NationStates Jolt Archive

A scenario:

A woman and a man have a one night stand.
The woman tells the man she is using birth control.
The birth control fails and she gets pregnant.
She wants to keep the baby, the man does not.

Should the man be obliged to support the child?

Nope, ceteris paribus.

She made him think she would control the consequences.
She didn't.
HER problem.
Liability may exist for the product manufacturer.

End 0f Story.

A scenario:

A woman and a man have a one night stand.
The woman tells the man she is using birth control.
The birth control fails and she gets pregnant.
She wants to keep the baby, the man does not.

Should the man be obliged to support the child?
No.

A scenario:

A woman and a man have a one night stand.
The woman tells the man she is using birth control.
The birth control fails and she gets pregnant.
She wants to keep the baby, the man does not.

Should the man be obliged to support the child?
If abortion is 100% legal (at any time and for any reason) and accessable, and if the man is prepared to pay for half of the costs, then I'd be ok with saying the man is off the hook.

However, since there is currently no country that I know of which allows unrestricted access to abortion, the practical answer to your question would be, 'No.'

At any rate, birth control can fail even if you do everything right. There's a reason why even The Pill is only 99.9% effective: somebody's got to be that 0.1%. She told him she was on birth control, but he should have known that birth control can fail. He probably should have used contraception himself if he really was that serious about avoiding pregnancy.

Nope, ceteris paribus.

She made him think she would control the consequences.
She didn't.
HER problem.
Liability may exist for the product manufacturer.

End 0f Story.Nope. It's just as much his fault for trusting the pill.

Nope. It's just as much his fault for trusting the pill.
Indeed. If he really didn't want to take any chance, he should've put on a condom. He's as guilty as her.

Indeed. If he really didn't want to take any chance, he should've put on a condom. He's as guilty as her.
Hell, even if she told him she was on The Pill and it turns out she lied, it's still as much his fault as hers! It's his responsibility to take care of his own body and his own fertility. If he didn't want to make a baby, then he should have made sure HE took care of things from his end to insure that he wouldn't get anybody pregnant. If it was that important to him, he shouldn't have left it to somebody else to control his reproductive behavior.

Nope. It's just as much his fault for trusting the pill.

She took it. Her action.
He cannot judge the pill or spiral in her hands or body.
She can.

He isn't responsible for her usage of the pill either:
Fact check: could the male sue Pfizer for a faulty pill his living and compos mentis one-night-wife took?
Not in any western jurisdiction I'm aware of.

Hell, even if she told him she was on The Pill and it turns out she lied, it's still as much his fault as hers! It's his responsibility to take care of his own body and his own fertility. If he didn't want to make a baby, then he should have made sure HE took care of things from his end to insure that he wouldn't get anybody pregnant. If it was that important to him, he shouldn't have left it to somebody else to control his reproductive behavior.


Which part of the US Code are you referring to?

She took it. Her action.
He cannot judge the pill or spiral in her hands or body.
She can. Exactly. There's no way he can know how good they are which is why he's an idiot to have trusted them in the first place, especially if she could be lying about them.

Fact check: could the male sue Pfizer for a faulty pill his living and compos mentis one-night-wife took?
Not in any western jurisdiction I'm aware of.

He couldn't, because the manufacturers make sure to include the information on each package. Ever read what it says on a condom package? It's not 100% safe, so don't come running to us if it fails.

She opened her legs, she said "I have birth control", she decided to keep the kid. All he did was insert tab "A". Thusly it's her responsibility.

A scenario:

A woman and a man have a one night stand.
The woman tells the man she is using birth control.
The birth control fails and she gets pregnant.
She wants to keep the baby, the man does not.

Should the man be obliged to support the child?

Yes. She fulfilled her end of the deal by using birth control.

If, on the other hand, she told him she was on the pill when she wasn't then he would be absolved from any responsibility as she deviated from the verbal contract.

She opened her legs, she said "I have birth control", she decided to keep the kid. All he did was insert tab "A". Thusly it's her responsibility.If he doesn't do the best he could to prevent impregnating her, he can't shirk responsibility at all.

She opened her legs, she said "I have birth control", she decided to keep the kid. All he did was insert tab "A". Thusly it's her responsibility.

Oh, so if he told her he was infertile but she got pregnant, whose fault would it be?

She opened her legs, she said "I have birth control", she decided to keep the kid. All he did was insert tab "A". Thusly it's her responsibility.
All he did was insert his fertile penis into her, and ejaculate, sending his gametes into her body. If he didn't choose to wear a condom, that's his problem.

they are both responisble for the child. Just because she was on birth control doesn't mean she is any less responsible when it failed, nor is he less responsible because he was "depending on the pill"

Should the man be obliged to support the child?

Very much so. No matter the actions of the woman - he ejaculated into her and got her pregnant.

It's his child, too, and that child has rights. What are you gonna tell the child - your father is an idiot and your mother a whore, thus you forfeit through no fault of your own any ties you have to the father?

It doesn't work that way. The child's needs outweigh the need of the idiot father. The child needs support and is entitled to it. The moron father pays. This has nothing to do with the "responsibility" of the two brainiacs in begetting it, but all to do with the child's rights.

What are you gonna tell the child - your father is an idiot and your mother a whore, thus you forfeit through no fault of your own any ties you have to the father?

Why is the mother a whore?


It doesn't work that way. The child's needs outweigh the need of the idiot father. The child needs support and is entitled to it. The moron father pays. This has nothing to do with the "responsibility" of the two brainiacs in begetting it, but all to do with the child's rights.
Why are both parties automatically stupid if birth control fails? Even the most careful and responsible people can find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy. It's all about how they choose to deal with it; if a guy's first thought is, "How can I blame my partner for getting herself knocked up," THEN he's a moron. If he immediately starts trying to figure out ways to get out of paying child support, THEN he's a jackass.

But there are plenty of ways for both parties to handle the situation intelligently. It really is important to remember that unplanned pregnancies do NOT automatically mean that the parties involved were stupid or careless.

Indeed. If he really didn't want to take any chance, he should've put on a condom. He's as guilty as her.

No, if he really didn't want to take any chance, he should have had sex with another man.

No, if he really didn't want to take any chance, he should have had sex with another man.
Yeah, deadbeats, I guess you should have thought a little harder before you decided to be a heterosexual! :P

No, if he really didn't want to take any chance, he should have had sex with another man.
Or, gee here's a thought, not had sex. I know, I know, it's radical...:eek:

Yeah, deadbeats, I guess you should have thought a little harder before you decided to be a heterosexual! :P

Hey, I'm the man with two ex-wives who refuse to pay child support for the children they had and didn't want.

Why is the mother a whore?

Was I claiming she was? It's called "taking on a different voice," in this case of the people who seem to think "responsibility" stops when you determine whose "fault" the child isn't.

Why are both parties automatically stupid if birth control fails?

She's stupid for keeping it, he's stupid for relying on someone else for birth control in a one-night stand.

See the italic bit? That's why they're both automatically stupid when there is a child as a result from this.

Even the most careful and responsible people can find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy. It's all about how they choose to deal with it; if a guy's first thought is, "How can I blame my partner for getting herself knocked up," THEN he's a moron. If he immediately starts trying to figure out ways to get out of paying child support, THEN he's a jackass.

And she's an idiot for keeping a one-night stand's child. It needs repeating, apparently.

But there are plenty of ways for both parties to handle the situation intelligently. It really is important to remember that unplanned pregnancies do NOT automatically mean that the parties involved were stupid or careless.

Not the pregnancy itself, but the circumstances around it and in the OP the circumstance given makes both these heterosexuals' (presumably) actions quite stupid indeed.

Or, gee here's a thought, not had sex. I know, I know, it's radical...:eek:
If the goal is to not make babies, all you've got to do is abstain from heterosexual sex. Having homosexual sex won't increase your odds of getting somebody pregnant or becoming pregnant yourself.

