# Please Read!!!!



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

I posted this on the Single Parents forum, but I also wanted to post here. Please take a monent to read this article:

This is a column from Sunday's Boston Globe- Parade section...
It is a column called Ask Marilyn (Marilyn vos Savant)

"Women have fought hard to gain the right to make their own reproductive choices. but say that a woman has a baby against her partner's wishes. do we also have the right to force men to share the financial burden of raising children they never wanted?
Women have that legal right, but I believe they should not exercise it-except in cases of dire need. On my opinion, if a woman wants to have children, she should either find a man who wants them just as much or support them herself. Otherwise, she is using the man for her own purposes, both sexually and financially.
One could argue that the man knew his actions could result in a pregnancy, so he should be held jointly responsible. But that was in the days before contraception and abortion. If the man wants the woman to have an abortion and she declines, I believe she should relieve him of his legal obligation. (note:this is not an argument for abortion; thats a different subject)
What about the children? They need mothers who wouldn't dream of having them without planning their support beforehand, even if that support is entirely the mother's own."

If you are as outraged as I am by this sentiment, please take a moment to e-mail the author and tell her how you feel.

Her e-mail: [email protected]


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Holy crap.

When women do not have to resort to hiring for profit organizations to track down their children's fathers to get child support, then I'll worry about all of those poor men being forced into fatherhood.

Sorry, but it takes two to tango. Men who don't want kids shouldn't have sex. Period.

Sounds funny the other way around, doesn't it?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Any time a man has vaginal intercourse, he is taking a chance at creating a child. If he doesn't want a child, he can abstain, have a vasectomy, or at least use a condom.

This reminds me of a case I heard of where I man tried to sue a woman for "intentionally stealing and misusing his sperm." Yeah, as if he had no part in it at all.







:


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Excuse me. A voice for the other side ...

A long time back I posted a thread called "Fatherhood: Is it biological?" or something like that. It was about the story of someone very close to us, who was essentially married in a con-game.

She was in her late 40s and in a rush. She'd been living with someone for almost a decade and never conceived. She met Our Friend, bowled him over, and had him proposing on the second date.

She moved out of her decade-long-lover's home into Friend's home immediately. They married civilly within a month, and the community arranged a religious ceremony and party a month or so later.

Soon after the religious ceremony/party, she took off. Disappeared.

Friend was frantic. Finally called Decade-Long-Lover to see if he had heard from her. Of course. She was there, had moved back in.

Turned out she went right back to Decade-Lover and was very excited to report that she was pregnant. Decade-Lover was very excited about it, too, and happy that he was finally (in his 60s) about to be a father.










She filed the papers for divorce immediately, and spent the rest of the pregnancy making really nasty phone calls to Friend that he should be sending her money because she's pregnant. (He saved the answering machine tapes on the advice of his lawyer. We heard them. They're ... unreal. Really nasty.)

Friend contested paternity, since, after all, he was with her a short time, she went back to her Decade-Long-Lover, and DLL was, after all, calling himself the child's father.

Judge told Friend that children conceived in marriage are virtually never removed from that "legitimacy," no matter what the DNA might reveal.

In other words, he lost.

He pays his child support every month because he's a good citizen. Pays for insurance, and extra medical coverage, and life insurance policy on himself. He is required to pay for half of her college, should she choose to attend. All the while the child is raised by this woman and DLL (although he apparently stopped cosigning the child support checks a few years back).

And Friend has no contact with this child, as he sees that she has two parents who apparently are raising her, and the intensity of the vicious maelstrom in which she was brought into the world ... well, he wants no contact with the mother other than what the court requires of him.

And I think he is absolutely right.

And as he is very low on the middle class ladder, despite advanced degrees, his (extremely AP) family goes without ... because this child takes a quarter of his pay (which already is small). His kids don't wear anything new, they don't have money for anything ... because he was conned by this woman ... who wanted a sperm donation but didn't want to pay the $10K to the sperm bank. So now she has a child and gets her own monthly stipend to boot.

Is this fair?

Just because a woman can have a baby, doesn't mean she should. And doesn't mean that the man who provided the male half of the DNA should be responsible.

Granted, this is an unusual and extreme situation. But there were others.

This one was from the New York Times: Some time back a couple saved a whole bunch of embryos for future implantation. They divorced. Some years go by, and then the woman wanted to have a child, so sued to get control over the embryos. She had a child. And the "father" has to pay child support. Despite the fact that when they divorced they had no children and had stopped planning to, and despite the fact that he moved on and has a family somewhere else ...

Is that fair?

Women like that give the rest of us a bad name. And give the ones who deserve and need the support a hard time.

IMO.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

His kids don't wear anything new, they don't have money for anything ... because he was conned by this woman ... who wanted a sperm donation but didn't want to pay the $10K to the sperm bank.
He was "conned" into having sex with this woman? Was he raped? If so, he could seek legal counsel and possibly avoid paying child support that way.

But if what really happened was that he made a choice to have sex, the way most men do, and if he didn't want to risk paying child support he could have planned accordingly.

Men have the luxury of hardly ever being forced to have sex with women. Women are not always given that right. Attitudes of "I don't have to take responsibility for my part in the situation because it's not what I was expecting" start young, and often carry over into adult life.

If the man can't afford to pay, perhaps he should have thought of that before willingly placing himself in the situation to do so.

I believe that men who pay child support are legally allowed a certain amount of visits, if the child so desires.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

It would take me DAYS to write out all of the anecdotes I have about women who are taking care of children by themselves with NO CHILD SUPPORT because the men who got them pregnant bolted. DAYS. Maybe even weeks. Someone always "knows someone who knows someone" or whatever with a story about how a woman wronged a man and now he has to pay child support when he shouldn't or some other bullcrap.

Unless he was raped by this woman, he should pay child support. Period.

You're walking a very slippery slope when you start talking about exempting men from child support because they "didn't want" the baby. If they "didn't want" the baby, then they shouldn't have had sex. My brother and I had this conversation in college. I was having sex at a time in my life when I knew that if I became pregnant, despite my dilligent attempts at preventing pregnancy, I would have an abortion. He knew that his responsibility in a sexual relationship was to accept whatever the woman he was sleeping with decided if she became pregnant. For him, the possibility of becoming a parent was much more real than it was for me because he understood and accepted that as a man, he was not the decision-maker in that situation. If he couldn't cope with that, he wouldn't have sex.

Child support and visitation are NOT tied together, at least not in most states. This is to protect the child from abusive situations without forcing the mother to sever the father's financial responsibility to the child.

And contrary to popular belief, courts favor fathers that sue for custody over mothers. Most men don't even bother trying to get custody. When they do, they overwhelmingly win.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

Just change the "he" with "she" . It doesnt make sense.
A man and woman have consensual sex. they may or may not use b/c. then there is a pregnancy. he's not ready to be a father; shes not ready to be a mother - she has the option to not become one. he doesnt. and dont give me the "well he knew full well that sex may lead to pregnancy" so did she. she knew full well sex would lead to pregnancy so should she be forced into parenthood?


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

I believe that any man who deposits his sperm into a woman and conceives a child should be held accountable for supporting that child.. period! And the instances of men being "conned" into making babies and then "forced" to pay child support I am sure are so rare that its laughable to even bring that up as a counter argument.

If men were held to the same parenting standard that women are, in terms of raising and supporting children, the world would be a very different place.

Our country, in so many ways, makes it easy and acceptable for fathers to be absent and negligient, financially and physically, from and towards their children.

When a mother abandons her children, she is crucified and villafied in the media and in the courts. Fathers walk away every single day with out looking back and with very little, if any, personal reprecautions.

If a mother is so inclined it can take years and ultimately thousands of dollars to attempt to collect child support. It takes such an inordinate amount of time because of how inefficient goverment child support enforcement agencies are and because of this, how easy it is for dead beat fathers to evade said agencies.

They can work under the table, they can quit their jobs as soon as their checks start being garnished.... literally they can avoid it for years if not all together.

And what this author is saying, in a nationally syndicated column is that all men should have to do is ask a woman to have an abortion and if she refuses, he should be off the hook. Well isn't it convenient to not have a uterus!!!

I am just so thoroughly appalled.

What about personal accountability?

I think the vast majority of men in this country grasp the basic concept that sex, even "protected" sex, can result in a pregnancy.

The fact of the matter is is that whether or woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy, place the baby for adoption, or raise the child she will ultimately be the one, in the face of an unplanned pregancy,on one level or another, to make enormous physical and emotional sacrifices as well as, depending on which option she selects, a varying degree of financial sacrifice (varying from a few hundred bucks to the hundreds of thousands of dollars to be spent on a lifetime of raising a child).

Why on earth would it okay for a man, just because he didn't "want" the child to not be held accountable, at the very least fiancially, even though in the majority of these situations, even if the man is great on all parenting accounts, he will never have to sacrifice to the extent that the woman does?

If a man feels resolutely that he does not want children or doesn't want them at a specific time in his life or with a specific person, he should have a vasectomy or remain abstinent, respectively. If he chooses not to, he is choosing the possibility that he may be confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.

Even if a woman can support herself, her child is entitled to and deserves to have at bare minimum the financial supprt of both parents..... the two people that made the child. For this author to make the claim that men should somehow be absolved of this responsibility simply because abortion exists and they state that that would be the preferred solution is archaic at best...

In this country, men on average, make 27% more than women for doing the same jobs. Insurance companies cover Viagara, but often times not birth control and certainly not abortion. Seriously, insurance companies pay for men to get hard ons, but not for women to terminate a pregnancy.

Men, from all types of backgrounds, ages, ethinicities and professions, walk away from their children every day without hardly any notice.

Women are still stuck with the brunt of child raising and housework, while she works a job making 73% of what her male counter part makes... why on earth should any mother have to justify why men should be held accountable to a child that they don't want.... and how would that be managed in our society.. a woman takes a man to court for child support and he says "Your honour, I didn't want the kid in the first place" and the judge says "Sorry, lady, he told you he didn't want the kid".

That level of personal accountability is already essentially a joke in this country. I fear for the day we allow it to slide to the level that the above mentioned columnist proposes.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shenjall_
*and dont give me the "well he knew full well that sex may lead to pregnancy" so did she.*
Why not? Why is that not a totally valid argument? I'm not following you.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

A man and woman have consensual sex. they may or may not use b/c. then there is a pregnancy. he's not ready to be a father; shes not ready to be a mother - she has the option to not become one. he doesnt. and dont give me the "well he knew full well that sex may lead to pregnancy" so did she. she knew full well sex would lead to pregnancy so should she be forced into parenthood?
If a mother doesn't want to have an abortion, she can give the baby up, which exempts both her and the man from having to pay anything. Or maybe the man would be willing to raise the child alone, in which case the woman should pay child support.

If she decides to parent the child anyway, she is doing her share of the work and giving her share of the money. The man also should have to do the same. We expect far too little of absent fathers, IMO.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

I'll scream if someone uses the words "double standard". In order for there to be a double standard all other things have to be equal. Think about the difference in the terms "fathering" and "mothering". Fathering a child is a one time act. Mothering a child takes place over a lifetime. Those are not equal concepts.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

its only a valid argument if its applied to both sexes - which it is not.

Quote:

Fathering a child is a one time act
really? I find that slightly offensive. agreed, men are women are not treated equal in society (in general) but, come on, fathering is a one time act?

Quote:

Or maybe the man would be willing to raise the child alone, in which case the woman should pay child support.
this is where I have a bit of a problem. no one should be forcing anyone (male or female) into parenthood.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

no one should be forcing anyone (male or female) into parenthood.
So you believe if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy and the man doesn't want a child, she should have an abortion? Is forcing someone _not_ to be a parent any better?

Paying child support is not "parenthood." It's a legal obligation that men get themselves into. Parenthood is something done over a lifetime.

Here is my suggestion for men who don't want to be parents - if you decide to have sex with women, ask her to prove she is on the pill or some form of long-acting birth control, or tell her that you absolutely will not have sex with her unless you can wear a condom. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it greatly lessens your chances.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

"He fathered a child."

"She mothered a child."

You find it offensive that one is a description of something that happened as a result of one act and another describes a lifetime of commitment and sacrifice? So do I. The two words have completely different meanings in the American English vernacular. They are not interchangable. Men and women are not held to equal standards when it comes to parenting. If we ever get to a place where they are, then we'll talk.

You want to allow men to force women to have abortions? Because that is where these conversations always end up. And what kills me is that it is usually the anti-choice people that say that men shouldn't be forced to care for a child they "don't want".

