Touchy, political, and very intriguing

Status
Not open for further replies.
SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,431
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/index.html
edit: god I hate cnn's webpage. This link isn't working. Similar story here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187227,00.html

This is a very interesting case to me, only because it spawns a lot of really good debate everywhere I've mentioned it. I can see both sides, which is where most of my interest comes from.

Technically, the male side of the argument is valid in my eyes, because after a woman becomes impregnated, he has no control over the future, while the woman has total control.

Argument: Well, the man should have used protection.
Counter: Well, the woman should have also (or required it), why is she less responsible?

Argument: It takes 2 to tango.
Counter: Yes, yes it does.

The woman's side of the argument is also valid in my eyes, because it seems that this option gives a man the ultimate power, and takes all power away from women.

Discussion??
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Discussion??
Click to expand...

I've long thought that men get the bad end of that deal. But, that is also incentive to be sure you don't end up on that end of the deal.
 
He deserves to pay just for believing her story in the first place.
 
When I was in college, a friend left Wisconsin to go to chef school, and then worked for several years at a couple of high end restaurants in Los Angeles. He later decided to return to Wisconsin, and one night was at our gang's favorite hangout when he was approached by an old girlfriend.

"Want to see a picture of your son?" she asked.

He was stunned, having never known of her pregnancy. She assured him she was doing fine and wanted nothing (financially) from him. A few months later, she lost her job and went to apply for govt aid. They refused, saying first she had to go after child support, and my friend was dinged for 25 percent of his gross for the next 13 years.

Sometimes life ain't fair. And sometimes it is.
 
I see both sides.

Personally, I think that the father should be informed early enough for an abortion to be performed. He then has a chance to influence the mother's decision.

He also should have a chance to file sworn paperwork that he is opposed to the birth of the child. This paperwork would permanently absolve him of child support responsibility.

I specifically do NOT believe that a father should be allowed to compel a woman to give birth (force her to get an abortion). He just needs to be protected against her decision that goes against his wish.

Similarly, if the mother doesn't inform the father in a timely manner of the impending birth (giving the father input), the father should not be responsible for child support.
 
"The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child.""

I find this quote particularly interesting, coming as it does from the President of NOW. When women want to have an abortion, the "rights of the child" are non-existent in their minds, to the point that they find killing it justifiable. When they want to force a man to open his wallet, suddenly that child's rights are paramount.

As for the dude filing this suit, he is a putz for believing her story, and he is an absolute putz for not using a rubber. Time for him to pay up, just like anyone else who creates a child.
 
frankly, it's BS. this opens the door for ANY guy but the most honorable ones to say "I didn't want the kid, I'm not paying". chances are the woman didn't "want" the kid until she became pregnant but guess what - she's gotta take care of her child for the rest of her life, regardless. what if she refuses to have an abortion on religious/moral reasons? it's ok for the man to still say "too bad, I don't want it" and that's it?

long and short - you create a child, you raise it or pay for it to be raised. it's not a perfect system but better than any of the alternatives.
 
she's gotta take care of her child for the rest of her life, regardless.
Click to expand...
As an adoptee myself, and an "uncle" (and legal guardian, should the parents pass away before adulthood) for three beautiful adopted children (which incidentally are US Born, China Born and Korea born), I'm afraid you are incorrect on this point.

Now that said, that just begs the question - if the man can't excuse himself from responsibility for the child, then doesn't that implicitly imply that the man ALSO has a say in whether or not the child is allowed to be born?
 
allowed to be born? I think life trumps over death, in all cases. You can't force someone to have an abortion. I can see urging for the child to be put up for adoption but not forcing someone to have an abortion.
 
