Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, I cannot believe that men aren't aware that birth control fails. Is this drunk or drugged sex? Personal responsibility shouldn't take a backseat when you are sleeping around with people that you don't know that well or really just want to "hit and run" I never really understand why people risk STDs either. "Casual" sex is going to be filled with risk factors. We all, except in the case of rape, have a choice when it comes to sexual activity.
OK but the point I was saying was the male was told that the woman was on the pill and fooled into believing that she was using birth control but in actuality, she wasn't at all.
Sadly the o.p. turns what is actually a valid premise into a ridiculous caricature of logical reasoning. An earlier poster opined that (paraphrase) "not too many women are living high on the hog on child support after separation". Maybe, maybe not, but they must have missed another posters rather accurate observation that what many women do is find another man to support them and their child(ren) then the non-custodial parents child support can go towards small luxury items.
All this is beside the point that a man is at a double disadvantage in any matter of child support. It may not even be in the best interest of the woman to conceive and rear a child, with or without a partner, but, they have complete and total say in the final decision. They can terminate over a partners objections and they can go ahead with a pregnancy despite a partners objections. That kind of biological dis-empowerment should be offset in our much more complex modern society, by some kind of legal opt out!
I see nothing wrong with a legal framework whereby a woman discovering that she is pregnant and failing to inform her partner of that fact (as actually happened to me) should not be able to sue him at a distance for child support. There is a very low bar as regards her case. She does not have to verify her income , she does not have to reveal the existence of a new partner or income. All of the onus is on the non-custodial parent. A request for paternity will be granted in a one night stand situation, but if there was any kind of ongoing cohabitation or marriage prior, good luck with getting a judge to sign off on a paternity test without first destroying you as a human being and then, should you actually be found to be the biological parent you can expect increases in support awards well beyond the established 17%, 24% and 30% guidelines.
The o.p. is taking a lot of push-back for their POV, and rightly so. But my experience as a non-custodial parent gives me a great deal of perspective that none of the rest of you have. The majority of you are women, and I get that. What is not to like about a status quo that allows you to go into sexual encounters secure that in the event of a pregnancy you are backed up by government sponsored garnishment of the baby daddy's wages.
Maybe if women did not have this assurance they might avoid sexual encounters if they do not have (adequate) birth control on hand. What really is so wrong about a paradigm that does not simply make a man financially responsible for offspring that he may have fathered, if he has given prior notice that he does not wish to be a father? There have been stories in the news of lesbian couples that enlist the aid of a male friend to conceive a child. The women later separate, and all of a sudden, despite prior assurances, the sperm donor is dragged into court and assessed for current, and back (with interest), child support.
I think after six pages of predictable bashing of the o.p.'s premise that some discussion be given to the responsibility imbalance between a man and a woman with respect to an unexpected pregnancy.
Life isn't fair. I don't think it's fair that men cannot create and carry a child in their body, and females have to do the hard work of creating the child with their body. If a male was able to do that, they would have the same reproductive choices that women have in regards to abortion. Until that happens, their choice to reproduce ends once they inseminate a female. Choose to engage in other non reproductive sexual acts, abstain from any reproductive acts, or combine a vasectomy with other birth control methods.
Sadly the o.p. turns what is actually a valid premise into a ridiculous caricature of logical reasoning. An earlier poster opined that (paraphrase) "not too many women are living high on the hog on child support after separation". Maybe, maybe not, but they must have missed another posters rather accurate observation that what many women do is find another man to support them and their child(ren) then the non-custodial parents child support can go towards small luxury items.
All this is beside the point that a man is at a double disadvantage in any matter of child support. It may not even be in the best interest of the woman to conceive and rear a child, with or without a partner, but, they have complete and total say in the final decision. They can terminate over a partners objections and they can go ahead with a pregnancy despite a partners objections. That kind of biological dis-empowerment should be offset in our much more complex modern society, by some kind of legal opt out!
I see nothing wrong with a legal framework whereby a woman discovering that she is pregnant and failing to inform her partner of that fact (as actually happened to me) should not be able to sue him at a distance for child support. There is a very low bar as regards her case. She does not have to verify her income , she does not have to reveal the existence of a new partner or income. All of the onus is on the non-custodial parent. A request for paternity will be granted in a one night stand situation, but if there was any kind of ongoing cohabitation or marriage prior, good luck with getting a judge to sign off on a paternity test without first destroying you as a human being and then, should you actually be found to be the biological parent you can expect increases in support awards well beyond the established 17%, 24% and 30% guidelines.
The o.p. is taking a lot of push-back for their POV, and rightly so. But my experience as a non-custodial parent gives me a great deal of perspective that none of the rest of you have. The majority of you are women, and I get that. What is not to like about a status quo that allows you to go into sexual encounters secure that in the event of a pregnancy you are backed up by government sponsored garnishment of the baby daddy's wages.