Unless a man was raped, no one forced him to become a parent. If a man doesn't respect that a woman has exclusive control over her body, including whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, then he shouldn't be having sex.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

I want to point out that Marilyn's little scenario gives men ALL of the power in deciding whether or not a woman carries a pregnancy to term. Yeah, let's give men all of the power over our reproductive systems. Let's let them decide when an unplanned pregnancy is carried to term and when it is aborted. That sounds just grand. And if a woman wants an abortion and the man wants her to carry the baby to term, let's go ahead and make it legal for him to go to court to stop her from getting an abortion. But when he decides he doesn't want to be a parent, after all, she's screwed again because there isn't a damned thing she can do to get him to pay child support.

I can't believe that any woman, or any man that cares about women, doesn't see how genuinely screwed up this scenario is.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

Ah! You guys reply quicker than I can type!









Quote:

So you believe if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy and the man doesn't want a child, she should have an abortion? Is forcing someone not to be a parent any better?
No, no one should be forcing anyone to have an abortion (or not have one)


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shenjall_
*No, no one should be forcing anyone to have an abortion (or not have one)*
But you are suggesting the alternative is to force a woman to raise a child by herself with no emotional or financial support from the father. As long as we're talking fair, does that seem like a fair set of choices to you?

How on earth would one go about proving this? A man would presumably go to court and testify before a judge that he doesn't want the baby. This would have to be within the time frame that allows a woman to get a legal abortion. This sounds like a good way to treat women to you?


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

Quote:

But you are suggesting the alternative is to force a woman to raise a child by herself
hmm..goes back to the old "well, she knew that sex leads to a pregnancy...) doesnt it?
no one is forcing her. she wants a baby then she *may* have to raise it alone. yes, it sucks, no its not entirely fair.
do I think all men (and women) should be off the hook for child support? nope, not at all. if you decide to become a parent - be a parent. financial responsibility and all. no coming around 10 years later crap. if a woman decides to end a pregnancy, she cant change her mind about it 10 years down the road, can she? I'm just saying the same choice be given to men. men, you can decide to not be a parent - but ALL of your rights will be gone. just like a woman.
I must go now but I offer you my respect and no hard feelings.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

Shonah, I'm sorry for hijacking and turning this into a debate.








peace


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

The reality is that if a man decides that he doesn't want to be a parent, he doesn't. No new laws needed.

Yeah! Equality!

It pisses me off that so many people are ready and willing to find NEW ways to oppress women in addition to all of the old ones.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Hmm, interesting topic. I find myself conflicted.

If a man and woman have sex, they both take the chances of getting PG. I definitely believe that the women can "veto" the man when it comes to the decision of what to do with the baby. Just as I don't think a man should be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term, I don't think a man should be able to prevent a women from having an abortion if that's what she wants.

However, seems to me that freedom comes with a price. If the man can't force you to have an abortion, why does he have to pay you to support the child that, were it his decision, would not exist? Women who have unplanned pregnancies must weigh their decisions based on many factors, and shouldn't economics be one of them? In other words, if you can't afford to keep the baby without income from the father, and the father didn't want to keep the baby but you have the right not to terminate, is it fair to force the man to pay?

Of course, this all assumes that everybody does what Mothra did (and what I did: I discussed unplanned pregnancy with every sexual partner and made it clear and upfront that a pregnancy would result in abortion, if they had any objections they could do up their pants...). But the reality is that MOST people are not that responsible when it comes to sex. So IMHO, *most* unwanted pregnancies are the fault of both partners, and so in that vein I don't find it inconsistent that fathers have to pay a price, too.

Do I sound confused? lol


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

If the man can't force you to have an abortion, why does he have to pay you to support the child that, were it his decision, would not exist?
Because he helped create it, even if he did only put in two minutes time into its conception.

It's really a pretty fair deal, compared to everything one must do as a single mother. All the guy has to do is send money.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

My position is this: In this day and age, a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant has sole discretion as to what to do about her situation. The law dictates that a man that fathers a child is financially responsible for that child. (How that law is enforced is another issue altogether.) Any man who has sex with a woman must take that into consideration. If he does not think about it ahead of time, that is his problem.

All of this also assumes that all women in the US have access to safe and affordable abortion clinics. This is NOT the case. Men are in no way obligated to help pay for an abortion, either, even if they direct the woman to have one. Legally, of course, a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, but he can tell her to get one "or else". Even if a man and a woman agree together to terminate a pregnancy, he is under no obligation to shoulder that financial burden.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

If he does not think about it ahead of time, that is his problem.
Exactly. And people are quick to say, "What about the woman's problem? She just gets off scot-free, and gets to live off the man's salary!"

Going through pregnancy and birth, possibly having to give up your job, and then parenting - how is that getting off scot-free? And the money that men are legally required to pay is based on their income, not the child's needs. And of course, many men just don't pay and there isn't much the woman can do about it.

I'm not familiar with any laws which state the absent parent has to pay for half of the college costs. Married parents are under no obligation to provide for college, no matter how wealthy they are. There are laws which state the father must pay child support directly to the children from age 18 to age 21 if the children are full-time students, but they just have to pay the amount they were already paying.

Men are used to never having to think about the consequences of their sexual behavior. Everything is the "woman's fault" - pregnancy, rape, diseases, etc. It doesn't surprise me when they get all pissy about having to own up to their part in things.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

It is fair and equal when you look at it like this: As long as any individuals contribution to reproduction is still inside their own body they have a choice. Once it leaves your body many of your choices are gone. I have kept track of and been responsible for all of my reproductive cells. Why is it so much to ask that a man do the same.

That said, there must always be room within any policy for some common sense. The situation Amy describes is a perfect example of a case in which "the norm" and the rules that govern it ought not apply. The man was conned. No, she did not force him to give up his sperm, she tricked him into it. that is what it means to be conned.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I'm still having trouble seeing how the man was tricked into having sex. He probably wanted to, right?

I suppose he could claim he was seriously mentally unstable and therefore incapable of giving consent.

But I'm sure if no pregnancy occured he wouldn't think it was a bad thing at all.


----------



## Mothra (Jun 4, 2002)

I have a cousin who will tell anyone that will listen that he was "tricked" into having sex by his ex-girlfriend who then got pregnant and now his life is ruined because he has to pay child support. The boy hasn't paid a dime of child support in over ten years and has THREE CHILDREN that we know of. That's right, he was "tricked" into having sex that produced a child not once, but THREE different times with THREE different women. That story that was posted is not at all unfamiliar to me. Iheard it all the time when I worked in social services.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

i'm with piglet on this one. my own sister tricked a man into being an unwitting sperm donor - she told him she was on the pill when she wasn't - "no condom, sweetie, i really want to feeeeel you..." - she just thought he had decent genes and wanted a child with his willing-or-not donation. afterwards she gave him a choice: child support and your name goes on the birth certificate, otherwise it goes down as "father unknown" and she never learns about you.

it is very difficult for me to see that the guy - in THIS case - did anything particularly wrong. i agree with the posters who say we should deal with the much larger issue of deadbeat dads first, but there are definitely some gray areas here.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Greaseball.. he was tricked by being told she loved him. By believing that she meant her marriage vows when she took them. He was tricked because she concealed from him that she was never done with her prior relationship and had only taken up with him as a means to provide her with a child her partner of choice could not. The whole relationship was a lie start to finish. She conned him. He didn't object at the time because he was being conned! If there had been no child and she had simply left him after a few months to return to her previous lover I expect he would feel betrayed and tricked as well but at least he wouldn't be footing the bill for her calculated deciet for a couple of decades.

dado... while the choice your sister offered seems a bit cold it also seems fair. All in or all out. She was prepared to go it totally alone and not involve him. She gave him a lot of choice, if you think about it.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*dado... while the choice your sister offered seems a bit cold it also seems fair. All in or all out.*
oh, i completely agree! but she was constraining her actions by her own choise: by law she could have owned his *ss for the next 18 years. which IMO wouldn't have been fair - in this case.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

dado - I have a friend who is currently a sahd to his almost two year old girl from a very similar experience. His girlfriend had been on the pill for the entire time they had been together, and got off of it without telling him. Since he had never had to worry about it before - he didn't all of a sudden expect to. His daughter is lovely, and he is a great dad - but it took him some time to come to terms with the whole thing. especially since he was getting ready to leave her when she announced she was preggo.

He is a great example of stepping up to deal with what he created, in a bad situation. his daughter is ultra attached to him.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

this is a little disturbing. i was under the impression my sister's situation was unusual, but we already have three examples posted in just a few hours.









good on your friend for stepping up!


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

He is a great dad...and he loves his little girl a lot a lot. But Yeah - he was hoodwinked...I honestly believe that. Having dated the guy for three years, andbeing engaged to him - I know he was fanatical about birth control. That wasn't something he would just overlook.

I can't imagine as a female doing that. If I chose to get pregnant that wasy, then I would choose to deal with it on my own as well. I can't imagine trapping someone into it. And I do think it is possible to trap someone - there is no way my partner can know as much about my body and cycle as I do. And if I have the benefit of knowledge that he doesn't have, then I can makes choices he can't make.

Unfortunately, I think it might be more common than we think.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

my own sister tricked a man into being an unwitting sperm donor - she told him she was on the pill when she wasn't
There are women who do that. I think that's part of the risk a man takes when he chooses to have sex with women he doesn't know very well. (Can you imagine what men everywhere would say if we suggested they only have sex with women they are emotionally close to?) But still, he should own up to his own part. She did not conceive a child by herself.

It also may be hard to prove that a woman has lied about being on the pill. Perhaps there is a blood test that would show if she had ever taken it? Men often accuse women of lying about such things and accuse them of getting pregnant just to get in on family money.

It's possible something like that may happen in a marriage, so again, weigh the risks of having sex and decide if it's worth it to you. If my dh and I divorced right now I'm sure he would be the single parent, at least for a few years. I accept financial responsibility, should that ever happen.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*However, seems to me that freedom comes with a price. If the man can't force you to have an abortion, why does he have to pay you to support the child that, were it his decision, would not exist?*
I used to get hung up on this point, too, Piglet. Until it occurred to me that the moment the man decided he was going to have sex with the woman, he made a decision to take the risk of becoming a parent. Now I find it pretty simple. If a person is not willing to pay for a child or parent a child, he should not have sex. Or, if he wants to continue to have sex, he should have a vasectomy. Trying to back out once the deed is done is the reproductive equivalent of "buyer's remorse."

Honestly, this seems so clear to me that I can't even believe it's a point of debate. I know people get hung up on the problem of the woman having "all of the power." Total red herring, if you ask me. A woman's right to make the decision to carry or not carry a child has NOTHING to do with a man's responsibility to pay for (and, ideally, parent) the child that he KNEW FULL WELL might be created when he made the decision to have sex.

Men need to take more responsibility for their actions instead of trying to duck it by crying, "No fair!"


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*it is very difficult for me to see that the guy - in THIS case - did anything particularly wrong.*
He made the decision to put his responsibility for keeping himself from being a parent in the hands of someone else. A responsible person would have said, "Yeah... I think I'm going to wear a condom anyway. Just in case."


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Exactly Drangonfly!!!!


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I realise that the vast majority of the time single mothers are left with the kids, & they often end up with full financial responsibility. But you can't punish ALL men for the actions of dead-beat dads. It's not fair, IMO, to use a man for his sperm & then expect him to pay for a child that results from that sexual encounter. That seems, I don't know, vengeful (is that a real word?) somehow. It would be much more upfront & honest to just ask the guy if he minded putting a 'deposit' in a jar for you so you could self-inseminate, if you're trying to avoid sperm bank fees.

And Piglet, I don't think your pre-kiddo approach to sex is confused at all. More like sensible.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:

(Can you imagine what men everywhere would say if we suggested they only have sex with women they are emotionally close to?)
Greaseball, surely you are not suggesting that all women only have sex with men they feel emotionally close to?!?!? And I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya.....


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Can you imagine what men everywhere would say if we suggested they only have sex with women they are emotionally close to?*
women have "unemotional" sex every bit as often as men do.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*this is a little disturbing. i was under the impression my sister's situation was unusual, but we already have three examples posted in just a few hours.









good on your friend for stepping up!*
I think another poster mentioned what I am writing now, but I could literally fill twenty posts of all of the women I know of that have never received a single dime of child support. I do not personally know a single man who was "tricked" into conceiving a child.

Women "tricking" men into conceiving children is not a national epidemic... dead beat fathers are.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*I realise that the vast majority of the time single mothers are left with the kids, & they often end up with full financial responsibility. But you can't punish ALL men for the actions of dead-beat dads. It's not fair, IMO, to use a man for his sperm & then expect him to pay for a child that results from that sexual encounter.*
Do you not see that this mentality COMPLETELY absolves men of any responsibility? Basically, it's saying, "Poor guy. Tricked into having sex and knocking up that evil woman." C'mon! For every woman who "traps" a man, there's a man who has allowed himself to be trapped.

How about this instead? If he doesn't want a child, he should not have sex. Why is our society apparently so opposed to putting the responsibility to say no on a man? It's as though we think they're incapable of it or incapable of, at the very least, insisting on providing their own protection.