By "Allowed to be born" I mean that can the father argue either way? Can he argue to force the woman to carry the child to term, if the woman DOES want an abortion?
 
woodstock said:
frankly, it's BS. this opens the door for ANY guy but the most honorable ones to say "I didn't want the kid, I'm not paying". chances are the woman didn't "want" the kid until she became pregnant but guess what - she's gotta take care of her child for the rest of her life, regardless. what if she refuses to have an abortion on religious/moral reasons? it's ok for the man to still say "too bad, I don't want it" and that's it?

long and short - you create a child, you raise it or pay for it to be raised. it's not a perfect system but better than any of the alternatives.
Click to expand...

But you see, that's the point. The woman can say "too bad, I don't want it" when the man may want the child, but the man has no say right now.

But if the man says "too bad, I don't want it" suddenly he's shirking his responsibility as a man?

I'm starting to lean slightly towards the idea that maybe men should have as much as as a woman on the future of the child. He wouldn't be able to force her to have an abortion of give the child up for adoption, but he can at least say "fine, if you won't, then you pay!"
 
I agree that it isn't fair that once conception has occured, the woman has all the control, but not all the responsibility.

The only circumstances I think that would justify relieving a father of his responsibilities would be rape, sperm theft (both of which have happened), and if the man can show evidence that he used contraception and informed the woman and got her agreement that any conception would be terminated.

Maybe a pre-coupling contract would be in order.
 
What ever happened to the idea of people waiting until they are married before having sex? Why is it that in this day and age people have to have this try before you buy or test drive attitude toward sex and marriage. Now I know this sounds old fashioned but life is the most serious of responsibilities. The ability to reason , acting civilized and using responsible judgment is what separates human beings from animals. So why do so many people find it necessary to screw everyone in site without regard to the inevitable results then argue about responsibility.

I also think abortion is just plain wrong in all but a very few circumstances. Now before anyone jumps on me about that statement, let me just say that I don't like the idea of legislating what a woman can do with her own body. But I really think there should be limits. I believe that statistics will show that most abortions are performed for matters of convenience rather than a serious need such as saving the life of the mother. I keep hearing this Pro Choice idea but I think everyone misses the point here. I don't think the choice should be whether or not to give birth, it should be whether or not to conceive in the first place.

We also keep hearing the religious right complaining about gay people but what about heterosexual couples having irresponsible sex with no regard for the child that becomes an apparent mistake. Is that supposed to be ok? Every time I hear the politicians and religious right engage in gay bashing which, for some reason, always seems to happen during election campaigns I want to just scream. At least the gay people aren't creating unwanted children and then trying to duck the responsibility of caring for the child.

What ever happened to commitment? Why do half of all marriages fail? What the hell is wrong with people and where is our society going. This is a situation that is getting worse not better. A lot of people seem to be getting married for the wrong reasons and then getting divorced within a very short time. Then there are those who want nothing to do with marriage yet want all the sex they can get. It would seem to me that the whole of our society needs to learn something about morality.

We just celebrated our fortieth anniversary. There have been good times and bad during our marriage. But the words for better or worse have a special meaning to me. it's a vow, a contract that does not involve whether it's convenient or not.

In my opinion when two people are responsible for the birth or conception of a child, they should both be committed to doing what is best for the child period. If they cannot or are not prepared to do that then they have no business engaging in sexual activity.

Jeannie
 
Maverick said:
What ever happened to the idea of people waiting until they are married before having sex?
Click to expand...
I don't think that was ever a really popular concept.
 
Thank you, Jeannie. I'm not a prude, nor am I unrealistic about premarital sex. But the big problem is that people want all the fun and none of the responsibility. Sorry, folks. It IS all about the kid. If both people want the woman to have an abortion, fine. But if not, then both people should be held responsible. If you engage in casual sex, then you have to accept the consequences--both of you.

If one person does not want the woman to have an abortion, then that person should be the custodial parent. But both parents should support the kid, and they should split the medical costs of the prenatal care and birth. If the guy has custody, then the woman should pay child support, and vice versa. I don't have a problem with women paying child support. Heck, I paid alimony--voluntarily--after my first marriage ended. My income was by far the largest, so it was only right. Yes, human relationships are problematic, but the biggest problem is people won't grow up and accept responsibility.