Maybe if women did not have this assurance they might avoid sexual encounters if they do not have (adequate) birth control on hand. What really is so wrong about a paradigm that does not simply make a man financially responsible for offspring that he may have fathered, if he has given prior notice that he does not wish to be a father? There have been stories in the news of lesbian couples that enlist the aid of a male friend to conceive a child. The women later separate, and all of a sudden, despite prior assurances, the sperm donor is dragged into court and assessed for current, and back (with interest), child support.
I think after six pages of predictable bashing of the o.p.'s premise that some discussion be given to the responsibility imbalance between a man and a woman with respect to an unexpected pregnancy.
Absolutely let's discuss "the responsibility imbalance between a man and a woman with respect to an unexpected pregnancy" ... According to the common formula for determining child support, the non-custodial parent of a single child pays 17% of his/her income. It might be higher or lower depending upon circumstances or it might be a set amount. The non-custodial parent gets visitation rights to his/her child which are enforceable by the courts if the custodial parent is uncooperative. The non-custodial parent can also choose to not bother with visitation.
The custodial parent provides everything else for the child, including child care, which can make it impossible for the custodial parent to work full time for several years or which might make it difficult or impossible for the custodial parent to pursue better job opportunities because of hours or location. It's why many custodial parents wind up on some form of public assistance for various amounts of time. Meanwhile, the noncustodial parent can continue to work full time and can pursue any promotions or job improvement he or she wishes and qualifies for because he/she has no responsibility towards his/her child except for sending a check every week/month and visiting with his/her child when it's convenient for the non-custodial parent.
There's definitely a "responsibility imbalance" there.
Life isn't fair. I don't think it's fair that men cannot create and carry a child in their body, and females have to do the hard work of creating the child with their body. If a male was able to do that, they would have the same reproductive choices that women have in regards to abortion. Until that happens, their choice to reproduce ends once they inseminate a female. Choose to engage in other non reproductive sexual acts, abstain from any reproductive acts, or combine a vasectomy with other birth control methods.
I don't know any American urologists that will perform a vasectomy on a man who does not already have children. Nor do I know many American women willing to engage in non-reproductive sexual acts. Some grudgingly acede, occasionally, if the guy is worth the sacrifice, but it is not a stable solution for the longer term. And there are threads galore in the relationships forum about how pathetic the men are, that aren't willing to engage in sexual activity. Interestingly, that is exactly what seems to be happening. A much higher percentage of Millenial men, as contrasted to earlier generations, are just saying no. Good for them. If I had been born in 2000 vs 1959, we wouldn't be having this exchange.
So, if I will donate one of my kidneys to some poor kid, then should I be forced to pay child support to this poor kid afterwards?
When you donate sperm, you are not obligated to pay child support for any resulting children. Consensual sex is not the same as donating sperm - no legal agreements or anything are signed.
I disagree with this. A woman can choose to have the baby and then give it up for adoption if she is financially (or some other reason) unable or unwilling to care for it. A man should equally be able to "give it up for adoption" and not be forced to care for it. It seems only fair.
Actually the consent of both parents is required for adoption. A woman can just put a child up for adoption against the birth father's wishes.
Last edited by Jeo123; 12-21-2015 at 02:53 PM..
Reason: Tag Fix
OK but the point I was saying was the male was told that the woman was on the pill and fooled into believing that she was using birth control but in actuality, she wasn't at all.
They make these things, they're called condoms. They're available at just about every convenience, grocery, and drug store. Even if she were taking BC pills, they can fail.
I don't know any American urologists that will perform a vasectomy on a man who does not already have children. Nor do I know many American women willing to engage in non-reproductive sexual acts. Some grudgingly acede, occasionally, if the guy is worth the sacrifice, but it is not a stable solution for the longer term. And there are threads galore in the relationships forum about how pathetic the men are, that aren't willing to engage in sexual activity. Interestingly, that is exactly what seems to be happening. A much higher percentage of Millenial men, as contrasted to earlier generations, are just saying no. Good for them. If I had been born in 2000 vs 1959, we wouldn't be having this exchange.
I know several childless men who have had vasectomies. It's an elective surgery, not too complicated and minimal recovery time.
I also know many couples that engage in non reproductive options when birth control is not reliable...( woman is taking antibiotics thus rendering the pill less effective) I think most women under the age of 45 engage in a variety of positions. I've even heard grandmothers actively discussing acts that I didn't even know they knew about. Just because they aren't discussing it with you, doesn't mean it's not going on. (I'm talking women over the age of 70 and 80)
Abstinence, non reproductive sexual acts, and combination of birth control methods are the only way to be assured there is no pregnancy. I listed the vasectomy for the OP, because he does not think a combination of regular and non invasive BC methods are reliable enough. I suggested using three in the first or second thread he made, but he doesn't think it will work...condom, BC pills, and either the sponge or diaphragm. A female condom instead of a regular condom is a fine option too.
Actually the consent of both parents is required for adoption. A woman can just put a child up for adoption against the birth father's wishes.
What about safe harbor laws where a woman can just drop her newborn at any church or fire-station? Or if she doesn't know for sure who the father is (and there is no eager contender asking for a paternity test) - can't she give it up for adoption then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