Sheesh. I didn't realize how much this bothers me. But it really does concern me that there are actually woman who feel that men shouldn't be responsible for what they choose to do with their penises.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

But what about the situation where the woman says, 'don't worry baby, I'm on the pill' & she's not ?

Quote:

If he doesn't want a child, he should not have sex.
The flip side of that is that a couple uses a condom (which in this imaginary scenario he insisted on- heck let's put two of 'em on the lucky fellow) & the condom breaks. the woman becomes pregnant. Is it then totally her responsibility, because he wore two condoms that he insisted on? If she doesn't want a child then she shouldn't have sex, right?

Quote:

Why is our society apparently so opposed to putting the responsibility to say no on a man?
Because I think it should be equal responsibility. I don't care how crap the guys have been towards women in the past- I'm just not comfortable with making them extra-responsible to make up for the sins of the past.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*But it really does concern me that there are actually woman who feel that men shouldn't be responsible for what they choose to do with their penises.*
nobody here said that.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I agree that there are men who don't take responsibility for their actions.

My friend was in a relationship with this woman for two years. He had no reason to suspect that she would change her actions. And FWIW, he hasn't had sex with her without a condom since the baby was born, no matter what she says about whether or not it is okay. He has stayed with her, even though he was planning on leaving, and has stayed home with his daughter since she was born. He hasn't been away from her for more than 12 hours since she was born. And he has cared for her two boys from a previous relationship. He may be in the minority but he is a good man who is taking every bit of responsibility that is his. And then some. So they are out there.

I am not sayin all men are deadbeats, and I am not saying all women trap men. I am saying that there are some of each out there. Women who want a baby or a man enough to get pregnant without his consent or knowledge, and men who will sleep with anyone and not care what their actions result in. Everyone should be responsible for their actions, end of story. But again, without all the knowledge, those choices and responsibility becomes a little trickier. No on knows my mind or what goes on it in, unless I tell. And vice versa. I can't hold someone responsible for something I don't tell them.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Quote:

I'm just not comfortable with making them extra-responsible to make up for the sins of the past.
So its "extra responsible" for a man to take care of a child he conceived??


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:

I can't hold someone responsible for something I don't tell them.
Bingo. Right on the money.

And yes, Shonahsmom, in my mind the guy is being extra responsible if he makes it clear he doesn't want kids, gets trapped into the situation, & then agrees to be an active parent. And I don't want to hold guys to a higher standard than I would hold any woman. It's only fair, IMO.

ETA: and the last time I checked it takes two people, male & female, to conceive a baby, regardless of your method of getting the sperm & egg together.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AdinaL_
*
I am not sayin all men are deadbeats, and I am not saying all women trap men. I am saying that there are some of each out there. Women who want a baby or a man enough to get pregnant without his consent or knowledge, and men who will sleep with anyone and not care what their actions result in. Everyone should be responsible for their actions, end of story. But again, without all the knowledge, those choices and responsibility becomes a little trickier. No on knows my mind or what goes on it in, unless I tell. And vice versa. I can't hold someone responsible for something I don't tell them.*
I am quite sure that there is a disporportionate number of men not taking responsibility for their offspring in comparison to women who are "trapping" men into having a child.

Anytime two people have sex, no matter what kind of birth control is being used and no matter how diligently, there is the possibility of conception.

Seriously, if a man knows that he is unwilling to supprt a child, he should abstain from having sex until he is willing.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

I am really shocked that here at Mothering.com, of all places, the argument is the typical men vs. women. Children have rights, too!

Once a child is born, that *child* is entitled to all forms of support from *both* it's biological parents (unless the child is given up for adoption)

Cry me a river about how some guy got "tricked" into having sex with a woman who lied about being on the pill. If my son grows up and comes home crying that story to me, I will know beyond a doubt that I raised the village idiot.

Here's what I tell my son..._intercourse between a man and a woman can produce a baby_. Even if one or both of them are using birth control, even if one or both of them thinks they are sterile, even if, even if, even if.

Here's another tidbit I'm passing onto my son, _women can have abortions and men can't_. And if my son ever comes to me crying about that little fact, then I'll have to review one of the most basic facts of life, even more basic than sex, and that is that life is not always fair.

This is a children's rights issue.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:

I am quite sure that there is a disporportionate number of men not taking responsibility for their offspring in comparison to women who are "trapping" men into having a child.
Yes, but are you going to then blame all men for the actions of those who are not taking responsibility?


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shonahsmom_
*...there is a disporportionate number of men not taking responsibility for their offspring...*
nobody here is disagreeing with that.



*Quote:*

Seriously, if a man knows that he is unwilling to supprt a child, he should abstain from having sex until he is willing.
and a woman who is unwilling to raise a child as a single mother should abstain from sex until she is ready to accept that possibility.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

WHOO-HOO PUG!!!!!

Love it! Bravo!


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*...gets trapped into the situation...*
"Trapped"? What is this, the 1950s? Now we're talking about women "trapping" men? What's next? Brining back the term "hussy"? Good grief...

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*But what about the situation where the woman says, 'don't worry baby, I'm on the pill' & she's not ?...*
Well, then it only takes half the resources to raise that baby. Isn't handy how that works? ...Oh wait...it takes the same resources to raise that baby as any other baby...hmmm...

Do you see the mess we quickly get into when we try to approach the issue in this way? What's to stop every guy hauled into family court for child support from saying "but she said she was on the pill?" Or "she said she'd have an abortion"?

Children are born with needs. Parents are first in line to meet those needs.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*Yes, but are you going to then blame all men for the actions of those who are not taking responsibility?*
No. How am I doing that?


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Oh gracious peace, Pug! And Shonah! I'm outta here. You two go for it.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shonahsmom_
*WHOO-HOO PUG!!!!!

Love it! Bravo!*
Well, thank you! Children's rights is a real passion of mine...as I'm sure you can tell!


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I agree with all that is being said here. I don't think there is any blanket answer for any of these situations.

And for what it is worth - my friend never "cried" about his child. And he never said he was tricked, he said he didn't have all the info to make an informed choice about whether or not he wanted to risk it. And i find that someone's honest experience is dismissed as him being the "village idiot" to be highly judgemental of someone you don't know. The smartest people can get duped. It happens every day. I can say I have been duped - you want to call me stupid - go for it. But I know a lot of people who have been duped, and are extremely intelligent.

As for it being about the child...I agree, and so does my friend which is why he is so attached to his little girl.

Look, there are always going to be shitty people in this world, whether we like it or not. Male and female.

I agree that men should be held accountable for their actions. I agree that my sons will be taught that if they have sex then they might end up with a baby, and that will be their responsibility. I also agree that my girls will be taught the same thing, and that if they withhold something, and end up in a situation they don't like because of their omission, that is their responsiblity.

I agree that more men than women end up deadbeat parents. That is a societal problem.

I think that too often kids are thought of as currency between men and women in relationships, when the relationships go south. I know my sis and I were when my folks got divorced. So as long as a kid is thought of as a way to trap a man into staying...women think of them as a way to keep a man or get $$ from him, and men think of them as a bad debt they have to "pay off".

Pugmadmama is right about that - it is about changing the way society sees kids. As long as they are seen as a burden, a debt, currency, or merely and obligation, then there will be situations like this.

I agree that all of this would be solved if all kids were wanted and there were no accidental pregnancies. I also agree that if no one ever had sex except when they wanted to procreate, this would be solved.

But there are accidents, and we will have sex when we are horny - even when we dont' want kids as a result.


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Like I wrote in the OP, if, if being the operative word, you are as appalled by this article as I am, please e-mail the author.

IMO it is horribly irresponsible to send a message that validates men who are not taking care of their children in a nationally syndicated column.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

And that shonahsmom - I COMPLETELY agree with. I will be writing my email/letter.







My dad was a deadbeat dad...I know how badly it hurts the kid.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*But what about the situation where the woman says, 'don't worry baby, I'm on the pill' & she's not ?*
He made the decision to believe her. Maybe that's hard-assed, but that's what I mean when I say take responsibility for yourself.











*Quote:*

The flip side of that is that a couple uses a condom (which in this imaginary scenario he insisted on- heck let's put two of 'em on the lucky fellow) & the condom breaks. the woman becomes pregnant. Is it then totally her responsibility, because he wore two condoms that he insisted on? If she doesn't want a child then she shouldn't have sex, right?
And he should know that condoms can break. Yes, it's the responsibility of both of them.



*Quote:*

Because I think it should be equal responsibility. I don't care how crap the guys have been towards women in the past- I'm just not comfortable with making them extra-responsible to make up for the sins of the past.
How is it EXTRA responsible? That's kind of like saying that homosexuals asking for equal protection are wanting special privileges. They both make the decision to have sex, they both have the responsibility of caring for any baby that might result. It's completely equal (although I'd actually argue that it's still not equal as if they don't end up as a couple, the mother will probably still do the majority of the childcare). See, this way of thinking puts keeping the baby as the baseline - which it should be, IMO, as it's the natural outcome of sex. The other way of thinking - where men shouldn't be held responsible if a woman decides to keep a baby - put abortion as the baseline. Which is completely warped, because it's not the natural outcome of sex and, as such, shouldn't be relied upon.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*nobody here said that.*
No one has to say it, dado. It's the undercurrent of the entire "he was trapped" scenario.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*Cry me a river about how some guy got "tricked" into having sex with a woman who lied about being on the pill. If my son grows up and comes home crying that story to me, I will know beyond a doubt that I raised the village idiot.*












*Quote:*

This is a children's rights issue.
I *completely* agree. This is, by far, the primary reason I become so incensed every time I hear this argument. Because children deserve to have the support of two parents - so *anytime* you make the choice to drop trow - regardless of surrounding circumstances- you better be sure that you're willing to step up to the plate and provide a good life for your child.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Yes, of course the children need to be supported. And the law (in theory, technically) provides for that in all of these cases. She trapped me is not a ticket out of paying support. But look at it more closely. Who is more at fault, has been less responsible to the innocent child; the gent who believed his lady fair was taking pills or using some other, non-barrier method and believed he was having moderately safe, responsible sex or the lady who intentionally created a child who was not wanted by one half of it's parentage?


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Blanket statements on any side are not helpful.

In our friend's situation (see earlier in the thread) he married the woman. Thought she loved him, thought he loved her. Thought they'd have a child together. Yes, there was intent.

And when she left weeks after the wedding, to return to her old boyfriend, and (when our friend finally found her) announce her pregnancy? And tell our friend that she and her old boyfriend are so excited that they're now having a child?

Sounds like the kid has two parents to me.

A long, long time ago when my DH was a broke grad student, he made some extra money by donating to sperm banks. We're talking 30 years ago. We have been told (by a former sitting matrimonial judge in the NYS court system) that but for a quirk in the law, DH would be financially responsible for any children made from those sperm bank donations.










No one on this thread has said that men should not be responsible for what comes out of their bodies. No one. And I pointed out that our friend pays all of his court-mandated obligations to this woman who conned him.

Yes, she conned him. The story is so obvious as to be tragic. He thought he was marrying for love and family, she (it turns out) was marrying to get a sperm donation (since her boyfriend couldn't get her pregnant in their 10 years together) and a monthly stipend.

She got it. Left as soon as she got it, and only looked back long enough to stick out her tongue and waggle her fingers and taunt our friend with how he'll be paying her money for the next 20-some-odd years. And because he's a solid citizen, that is precisely what he's doing. Taking responsibility for the sex act that he thought would bring *him* a family, but that she expected would bring *her and her boyfriend* a family.

Not saying that this is common. Know full well it is highly unusual. But to make the blanket statement that "you put it in, you pay it out," without acknowledging that there are moral shades of gray behind it, is arguing blind.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

But what about the situation where the woman says, 'don't worry baby, I'm on the pill' & she's not ?
What is any self-respecting man doing having sex without a condom anyway?! Unless he is married to the woman or in a similarly monogamous relationship, he is basically suicidal.

I know a man who has 8 children by 6 different women, and if you listen to his side of it, he was "trapped, every single time, @%$&& women are always out to get you!" I sure don't feel sorry for him and all the money he has to pay.

My dad legally had to pay $25 a month for 2 kids on a $20,000 income. He chose to pay a lot more than that. He never whined about it.

Many of us here may have been unwanted by at least one parent. Aren't we glad to have been born anyway? What would you rather have happened?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

A long, long time ago when my DH was a broke grad student, he made some extra money by donating to sperm banks. We're talking 30 years ago. We have been told (by a former sitting matrimonial judge in the NYS court system) that but for a quirk in the law, DH would be financially responsible for any children made from those sperm bank donations.
My DH was a donor. The regulations at the bank he used specifically state that he has no financial responsibility to any children created, and has no parental authority either. Are the rules different at different banks?

So if I were to leave and take the kids, dh shouldn't have to pay anything? If he leaves with the kids, I shouldn't have to pay? That doesn't make sense.