If the goal is to not make babies, all you've got to do is abstain from heterosexual sex. Having homosexual sex won't increase your odds of getting somebody pregnant or becoming pregnant yourself.
Yes but you can still get STDs, therefore do the responsible thing and stop boinking.:fluffle:

you are responsible for the support of your children.

of course he has to pay child support.

if he is a MAN he will also help to raise his child with love and attention. he will make sure that his parental rights are fully respected.

That's fucked up yo. He didn't want the kid, she choose to (1) sleep with him and (2) keep the kid. Absolving his portion of the blame.

if he is a MAN he will also help to raise his child with love and attention. he will make sure that his parental rights are fully respected.
To be fair, if he's a MAN, he's probably married to someone else already... :p

Yes but you can still get STDs, therefore do the responsible thing and stop boinking.:fluffle:

No, thanks. The low risk of STIs with proper precautions is well worth the reward of sweet, sweet sodomy.

Was I claiming she was? It's called "taking on a different voice," in this case of the people who seem to think "responsibility" stops when you determine whose "fault" the child isn't.

Oh. Ok. It just seemed odd to me, to assume that a woman was a whore simply because she found herself unexpectedly pregnant.


She's stupid for keeping it

Many women have a moral objection to abortion and/or adoption. While you may feel that this is silly, I don't think it is fair to call it "stupid."


, he's stupid for relying on someone else for birth control in a one-night stand.

That much I agree with whole-heartedly.


See the italic bit? That's why they're both automatically stupid when there is a child as a result from this.

I don't think a woman is necessarily stupid for deciding to keep a child who was conceived in a one-night stand. There are plenty of reasons why that might be a good choice for her.

I agree that it would be foolish of anybody, male or female, to rely on somebody else for contraception, but what if the man HAD used a condom, and it had broken? What if they were in the same situation, but it was two forms of birth control that had failed? (I've actually known a couple who had this happen to them.)

Like I said, I think it's the REACTION to the situation that marks them as stupid or not stupid. Very smart and responsible people can find themselves in this kind of situation, and it's all in how they deal with it.


And she's an idiot for keeping a one-night stand's child. It needs repeating, apparently.

Again, I don't see how this is necessarily true. There are many situations I can think of in which it would be perfectly reasonable for her to want to keep the baby. I don't happen to agree with those choices, nor would I make such a choice myself, but that doesn't mean it's automatically stupid.

That's fucked up yo. He didn't want the kid, she choose to (1) sleep with him and (2) keep the kid. Absolving his portion of the blame.Point (1) is moot since he chose to sleep with her too. It's not like men are uncontrollable sex machines and should be absolved of any responsibility because of that.

That's fucked up yo. He didn't want the kid, she choose to (1) sleep with him and (2) keep the kid. Absolving his portion of the blame.

He (1) chose to sleep with her and (2) to rely only on her for birth control and (3) the child still has rights to the father's wallet no matter the actions preceding its inception.

Yes but you can still get STDs,

Only if you sleep with people who have STDs.


therefore do the responsible thing and stop boinking.:fluffle:
Or keep having homosexual sex with people who have no STDs.

I know which one I'm choosing!

No, thanks. The low risk of STIs with proper precautions is well worth the reward of sweet, sweet sodomy.
I'm tired, so assume some man named "Bible-thumper Dan" just made a strawman arguement and somehow pinned all the problems of the free world on sodomy with somewhere around 13195 factual and logical inconsistancies.

That's fucked up yo. He didn't want the kid, she choose to (1) sleep with him and (2) keep the kid. Absolving his portion of the blame.
and he chose to sleep with her, and not wear a condom.........so, how is he not equally to blame?

and he chose to sleep with her, and not wear a condom.........so, how is he not equally to blame?
I think there are still some people who perceive it as a woman's responsibility to a) act as "gatekeepers" who regulate how much sex men get to have, and b) take care of all matter of contraception, since men are incapable of acting as responsible adults.

And they say FEMINISTS are the man-haters. Sheesh. We're not the ones advancing the theory that all men are mindless animals who are incapable of any degree of self-control.

Point (1) is moot since he chose to sleep with her too. It's not like men are uncontrollable sex machines and should be absolved of any responsibility because of that.
Hence point two.

He (1) chose to sleep with her and (2) to rely only on her for birth control and (3) the child still has rights to the father's wallet no matter the actions preceding its inception.
3 cannot be verified, so I'll focus on the other two. 1=valid but is rendered moot by her choosing to sleep with him. 2 is moot because she OFFERED to be responsible for the birth control. Even if you don't accept that, it's rendered moot by him having no say in whether or not to abort.

1=valid but is rendered moot by her choosing to sleep with him.

So why did you try to use that as your argument? They both agreed to sleep with each other, so it breaks even.

2 is moot because she OFFERED to be responsible for the birth control.

And he should have insisted on being responsible for his own birth control options, if avoiding pregnancy meant so much to him.

Even if you don't accept that, it's rendered moot by him having no say in whether or not to abort.
Irrelevant. Having sex with her does not in any way give him the right to dictate what medical care she receives. He never had any right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, and he knew that before they fucked.

I think there are still some people who perceive it as a woman's responsibility to a) act as "gatekeepers" who regulate how much sex men get to have, and b) take care of all matter of contraception, since men are incapable of acting as responsible adults.

And they say FEMINISTS are the man-haters. Sheesh. We're not the ones advancing the theory that all men are mindless animals who are incapable of any degree of self-control.
you know this whole conversation makes me wonder.

My second child was concieved while I was on birth control and my husband was wearing a condom.........who's fault is that baby?

I think there are still some people who perceive it as a woman's responsibility to a) act as "gatekeepers" who regulate how much sex men get to have, and b) take care of all matter of contraception, since men are incapable of acting as responsible adults.

And they say FEMINISTS are the man-haters. Sheesh. We're not the ones advancing the theory that all men are mindless animals who are incapable of any degree of self-control.
At (A). It was a joint decision for christ sakes. They have the same responsibility there, if she chose to abort the kid, she wouldn't have to pay because she "Almost had a kid". By saying the man doesn't want the kid, he's made the same decision and deserves the same rights as if the mother had aborted. IE not paying for a kid that doesn't exist (or in this case wouldn't). At (B) She said she was on contraception, he therefore has a reasonable expectation a child won't result.

you know this whole conversation makes me wonder.

My second child was concieved while I was on birth control and my husband was wearing a condom.........who's fault is that baby?
Clearly it's all your fault, because you spread your legs. You should have known better than to slut around with your husband! ;)

It should, in no way, be his responsibility, even if the women never said she was on the pill. A woman can get an abortion and eliminate the consequence of pregnancy easily. If she won’t, that’s her problem.

She opened her legs, she said "I have birth control", she decided to keep the kid. All he did was insert tab "A". Thusly it's her responsibility.


And he inserted his sperm into her because he didn't think it important enough to wear a love glove.

Face it, they are both responsible. And if you look at the family courts, all of the protestations to the opposite I hear here are quite obviously not true: if it's got your DNA, you support it.

Oh. Ok. It just seemed odd to me, to assume that a woman was a whore simply because she found herself unexpectedly pregnant.

I'm not the one making that assumption, nor am I the one using it to deny the rights the child has towards the father.

Many women have a moral objection to abortion and/or adoption. While you may feel that this is silly, I don't think it is fair to call it "stupid."

You're not exactly the virgin Mary if you have one-night stands and use birth-control, so "morality" is already out the window. What is left is the stupid choice of keeping the child of a stranger.

That much I agree with whole-heartedly.

Joy.

I don't think a woman is necessarily stupid for deciding to keep a child who was conceived in a one-night stand. There are plenty of reasons why that might be a good choice for her.

And one of those reasons is apparently being irresponsible. Sure, she used birth-control, but then she abandoned it. Yes, abortion is birth control, too. A not so clever one to use regularly, but in these types of situations, it's the responsible thing to do.

I agree that it would be foolish of anybody, male or female, to rely on somebody else for contraception, but what if the man HAD used a condom, and it had broken?