Judy
 
I think it's wonderful that we can discuss things like this without the personal attacks. Obviously, there are different view points on many of these complex issues. What a great board!!

Dave
 
judypilot said:
Thank you, Jeannie. I'm not a prude, nor am I unrealistic about premarital sex. But the big problem is that people want all the fun and none of the responsibility. Sorry, folks. It IS all about the kid. If both people want the woman to have an abortion, fine. But if not, then both people should be held responsible. If you engage in casual sex, then you have to accept the consequences--both of you.
Judy
Click to expand...
Judy,
I wasn't trying to pick at Jean or imply she was a prude. I hope my one liner didn't come across that way. My point was that sometimes we like to think that things were different "back in the day", when in fact things haven't changed very much in this regard. People always have had sex outside of marriage and always will. Sometimes this is casual sex, sometimes not. In any event, this is not a new problem.

In fact, I agree with most of what you write. I don't agree with the argument that if both people agree on an abortion then it's OK. But that's just my personal take on abortion. I do agree that both parties need to understand the consequences of their action and be accountable. THAT is something that has changed over the years. Our children are not learning to take responsibility for their actions. But maybe that's a discussion for another thread.

What I find detestable in this case is that (apparently) the female lied to the male about being able to become pregnant. If she did then this breach of trust should also have some consequences for her, don't you think?

Where I think you are right on the money is in regard to the child. We can only hope that once the baby is born that both parents will learn love him/her unconditionally.

Chip
 
gibbons said:
What I find detestable in this case is that (apparently) the female lied to the male about being able to become pregnant. If she did then this breach of trust should also have some consequences for her, don't you think? Chip
Click to expand...

Chip:

This too has been going on for many years!! I don't want to get real specific, but I can't tell you how many friends of mine were assured by girl friends they were 'on the pill', only to find out they weren't. Or, they missed one, ect. My first wife made that promise to me. I was blessed with a wonderful daughter, but my ex freely admitted later, she wanted to have a child and was afraid I wouldn't want to. 'Course, I never knew a guy that lied to a girl to get in her pants :no:

Many courts lean to protecting the child. It's impossible most of the time in the middle of the he said, she said to find out what actually occurred; so, the court errors on the side of protecting junior.

Best,

Dave
 
Hey - this was the start of a good debate, without much in the way of rhetoric. Any change in opinions, 10 years later?
 
Last edited:
Don't have sex unless you're willing to care for any progeny you produce. Still a good truth. The principle doesn't change, nor do the actors, unfortunately.
 
My guess is Skyhog thought it sounded interesting and discussion worthy.
 
My guess is that he decided he wanted to test some boundaries. I could also suspect a less generous reason...
 
A follow-up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dubay_child_support_case

>>>
In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that:

"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."
<<<
 
Everskyward said:
My guess is that he decided he wanted to test some boundaries. I could also suspect a less generous reason...
Click to expand...
I resurrected it a few days ago to point out how we could have a civil discussion around touchy subjects, but no one responded until today it appears.
 
Matthew said:
A follow-up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dubay_child_support_case

>>>
In its dismissal of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit) stated that:

"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."
<<<
Click to expand...
I guess the question then, is - if the state has an important interest in providing for his or her support, why wouldn't the state fund it?
 
SkyHog said:
I guess the question then, is - if the state has an important interest in providing for his or her support, why wouldn't the state fund it?
Click to expand...

Oh they will fund it, through Uterus Fees.
 
SkyHog said:
I guess the question then, is - if the state has an important interest in providing for his or her support, why wouldn't the state fund it?
Click to expand...
The State is funding it: through the sperm donor. The alternative is through the rest of the taxpayers.
 
Thread locked pending MC discussion.
 
Per MC vote, the thread will remain locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top