the biological father, he was deceived and defrauded. OK, I nominate you to be responsible. Quote2. Legally - Obviously the courts don't have the money to take care of the kid. There are even circumstances I have heard of that a non bio dad is court ordered to pay child support. The courts aren't interested in the truth or culpability, they care about cash. If you have cash - they want it.The courts are interested in culpability, but they also have to be interested in the interests of the child. The courts get their funding from the taxpayer, as does Child Protective Services and the welfare system. Holding the courts or the state responsible for the expense means holding you responsible. So the first choice to be made is, should the child be entitled to have its basic needs met, or not? Most people would say yes, but if you feel the proper answer is no, have the balls to say so. If the answer is yes, the question becomes who pays for that? Traditionally, the answer has been the biological parents. It really doesn't matter that the father doesn't want to. Also traditionally, it has been legally assumed that the married spouse of the mother is the father of the child, because no definitive method was available to prove otherwise. Such technologies are available now, of course, so an argument could be made that the law has to catch up to the technology and hold the actual biological father responsible. That is an issue for legislatures, the courts have to follow existing law. Bear in mind that it's not uncommon that fathers find out after years of caring for children that they were not the actual "sperm donor"; examples have been posted here in Speaker's Corner. Then a question arises about who is the "real" father, the person who cared for and loved that child, or the "sperm donor"? Do we want laws that sever the rights of the person who cared for and loved the child, baring them from contact with the child even if they want to continue it, and by force of law substituting someone who has never had any contact with the child, but only contact (perhaps a single incident) with the mother years before? Given that there are no good solutions to the problem, which one is worse: taking kids from the only father they have ever known so as to hold financially liable a person who had sex with the mother but who has no interest in a child they have never seen, or sticking some unfortunate cuckold with the expense of raising a child that is not (biologically) his? Although the mother perpetrated the situation, there is no resolution that does not have major, potentially life-altering (in a bad way) consequences for the child. Why should the child be the main one to suffer? A related question is, what does it mean to be a father? Is sperm the only factor that bears on the question? Caring for the child, nursing them through illness, teaching them to ride a bike and shoot a gun and drive, all those things should count for nothing? Personally, if I were to find that any of my children were not fathered by me, that would change my relationship with my wife but not at all with my children. I love them as people, not as "blood lines". One solution might be found through the civil courts, where biological fathers could be found liable for some portion of the financial expenses without making them the custodial parent. I suspect that law would have to legislated to allow for that. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #169 September 15, 2013 QuoteChild support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case.Yes, if a guy has sex with someone like that, then they might get a mother who has fun at the child's expense. OTOH, sometimes that higher rent is to provide a 2-bedroom instead of a 1-bedroom apartment. Or maybe work clothing for the mother as well as clothing for the child, so that the mother can continue at a job with hours that work for the daycare situation. I suppose a serious control freak could work out a deal where their child support was paid via a prepaid debit card that they had to right to examine (i.e. make sure that only baby formula was bought at the grocery store, and NEVER Tampax). The only 100% certain solution is sterilization (with post-procedure confirmation of the effect). If you want 100% certainty, then it's available for both men and women (BTW it's far easier and cheaper for men). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 380 #170 September 15, 2013 QuoteChild support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case. Very little of that money is spent on the child, most is spent on the parent. Some of the "deadbeat" dads just grew tired of paying child support that the mother spent on herself and then buying the things the child needed on top of that so they skipped for the former for the latter. Well, sure. By the same token, many many dads just really resent the mom, and don't want to give "them" a dime. How do you propose the courts distinguish between these motivations in every case? What system can you suggest where money is paid in child support, but the custodial parent does not have any access to that money? Should 6 months old have to go out and buy their own diapers? Sometimes the interests of the parent and the child coincide. If the parent needs a car to get the child to school or extracurricular activities, is it an abuse of child support to use some of that money to buy a dependable car? If the dad has evidence that mom is using child support to pay to go on cruises to Tahiti, leaving the child in the care of sketchy friends, then he needs to go to court with his evidence and challenge the custody arrangement. QuoteRemove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape. How do you propose doing that without affecting the child? Or is this a case of fuck the mom (literally), then fuck the kid (figuratively)? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #171 September 15, 2013 GeorgiaDon No implant has a perfect success rate. Norplant, for example, has a 99-99.5% success rate, and that is the most effective implant available. The male partner in your little passion play would therefore have been aware that there was a chance, as high as 1%, that pregnancy would still result even if the implant was functioning normally, had he actually gone to the doctor with his partner. If he chose not to use a second birth control method, he implicitly accepted a 1% risk of pregnancy. And that's 1% PER YEAR, not for your lifetime using this method. (or roughly 10 times the risk of death for the 'average' skydiver or motorcyclist). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #172 September 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteRemove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape. How do you propose doing that without affecting the child? Or is this a case of fuck the mom (literally), then fuck the kid (figuratively)? If the mother does not want to shoulder the full financial responsibility her deception/crime she has the options of abortion (within standard guidelines) or adoption.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #167 September 15, 2013 Child support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case. Very little of that money is spent on the child, most is spent on the parent. Some of the "deadbeat" dads just grew tired of paying child support that the mother spent on herself and then buying the things the child needed on top of that so they skipped for the former for the latter. If a woman is so selfish to commit pregnancy fraud or even rape, do you think this type of person is going to magically change and put the child first? Remove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #168 September 15, 2013 QuoteThe question is who should REALLY be responsible for the child's welfare. The answer is obvious to me, but split in two. 1. Morally - Anybody but the biological father, he was deceived and defrauded. OK, I nominate you to be responsible. Quote2. Legally - Obviously the courts don't have the money to take care of the kid. There are even circumstances I have heard of that a non bio dad is court ordered to pay child support. The courts aren't interested in the truth or culpability, they care about cash. If you have cash - they want it.The courts are interested in culpability, but they also have to be interested in the interests of the child. The courts get their funding from the taxpayer, as does Child Protective Services and the welfare system. Holding the courts or the state responsible for the expense means holding you responsible. So the first choice to be made is, should the child be entitled to have its basic needs met, or not? Most people would say yes, but if you feel the proper answer is no, have the balls to say so. If the answer is yes, the question becomes who pays for that? Traditionally, the answer has been the biological parents. It really doesn't matter that the father doesn't want to. Also traditionally, it has been legally assumed that the married spouse of the mother is the father of the child, because no definitive method was available to prove otherwise. Such technologies are available now, of course, so an argument could be made that the law has to catch up to the technology and hold the actual biological father responsible. That is an issue for legislatures, the courts have to follow existing law. Bear in mind that it's not uncommon that fathers find out after years of caring for children that they were not the actual "sperm donor"; examples have been posted here in Speaker's Corner. Then a question arises about who is the "real" father, the person who cared for and loved that child, or the "sperm donor"? Do we want laws that sever the rights of the person who cared for and loved the child, baring them from contact with the child even if they want to continue it, and by force of law substituting someone who has never had any contact with the child, but only contact (perhaps a single incident) with the mother years before? Given that there are no good solutions to the problem, which one is worse: taking kids from the only father they have ever known so as to hold financially liable a person who had sex with the mother but who has no interest in a child they have never seen, or sticking some unfortunate cuckold with the expense of raising a child that is not (biologically) his? Although the mother perpetrated the situation, there is no resolution that does not have major, potentially life-altering (in a bad way) consequences for the child. Why should the child be the main one to suffer? A related question is, what does it mean to be a father? Is sperm the only factor that bears on the question? Caring for the child, nursing them through illness, teaching them to ride a bike and shoot a gun and drive, all those things should count for nothing? Personally, if I were to find that any of my children were not fathered by me, that would change my relationship with my wife but not at all with my children. I love them as people, not as "blood lines". One solution might be found through the civil courts, where biological fathers could be found liable for some portion of the financial expenses without making them the custodial parent. I suspect that law would have to legislated to allow for that. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #169 September 15, 2013 QuoteChild support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case.Yes, if a guy has sex with someone like that, then they might get a mother who has fun at the child's expense. OTOH, sometimes that higher rent is to provide a 2-bedroom instead of a 1-bedroom apartment. Or maybe work clothing for the mother as well as clothing for the child, so that the mother can continue at a job with hours that work for the daycare situation. I suppose a serious control freak could work out a deal where their child support was paid via a prepaid debit card that they had to right to examine (i.e. make sure that only baby formula was bought at the grocery store, and NEVER Tampax). The only 100% certain solution is sterilization (with post-procedure confirmation of the effect). If you want 100% certainty, then it's available for both men and women (BTW it's far easier and cheaper for men). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #170 September 15, 2013 QuoteChild support money is supposed to be spent on the child, but as it's given to the parent, oftentimes that's not the case. Very little of that money is spent on the child, most is spent on the parent. Some of the "deadbeat" dads just grew tired of paying child support that the mother spent on herself and then buying the things the child needed on top of that so they skipped for the former for the latter. Well, sure. By the same token, many many dads just really resent the mom, and don't want to give "them" a dime. How do you propose the courts distinguish between these motivations in every case? What system can you suggest where money is paid in child support, but the custodial parent does not have any access to that money? Should 6 months old have to go out and buy their own diapers? Sometimes the interests of the parent and the child coincide. If the parent needs a car to get the child to school or extracurricular activities, is it an abuse of child support to use some of that money to buy a dependable car? If the dad has evidence that mom is using child support to pay to go on cruises to Tahiti, leaving the child in the care of sketchy friends, then he needs to go to court with his evidence and challenge the custody arrangement. QuoteRemove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape. How do you propose doing that without affecting the child? Or is this a case of fuck the mom (literally), then fuck the kid (figuratively)? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #171 September 15, 2013 GeorgiaDon No implant has a perfect success rate. Norplant, for example, has a 99-99.5% success rate, and that is the most effective implant available. The male partner in your little passion play would therefore have been aware that there was a chance, as high as 1%, that pregnancy would still result even if the implant was functioning normally, had he actually gone to the doctor with his partner. If he chose not to use a second birth control method, he implicitly accepted a 1% risk of pregnancy. And that's 1% PER YEAR, not for your lifetime using this method. (or roughly 10 times the risk of death for the 'average' skydiver or motorcyclist). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #172 September 15, 2013 QuoteQuoteRemove the "profit" incentive both from the father of child support and government assistance in cases of pregnancy fraud or rape. How do you propose doing that without affecting the child? Or is this a case of fuck the mom (literally), then fuck the kid (figuratively)? If the mother does not want to shoulder the full financial responsibility her deception/crime she has the options of abortion (within standard guidelines) or adoption.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #173 September 15, 2013 QuoteIf the mother does not want to shoulder the full financial responsibility her deception/crime she has the options of abortion (within standard guidelines) or adoption. If the mother is guilty of rape or fraud, she may have a hard time shouldering the financial responsibility from prison. If she is not in prison, we have to wonder why? Did the male victim not press charges? Does the evidence not back up his story? As far as deception/crime is concerned, is lying about birth control a crime? If so, is saying "I'll pull out before I come" or "I won't come in your mouth", and then doing the opposite, also a crime? Should men go to jail for promising to do something, then not doing it? No method of birth control is perfect. If the guy absolutely does not want children, he has options, the least of which is to take responsibility for birth control himself. Demanding access to sex without any of the responsibility is like demanding to be able to skydive without any risk of injury or death. Such a thing does not exist in the real world. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #174 September 16, 2013 GeorgiaDonDemanding access to sex without any of the responsibility is like demanding to be able to skydive without any risk of injury or death. Such a thing does not exist in the real world. Don Accidental risk is not the same as intentional sabotage.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 60 #175 September 16, 2013 I'm still trying to figure out how this went to the guy was raped, has his sperm stolen, and he should have used a condom, anyway. lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