They're heterosexuals. Pregnancy is part if the risk package. Sucks for them, they should deal. She's perfectly entitled to keeping the child, idiotic as it may be, and he, well, he shouldn't have stuck his penis up a vagina if he wasn't ready to accept this as a possible consequence.

What if they were in the same situation, but it was two forms of birth control that had failed? (I've actually known a couple who had this happen to them.)

Again, that's the suckitude of heterosexuality. All sexualities have these suckitudes that one must accept, and this is one heterosexuals have to deal with. If they are in a relationship, keeping the child is understandabe. A one-night stand? Not so clever.

Like I said, I think it's the REACTION to the situation that marks them as stupid or not stupid. Very smart and responsible people can find themselves in this kind of situation, and it's all in how they deal with it.

Was that not encompassed in the "circumstance" of the OP I was talking about?

Again, I don't see how this is necessarily true. There are many situations I can think of in which it would be perfectly reasonable for her to want to keep the baby. I don't happen to agree with those choices, nor would I make such a choice myself, but that doesn't mean it's automatically stupid.

I think it is.

Hence point two.Point two is damn weak on its own.

To be fair, if he's a MAN, he's probably married to someone else already... :p
being married to someone else doesnt absolve him of the responsibility to raise his own children.

you know this whole conversation makes me wonder.

My second child was concieved while I was on birth control and my husband was wearing a condom.........who's fault is that baby?
You know, memory is a very malleable thing, especially when one wants to think of something as a miracle, instead of an accident.

So why did you try to use that as your argument? They both agreed to sleep with each other, so it breaks even.
So you wouldn't say they both only did one thing.

And he should have insisted on being responsible for his own birth control options, if avoiding pregnancy meant so much to him.
That's your opinion and you have a right to it I suppose.
Irrelevant. Having sex with her does not in any way give him the right to dictate what medical care she receives. He never had any right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, and he knew that before they fucked.
Lemme respond to this with an exerpt from my last post. "if she chose to abort the kid, she wouldn't have to pay because she "Almost had a kid". By saying the man doesn't want the kid, he's made the same decision and deserves the same rights as if the mother had aborted. IE not paying for a kid that doesn't exist (or in this case wouldn't)."

Point two is damn weak on its own.
Yes, but there is no challenger, it wins by default.

It should, in no way, be his responsibility, even if the women never said she was on the pill. A woman can get an abortion and eliminate the consequence of pregnancy easily. If she won’t, that’s her problem.
so, if a man comes into my house and stabs me colapsing my lung, he isn't responsible because I can get a chest tube?

That's fucked up yo. He didn't want the kid, she choose to (1) sleep with him and (2) keep the kid. Absolving his portion of the blame.


How old are you?

You know, memory is a very malleable thing, especially when one wants to think of something as a miracle, instead of an accident.
of course she wasn't an accident, we did have sex, we knew there was a very small chance of pregnancy and we did it anyway.

She had to be "meant to be" I mean, look at the odds.

And he inserted his sperm into her because he didn't think it important enough to wear a love glove.

Face it, they are both responsible. And if you look at the family courts, all of the protestations to the opposite I hear here are quite obviously not true: if it's got your DNA, you support it.
Yes they are, up to the decision to abort. By stating he wants the child aborted, he should be absolved just as if the mother had had it aborted.

At (A). It was a joint decision for christ sakes. They have the same responsibility there, if she chose to abort the kid, she wouldn't have to pay because she "Almost had a kid". By saying the man doesn't want the kid, he's made the same decision and deserves the same rights as if the mother had aborted. IE not paying for a kid that doesn't exist (or in this case wouldn't).

Wrong. His obligation is to the child, so if the child exists then his obligation exists. If the child does not exist, his obligation to it does not exist. Whether or not the woman has the right to choose to have an abortion is not relevant; he made his choice when his body contributed its part of the process (i.e. when he ejaculated).

Yes, human biology is unfair. A woman's body participates in reproduction much more extensively than a man's body, so a woman has an additional choice to make (whether or not to abort her pregnancy). Men do not have this choice, because the male body's participation ends when his sperm enter the woman's body.

Each individual has the right to control their own body and their own reproductive function. No person has the right to control another person's body or reproductive functions.


At (B) She said she was on contraception, he therefore has a reasonable expectation a child won't result.
So? None of this changes the fact that he decided not to take responsibility for his own body. If he did not want to impregnate anybody, then he should have controlled his own reproductive organs in such a way as to prevent that. He should not expect anybody else to control his body for him. If he did not want his sperm to fertilize an egg, he should have ensured that they would not be in any position to do so.

I think there are still some people who perceive it as a woman's responsibility to a) act as "gatekeepers" who regulate how much sex men get to have, and b) take care of all matter of contraception, since men are incapable of acting as responsible adults.

And they say FEMINISTS are the man-haters. Sheesh. We're not the ones advancing the theory that all men are mindless animals who are incapable of any degree of self-control.

And there seem to be many women I've met who had no idea that I have a perfect vasectomy that gets tested by lab every three months (just to make sure it's still firing blanks).

you know this whole conversation makes me wonder.

My second child was concieved while I was on birth control and my husband was wearing a condom.........who's fault is that baby?Yeah. Again, both of you are responsible. But we're having enough trouble pointing out that man is (also) responsible in the first example, so there's no need to complicate the issue any further :p

And there seem to be many women I've met who had no idea that I have a perfect vasectomy that gets tested by lab every three months (just to make sure it's still firing blanks).
A very wise choice for a man who does not wish to impregnate anybody. :)

Yes they are, up to the decision to abort. By stating he wants the child aborted, he should be absolved just as if the mother had had it aborted.

He does not have a uterus. He has a penis. Abortion is out of his purview. It's that simple.

Yes, but there is no challenger, it wins by default.Let's put it this way, point 2 is the basis of the entire debate. If she hadn't kept the kid, there would be no debate on who's responsible, so it hardly counts as an argument for either side.

A very wise choice for a man who does not wish to impregnate anybody. :)
My wife and I both swing.

Neither of us wants to get anyone pregnant.

We are smart enough to know that condoms, pills, etc., are not perfect.

So she's had a tubal ligation and I've had a vasectomy.

Better safe than sorry.

so, if a man comes into my house and stabs me colapsing my lung, he isn't responsible because I can get a chest tube?
Did you ask him to stab you? No? Then it’s not the same thing.
of course she wasn't an accident, we did have sex, we knew there was a very small chance of pregnancy and we did it anyway.

She had to be "meant to be" I mean, look at the odds.
According to the odds, you didn’t use birth control. But hey, the formation of DNA was a one in a couple billion shot, so maybe your kid was too.
You story certainly isn’t impossible, but I don’t believe it.

How old are you?
15. I realise it becomes rather apparent when I'm tired. (which I am) Feel free to ignore my opinion because of my age or the stupidity that drenches my statements when I'm tired. To be honest, I think he's a bastard for thinking of wanting it aborted, but I also think it affords him certain rights.

Yeah. Again, both of you are responsible. But we're having enough trouble pointing out that man is (also) responsible in the first example, so there's no need to complicate the issue any further :p
oh I thought maybe neither of us would be responsible?

he wore a condom, so I thought I was off the hook

and I took the mini pill so he thought he was off the hook

surely it's not our fault if we got pregnant, I mean that's just not fair.:p

being married to someone else doesnt absolve him of the responsibility to raise his own children.'Course not. It just makes him a bigger jerk. ;)

Let's put it this way, point 2 is the basis of the entire debate. If she hadn't kept the kid, there would be no debate on who's responsible, so it hardly counts as an argument for either side.
That's sexist IMHO. *Wow, that's an interesting thing for a person on this side of the debate to say...*

You know, memory is a very malleable thing, especially when one wants to think of something as a miracle, instead of an accident.

Annnnd, what does it say on all contraceptive packaging?
I'd admit that using birth control pills and prophylactics together reduces the chance to almost zero, but almost zero=/=zero.

Smunkee never said it was a miracle: she said she and her husband were responsible but their plans failed. Might have been too weak a dosage for her. The condom may have slipped, or been faulty; who knows?

It's silly to read more into it than is typed.