I don't really know what the rules are if the single parent remarries. Does the absent parent still have to pay?


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:

But look at it more closely. Who is more at fault, has been less responsible to the innocent child; the gent who believed his lady fair was taking pills or using some other, non-barrier method and believed he was having moderately safe, responsible sex or the lady who intentionally created a child who was not wanted by one half of it's parentage?
This is like the slippery slope argument pro-choicers are always moaning about, is it not? Who is to say whether the gent's telling the truth in the first place? Who's to say the woman's contraception DIDN'T fail? I think these problems are pretty far and few between........ you can't use the exceptions to the rule when dealing with the law, right? At least, that's what I've been told on this board over and over and over again....

(Not picking on you personally, Kama, just using your post as a respresentation of others who feel the way you do







)

Yes, there are moral shades of gray in each and every issue a person could possibly discuss. Again.... you can't allow exceptions to define the rule. Guys could just start saying "Oops! I didn't want it! I told her to have an abortion... and she didn't!" and they'd be relieved of their parental duties







:


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Who is more at fault, has been less responsible to the innocent child; the gent who believed his lady fair was taking pills or using some other, non-barrier method and believed he was having moderately safe, responsible sex or the lady who intentionally created a child who was not wanted by one half of it's parentage?*
I guess I just don't see the question of who is more at fault as having any relevance in this debate. Yes, we could explore the question and likely will come up with the answer that the woman is more at fault. But why bother? What's the point of exploring fault when there's a child who needs to be supported and BOTH parties have wittingly taken part in creating that child? (Of course, I stand by the notion that anyone who engages in sex cannot be said to have entirely unwittingly created a child).


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I don't really know what the rules are if the single parent remarries. Does the absent parent still have to pay?*
Absolutely. My niece is still her fathers child despite the fact that my sister is now married to another man. Her father still has a responsibility to her and for her.

Look over the thread carefully. No one has said men should not pay support for their children NO ONE! What has been said is that there is grey area, that making the man the villian all the time is not really helpful nor always truthful. That some women (yes, rare) use the system as it stands to really exploit the shit out of a guy. No one is saying upend the current legal precedents. Maybe just have a heart? Dial down the rhetoric a bit and have some sympathy?

ETA that last paragraph is not directed and grease or any particular poster.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*Not saying that this is common. Know full well it is highly unusual. But to make the blanket statement that "you put it in, you pay it out," without acknowledging that there are moral shades of gray behind it, is arguing blind.*
With all due respect, Amy, I don't agree. Don't get me wrong... I feel for your friend. What that woman did was a horrid thing, to be sure. His intent was to create a child with her, yes? So the tragedy is that she turned out to be a terrible person, not that they created a child together. He got exactly what he expected with regard to creating a child... just not with regard to the whole picture of the happy marriage and child-rearing together.

I mean, he is the child's biological father, right? So why should the child not know her biological father and why should he be relieved of his duty to support her just because her mother is a... well, I'll leave it there. My language is in the toilet lately, and I can't think of a word to describe her that would be appropriate here.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Will I get banned if I suggest "thieving hoor"?


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:

What has been said is that there is grey area, that making the man the villian all the time is not really helpful nor always truthful. That some women (yes, rare) use the system as it stands to really exploit the shit out of a guy. No one is saying upend the current legal precedents. Maybe just have a heart? Dial down the rhetoric a bit and have some sympathy?
ITA with that sentiment. I was just making the point that we can't turn those shades of gray and that sympathy into some sort of "exception to the law". That's all.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Look over the thread carefully. No one has said men should not pay support for their children NO ONE! What has been said is that there is grey area, that making the man the villian all the time is not really helpful nor always truthful.*
I don't see where anyone is villifying men. I only see where I and others are suggesting that men take responsibility for what they have created and not look for an "out."

Yes, it's unfortunate and repugnant when women are not honest with men with respect to their motives. But I honestly don't have a whole lot of sympathy for men who don't take every possible step to protect themselves and then cry foul when the result is not to their liking.

I want EVERYONE to take responsibility - men and women alike. And I don't think there should be a continuum of responsibility where children are concerned. Both parents should be equally responsible. It should be demanded of them. It's only fair to the child.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Will I get banned if I suggest "thieving hoor"?*
:LOL That works well for me!


----------



## NocturnalDaze (Jul 3, 2002)

Why is it considered "trapping" a guy if a woman gets pregnant while on the pill? Taking the pill is quite a responsibility. Are these men checking to be sure that their partners are taking it EVERY DAY....I can't even pay my bills on time and your going to put your complete trust in the fact that I'm going to take this pill properly?

What about antibiotics that may render the pill ineffective...yeah it might say it on the insert but who reads that anyway?? My doctor didn't remind me every single time I took antibiotics and sometimes it slipped my mind....

That is such a cop out to say you were trapped.....

My favorite trapped story is a "friend " my husband had in high school. The friend went on to be a bit of a drug addict, DH tried to help him until he just couldn't take it anymore...anyway this friend will swear up and down he was trapped by his girlfriend...yeah OK...the two of you were out doing CRACK 4x's a week but lets trust that she's a responsible person







:


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

I thought that Piglet68 and AdinaL both made some excellent points.

I am surprised by the judgmental tone of many of the posts here.
Child support is not the great solution, though people seem to think it is from the way they talk. It has it's place....

'If he didn't want it he shouldn't have has sex'? I can't believe how many times I've heard that here. So many 'shouldn'ts'.
Yeah, he shouldn't, but he did. He's eighteen, minimum wage, no education. Let's get the law after him and make an example of him, See? See? Don't anyone think they can have sex without responsibility. Is he responsible yet?
Meanwhile, let's cut funding to daycare subsidies, welfare, and health care. It's too damn expensive and those lazy single moms should be taking personal responsibility for their choices.

It's really too bad. Once again, no quick and easy answer, no blanket solution, no black and white. It's funny how complex life can be.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

You misunderstand OceanSummer. No one is saying a woman who experiences birth control failure of any type is trapping a man. We have talked about women who out and out lied about taking the pill or who discontinued use without telling their partner.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Oceansummer_
*Why is it considered "trapping" a guy if a woman gets pregnant while on the pill? Taking the pill is quite a responsibility. Are these men checking to be sure that their partners are taking it EVERY DAY....I can't even pay my bills on time and your going to put your complete trust in the fact that I'm going to take this pill properly?
*
Yes, forgetting is one thing. Taking antibiotics and having the pill be ineffective is another. But the gal I am talking about actually told him she went off the pill to get pregnant, not just forgetting to take it. Unfortunately she told him this after she was preggo. That seems to be another entirely. And this was a long term committed relationship, in which they had discussed who was taking charge of the birth control.

Trapping is a bad word. I shouldn't have used it, I apologize for my poor choice of words. My friend does feel trapped - but that is by a bad relationship, and a woman he is growing to like less and less. Not ever by his child. He felt stuck when he first found out about it. But I can imagine a woman who didn't want to be pregnant feels the same way when she finds herself pregnant.

So again apologies for a bad word. I think it has to do with how we see kids, as long as they are seen as a way to fix a relationship, or keep a spouse there, or something like that, then people will use them as currency.







I don't know - I had major medical testing done today...I think I am just loopy.


----------



## sadie_sabot (Dec 17, 2002)

I've been reading this thread with much interest.

I think the "he was trapped " thing is interesting. yeah, I'm sure it happens. just like the "oh, she said yes and then changed her mind so it isn't really rape" happens. But not often. Probably almost never. it's just so unusual that those stories stick out in our minds. what's not unusual and therefor not memorable is the men who just don't take responsibility. and that can mean anything from not paying child support to not supporting a woman through an abortion to not helping at all and basically considering the mother of his kids his unpaid houseslave (check out the "parents as partners" section if you think I'm making that scenario up).

I don't know what the answer is, laws are only useful up to a certain point. I mean, what we really need to do is destroy the patriarchy, but I'm not sure how to go about that and we need something in the meantime









Because of the way the world is, I personally am willing to say if the man is the biological father, he is the responsible party no matter what. when we live in a world without all the sexism and gender bias and other patriarchal crap, I'd love to see us move into some sort of a situation where 1)wether to concieve or not is *always* a conscious decision, and 2) no one is a parent unless they want to be and 3) all children have everything they need.

and one other thing.

it is entirely possible to have hetero-sex without the risk of pregnancy. I think it's called "outercourse" anyway, there's a lot of options beyond the ol' inoutinout, KWIM?


----------



## NocturnalDaze (Jul 3, 2002)

I'm not saying people NEVER get trapped...I didn't mean to generalize. It just seems like it's used a lot as an excuse by men (that I know). A couple of DH's friends have said that to us (a responsible bunch of folk my DH used to hang around with, huh?) If they are in a relationship that they didn't necessarilly want to be in forever and the girl gets pregnant they claim she did it on purpose when in fact any number of things could have happened.

Just my experience, I didn't mean to imply that it doesn't happen...


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Yeah, he shouldn't, but he did. He's eighteen, minimum wage, no education. Let's get the law after him and make an example of him, See? See? Don't anyone think they can have sex without responsibility. Is he responsible yet?
Meanwhile, let's cut funding to daycare subsidies, welfare, and health care. It's too damn expensive and those lazy single moms should be taking personal responsibility for their choices.*
One of us has really misunderstood the point of this discussion, Snowy Owl. I'm pretty sure we're not trying to solve the financial problems of the country, across the board. We're merely addressing one element - accountability of men who have sex with women - that contributes to impoverished children.

Yes, things are more complex than just getting all men (and women - but that's not the point here) to stand up and be responsible. But should we not discuss that aspect of the solution just because it doesn't solve everything?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Yeah, he shouldn't, but he did. He's eighteen, minimum wage, no education. Let's get the law after him and make an example of him, See? See? Don't anyone think they can have sex without responsibility. Is he responsible yet?*
And, by the way, I really don't get why this is such a bad thing. Why is it frowned upon to hold people responsible for their actions? It's not the law saying, "Bad boy! Pay up!" It's the law saying, "Here's where you get to be a grown-up and take care of your responsibilities."


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*No one has to say it, dado. It's the undercurrent of the entire "he was trapped" scenario.*
no, it is not! that's the sort of black-and-white POV we all complain about the bushistas having. i'm joining the others on the sidelines, have fun ladies!


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*
Many of us here may have been unwanted by at least one parent. Aren't we glad to have been born anyway? What would you rather have happened?*
Haven't quite read to the end of the thread, but wanted to respond to this question.

My sister and I were born, so my mother tells me, while she and dear old Dad wore a condom and a diaphragm. 15 mos apart. they were young and only married a few months and had no financial security. Obviously tho, they were trying to be careful, short of actual abstinence.

My mom is and was technologically challenged. I could not imagine her putting in a diaphragm correctly. As for the condoms of the 50's, perhaps they were more prone to breaking. And of course, abortions were illegal back then, or I do not doubt one or two would have been considered. My parents are atheists. (Side note, Mom went on the first Pill that came out after sister was born.)

Am I glad I was born anyway? Not neccessarily. I am not God's gift to the world and if I had never been born, it would make no difference to me, b/c I would not exist to have an opinion.

My parents were pack-a-day smokers and heavy drinkers. My Dad used to go out all night when sister and I were babies and my mom confessed to me when I was an adult she knew not where he was or with whom.

Am I glad to have been born to these 2 somewhat irresponsible immature youngsters? I guess it was just my karma to have been born to them, but was it the best of all possible environments for my immortal soul? Big mystical question.

Am I glad all babies are born to whomever chances to conceive them? No, of course not. Babies born in households who are then subjected to a dozen or more yrs of abuse and horror, no, they should not have had the bad fate to have been born. IMHO.


----------



## fyrflymommy (Jan 20, 2003)

:


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*And, by the way, I really don't get why this is such a bad thing. Why is it frowned upon to hold people responsible for their actions?*
It's not.
I read the entire thread before posting, and saw a strong imbalance in the viewpoint being presented by you and a couple others. Not to say that there is no validity, or that I don't agree with a large part of it, but I see imbalance nontheless. A lot of judgment and no real attempt at understanding.... a lot of blanket statements and 'shoulds'. The point I have been trying to make is like this: sometimes, we can look at society like a big family. The behaviour of the family as a whole sends a message to the individuals in it. There is no simple solution. We need to have understanding. We need to have intelligence. We need to look at what actually works instead of what 'should' work.
If it is about proving to these men or boys that they cannot escape responsibility, then that is more punitive than practical. And once again, obviously, in many or most cases, it would probably be found that the unwilling fathers should have to pay child support in whatever amount they can afford.
But not always. Rarely does 'always' apply.
Also, once again, this has gone far beyond that article....that was just silly.
I think we can agree on that.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Why aren't we holding women up to the same standard of responsibility as the men? I hear everyone saying to the guys "hey, if you don't want to support a child don't have sex".

