JSngry Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 It's 0-0. Every time Jim makes a good point, Jim makes a better one. Not knowing which Jim I am , I'm going to retire from this thread and go to bed after posting a request for information in the Misc. Music thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Yeah, there're some shades of gray here due to the possible "entrapment" issue, but as Jim says you stick your dick in there you're responsible for whatever happens next. Either way, though, the guy's an asshole for doing this, whether it's because he's a cheap, irresponsible s.o.b. or if he's just trying to make a point. The thing is, the courts default any decision to what's called "the best interests of the child," so it'll be one hell of a longshot if this guy prevails. No matter that the woman may have "tricked him," no matter that the guy didn't want the child in the first place... the kid's born and if the court feels that the baby will have a better life with the guy coughing up support then that's what's gonna happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 It's 0-0. Every time Jim makes a good point, Jim makes a better one. Not knowing which Jim I am You're one. This is an intense debate, an interesting legal defense. I'm not sure where I stand on this because both sides of the arguement make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'll re-iterate again... there can't be any sort of "equal protection" in cases like these because the two sexes are not equal. Blame nature. If a man could bear a child, it would be a different matter. It would be like suing a company over not hiring you because you're a 90lbs, 5 foot woman and part of the job requires lifting 50lbs boxes over and over again. Sorry, but that's a job best made for someone different physically than you. Should that woman be able to sue the company for discrimination? The laws are going to discriminate against men because women have children, men do not. Women deal with a lifetime of periods and tampons and cramps and all that other shit and we do not. It's not equal and it never will be, therefor the laws cannot be equal. Man strong, woman weak? Woman no can hurt man? Dude, that is wrong in so may ways. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the situation of deciding whether or not to bear a child or abort a child lies with the woman because of the laws of nature, not the laws of man. There's nothing we can do to change that. Women carry children, it affects their lives and their bodies in ways that no one but them can ever understand and they have the right to choose what happens to their body. It is a source of power? Absolutely. Are you saying that anyone with any sort of power should have laws that limit that power and attempt to equalize it among everyone? Because obviously that would never work. Sure, there are cases in which a guy can get screwed (har har) by a women who tells him she's infertile or on birth-control or whatever in order to purposely deceive him and trap him. But it is still his choice to put himself in that situation and he has to deal with the consequences of that choice, deception or not. There are far, far more cases of a guy saying everything and anything under the sun to get between the sheets with a woman, knocking her up, and then scootin' when she gets pregnant and leaving her high and dry. That's what child support laws are for. Is there a plethora of women using those laws to entrap men? I don't think so. Regardless, in either case, it is the best interest of the child that needs protecting. Even if that child was not wanted and is the product of a scam by the mother, it is still YOUR child and you need to care for him/her at the very least financially. The fact that the article linked above mentions the "father's" disdain at having to give up his "dream car" (a frickin' Trans-Am?! C'mon, buddy...) is just laughable. Boo - fucking - hoo. The guy is a prick who doesn't want to accept responsability for his own actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randissimo Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 shouldn't this be moved to the politics section........................................ Who's the drummer in your avatar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 It's Betvin Pones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) Are you saying that anyone with any sort of power should have laws that limit that power and attempt to equalize it among everyone? Because obviously that would never work. Remember that next time you vote then. There's at least one political party that feels that same exact way. Sure, there are cases in which a guy can get screwed (har har) by a women who tells him she's infertile or on birth-control or whatever in order to purposely deceive him and trap him. But it is still his choice to put himself in that situation and he has to deal with the consequences of that choice, deception or not. So the woman who perpetrated fraud has no contingent and/or parallel responsibility? She's entitled to reap the fruits of her deception unencumbered by any legally binding stipulations? Is that "morally" sound law? People who buy merchandise that was intentionally made in a defective manner chose to buy it because they think that it is something that they want. They don't buy it thinking that maybe they shouldn't buy it because it might be defective. They buy it because the product as advertised appeals to them. When they find out that they have been scammed, do they not have recourse? Of course they do. Yet in this instance, you seem to place the blame entirely on the "buyer", and not the "seller", and for reasons solely of biology. That does not make sense to me. Even though one is a commercial transaction and the other an exchange of "intimacy", the underlying activity of creating a false sense of trust and then betraying it for self-serving ends is the same. And I can not see any good to come out of "rewarding" that. The assumption that in any situation it is acceptable for a victim of intentional deception to bear 100% of the legal "blame" is unacceptable to me. And if we do not allow for consideration of "going against the norm" in certain unique circumstances, then that is exactly what we are endorsing. I'll pass on that, thank you. Even if that child was not