According to the odds, you didn’t use birth control. But hey, the formation of DNA was a one in a couple billion shot, so maybe your kid was too.
You story certainly isn’t impossible, but I don’t believe it.

would it help you if you knew that I wasn't absorbing the birth control properly due to a medical issue, and that we didn't know it?

and also that my husband's testosterone level is about 3 times higher than it should be?

I assure you it happened.

There was no way to know that the birth control didn't work properly until I got pregnant.

I'm not the one making that assumption, nor am I the one using it to deny the rights the child has towards the father.

I'm sorry, I must be confused then. Who started the whole "whore" thing?


You're not exactly the virgin Mary if you have one-night stands and use birth-control, so "morality" is already out the window. What is left is the stupid choice of keeping the child of a stranger.

Why does morality go out the window if a person uses contraception with a one-night stand?


And one of those reasons is apparently being irresponsible. Sure, she used birth-control, but then she abandoned it. Yes, abortion is birth control, too. A not so clever one to use regularly, but in these types of situations, it's the responsible thing to do.

While I happen to agree that I would, personally, feel that abortion is the responsible choice in this situation, I don't think that automatically means a woman is "stupid" for choosing not to abort. She might have very sound reasons for wanting to continue the pregnancy and rear the child herself.

Most obviously, what if she wants to have the baby and keep it? Why would it be stupid of her to do exactly what she wishes? Many women who have one-night stands are quite accomplished and self-sufficient, so we have no reason to assume she will be unable to care for the child. Why would it NECESSARILY be stupid of her to keep the baby?


They're heterosexuals. Pregnancy is part if the risk package. Sucks for them, they should deal. She's perfectly entitled to keeping the child, idiotic as it may be, and he, well, he shouldn't have stuck his penis up a vagina if he wasn't ready to accept this as a possible consequence.

I agree with the spirit of this, but I still don't think it is appropriate to assume that either party is automatically stupid...you've got to look at how they cope with the situation before you draw that conclusion (IMO).


If they are in a relationship, keeping the child is understandabe. A one-night stand? Not so clever.

Why? There are plenty of relationships that would be HORRIBLE for rearing children. There are plenty of children who would be better off if one of their biological parents were out of their life for good. There are plenty of kids reared by single parents who do better than kids reared in two-parent homes.

"if she chose to abort the kid, she wouldn't have to pay because she "Almost had a kid". By saying the man doesn't want the kid, he's made the same decision and deserves the same rights as if the mother had aborted. IE not paying for a kid that doesn't exist (or in this case wouldn't)."

And if he didn't ejaculate in her, he wouldn't be in this mess.
Honestly, why is it that some men simply refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their actions?

If you don't want kids, don't have vaginal intercourse. Look to Miss Right. Or Miss Left, as the case may be.

When you get someone pregnant, you have a responsibility to your child. If you don't want to take your responsibility, that speaks to your character, and at least where I live, if you refuse to pay support you get a lien on your paycheck and/or get sued.

He does not have a uterus. He has a penis. Abortion is out of his purview. It's that simple.
I don't understand why some guys think that they can get off the hook for their own choices with their bodies by simply whining that they don't get to control somebody ELSE'S body.

15. I realise it becomes rather apparent when I'm tired. (which I am) Feel free to ignore my opinion because of my age or the stupidity that drenches my statements when I'm tired. To be honest, I think he's a bastard for thinking of wanting it aborted, but I also think it affords him certain rights.
Woot, someone else who's fifteen.
At any rate, the man should be supportive of the woman's decision to raise the child. And he should get over himself. He's not the one going through labor.

Both parents took part in the creation of the child. Both parents are responsible for the upbringing of that child. Period.

And there seem to be many women I've met who had no idea that I have a perfect vasectomy that gets tested by lab every three months (just to make sure it's still firing blanks).


Do you mean that they continue to take birth control/insist that you wear a condom, or that they accuse you of fatherhood?

I don't understand why some guys think that they can get off the hook for their own choices with their bodies by simply whining that they don't get to control somebody ELSE'S body.

I've tried telling some guys that they should do what I had done - get a vasectomy.

If you have it tested to make sure you have blanks, and the vasectomy is well done, it's an extremely effective method of birth control.

But see the resistance I get when I tell most guys. The first complaint is never "well, I still want to have kids". The first complaint is, "well, that would hurt".

Weenies.

While I happen to agree that I would, personally, feel that abortion is the responsible choice in this situation, I don't think that automatically means a woman is "stupid" for choosing not to abort. She might have very sound reasons for wanting to continue the pregnancy and rear the child herself.
Most obviously, what if she wants to have the baby and keep it? Why would it be stupid of her to do exactly what she wishes? Many women who have one-night stands are quite accomplished and self-sufficient, so we have no reason to assume she will be unable to care for the child. Why would it NECESSARILY be stupid of her to keep the baby?


So in this case she would not claim child-support?

In this case if she is as you say, there would be no need to involve the sperm donor.

would it help you if you knew that I wasn't absorbing the birth control properly due to a medical issue, and that we didn't know it?

and also that my husband's testosterone level is about 3 times higher than it should be?

I assure you it happened.

There was no way to know that the birth control didn't work properly until I got pregnant.
Whatever.
Birth control is still 100% effective. If the first line of defense doesn't work, there's always abortion.

I'm going to some up my reasons for this view in a single sentence. "The state nor any other entity should force anything on anyone for an act that was commited without malice and would of had no consiquences had the woman opted for a simple procedure." IMHO? The guy is a bastard, both of them are having sex outside of marriage, and they considered abortion. But still no one has the right to force him to pay for the kid IMHO.

15. I realise it becomes rather apparent when I'm tired. (which I am) Feel free to ignore my opinion because of my age or the stupidity that drenches my statements when I'm tired. To be honest, I think he's a bastard for thinking of wanting it aborted, but I also think it affords him certain rights.Why should his opinion on the matter be as important as the woman's? He doesn't have to bear the child for nine months before giving birth.

I'm going to some up my reasons for this view in a single sentence. "The state nor any other entity should force anything on anyone for an act that was commited without malice and would of had no consiquences had the woman opted for a simple procedure." IMHO? The guy is a bastard, both of them are having sex outside of marriage, and they considered abortion. But still no one has the right to force him to pay for the kid IMHO.

umm, what's wrong with sex outside of marriage?

When you get someone pregnant, you have a responsibility to your child.
Why?
The women could have gotten an abortion.
The real decision about whether or not to have a baby takes place during the pregnancy, not during intercourse, and that decision is entirely up to the women. Therefore, the child is her sole responsibility.

When you get someone pregnant, you have a responsibility to your child. If you don't want to take your responsibility, that speaks to your character,
I agree with this morally, but I still don't think anyone has the right to force him to pay for the support of a kid he doesn't want. If the woman wants him to pay make out a "Just in case" contract.

But see the resistance I get when I tell most guys. The first complaint is never "well, I still want to have kids". The first complaint is, "well, that would hurt".

Weenies.
My best friend's dad BIKED HOME after his vasectomy.

On a scale from 1 to Chuck Norris, that's pretty fucking badass.

Why should his opinion on the matter be as important as the woman's? He doesn't have to bear the child for nine months before giving birth.
Because he helped to create the child. She also has an opt-out for that particular inconveince,

Why?
The women could have gotten an abortion.
The real decision about whether or not to have a baby takes place during the pregnancy, not during intercourse, and that decision is entirely up to the women. Therefore, the child is her sole responsibility.

Annnnnnd the decision to put his penis into her and ejaculate was 100% his decision.

In some places, abortion is illegal, and she may feel it is murder.

These are things a man, as opposed to a boy, would consider before having sex.

Why?
The women could have gotten an abortion.
The real decision about whether or not to have a baby takes place during the pregnancy, not during intercourse, and that decision is entirely up to the women. Therefore, the child is her sole responsibility.

??? !!! ??? !!!

Hey, if a man ejaculates in the woman's vagina, it's pretty obvious what might happen next.