Wouldn't it then be equally fair to say to a woman "if you have to coerce money out of an unwilling father in order to keep your baby, you should have thought of that before you got PG". In other words, if you can't afford to have the baby on your own, YOU shouldn't have had sex EITHER.

Now, I'm not really saying I buy this, I'm just playing devil's advocate. It's not really about being "EQUAL" now, is it? Not that biology hasn't done such a number on women that they don't deserve at least one scenario where they hold the advantage...but...I think we're kidding ourselves to expect that the playing field is at all equal.

Now pugmadmama raises a very interesting viewpoint: that of the child's rights. My only question is: does a child have a right to a paycheck?

In all honesty, if I had decided to keep an unplanned PG (before I married DH) I would have GLADLY given up any monetary contributions from them in order to keep them out of that kid's life entirely, even if that meant going on welfare. I chose my husband, the father of my children, very carefully. If the "deadbeat" dad is that much of an irresponsible jerk (or heck, maybe he's a really nice guy who believes in spanking and having his friends over for a beer binge while he's got custody) I think we are actually doing our kids a DISSERVICE by subjecting them to that.

A separate-parent upbringing is no picnic, particularly if the parents have little to no relationship to start with, and vary widely on their parenting abilities and goals. I actually have to question just how beneficial it is to some of these children to put them through that, rather than either give them up for adoption to a stable home, or at least be in a solid, loving stable relationship with their single mom. The thought of having to share custody (and the courts will happily take your tiny, exclusively breastfed baby and hand him off to the deadbeat Dad for overnight visits with formula because "he has rights, too") makes my heart shatter. How can that be in the best interests of the child?

I guess what this longwinded post is saying is: I think pug is right that we should focus more on the child, but is a paycheck or a deadbeat dad what a child really needs? I suggest that maybe the child is better off without the loser OR his money...


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*no, it is not! that's the sort of black-and-white POV we all complain about the bushistas having...*
There are very, very few "black and white" issues, in my opinion, but this is one of them.

Here's the bottom line..._Intercourse between a man and a woman can result in a third person being created who should have rights of his/her own_. Nothing I've read in this thread has convinced me that the men in these stories were under a different impression regarding that basic fact of biology. These men took a gamble...the same gamble we _all_ take when we have intercourse. Birth control fails, even when taken properly. Is that fair? No. People lie, about all sorts of issues. Is that fair? No. None of that changes the fact that now we have a third person who needs a lot of resources to grow up to be a healthy adult.

Speaking of fair...I really don't understand the emotional investment so many women are willing to make in men who "unfairly" became fathers _by having intercourse of their own free will_. My emotional focus goes to the child, who is coming into this world with one parent willing to talk to friends (& sometimes strangers) about how they got "tricked" into having this child. And anyone who thinks that a story that has been passed around to friends and family is never going to get back to the child in question is fooling themselves.

In anycase, until the conversation moves _beyond_ these "he said, she said" stories, then child support is not going to be properly viewed as what it really is...a children's rights issue.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Why aren't we holding women up to the same standard of responsibility as the men? I hear everyone saying to the guys "hey, if you don't want to support a child don't have sex".
We say that to women all the time, especially to women who we don't consider worthy of reproduction. The difference is that if a woman doesn't want to raise a child, she can have it adopted or abort it. If she chooses to keep it, she must want it.

About women getting knocked up just to take money from men, how often do you think it really happens? The money a woman gets will probably not be that much. Also, if the woman still ends up on welfare, the state will keep the child support. I suppose she could go after a really rich man and then possibly get enough for a comfortable lifestyle, but if it were that easy to do, I'm sure more people would be doing it.

Should the law be changed to "The man doesn't have to pay if his ex-lover is a b!tch?" How would that be proved in court?

Although children are not necessarily entitled to a paycheck, I believe they deserve to have their needs met, whether or not they were wanted by their "father."

Those "thieving whore" women are still doing the job of raising the child. Why does the man have to contribute nothing just because he doesn't like the attitude of the ex-lover?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*...The thought of having to share custody (and the courts will happily take your tiny, exclusively breastfed baby and hand him off to the deadbeat Dad for overnight visits with formula because "he has rights, too") makes my heart shatter. How can that be in the best interests of the child?...*
How is poverty in the best interest of the child? That's the question for many, many children. I understand that breastmilk is best, but so is shelter, clothing and food on the table later on down the line.

My gut reaction is to personally agree with you, I would rather do it alone than have some random asshat raise my child with me. However, I also have a lot of resources that many women don't have. To further complicate the issue, I think years of closed adoptions taught us that children do better when they know both of their biological parents, even when those parents are less than "ideal" (whatever that means)

Having worked with women who were victims of Domestic Violence, I am well aware of how complicated this issue can get. However, I still believe that children are entitled to know where they came from, for good or bad, and that they are entitled to support from *both* of their parents. I think the way most of society views child support ("it's really for the woman who tricked the guy into getting her pregnant"), prevents us from making changes to it that would be hugely beneficial to children.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

wow. i haven't seem this much judgementing going on since the last GOP convention. this is better than daytime TV!








:


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*Here's the bottom line...Intercourse between a man and a woman can result in a third person being created who should have rights of his/her own.....None of that changes the fact that now we have a third person who needs a lot of resources to grow up to be a healthy adult.*
Right. So my hypothetical question is: is a mother who decides to keep a child *knowing* she doesn't have the resources to do so on her own, and must obtain financial support from the father (who, were it his choice, would not keep the baby in the first place), really doing what's in the best interests of the child? If you are already in crushing poverty, and lets face it - child support helps...if you are lucky enough to ever see the money - is it really responsible to keep the child?

[just want to make it clear I'm just throwing these questions out there. despite being happily adopted, I do believe that there's alot to be said for keeping mamas and their babies together]

Quote:

*
My emotional focus goes to the child, who is coming into this world with one parent willing to talk to friends (& sometimes strangers) about how they got "tricked" into having this child. And anyone who thinks that a story that has been passed around to friends and family is never going to get back to the child in question is fooling themselves.*
SUCH a good point!









but....isn't that suggesting that keeping the father involved at all, even as just a paycheck, may actually be worse than just "father unknown"? b/c AFAIK, once there's a paycheck involved, you HAVE to share parental rights with the guy.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*
Here's the bottom line...Intercourse between a man and a woman can result in a third person being created who should have rights of his/her own.*
Why does that sound like the bottom line argument made by pro-lifers?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*wow. i haven't seem this much judgementing going on since the last GOP convention. this is better than daytime TV!
*
and

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Why does that sound like the bottom line argument made by pro-lifers?*
Snarky one-liners don't really have a place here, do they?

Please either take issue with what I've said clearly and polietly, or don't respond to me.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Piglet, I really appreciate the respect you've treated me with, but due to others choosing rudeness over participation, I'm too angry to continue on in this thread right now. I'll be back once I've cooled off. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your thoughtful post.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

pug: a "one-liner" is exactly what your "bottom line" was. which is exactly why *i* moved to popcorn-mode. bottom line statements - black and white statements - call them what you will - they are judgemental by definition.

back to...








:


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*wow. i haven't seem this much judgementing going on since the last GOP convention. this is better than daytime TV!








:*
Could you point out the judgment to me, dado? I'm really not seeing it. All I see being promoted here is the idea that people should take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Why does that sound like the bottom line argument made by pro-lifers?*
The difference here, Snowy Owl, is that we're referring in this discussion to the rights of a child who is either already born or whose mother has decided that he/she will be born.

Same words, entirely different application.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Why does that sound like the bottom line argument made by pro-lifers?*
I was reading it the same way Dragonfly did, that we were talking about a child already born, or one that the mother has decided to bring to term.

dado: I didn't get that you were referring to pugmadmama's post. but if you were....how is stating a biological fact judgemental? I mean, really, how can you argue with the fact that sex makes little people?







And I can't see how anyone could argue that a child (not a fetus, but a born, living child) has rights, too.

Maybe I should join you in some popcorn!


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*
Snarky one-liners don't really have a place here, do they?

Please either take issue with what I've said clearly and polietly, or don't respond to me.*
I'm sorry you're angry, but I'm not, nor was what I said snarky. It was a question, a valid one. I don't agree with the bottom line and will not be bullied into accepting it. I continue to read this thread with interest, open to all perspectives presented.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*Piglet, I really appreciate the respect you've treated me with, but due to others choosing rudeness over participation, I'm too angry to continue on in this thread right now. I'll be back once I've cooled off. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your thoughtful post.*


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*And I can't see how anyone could argue that a child (not a fetus, but a born, living child) has rights, too.
*
I really don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't have rights. It's really just different opinions about how those rights should be actualized. I don't think punishing people, male or female, for having children is very productive. Whether it be the 'welfare queen having babies just to get government money' or 'deadbeat dads'. Lots of judgment, not a lot of solution.

Edited to add: I am assuming my other posts have been taken into context, but just in case, I am not advocating that men shouldn't have to pay child support in most circumstances....


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*I really don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't have rights. It's really just different opinions about how those rights should be actualized. I don't think punishing people, male or female, for having children is very productive.*
Ahh, I think I get you now. I just thought the idea of looking at it from the "best interests of the child" POV instead of the "who is at fault more, the man or the woman" POV might be more productive.

I have to agree, though, that I'm not sure punishing people for having kids very productive. but is it punishment to sue for child support? i dunno....still can't weigh in definitively on either side of that argument.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I think it is about punishing the man, in part. That's probably why sperm donors (the kind that use an actual bank, not just insensitive men!) don't have to pay for the children they create - they did not have sex with the mother, even though the end result is the same.

But I can't say I'm too upset about that. Women are punished when men impregnate them and then leave. I think what really matters is getting the child all the support it needs. If we tell women "Well, you should have known what you were getting into when you trapped that guy" thinking it will teach her a lesson, what about the child? Why does the child need to learn a lesson?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*I really don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't have rights. It's really just different opinions about how those rights should be actualized. I don't think punishing people, male or female, for having children is very productive.*
I don't see it as punishment - I see it as natural consequences.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Dragonfly_
*I don't see it as punishment - I see it as natural consequences.







*
Yeah, I agree...mostly!


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*...I think what really matters is getting the child all the support it needs. If we tell women "Well, you should have known what you were getting into when you trapped that guy" thinking it will teach her a lesson, what about the child? Why does the child need to learn a lesson?*
Exactly!

A society that makes birth control and abortion so hard to get should make child support easy to get but, in fact, it's the opposite. Why? Because punishing women for their sexuality (and, in turn, punishing their children), is so ingrained in us as a society.

I don't want _anyone_ to be punished for their sexuality. But I don't think paying child support is punishment. I think it's a potential natural consequence of a man and a woman having intercourse.

Maybe it's because I've been dealing with infertility for so long, but I gave up *long* ago on the idea that anything having to do with procreation is "fair". It's not. But a man being ordered to pay child support for a child he helped create is no more being "punished" than I am being punished by not being able to get pregnant. It's random and unfair.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*pug: a "one-liner" is exactly what your "bottom line" was. which is exactly why *i* moved to popcorn-mode. bottom line statements - black and white statements - call them what you will - they are judgemental by definition...*
Here's my bottom line, _Intercourse between a man and a woman can result in a third person being created who should have rights of his/her own._

That's judgmental? So now pointing out basic biological facts is judgemental? That sex between a man and a woman can make a baby is a _judgement call_?

It's a fact, not a judgement. Unless, of course, I've been misinformed on how babies are made and/or if those babies have rights of their own. In which case, I'm all ears...


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I don't want anyone to be punished for their sexuality. But I don't think paying child support is punishment. I think it's a potential natural consequence of a man and a woman having intercourse.
What I don't understand is why someone wouldn't want to support their child! Even if it wasn't what you planned on doing with your life, how can you not be overjoyed that you have created a life? How can a person just turn their backs and be indifferent and count the days until they don't have to pay anymore?

I can understand not getting along with whomever you knocked up, but why not try to get along with the child? The child never did anything wrong.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Those "thieving whore" women are still doing the job of raising the child. Why does the man have to contribute nothing just because he doesn't like the attitude of the ex-lover?*
No one said that. no one. Not once anywhere in this thread has anyone advocated for men not supporting their children. No where. No one. I really can't be any more clear than that. I do not inderstand why some of you are continuing to argue against a straw man of your own making. We are discussing a different, perhaps totally essoteric issue. That of societal judgement and morality. We are all in agreement that parents must support their children.
We are all in agreement that parents must support their children.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Perhaps I've misunderstood. I thought the attitude was that men shouldn't be expected to pay child support if they did not want the child, if they were "trapped" into conceiving one, or if the woman would not have an abortion on request.