He should be smart enough to assume that:

a) she might not be telling the truth about the pill
b) she might not be good at taking the pill regularly
c) the pill is not perfect
d) the condom he should be wearing is not perfect
e) all in all, sperm can get a woman pregnant

So the decision comes BEFORE he puts his sperm in her.

And since he's a very obvious participant, he gets to accept some responsibility - especially if she does not.

Why?
The women could have gotten an abortion.
The real decision about whether or not to have a baby takes place during the pregnancy, not during intercourse, and that decision is entirely up to the women. Therefore, the child is her sole responsibility.
Yes. Exactly.
umm, what's wrong with sex outside of marriage?
I'm a Christian, it's called fornication you see, its kind of frowned upon. Luckily for you, the idea of legalising morality in any way shape or form sickens me more the the thought of a buch of people sinning in the streets. My point was, I personally find it repulsive and morally reprehencible.

Why?
The women could have gotten an abortion.
The real decision about whether or not to have a baby takes place during the pregnancy, not during intercourse, and that decision is entirely up to the women. Therefore, the child is her sole responsibility.
Each individual's choice, and each individual's responsibility, are determined by the participation of their own body in the reproductive process.

A man's responsibility and choice center around where he decides to shoot his gametes. He has the right to control pregnancy insofar as HIS body participates directly in the pregnancy. Once his body's participation is done, he no longer has any right to control the outcome. He has made his choice and should take responsibility for whatever outcome is produced.

A woman's responsibility and choice include the process of pregnancy, since her body is involved in this process. She has the right to control the participation of her own body in the pregnancy for as long as her body is participating in it.

I'm a Christian, it's called fornication you see, its kind of frowned upon. Luckily for you, the idea of legalising morality in any way shape or form sickens me more the the thought of a buch of people sinning in the streets. My point was, I personally find it repulsive and morally reprehencible.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian, and I haven't frowned on anyone else's sins in a while.

Sounds like you have a lot of stones to throw.

Annnnnnd the decision to put his penis into her and ejaculate was 100% his decision.

In some places, abortion is illegal, and she may feel it is murder.

These are things a man, as opposed to a boy, would consider before having sex.
If abortian is illegal, make the bastard pay. If she feels it's murder? Tell him to wear a GD condom. She's not free of responsibility either, he shouldn't have to pay for her beliefs which brings me back to the contract idea.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian, and I haven't frowned on anyone else's sins in a while.

Sounds like you have a lot of stones to throw.
But I don't believe in throwing them. I realize I judge people and that it's wrong, but I don't act on it. I'm trying to clean up my act. Hence my view that no part of the bible should be put into law. *Except for the bits atheists agree to I suppose, murder and such...*

Yes. Exactly.

I'm a Christian, it's called fornication you see, its kind of frowned upon. Luckily for you, the idea of legalising morality in any way shape or form sickens me more the the thought of a buch of people sinning in the streets. My point was, I personally find it repulsive and morally reprehencible.

If you are a Christian and you feel fornication is evil but abortion is ok, that's more than a bit hypocritical.

I'm a Christian, it's called fornication you see, its kind of frowned upon. Luckily for you, the idea of legalising morality in any way shape or form sickens me more the the thought of a buch of people sinning in the streets. My point was, I personally find it repulsive and morally reprehencible.
You are a Christian?

How do you reconcile you view of a man without responsiblity for his own actions to your religion that says that all actions have a consequence?

when 2 mutually fertile people willingly have vaginal sex they are consenting to the possibility that pregnancy will result.

even if she is on the pill, even if he uses a condom. (even if he has a vasectomy and she has had a tubal ligation since both of those procedures sometimes fail)

if you are the woman it means that you CANT get out of it. there is no avoiding responsibility. you have to deal with it. have a baby, suffer a miscarriage, have an abortion, you cant run away from it.

if you are the man, you are consenting to letting someone else make the decisions. SHE decides to have an abortion or not, SHE decides to take good care of herself or not, SHE decides that you will end up a father or not. once you have ejaculated, you dont get to decide what happens next. your only decision is to have sex or not.

"on the upside" you can run away, deny paternity, force her to go to court to have you pay child support, flee the state or the country. many women will let you walk away rather than force you to do the right thing for your child.

If you are a Christian and you feel fornication is evil but abortion is ok, that's more than a bit hypocritical.
I dislike abortion just as much, but it's her right and her responsibility if she doesn't do it.:)

If abortian is illegal, make the bastard pay. If she feels it's murder? Tell him to wear a GD condom. She's not free of responsibility either, he shouldn't have to pay for her beliefs which brings me back to the contract idea.

Of course she's not free of responsibility. She has nine months of pregnancy which does lousy things to her body, and the expense and time necessary to raising a child for at least 18 years.

You claim you're a Christian and yet you can blithely talk about killing the product of a union between a man and woman simply because it's inconvenient for you? Sad.

Whatever.
Birth control is still 100% effective. If the first line of defense doesn't work, there's always abortion.
and what if I didn't want to kill my child?

You are a Christian?

How do you reconcile you view of a man without responsiblity for his own actions to your religion that says that all actions have a consequence?
Because my religion and my political beliefs are seperate. If my religion is correct he'll get what's coming to him from a higher power. I personally think humans have no right to mediate punishment for such a situation.

??? !!! ??? !!!

Hey, if a man ejaculates in the woman's vagina, it's pretty obvious what might happen next.

He should be smart enough to assume that:

a) she might not be telling the truth about the pill
b) she might not be good at taking the pill regularly
c) the pill is not perfect
d) the condom he should be wearing is not perfect
e) all in all, sperm can get a woman pregnant

So the decision comes BEFORE he puts his sperm in her.

And since he's a very obvious participant, he gets to accept some responsibility - especially if she does not.
Abortion makes all those considerations obsolete. A man shouldn’t have to worry anymore, and neither should a woman.

even if she is on the pill, even if he uses a condom. (even if he has a vasectomy and she has had a tubal ligation since both of those procedures sometimes fail)

The nice thing about failures in vasectomies is that they all occur within the first three years. If a man gets one, and is tested during those first three years to detect "leaks", additional surgery can be done to correct and finally seal everything up.

Once past the three year mark, with multiple zero counts (absolute zero) in tests, the failure rate is also as close to zero as it gets.

Because my religion and my political beliefs are seperate. If my religion is correct he'll get what's coming to him from a higher power. I personally think humans have no right to mediate punishment for such a situation.
huh? you can seperate your religion from your life like that?

weird.

So, it would be okay with you if you got a woman pregnant and you just left because you "thought she was on the pill" because your "religion is seperate from your political life"

Of course she's not free of responsibility. She has nine months of pregnancy which does lousy things to her body, and the expense and time necessary to raising a child for at least 18 years.

You claim you're a Christian and yet you can blithely talk about killing the product of a union between a man and woman simply because it's inconvenient for you? Sad.
I wouldn't do it. I'd either take responsibility or kill myself. We're working off the scenario. The unnamed man doesn't want the kid, I'm defending what I believe to be his rights. It's her right to kill that child and his right to reject it.

huh? you can seperate your religion from your life like that?

weird.

So, it would be okay with you if you got a woman pregnant and you just left because you "thought she was on the pill" because your "religion is seperate from your political life"

As I said earlier, character.

huh? you can seperate your religion from your life like that?
No I seperate it from other peoples lives. I have no right to dictate what they can and can't do.

So, it would be okay with you if you got a woman pregnant and you just left because you "thought she was on the pill" because your "religion is seperate from your political life"
First off, I'm a virgin and plan to stay that way till marriage to avoid such a cercimstance. Now, assuming I was drunk or somehow got in to this situation some other way then I'd want the kid to be born and get a job to pay for the little guy/gal. But this is other people, and I have to respect this hypothetical man's right to be an immoral jack***.

huh? you can seperate your religion from your life like that?
The world would be a much more tolerant place is everyone did that.

No I seperate it from other peoples lives. I have no right to dictate what they can and can't do.

there is a difference between argueing what should be the law and what is right.

First off, I'm a virgin and plan to stay that way till marriage to avoid such a cercimstance. Now, assuming I was drunk or somehow got in to this situation some other way then I'd want the kid to be born and get a job to pay for the little guy/gal. But this is other people, and I have to respect this hypothetical man's right to be an immoral jack***.
whatever.

The world would be a much more tolerant place is everyone did that.
I don't strive to be tolerant, the word itself sickens me.

The nice thing about failures in vasectomies is that they all occur within the first three years. If a man gets one, and is tested during those first three years to detect "leaks", additional surgery can be done to correct and finally seal everything up.

Once past the three year mark, with multiple zero counts (absolute zero) in tests, the failure rate is also as close to zero as it gets.

yes

its an excellent choice for men who know they dont want to father any (more) children. cheap and effective.

there is a difference between argueing what should be the law and what is right.

What is humans consider to be right should be law. Are you saying the law should be wrong?

"on the upside" you can run away, deny paternity, force her to go to court to have you pay child support, flee the state or the country. many women will let you walk away rather than force you to do the right thing for your child.
I find that sickening sometimes...other times I just get over myself.

I don't strive to be tolerant, the word itself sickens me.
Really? I can't get enough of it.

I'm going to be horribly PC here, and say that a bloke who has casual sex without a condom deserves everything he gets. Child support? How about a manslaughter charge!

He couldn't, because the manufacturers make sure to include the information on each package. Ever read what it says on a condom package? It's not 100% safe, so don't come running to us if it fails.


Let me rephrase: is there ANY western jurisdiction in which you have a right to hold liable for product-failure the manufacturer of a product bought, consumed, and contracted for by another person in a state of compos mentis, other than in a case of loco parentis?



I hate having to mention it every week - but it seems we keep running into people here who come up with bogus legal theories to help their views.

Actually, I just came out of a courtroom to bear witness to a sentencing.
Let me tell you a shocker: the presiding Magistrate found that you CANT ask for extra punishment for a perp just because you THOUGHT he had a weapon.

Your theories of Liability are NOT part of the USC, or the German Criminal Code, or the Code Napoleon, or whatever other body of existant Laws you wish to invoke.

What is humans consider to be right should be law. Are you saying the law should be wrong?
I can seperate what I believe is right and good from what I believe is any of the governments' business.

I can not seperate what is right and good from what is right and good.

Abortion makes all those considerations obsolete. A man shouldn’t have to worry anymore, and neither should a woman.
The fuck it does. People don't run around having abortions for the fun of it, nor should it be treated as something that you can take like fucking asprin. It's a serious medical procedure that has large risks attached to it. More to the point, it is entirely a woman's choice if she wants to have an abortion, because it is a medical precedure. You shouldn't have fucked her if you don't want to pay up buddy.

Exactly. There's no way he can know how good they are which is why he's an idiot to have trusted them in the first place, especially if she could be lying about them.

Her faulty judgement or lie is HER liability, and not HIS liability.

Nope. It's just as much his fault for trusting the pill.


Which Law are you referring to?

Let me rephrase: is there ANY western jurisdiction in which you have a right to hold liable for product-failure the manufacturer of a product bought, consumed, and contracted for by another person in a state of compos mentis, other than in a case of loco parentis?



You can only hold them liable in the US if there is "failure to warn".

The ass-covering double speak on virtually every product is protection against "failure to warn".

Her faulty judgement or lie is HER liability, and not HIS liability.
wouldn't it be his faulty judgment to have sex with someone without first protecting himself?

I can seperate what I believe is right and good from what I believe is any of the governments' business.

I can not seperate what is right and good from what is right and good.
Same thing I'm doing. I believe the goverment has no business in anything but defending from invading armies and possible public services like roadas 'n things.

I find that sickening sometimes...other times I just get over myself.
i think its OK to be sickened by behavior that hurts children.

You can only hold them liable in the US if there is "failure to warn".

The ass-covering double speak on virtually every product is protection against "failure to warn".


Sorry - please tell me under WHICH Law you find a HINT of evidence that HE should reimburse HER for a tort which arose from HER using a product that she bought from a 3rd Party.

Same thing I'm doing. I believe the goverment has no business in anything but defending from invading armies and possible public services like roadas 'n things.
but IIRC we weren't asked if he is legally responsible, or even if he should be legally responsible.

We were asked if he should support the child. I took it as a moral question, not a legal question.

(although in my state he would be legally responsible anyway due to the fact that the kid is HIS)

A scenario:


Should the man be obliged to support the child?

Uhhh....
If she was telling the truth (she DID take the pill, or whatever), she deserves support. No method is 100% safe, so you know you're taking a risk.

But, since she decides whether to keep the baby or not, he should be allowed to only give financial support - no parenthood implied.

Sorry - please tell me under WHICH Law you find a HINT of evidence that HE should reimburse HER for a tort which arose from HER using a product that she bought from a 3rd Party.

I'm not talking about him reimbursing her.

I'm saying that no one can sue the condom or pill manufacturer - because there was no "failure to warn".

Sorry - please tell me under WHICH Law you find a HINT of evidence that HE should reimburse HER for a tort which arose from HER using a product that she bought from a 3rd Party.
Um. Just about every child support law in the nation. This question arises often in paternity cases, and to my knowledge no male has ever prevailed in using the defense of "but she said she was on birth control".

wouldn't it be his faulty judgment to have sex with someone without first protecting himself?


I repeat: UNDER WHICH LAW? Assuming you are an American: Under which part of the United States Code, annotated?

Chapter and verse, please.

but IIRC we weren't asked if he is legally responsible, or even if he should be legally responsible.

We were asked if he should support the child. I took it as a moral question, not a legal question.
Oh. I was saying he shouldn't be legally responsible, then defending myself from what I perceived as an attack on my character from Katanistan by stating my moral code. It may not of been an attack on my character but I'd rather not take any chances. Of course I also morally believe he has a right to not be punished by any human for his actions. My moral code affects me, since I would never consider abortion the question does not invole my moral code but the moral code I think others should be held by. I.E. Maximum personal freedom. If that made sense...

The fuck it does. People don't run around having abortions for the fun of it, nor should it be treated as something that you can take like fucking asprin. It's a serious medical procedure that has large risks attached to it. More to the point, it is entirely a woman's choice if she wants to have an abortion, because it is a medical precedure. You shouldn't have fucked her if you don't want to pay up buddy.
Abortions are safe, easy and efficient. Anything else is just “pro-life” propaganda.
As for the whole “shouldn’t’ have fucked her” thing, I fail to see the connection. Sex is usually about pleasure and recreation, not reproduction. The association is ludicrous.
Also, don’t try to make it seem as if I have a stake in this with the “yous”.

Um. Just about every child support law in the nation. This question arises often in paternity cases, and to my knowledge no male has ever prevailed in using the defense of "but she said she was on birth control".


As I just saw on Auntie Beeb earlier today: one third of ALL pleas for child support that have been found 'substantive' in first instance, remain of no consequence in the absence of liability when moved to the executive instance.

Um. Just about every child support law in the nation. This question arises often in paternity cases, and to my knowledge no male has ever prevailed in using the defense of "but she said she was on birth control".
there have been child support cases that made men pay for children that were proven not to be theirs.

the state looks for support for children and no man gets away without paying support if the child is his. the only exception is for formal sperm donation through a sperm bank.

He couldn't, because the manufacturers make sure to include the information on each package. Ever read what it says on a condom package? It's not 100% safe, so don't come running to us if it fails.
This made perfect sense to me.

Let me rephrase: is there ANY western jurisdiction in which you have a right to hold liable for product-failure the manufacturer of a product bought, consumed, and contracted for by another person in a state of compos mentis, other than in a case of loco parentis?
<snip>
This, however, didn't. Perhaps it was the latin :p

Abortions are safe, easy and efficient. Anything else is just “pro-life” propaganda.
As for the whole “shouldn’t’ have fucked her” thing, I fail to see the connection. Sex is usually about pleasure and recreation, not reproduction. The association is ludicrous.
Also, don’t try to make it seem as if I have a stake in this with the “yous”.