That's the idea I've been responding to. It could be that I've completely got it all wrong and that no one ever suggested such a thing.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Perhaps I've misunderstood. I thought the attitude was that men shouldn't be expected to pay child support if they did not want the child, if they were "trapped" into conceiving one, or if the woman would not have an abortion on request.

That's the idea I've been responding to. It could be that I've completely got it all wrong and that no one ever suggested such a thing.*
That was suggested in the article in the OP, so it didn't come out of nowhere.


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

I'm just curious on how you feel about the woman who have a baby by a man(not in a relationship) disapear then like 6-10 years down teh line track him down for child support. Never telling him that he even had a child then he has to pay 10 years back pay for something he never knew about. THis haappened to a friend of ours and I think it's so pitaful. When asked why she waited so long she simply said she'd rather het most of her money at once. She purposly didn't tell him just so she could ger teh "extra " money. BTw she actually has four kids by four men and did them all teh same pretty much. I'm sorry but I think all she should get is current child support.

I know it's kind of off topic just wanted to see what you all thought. I'd just die if someone did that to us.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

From Amy's post about her friend who was duped by the thieving hoor:

"Just because a woman can have a baby, doesn't mean she should. And doesn't mean that the man who provided the male half of the DNA should be responsible. "

From Shenjall:

"hmm..goes back to the old "well, she knew that sex leads to a pregnancy...) doesnt it?
no one is forcing her. she wants a baby then she *may* have to raise it alone. yes, it sucks, no its not entirely fair.
do I think all men (and women) should be off the hook for child support? nope, not at all. if you decide to become a parent - be a parent. financial responsibility and all. no coming around 10 years later crap. if a woman decides to end a pregnancy, she cant change her mind about it 10 years down the road, can she? I'm just saying the same choice be given to men. men, you can decide to not be a parent - but ALL of your rights will be gone. just like a woman."

From Piglet's post (and I know you weren't asserting this as your opinion, Piglet, just asking the question for purposes of discussion):

"However, seems to me that freedom comes with a price. If the man can't force you to have an abortion, why does he have to pay you to support the child that, were it his decision, would not exist? "

From aussiemum:

"I realise that the vast majority of the time single mothers are left with the kids, & they often end up with full financial responsibility. But you can't punish ALL men for the actions of dead-beat dads. It's not fair, IMO, to use a man for his sperm & then expect him to pay for a child that results from that sexual encounter."

This is what I've been responding to, kama. They all follow from the assertion of the OP that women who choose to keep a baby over the biological father's protest shouldn't expect any help.

I think what's happened is that this has branched out into 2 discussions that have some crossover points but not enough common ground for the two discussions to make since when squashed together.

I haven't been discussing the hypothetical gray area you referred to. I've been discussing the question of whether someone who creates a child with a woman (in the absence of a written contract that relieves him of responsibility - say in the case of sprem donors) should be responsible for that child even if he decides he doesn't want the child. The question posed by the OP, in other words.

As for the other, yes, I have sympathy for men who are duped - not duped into having unprotected sex, mind you (because I think that's a load of bull... goes back to the whole personal responsibility thing) - but duped in the way that Amy's friend was. It completely sucks. And I have the utmost respect for someone who faces up to their responsibility in a situation like that.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Jeca - While this may be unfair to the men, how is it fair to the children if they are not supported? No matter what the women did, the men still conceived the children.

As far as whether he should have to pay back support as well as current support, I guess he just has to follow the state laws. If he has to pay a larger sum of money, wouldn't that be even better for the children?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*...I really can't be any more clear than that. I do not inderstand why some of you are continuing to argue against a straw man of your own making. We are discussing a different, perhaps totally essoteric issue. That of societal judgement and morality. We are all in agreement that parents must support their children...*
If you are in agreement that a child is entitled to support from both of it's parents, _then what is the point of discussing the rest_? So we can put women down and feel superior to them? So we can all have a pity party for these men who got "tricked" into having consensual sex with the wholly predicatable outcome of a baby?

I don't get it. I really don't. If you agree that child support is a children's rights issue, then what is all the rest of this discussion for? Gossip? I'm confused.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

I stand corrected. Rant on.

Grease, I can't see any way in which withholding support for ten years so you can get a windfall helps the kids. In this womans fantasy where she and her kids live close to the bone for a decade then get a big windfall they live poorly for a long time and then... I dunno, a bigscreen TV and a bunch of material crap to mess with their heads. Also, raised without a father and then suddenly introduced to one who is both stunned, defensive and angry as hell. In a more likely scenario there is no windfall... since few fellas have ten years worth of back support gathering dust in the closet. So... after ten years of deprivation she will probably start recieving higher than standard court ordered payments.. but payments are usually set to some degree based on what dad can pay and in any case... he can only pay what he has, ya know? So in real world windfall unlikely but angry confused dad who is suddenly broke as hell and barely knows why? Check... he's all in! Any woman who does this is clearly f-ed up and has many things she holds dearer than the wellbeing of her children.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jeca_
*I'm just curious on how you feel about the woman who have a baby by a man(not in a relationship) disapear then like 6-10 years down teh line track him down for child support...*
I feel that it's none of my business what goes on in other families concerning paternity and child support so long as the child is being taken care of.

Ideally, generally speaking, everyone should have full awareness of what is going on, pre and post conception. Since this is a less than ideal world, that's obviously never going to be what happens in every single case.

As it happens, my SO and I have talked about this. We both agree that it would be a blessing to welcome more children into our family, no matter their age or maternity, and that all of our decisions must stem from that one ideal.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*I stand corrected. Rant on.*
Wow... that's pretty harsh. I might even call it judgmental. I guess it's okay to get ugly when the conversation isn't going the direction you might like?

Just so you know, it's not exactly a rant when you're responding to points made by others.

But, regardless, I'm bowing out now.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I'm just curious on how you feel about the woman who have a baby by a man(not in a relationship) disapear then like 6-10 years down teh line track him down for child support...
If that's really what happened, it sounds like a bad decision on the part of the woman. But what most often happens is that it's the man who disappears, and then the woman has to search for him and often doesn't find him for years, and when he is found he says that since she supported the children just fine without him, he shouldn't have to pay anything.

It also could be the woman was financially stable enough to raise the kids on her own and then lost her job years later, and had to seek financial help from the man then.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Everyone rants here. This is activism.

I lost count. How many times has she left this thread now?


----------



## jeca (Sep 21, 2002)

Nope,teh man lived in teh same town his whole life and has had teh same job for over 15 years. She left and was neever heard from again until welfare reformed basically. I think that woman who have a history of doing this should in some way be judicially punished.

Pugmadmama, are you saying that if a woman came to you and was having your SO baby concieved while you were together you would accept teh baby? If this is the case, I have much respect for you and bow down as you are much stronger than I in that sense.

Greaseball your right perhaps sometimes tehy are able to care for them theirselves until a certain point but teh lack of a parental figure in all that time just to prove you can make it on your own seems a little selfish. I think a woman should at least try to notify teh father immediatly to establish an early bond.I don't see how a large sum of money at one time is better for the kids. Support is suppose to help pay for the food, clothing, schooling. It's not a one time thing.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Everyone rants here. This is activism.
*
I don't rant. Never. Not once have I ranted. If you are going to make claims like that then you had better find something to back it up. When you can find one example of me ranting, then fine, we'll talk. Until then, I am going to leave this thread because of the unsubstantiated claims and sweeping generalizations.
I mean it. I'm going. Good-bye. See ya. Sayonara. Adios. Au Revoir.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I think that woman who have a history of doing this should in some way be judicially punished.
What law would this be? And would it then be illegal for a man to desert a pregnant woman? Would men be required to let women know of their whereabouts a few months after a one-night-stand, so pregnancy can be ruled out?

If the woman didn't find the father for a number of years, how could it be established that she hadn't been looking for him?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Everyone rants here. This is activism.

I lost count. How many times has she left this thread now?*
If you're referring to me, kama, it's the only time I've said I was leaving the thread.

It's good to know, though, for future reference that ranting is acceptable. Apparently targeted rudeness is, as well.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I, too, am getting really confused by this thread.

I've always argued - as a pro-choicer, btw - that shades of gray can and should be legislated, because I believe the whole "slippery slope" argument is really extremist.

Yet, for some reason, some are discussing how to legislate the gray areas of men being tricked into a pregnancy.

Like PBAs, men being "tricked" then "forced" to have a baby are pretty rare. Yes, they exist. Yes, I feel really bad for men b/c they get such a bad rap and are shat upon all the time. But how could one possibly legislate such a thing?

"Sorry, sista, Jonny said YOU said you were on the pill. Were you? Weren't you? Let's see.... how can we prove our case.... anyhoo, I don't believe you'll be getting any child support for this kid, even if, biologically, half of this kid is his."







:


----------



## Shonahsmom (Mar 23, 2004)

Sooooo.....

Did any of you passionate people actually use some of your passion to e-mail Marilyn (the author of the article that started this post)?







:


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

:LOL

No, I'm sorry, I didn't. I think she's a total dimwit and it's America and if she wants to publicly announce that she's a dimwit by writing this stupid crap, then more power to her


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:

_*... by Dragonfly*
... From Amy's post about her friend who was duped by the thieving hoor:

"Just because a woman can have a baby, doesn't mean she should. And doesn't mean that the man who provided the male half of the DNA should be responsible. "_

Yes, that's right.

And in my friend's situation, he *is* and has made every payment required, on time, too.

And in that same situation, the woman moved back in with her lover in the first trimester of the pregnancy, before even knowing she was pregnant ... and her lover considers himself the father of the child ... and it's apparent that she only went about getting into the relationship with our friend to get sperm.

Friend has accepted the obligation that the courts and society impose on a man who biologically fathers a child. But the child *is* living with a father, who was there from, well, right after the beginning of the pregnancy, and who considers himself her father.

So Friend is essentially paying support for this other man's child.

Maybe analogous to requiring the biological father of an adopted child to pay support to the adoptive parents ...
although not a 100 percent precise analogy.

A moral gray area, I know. But in this case, those are the facts.

And through our involvement with Friend's situation, we've heard of other cases, again like the one I originally posted about (divorced couple, she uses their frozen-while-married embryos to have a child, and her ex still has to pay support) ... and while they're not common, they *do* happen.

It's not an affirmative action type of thing, where some men (who are in that gray area) have to pay so that the wrongs perpetrated against all women are rectified. It's really not. Or at least it shouldn't be.

And the point's been made but will state it again plain: NO ONE on this thread has stated men shouldn't pay for the children they make.

NO ONE.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:

And the point's been made but will state it again plain: NO ONE on this thread has stated men shouldn't pay for the children they make.
So why do you and Kama keep insisting that men shouldn't pay for the children they make?









:LOL


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Until then, I am going to leave this thread because of the unsubstantiated claims and sweeping generalizations.*
you have been a model of decorum under a barrage of considerable antagonism. this bag 'o' popcorn seems to be bottomless, you're welcome to pull up a chair and watch the rest of this food fight from the sidelines.
















:


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*you have been a model of decorum under a barrage of considerable antagonism. this bag 'o' popcorn seems to be bottomless, you're welcome to pull up a chair and watch the rest of this food fight from the sidelines.
*
Why, you flatter me, dado....

I could say, straying more from the op, that from what I have seen, I question the way men who owe child support and can't/won't pay have their driver's licenses taken away (in the province where I grew up) and that kind of thing. But, honestly, I don't know what it is like to try to get child support from someone...I am not a single mom and I know if I seperated my ex-dh would never try to pull something like that.
So I can understand if some of the seething anger that seems to be at the heart of some of the posts in this thread is based on such an experience. I know a few people who have gotten pregnant, are raising the kid, and are going it alone without any help from the fathers, and they prefer it that way, just because they don't want these people in their lives. I don't know how they would feel reading an article like that.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:

_*... by candiland*
... So why do you and Kama keep insisting that men shouldn't pay for the children they make?







_










Haven't said that "men shouldn't pay for the children they make." I have said that there are moral gray areas. And that there are certain issues that should make it only fair for a legally-obligated biological father to have legal options, to perhaps contest the level of child support.

For example, in Friend's case, the mother is living with her lover, who is for all intents and purposes the child's father. They have been together now for 20 years (it was 10 years when she met Friend). And she was even depositing the child support checks into her lover's account, since he was cosigning the endorsements on the back of the check every month. (And yeah, that made Friend feel just ducky.







: )

So in that case isn't there a gray area, where perhaps fairness dictates that Friend should not have to pay the full standard child support percentage of his (already low-income) salary? And should he be responsible for the child's college education, as he is currently? After all, now she's got 3 adults to pay for it ... mother, lover, and Friend. And because of that, Friend is totally and completely unable to even consider helping finance any part of his family's future education. Why is that fair?

Think about that. He was duped by a con artist, nothing less. I've worked trials where people went to jail for con games that involved much less financial loss and personal suffering.