The reproductive system is what makes it pleasurable and fun, and is what makes you horny.

Hormones and internal organs driving your brain to pursue sex as an activity.

You can't really separate it.

Abortions are safe, easy and efficient. Anything else is just “pro-life” propaganda.
As for the whole “shouldn’t’ have fucked her” thing, I fail to see the connection. Sex is usually about pleasure and recreation, not reproduction. The association is ludicrous.
Sex creates kids. That's it's biological purpose. Anyone who doesn't take that into consideration everytime they boink is an idiot.

I repeat: UNDER WHICH LAW? Assuming you are an American: Under which part of the United States Code, annotated?

Chapter and verse, please.
I don't have the time nor the inclination to go searching through family law books looking for this information to the degree that you require.

but this should help.


Child support in a paternity case may be set prospectively. In addition, it may be set retroactively for up to five years before the paternity action is filed. A person legally determined to be the father of a child also may have to pay some or all of the costs of the birth. An action to establish paternity and support can be brought any time before the child reaches the age of eighteen (18).
here. (http://www.divorcenet.com/states/oklahoma/child_support_in_oklahoma)

This made perfect sense to me.


This, however, didn't. Perhaps it was the latin :p


'a person of sound mind' - except in cases in which that man was acted in the capacity of parent.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to go searching through family law books looking for this information to the degree that you require.

but this should help.



here. (http://www.divorcenet.com/states/oklahoma/child_support_in_oklahoma)


Those 'laws' are executive guidelines without substantative Statute.
They are no more 'law' than the houserules of a school.

To be frank: I don't think you would be able to pass the 101 law elective course in a university.

I hate having to mention it every week - but it seems we keep running into people here who come up with bogus legal theories to help their views.

Actually, I just came out of a courtroom to bear witness to a sentencing.
Let me tell you a shocker: the presiding Magistrate found that you CANT ask for extra punishment for a perp just because you THOUGHT he had a weapon.

Gee- I should sig this too.

Delaware State Code (family support mostly being a state issue):
TITLE 13
Domestic Relations
CHAPTER 5. DESERTION AND SUPPORT
Subchapter I. Duty to Support

§ 504. Duty to support woman with child conceived out of wedlock.

The duty to support a woman pregnant with child conceived out of wedlock rests first upon the person by whom she became pregnant. Such support may include her necessary prenatal and postnatal medical, hospital, and lying-in expenses incident to the pregnancy and to the birth of the child, and such other relief as to the Court shall seem reasonable. (Code 1852, §§ 850-853, 1468, 1472; 26 Del. Laws, c. 137; 27 Del. Laws, c. 262, § 13; Code 1915, §§ 1463, 3033, 3061; 37 Del. Laws, c. 189, § 8; Code 1935, §§ 1634, 3526, 3548; 13 Del. C. 1953, § 501; 50 Del. Laws, c. 207, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 567, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)


No exemption there for using birth control.


Neither in:

§ 501. Duty to support minor child; duty to support child over 18 years of age.

(a) The duty to support a child under the age of 18 years, whether born in or out of wedlock, rests primarily upon the child's parents.

(b) Where the parents are unable to provide a minor child's minimum needs, a stepparent or a person who cohabits in the relationship of husband and wife with the parent of a minor child shall be under a duty to provide those needs. Such duty shall exist only while the child makes residence with such stepparent or person and the marriage or cohabitation continues.

(c) The duty to support a child under 18 years of age, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall rest equally upon both parents.

(d) Both parents have a duty to support their child over 18 years of age if such child is a student in high school and is likely to graduate. This duty ends when the child receives a high school diploma or attains age 19, whichever event first occurs. (Code 1852, §§ 850-853, 1468, 1472; 26 Del. Laws, c. 137; 27 Del. Laws, c. 262, § 13; Code 1915, §§ 1463, 3033, 3061; 37 Del. Laws, c. 189, § 8; Code 1935, §§ 1634, 3526, 3548; 13 Del. C. 1953, § 501; 50 Del. Laws, c. 207, § 1; 59 Del. Laws, c. 567, § 1; 60 Del. Laws, c. 334, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

Those 'laws' are executive guidelines without substantative Statute.
They are no more 'law' than the houserules of a school.

To be frank: I don't think you would be able to pass the 101 law elective course in a university.

IIRC, paternity is not something for Federal Court, so the US Code would not apply in any case.

You would be in state court here in the US, and the laws and precedence would spring from the state, not the Federal Government.

The reproductive system is what makes it pleasurable and fun, and is what makes you horny.

Hormones and internal organs driving your brain to pursue sex as an activity.

You can't really separate it.

You are deep! But what's Kimchi?

To be frank: I don't think you would be able to pass the 101 law elective course in a university.
Wow! How incredibly condescending and ironic considering Deep Kimchi's post.

How does crow taste, by the way?

IIRC, paternity is not something for Federal Court, so the US Code would not apply in any case.

You would be in state court here in the US, and the laws and precedence would spring from the state, not the Federal Government.

State laws.

In a case in ... Britain?

State laws not deemed binding by the Federal government per se, but ONLY by a specific State, which has set up codes for the purpose of limiting her own liability?

I'm afraid that fails the validity-test.

I'm afraid I asked for the USC on purpose, inasmuch I don't wish to waste time with the ad hoc rulings of State legislatures.

Those 'laws' are executive guidelines without substantative Statute.
They are no more 'law' than the houserules of a school.

To be frank: I don't think you would be able to pass the 101 law elective course in a university.

I hate having to mention it every week - but it seems we keep running into people here who come up with bogus legal theories to help their views.

Actually, I just came out of a courtroom to bear witness to a sentencing.
Let me tell you a shocker: the presiding Magistrate found that you CANT ask for extra punishment for a perp just because you THOUGHT he had a weapon.

Gee- I should sig this too.
Gee- At least she's not the one asking for federal guidance on an issue that's almost entirely the domain of the individual states.

The reproductive system is what makes it pleasurable and fun, and is what makes you horny.

Hormones and internal organs driving your brain to pursue sex as an activity.

You can't really separate it.
Your way of thinking has been made obsolete by modern science.

State laws.

In a case in ... Britain?

State laws not deemed binding by the Federal government per se, but ONLY by a specific State, which has set up codes for the purpose of limiting her own liability?

I'm afraid that fails the validity-test.

I'm afraid I asked for the USC on purpose, inasmuch I don't wish to waste time with the ad hoc rulings of State legislatures.
You clearly don't understand how United States law works. Certain sections of cases, in fact, almost all cases that don't deal with crimes crossing state borders and whatever congress has decided to infringe upon this year (in addition to constitutional perogatives etc), are left to the states. Child support is entirely the domain of the states, for rather obvious reasons, and as such there is no federal title code relating to child support.

'a person of sound mind' - except in cases in which that man was acted in the capacity of parent.

See the little tongue-pokey-outey thing, after my post? I'm making fun of you, not asking for help with common-knowledge legal terms.

In loco parentis = in the role of a parent (or position, or place of, before you correct me.) What the hell that has got to do with this subject, I can't imagine.

If you want to reply to my post, how about addressing the fact that you translated a sensible opinion into pompous BS, then tried to hang a few of your opinions off it?

Your way of thinking has been made obsolete by modern science.

Modern scientists just want a bit of action. Thus spoke Zarasthustra.;)

State laws.

In a case in ... Britain?

State laws not deemed binding by the Federal government per se, but ONLY by a specific State, which has set up codes for the purpose of limiting her own liability?

I'm afraid that fails the validity-test.

I'm afraid I asked for the USC on purpose, inasmuch I don't wish to waste time with the ad hoc rulings of State legislatures.
what the fuck are you on about?

are you trying to hijack this thread into a discussion of a case you were just involved in?

do you have something pertinent to say about the actual topic of this thread? if so, it would be nice if you stopped the legal mumbojumbo and just came out with it.

no one here is claiming to be ready to practice british law.