But he has no recourse, and should have no recourse, everyone seems to be insisting, because his DNA is allegedly part of this child (and I said 'allegedly' because the blood tests were not 100% dispositive on the issue, only 90-something%, but the Judge told Friend and his lawyer that she would not remove from the child the presumption of legitimacy ... as I previously posted about it).

And again, the case I've repeatedly cited with the frozen embryos, should the biological father have to pay the full standard obligation, because this woman made a choice on her own, outside of a marriage, to make him become a parent against his will? And yes, he did try to stop her from using the embryos, but lost the court battle. But he does have to pay. And because he is genetically the father, he has no choice and no recourse ... and so the court system of his state has told him (can't remember where it was, someplace in the middle of the country ...)

Maybe he should have considered the possibility of this happening before he donating the sperm to make the embryo, so perhaps he should pay something. And apparently he does. But should he have to pay the full support levels? Should he have to take responsibility for the child's college expenses ... etc., etc., etc.


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

pppssttt... Amy, she was being facetious. Note the laughter at the bottom of her post.


----------



## BAU3 (Dec 10, 2001)

Hmmm. really interesting. Hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

Although the op was about a mans responsibility when he and a woman get pregnant, its interesting that no one seems to have thought of mens rightsand mens CHOICES.
Although I don't agree at all with marilyn...of course men should be fininciallly responsible, if nothing more......what about mens rights as far as deciding that he WANTS to be a dad?a woman can choose an abortion, a man can't(nor should he, imo, ) but he also can't choose to be a dad.

When a man has sex he can create a baby, which he SHOULD be prepared to care for, financially and emotionally. when a woman has sex she shoud be prepared to accept that a child could be concieved, and that the father of that child may not help her. financially or otherwise. (NOT saying this is right, or fair or otherwise... its just a fact) Some men don't take responsibility. We all agree on that, right?. Does anyone feel that woman out there have sex not knowing that this is a possibility?

When a man has sex with a woman, and said woman becomes pregnant,the man no longer has options. It becomes totally the womans choice. (which can definitley be a burden on a woman, I know...) She can choose to carry the child and raise it... she can choose an abortion. She can choose adoption.An ideal scenario is that she and he raise the childtogether.

hmm. it seems that when men and women decide to have sex, they both know what the result could be. She has options. He does not.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I've been







: since the beginning on this thread, and I just wanted to say, that the last post (BAU3) made a great point about men not having a choice after the initial to have sex.

I intend to teach my children all kinds of things about sex, mainly how beautiful it is/ can be







. I also intend to teach them what it seems should be obvious but people have forgotten (or choose to ignore).

Girls- "sex can be beautiful- but, it can also be forced on you- which is evil, if you have sex willingly- it is possible that a baby will then be concieved- it's quite a natural thing. When you chose to have sex with someone- realize that it could result in you becoming a mother- with that man (whomever he may be) as the father. Will he be a good father? Then you will have to decide whether or not to keep the baby. Will you raise the baby yourself? Will you raise the baby with said man? What if he leaves? Are you ready to make a decision should you get pregnant? Are you ready to take on the responsibility of another life? and on and on and on......"

Boys- "sex can be beautiful- but it also can come with a huge amount of responsibility, a baby could be conceived. Are you ready to be a father? Is the woman you are with ready to be a mother? Will she be a good mother? Are you able to physically/emotionally/financially support a child? Are you ready to leave your future up to this woman? What if you are willing to be a father, and she decides to have an abortion, how would you feel? What if she decides to leave your name off of the birth cerificate? What if she wants to get married? What if she wants to give the baby up for adoption? You realize that once she is pregnant- you have no true choice/say in any of what happens, you are along for the ride- all of the choices left are hers, your child's life will be in her hands, as will your involvement in the child's life be, and on and on and on....."

I wish I could just stick to the "sex is beautiful" part, but there will be so much more to teach. So much more.

We need to teach our sons and daughters about all of these scenarios, and truly help them to be prepared. That way hopefully they will make wise choices- sure some will still be "duped" either way, there are truly nasty people out there who take advantage of good people (Amy's friend- my heart goes out to him, and so many women who are doing it all alone without enough money).

I think the entire issue is an issue of personal responsibility. I don't think any of it is "fair" necessarily, but I intend to teach my kids all about every bit of it, so they can never be in a position where they are claiming ignorance, and hopefully none of them will ever have to "play the fool" b/c not only would they be hurt- but my precious grandkids would be too


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

can a pre-nup specify requirements WRT future children? like...names, no-abort, etc?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*...Think about that. He was duped by a con artist, nothing less...*
I know this person is your friend, so you can probably make an educated guess...does he know that intercourse between a man and a woman can result in a baby? If he does, then who is the con artist in your senario? Further, if I'm remembering correctly, he also _married_ this woman he hardly knew. And your friend's position is not that *he* made poor choices but rather that *she* conned him?

It's sad when people treat each other poorly, especially when a chid is involved. But that's not the same as being taken by a con artist, although a lot of people prefer to believe that instead of owning their mistakes.

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*[/i] ... and while they're not common, they *do* happen...And the point's been made but will state it again plain: NO ONE on this thread has stated men shouldn't pay for the children they make...*
So, I'll go back to my question...if everyone here agrees that children are entitled to support, then what are we all still doing here? What purpose does gossiping about other families serve? Unless you're proposing that laws be changed to cover the exception (& how would that even work?), then I don't understand this.

It seems like whenever this topic comes up, no matter if I'm on-line or in real life, people are anxious to jump in with some story about a "theiving whore". What is the point of gossiping about these women?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jess7396_
*...I wish I could just stick to the "sex is beautiful" part, but there will be so much more to teach. So much more...

I think the entire issue is an issue of personal responsibility. I don't think any of it is "fair" necessarily, but I intend to teach my kids all about every bit of it, so they can never be in a position where they are claiming ignorance, and hopefully none of them will ever have to "play the fool" b/c not only would they be hurt- but my precious grandkids would be too







*
Well said!

My son is 11 and we've already had some of these talks. It's not easy, I too wish I could stick with the positive aspects of sex but that's just not the way the world is.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I think BAU put it very well, and reiterated a point I made earlier, to which I don't believe anyone has responded.

We all seem to agree that it is irresponsible to have sex with someone assuming that either a) they are on birth control (even if they tell you they are and b) that said birth control is a guarantee against conception.

Agreed, right? You really can't argue that a man doesn't know what might happen.

But why is nobody arguing the same for the woman? If you are a women who could NOT afford to keep a child should you get pregnant, why aren't you any more to blame? and what gives you the right to decide you want to keep it when the only way you can do that is to sue the guy (who has no choice as to whether or not he wants to be a parent)?

Also, nobody has responded to my other point about whether getting money out of a guy who simply doesn't want to be a parent (and thus opening up the door for him to traipse in and out of your kids life, breaking their heart and maybe their spirit) is really the "best thing for the child" or just write off the loser and raise your kid YOUR way with "name unknown" on the birth certificate.

I can honestly say that cases like Amy's friend are the rare exception. I would venture to guess that many of the men who must be actively persued for child support are the kind of jerk who would make a lousy role model and father. I can't see how kids are better off with that sort of influence in their lives. Cuz the minute you accept that paycheck, you have to let them be involved.

I mean, poverty sucks and all, but isn't emotional health and raising your kid the way you want them to be raised worth more than money? Wouldn't you rather be poor and have your kid be emotionally whole and closely bonded with his trusting mother, or handed off every few days/weeks/months to a dude he/she doesn't really know, desperately wants to put up on a pedestal (b/c that is what kids do), and whose heart gets broken repeatedly or worse, whose spirit gets crushed by pathetic parenting skills. Not to mention what pugmadmama said about the story of his conception being made known to him at some point in his life.


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*Cuz the minute you accept that paycheck, you have to let them be involved.
*
Is that true?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*...But why is nobody arguing the same for the woman? If you are a women who could NOT afford to keep a child should you get pregnant, why aren't you any more to blame? ...*
Why does it have to be about blame on the mother or the father? I don't think making judgement calls about the father or the mother is productive. What good can come of that? How in the world can you answer the question, "and what gives you the right to decide you want to keep it when the only way you can do that is to sue the guy" or "she said she was on the pill" or "he said he was sterile".

I'm just not going to put my time and energy into arguing that the man or the woman in any of these stories need to change their behavior...because history quickly shows us that both men and women have a tendancy to behave a bit outside of what we might consider "ideal" when it comes to sex.

My arguement is simply that both parents are responsible for the child they created once that child is born.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*...Also, nobody has responded to my other point about whether getting money out of a guy who simply doesn't want to be a parent (and thus opening up the door for him to traipse in and out of your kids life, breaking their heart and maybe their spirit) is really the "best thing for the child" or just write off the loser and raise your kid YOUR way with "name unknown" on the birth certificate....I mean, poverty sucks and all, but isn't emotional health and raising your kid the way you want them to be raised worth more than money?...*
I think that is very easy to say when you have a loving partner, a home, a job, etc. I'm can't judge women who keep less-than-ideal men in their kids lives so that they can keep a roof over their kids head and food on the table.

I also think it's human nature to hope people will change. It's easy to be on the outside of a situation and say "she should dump that loser!". It rarely looks that clear-cut when you're the person on the inside.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

actually, even if they dont pay a freakin dime, they still are allowed access. child support and access have nothing to do with each other. this is unfortunatly something I'm dealing with right now......


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*Is that true?*
No, it's not true in all cases. But it's very difficult to get an order for child support without visitation. At least it was difficult when I was working in family court in Texas. Maybe other states are more progressive on that front, I hope so.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Shenjall_
*actually, even if they dont pay a freakin dime, they still are allowed access. child support and access have nothing to do with each other. this is unfortunatly something I'm dealing with right now......*
I'm sorry you're having to deal with this.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

Quote:

I'm sorry you're having to deal with this.
Thanks!


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

Piglet, that is so hard to answer. I mean, sure in the abstract it's easy to make a case for letting Mr Loser keep his filthy lucre, live in a simple style as you choose without interference, etc... but it's just not that simple. How is this woman making a living and caring for her child alone? Who is tending the child while she works and at what expense to her? How many jobs/ hours a week is she working to manage this. All those things have a real direct efect on the childs life. And yes, a strong support network of family, friends and social services can make a difference but will it be enough? It's not impossible. My sister did it for a few years with a lot of assistance from family, some government assistance and a bit of good fortune here and there... but it was hard as hell.

Additionally there is the question of a childs right to it's parents. Not just to their physical support but the basic knowledge of them and their history as well as a reciprocal acknowledgement of the child. Virtually all of us have a yen to know our stories... from whence we came, how we got here, etc... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with cutting children off from that as we did for decades with closed adoptions. Even professional sperm donors provide _some_ info.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the societal message that sends. "Fellas, it's not your problem. Inseminate away... the women will handle it." Unless we want to institute a simultaneous sperm tax on every man who cannot prove he is infertile to cover the money the women will require to make this family style work it would also serve as a huge step backwards in trying to pull women and dependent children out of poverty. Pug's right. The kids deserve better.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

If you are a women who could NOT afford to keep a child should you get pregnant, why aren't you any more to blame?
These women are at least willing to do the work of raising the child to adulthood. What she can't give in money, she gives in time, loving guidance, education, all the parenting stuff. The men often do nothing at all.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

I would think it would be very difficult to make the man pay but deny him access to the child. In fact, I think I would find such an arrangement VERY unfair to the father - you're going to make him pay but he can't have anything to do with the kid?

I do agree, kama, that the situation is alot more complicated than just "take the money or leave it". I do have some friends who have gone this route: in fact I have three of them who have willingly let the man go with no money b/c they specifically didn't want him in their kid's life. For at least one of them, it's a daily struggle financially, but she and her son are soooo bonded and close, he is so loved and secure, even though he has been in daycare since he was tiny b/c she had to work.

Mind you, you also make the very important point that if society supported women more, more assistance to single mothers so they CAN stay home with their kids, chasing the men wouldn't be necessary.

I guess it goes back to pug's point: what does the child need? Well, if it's just money, then for god's sakes let the government and society pitch in, rather than chase some bum all over the country trying to get blood out of stone.

I do have to disagree with this whole "children have rights to know their parents" stuff though. I realize I don't speak for everybody, but as a happily adopted child I could care less where my genes come from. You aren't a parent because you contributed sperm. I think we tie too much into "blood" and too little into "family". So I don't see why kids "need" to know who the sperm donor was. But that, obviously, is my somewhat biased opinion.









Anyways, I must say this thread has given me much to think about!


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:

_*... by pugmadmama*
... he also married this woman he hardly knew. And your friend's position is not that he made poor choices but rather that she conned him?
It's sad when people treat each other poorly, especially when a chid is involved. But that's not the same as being taken by a con artist, although a lot of people prefer to believe that instead of owning their mistakes ..._
Not wanting to hijack this thread with Friend's sad tale any more than I already have ... but he married her intending to spend his life with her. Within weeks she took off, totally unexpectedly. He was devastated. We had to deal with it, too. And when he found her at her boyfriend's apartment, she essentially laughed. Called him on the phone and left a message on his answering machine that she was pregnant, too.