Your way of thinking has been made obsolete by modern science.
doesnt your insistance that legal abortion means that a man has no responsibility for his own children also mean that a man has no rights to his own children?

Delaware State Code (family support mostly being a state issue):
<snip>

Holy shit! There's so much wrong stuff there, it seems futile to even strart.
Presumably cases are decided by precedent, rather than that awful stuff.
Law, you say?
I can see americans like their guns! :D

what the fuck are you on about?
<snip>
do you have something pertinent to say about the actual topic of this thread? if so, it would be nice if you stopped the legal mumbojumbo and just came out with it.
<snip>

Agreed. BogMarsh could start a new thread about that case, and I'd at least try to be polite.

doesnt your insistance that legal abortion means that a man has no responsibility for his own children also mean that a man has no rights to his own children?
Yes it does.

And the BogMarsh flees, avoiding the apology he owes to Smunk, and to the rest of us for talking so vociferously out his backside.

Yes it does.
:eek:
That's cold.

Yes it does.
hmmmm

and do you think that thats a good thing?

Yes it does.

Ignoring other laws which you personally see as divergent from reality simply because abortion is legal may make sense to you, however it can hardly be seen as prudent or even sensible.

:eek:
That's cold.
But logically consistent.

During pregnancy, a woman has full rights and responsibilities over the fetus, or at least should. Suddenly, after the birth, that same entity is also the responsibility of another human being as well? It just doesn’t make sense.
It can’t go from being “her body, her decision” to the leech on a man’s paycheck, just because that’s what’ convenient for her.

hmmmm

and do you think that thats a good thing?
I think it makes sense.

But logically consistent.

During pregnancy, a woman has full rights and responsibilities over the fetus, or at least should. Suddenly, after the birth, that same entity is also the responsibility of another human being as well? It just doesn’t make sense.
It can’t go from being “her body, her decision” to the leech on a man’s paycheck, just because that’s what’ convenient for her.
I suppose... *Damns his liberterian viewpoint*

But logically consistent.

During pregnancy, a woman has full rights and responsibilities over the fetus, or at least should. Suddenly, after the birth, that same entity is also the responsibility of another human being as well? It just doesn’t make sense.
It can’t go from being “her body, her decision” to the leech on a man’s paycheck, just because that’s what’ convenient for her.

So long as we all know the law, and make decisions accordingly, it's no more fair than any other law. Or any less.
And for those of us who defend abortion (me 75%), we're already asserting a major shift in legal status at birth.

Whatever.
Birth control is still 100% effective. If the first line of defense doesn't work, there's always abortion.
I hope there is sarcasm in this post that I am simply failing to recognize cuz i'm so bad at picking it up.

And the BogMarsh flees, avoiding the apology he owes to Smunk, and to the rest of us for talking so vociferously out his backside.
he doesn't owe me an appology he is probably right, I mean I didn't take the time to find the answer he was wanting. Laziness, and having other priorities could cause me to fail the class just like if I were really stupid. ;)

I think it makes sense.
it does make sense

but i prefer the point of view that children have a basic right to support from their parents. and that those rights are in effect unless the parents go through the legal process to move those rights on to another person or to the state. and that the state (you and i) shouldnt support children who have parents who are able to support them.

So long as we all know the law, and make decisions accordingly, it's no more fair than any other law. Or any less.
And for those of us who defend abortion (me 75%), we're already asserting a major shift in legal status at birth.
I've had a thread locked on this forum regarding hypothetical veiws on the recently born. I'll leave it at that.

Your way of thinking has been made obsolete by modern science.

Try telling that to your gonads.

From a moral standpoint, I would absolutely say that he is responsible for the child he fathered. A man may make the decision not to do so, but I am not going to feel any respect for that decision.

From a legal and pragmatic standpoint, I think it is a horrible idea to force him to take on any parental roles - even monetary ones. If he will not enter the child's life voluntarily, then he quite simply should not be a part of it at all. Of course, I think that decision should be permanent - he cannot come back in ten years and try and claim rights to the child.

Hell, even if she told him she was on The Pill and it turns out she lied, it's still as much his fault as hers! It's his responsibility to take care of his own body and his own fertility. If he didn't want to make a baby, then he should have made sure HE took care of things from his end to insure that he wouldn't get anybody pregnant. If it was that important to him, he shouldn't have left it to somebody else to control his reproductive behavior.
absolutely, men should be aware of the fact that it takes two to bring about a pregnancy and that responsibility for that pregnancy lies with both partners whatever the circumstances of conception.

and that the state (you and i) shouldnt support children who have parents who are able to support them.
But what if those parents aren't willing to? Should the state force them to?

Try telling that to your gonads.

Dude, my gonads got the message. Snip!
Haven't had sex since.

I'm not joking. I'll say that again: I'm not joking.

Anecdotal evidence, I'll admit. But true.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents (Canadian) to this popular topic.

It's really quite simple; If you're willing to engage in sexual activity, you must accept full responsibility for the repercussions of your actions. As a man, I accept that playing in fertile territory may result in a Mikesburg Jr. coming into the world, regardless of how prepared and cautious I am to avoid the situation.

If you're not prepared to live with the potential consequences, keep it in your pants (or at least far away from fertile ground.)

Abortions are safe, easy and efficient. Anything else is just “pro-life” propaganda.
As for the whole “shouldn’t’ have fucked her” thing, I fail to see the connection. Sex is usually about pleasure and recreation, not reproduction. The association is ludicrous.
Also, don’t try to make it seem as if I have a stake in this with the “yous”.
If you don't think sex has an association with reproduction, you are incredibly dense.

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents (Canadian) to this popular topic.

It's really quite simple; If you're willing to engage in sexual activity, you must accept full responsibility for the repercussions of your actions. As a man, I accept that playing in fertile territory may result in a Mikesburg Jr. coming into the world, regardless of how prepared and cautious I am to avoid the situation.

If you're not prepared to live with the potential consequences, keep it in your pants (or at least far away from fertile ground.)

Two cents Canadian is good money.
Mess with something as powerful as the sexual urge, you gotta take the consequences from Mother Nature.

But what if those parents aren't willing to? Should the state force them to?
yes. to whatever extent necessary.

the father of my neices child stopped working, lost his driver's license, lost his hunting licenses and finally had one of his girlfriend's bank accounts (that he had stupidly put his name on but no money into) seized before he decided that he should start paying child support.

i do prefer systems where the state pays the child support money then takes it out of the reluctant parent so that the child doesnt have to suffer due to phantom payments. pretend money buys nothing.

yes. to whatever extent necessary.

the father of my neices child stopped working, lost his driver's license, lost his hunting licenses and finally had one of his girlfriend's bank accounts (that he had stupidly put his name on but no money into) seized before he decided that he should start paying child support.

i do prefer systems where the state pays the child support money then takes it out of the reluctant parent so that the child doesnt have to suffer due to phantom payments. pretend money buys nothing.
Sounds like in the mentioned situation, there already was one parent caring for the child. Why drag in another one?

Sounds like in the mentioned situation, there already was one parent caring for the child. Why drag in another one?
because she wasnt making enough money to support her 3 children on her own (he was only father to one of them) and the state insists that if you are going to ask for assistance from them that they pay as little as possible by having the father contribute.

why should you and i support the child of a man who is able to support his child himself?

...
why should you and i support the child of a man who is able to support his child himself?

well, because child-rearing is a social good. But carry on ...

Nope, ceteris paribus.

She made him think she would control the consequences.
She didn't.
HER problem.
Liability may exist for the product manufacturer.

End 0f Story.

But he did nothing to control the consequences either.

You are at a stop sign. You see a guy coming from the left. He has his blinker on, signifying he is going to make a right turn. You think "oh he is going to turn down the street I am on, I am clear to go." You go, he hits you. Its your fault you trusted the other driver.

No birth control is 100% effective. This is a disclaimer everyone should sign when they lose their virginity. You have sex, a baby MIGHT be made, regardless of how much birth control you use.

well, because child-rearing is a social good. But carry on ...

which is why we are very willing to support the children of people who are unable to do so.