His only mistake was in getting married to someone he barely knew. He knows that's a mistake, believe me. And he owns his mistake, because he's paying for it for 20 years, plus life insurance policies and college tuition. Boy, does he own it.

She absolutely had an ulterior motive, and she absolutely is a con artist. And it's downright blatant, and the only way not to see it is if you're objectifying the woman as above reproach merely because she gave birth to a child.

Remember, before submitting her for sainthood, that she is *not* a single mother (despite her current official legal marital status). She has a live-in partner for 20 years now, who considers himself the child's father. But still happily cashes our Friend's checks.









Quote:

_*... by Piglet68*
... the situation is a lot more complicated than just "take the money or leave it". I do have some friends who have gone this route: in fact I have three of them who have willingly let the man go with no money b/c they specifically didn't want him in their kid's life ..._

Yes. And similarly, Friend made a conscious choice not to have any visitation or contact with the child, as the child was born into a family with a cohabitating mother and father (the boyfriend), and as Friend did not want the mother in his life. And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life.

Quote:

_*... ibid*
... as a happily adopted child I could care less where my genes come from. You aren't a parent because you contributed sperm. I think we tie too much into "blood" and too little into "family". So I don't see why kids "need" to know who the sperm donor was. But that, obviously, is my somewhat biased opinion._
Amen.

Just to balance things, I also know single mothers, both by happy choice and by bad luck/bad choices. They also own their mistakes, don't they. There are gray areas for the mothers, too.

Quote:

_*... by kama'aina mama]*
... pppssttt... Amy, she was being facetious. Note the laughter at the bottom of her post ..._


























:


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Mind you, you also make the very important point that if society supported women more, more assistance to single mothers so they CAN stay home with their kids, chasing the men wouldn't be necessary.
That is true. But I often make the point that if more fathers supported their children, less women would be on welfare. I guess as long as the child is being supported, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. But most people would prefer it came from the family and not the government.

I think a man who pays can be kept from visiting if he poses a danger to the child?


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*I would think it would be very difficult to make the man pay but deny him access to the child. In fact, I think I would find such an arrangement VERY unfair to the father - you're going to make him pay but he can't have anything to do with the kid?...*
The only situations I saw where the father was ordered to pay child support but had no visition where situations that involved abuse (sexual, physical and neglect). And, as I said, even those were very rare. What was far more common was that the father would be granted supervised visitation. Only when that had failed, repeatedly, would the the step be taken to completely sever visitation. Personally, I don't think that's unfair to the father.

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*...I guess it goes back to pug's point: what does the child need? Well, if it's just money, then for god's sakes let the government and society pitch in, rather than chase some bum all over the country trying to get blood out of stone...*
I don't agree with this. Many, if not most, of the fathers I saw in court could pay child support, they were just choosing not to as a way to punish the child's mother. These men would tell the judge a very compelling story about financial hardship, then my client's lawyer would ask where they got the money for the new Jetski, etc. It was absolutely maddening to sit through these hearings.

I think we need a combination of greatly expanded government benefits for single parents _and_ a greatly expanded committment to collecting child support. In fact, an idea I've often pondered is to give single parents benefits out of goverment funds and then make it the government's responsibility to be reimbursed. It seems like when it's "just" children getting screwed over, no one cares. But I bet the government would care in a big hurry if they were the one getting blown off by a non-custodial parent who can afford to pay.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*...Remember, before submitting her for sainthood, that she is *not* a single mother (despite her current official legal marital status). She has a live-in partner for 20 years now, who considers himself the child's father. But still happily cashes our Friend's checks...And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life...*
Amy, I realize this person is your friend, but I feel like you are not reading what I am writing. I never, never, never said this woman was a saint or even that what she did was right. I said that your friend made mistakes and that he freely choose to create a child, so he is responsible for that child. Period.

Further, your sentence "And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life" is incorrect. It is not the woman he is married that he is depriving of this, it is _his own child_. I think of that innocent child being deprived even a glimpse into this other way of life and for what? So that your friend can continue to feel victimized? I hope he does, it's certainly coming at a high enough price for this child.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:

_*... by pugmadmama*
... Further, your sentence "And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life" is incorrect. It is not the woman he is married that he is depriving of this, it is his own child. I think of that innocent child being deprived even a glimpse into this other way of life and for what? So that your friend can continue to feel victimized? I hope he does, it's certainly coming at a high enough price for this child._

What is the child deprived of? She has a mother and a father living with her. She has health insurance. What purpose would Friend's participation in her life serve? The mother already gets a quarter of his salary. She has someone paying her living expenses (boyfriend) and someone paying her child's expenses (Friend) and now, what, Friend should provide free babysitting for her, too?

Not sure what you're suggesting here.

She chose to have this baby ... discovering she was pregnant *after* she walked out of Friend's life to return to her boyfriend. He had no choice in the matter. She had all the choice in the world.

He chose to make a baby with a wife. He didn't know she chose to make a baby and go back to her boyfriend. She left. He (thank G!d) found a wife to make babies with who intended to raise them with him. And they are raising them, the sweetest kids. Always good when two people who are making choices together are honest about what choices they've made. IYKWIM.

Why is his situation different (beyond the con-game aspect) than adoption? Is the adopted child paying a price for not being raised by the people who provided their DNA?

Sorry. I don't see why there is a problem with him not being in the child's life.

Can you imagine what these people think of each other? He feels humiliated by her, totally. He feels as if he were the victim of a crime. A felony, no less.

And she can only feel contempt for him, the sucker that he was, to get sucked into that situation. We heard her answering machine messages, telling him that he should leave her alone, she's with her lover, she's happy, and the other one telling him that she's pregnant, he'd better do the right thing. She evinced total contempt.

He has to subject himself ... *and the child* ... to this? What exactly is the child missing out on?

Yes, he's a close friend, and yes, I'm emotionally tied up in this. It opened my eyes to a lot of things, one of which is that men *can* be taken advantage of by women to an obscene degree. I really had not known this.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*What is the child deprived of? She has a mother and a father living with her. She has health insurance. What purpose would Friend's participation in her life serve? ...He has to subject himself ... *and the child* ... to this? What exactly is the child missing out on?...*
Your wrote that your friend, "*And now certainly does not want her moral and emotional dysfunction in his (entirely functional and loving and AP) family's life...*". So, by your words, your friend has left _his child_ in a situation that can he describes as "moral and emotional dysfunction". Would you leave your child in that situation? I wouldn't. But your friend did. Why? You already said it, because he doesn't want to deal with the mother.

I know a lot of people who grew up in homes that were morally and emtionally dysfunctional. Many of them have shared with me that it was just one concerned adult (a grandparent, a religious leader, a non-custodial parent, etc.) who showed them that life doesn't have to be like that. That one person changed their entire life.

I'm glad your friend takes his financial responsibility to this child seriously. I wish he took his emotional, spiritual and ethical parenting responsibilities just as seriously.

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*...Can you imagine what these people think of each other? He feels humiliated by her, totally. He feels as if he were the victim of a crime. A felony, no less...*
There is a true victim in your friends story...the child. Maybe someday you're friend will mature past his hurt feelings and see that. I hope so, for both his sake and the child's sake.

Here's my fear for this child, and for your friend, what if that lying, mean, manipulative person is who this mother really is? My hope is that she is a good person who did one horrible act. But what if that's who she really is? And so, years down the road this child comes to your friend and says, "Thank you for the money, but where were you?" What is your friend going to say? "I thought your mother was a manipulative, lying, morally and emotionally dysfunctional woman. I, _a grown man_, could not deal with her so I left you, _a defenseless child_, entrusted completely to her care." How is that child going feel when she hears that? Or is he going to lie and say he thought she was in good care all along?

It's a very sad situation, all the way around. But, as I have said all along, my sympathy remains with this child.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pugmadmama_
*In fact, an idea I've often pondered is to give single parents benefits out of goverment funds and then make it the government's responsibility to be reimbursed. It seems like when it's "just" children getting screwed over, no one cares. But I bet the government would care in a big hurry if they were the one getting blown off by a non-custodial parent who can afford to pay.*
LOL. Now THAT is a great idea!


----------



## Snowy Owl (Nov 16, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*LOL. Now THAT is a great idea!*
I totally agree! single mothers should not have to go through courtroom hassles and personally trying to get money from the fathers. Imagine if the money was guaranteed them. Wow. That would change a lot of things.


----------



## dado (Dec 31, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*LOL. Now THAT is a great idea!*
totally, i've been suggesting something along those lines for years. all the momma should have to do is turn over the father's SSN to the feds: she collects the benefits directly from the state, and the state gets "reimbursed" by the IRS come tax time. or sooner, this could even work with regular withholding. this would be cheap, efficient, and virtually everything needed to implement this is already in place. wouldn't even need to get the legal system invovled, there could be a standard percentage of salary that the mother gets. and anybody on the receiving end could, of course, get out from under with a suitable DNA test result.

i suspect the reason such plans meet with resistance is because...well...they would work.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*... and the state gets "reimbursed" by the IRS come tax time. or sooner, this could even work with regular withholding. this would be cheap, efficient, and virtually everything needed to implement this is already in place...*
Oh, I love the reimbursing through taxes idea. Pure genius.

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*... i suspect the reason such plans meet with resistance is because...well...they would work.*















Very good, and very sad, point.

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*...and anybody on the receiving end could, of course, get out from under with a suitable DNA test results...*
I'm going to start another thread regarding DNA and child support...I hope some of you will check it out and give your input.


----------



## Shenjall (Sep 14, 2002)

This is such a great idea! Why dont we all write to our gov. officials with the idea? Maybe get a few signatures, some media, what do you all think?


----------



## kama'aina mama (Nov 19, 2001)

There are things like this in place in some places already. As an example, when my sister was raising my niece on her own she applied to the state of CA for aid. (Do not know exactly which programs, sorry.) Her partner, nieces father had moved to IL and was not paying her any support. They took info on him from her. He was unemployed for a long time but when he got a job they garnished his wages in the dollar ammount that CA was paying my sister. At some point they finally had binding arbitration and set up a legal custody agreement (much delayed - since they were never married and never divorced it didn't become an issue until niece was old enough to start discussing visits) and an ammount was designated for support. At his request this continued to be processed as a payroll deduct.

Also, here in Hawai'i there was a good bit in the news the last year or so about a state run program that was supposed to collect child support and disperse it. Lots of money had gone missing, or was just sitting in accounts not getting to the kids it was supposed to, etc. Maybe I'm a bad liberal, but I'm not sure letting the gov handle it is neccesarily the best answer.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

It would only work if single mothers were to be adequately provided for. As it stands now, they are given way, way less than what someone on the poverty line would make at a job, and if their partner does pay support the govt keeps it because now they expect the mother to reimburse them. Even if she finds a job later, she still has to pay back the govt.









I thought the govt was paid through tax dollars??? So if a former welfare recipient gets a job, why can't they just be satisfied with the fact that she is now a taxpayer? I sure don't intend to pay the government every time I use one of its services like a public park, police officer, etc. unless it's through taxes.

So if they were to give the mother a decent amount, and then just bill the father for some...that would be the way to go.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:

_*... by pugmadmama*
... Would you leave your child in that situation? I wouldn't. But your friend did ... so [he] left you ..._

My last post here.

pugmadmama, you are so so so so off base.

He never left anyone. He lives in the same exact apartment he was in when this woman left him. His presumed DNA means he is responsible for the child's financial assistance. Why does it mean he's responsible for a child who has two parents of her own?

So someone who puts sperm in a sperm bank is also responsible for the emotional well-being and functionality of the family that chooses to use his sperm to make a child?

You are so so so so off base here. Concern for the welfare of children is a fine thing. Ignoring the facts behind individual situations is entirely another.

Am done with this thread. Assuming you've started that DNA and child support thread, since this story is very appropriate there, will be happy to rehash this there.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*...He never left anyone. He lives in the same exact apartment he was in when this woman left him. His presumed DNA means he is responsible for the child's financial assistance. Why does it mean he's responsible for a child who has two parents of her own?

So someone who puts sperm in a sperm bank is also responsible for the emotional well-being and functionality of the family that chooses to use his sperm to make a child?...*
So now getting the woman _you've married_ pregant is the same as depositing sperm at a sperm bank? And your friend is somehow trapped in his apartment and cannot get to _his child_ ? I wonder how the children he is raising in his "AP, loving" home are going to feel about the him when they find out he left one of this other children to be raised by, in his own words, a manipulative, lying, morally and emotionally dysfunctional woman?

My sympathy remains with this child, more so the more I find out about your friend.


----------