wanted and is the product of a scam by the mother, it is still YOUR child and you need to care for him/her at the very least financially. Of course, I would hope that a man who found himself in such a situation would take an interest in the child. But what if the woman showed no little or no concern for using the support money for the benefit of the child? Should the father then be required to pay anyway? Pay for what? Good luck getting custody, and good luck getting the child taken away from the mother. That's not the way it usually works. And it is not totally uncommon for a woman who engages in such trickery to behave in such a manner, sometimes to the point of repeating the same trick on another unsuspecting man. Again I ask - where is the "justice"? And where is the interest in the welfare of the child? The fact that the article linked above mentions the "father's" disdain at having to give up his "dream car" (a frickin' Trans-Am?! C'mon, buddy...) is just laughable. Boo - fucking - hoo. The guy is a prick who doesn't want to accept responsability for his own actions. Careful now. If the moral character of a plaintiff is to be the sole detrminant of the overriding, general validity of said plaintiff's specific legal complaint, then we might well have legitimate grounds for overturning Roe v. Wade. Or Miranda v. Arizona. Be very careful... Edited March 10, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Are you saying that anyone with any sort of power should have laws that limit that power and attempt to equalize it among everyone? Because obviously that would never work. Remember that next time you vote then. There's at least one political party that feels that same exact way. This is getting silly. You're telling me that the laws of nature are trumped by the laws of man? Tell that to the next hurricane. So the woman who perpetrated fraud has no contingent and/or parallel responsibility? She's entitled to reap the fruits of her deception unencumbered by any legally binding stipulations? Is that "morally" sound law? What stipulations? How are you going to prove deception? How are you going to prove that she commited fraud? If there are plain facts that can easily be laid out, sure (such as medical records indicating she was never on birth control or vice versa, medical records saying that her doctor told her she was infertile). But it all comes down to he said / she said, unless some sort of contract is signed. People who buy merchandise that was intentionally made in a defective manner chose to buy it because they think that it is something that they want. They don't buy it thinking that maybe they shouldn't buy it because it might be defective. They buy it because the product as advertised appeals to them. When they find out that they have been scammed, do they not have recourse? Of course they do. Yet in this instance, you seem to place the blame entirely on the "buyer", and not the "seller", and for reasons solely of biology. That's because a human being isn't a piece of merchandise. I thought we did away with that notion back in Lincoln's time. That does not make sense to me. Even though one is a commercial transaction and the other an exchange of "intimacy", the underlying activity of creating a false sense of trust and then betraying it for self-serving ends is the same. So you want the government to get into the game of defining, regulating, and making laws about intimacy? Even more-so than they already are, that is? And I can not see any good to come out of "rewarding" that. The assumption that in any situation it is acceptable for a victim of intentional deception to bear 100% of the legal "blame" is unacceptable to me. And if we do not allow for consideration of "going against the norm" in certain unique circumstances, then that is exactly what we are endorsing. I'll pass on that, thank you. Who says the man is accepting 100% of the "blame"? The mother still has to care for the child, right? She still has to physically bear him/her into the world, pay for the hospital bills, raise the child for 18 years. So just because the state demands the guy pay child support, he's shouldering 100% of the "blame"? Of course, I would hope that a man who found himself in such a situation would take an interest in the child. But what if the woman showed no little or no concern for using the support money for the benefit of the child? Should the father then be required to pay anyway? Pay for what? Good luck getting custody, and good luck getting the child taken away from the mother. That's not the way it usually works. And it is not totally uncommon for a woman who engages in such trickery to behave in such a manner, sometimes to the point of repeating the same trick on another unsuspecting man. Again I ask - where is the "justice"? And where is the interest in the welfare of the child? That what Child Protective Services is for. They can take away your kid these days if you look at him/her funny. Careful now. If the moral character of a plaintiff is to be the sole detrminant of the overriding, general validity of said plaintiff's specific legal complaint, then we might well have legitimate grounds for overturning Roe v. Wade. Or Miranda v. Arizona. Be very careful... It's funny, because when I first read that article, the first thing I thought is, "These guys want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and they are using this lawsuit as an example." By saying that women have all the rights and men have none, you could frame the argument in a way that paints women's rights as being overbearing, based on Roe v Wade, and men the victim and then seek to overturn that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgraham333 Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 How about signing a prenup prehump agreement. No new laws necessary, good old contract law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) Ok, here's the deal. I have both a son and a daughter. If my son got tricked like this guy allegedly did, I would strongly urge him to voluntarily accept repsonsibility for his the consequences of his actions. Not the actions themselves, for they would quite possibly have been sincere and without guile. But there are consequences, and difficult as they may be to shoulder, they should be accepted voluntarily. Now, if my daughter came to me and told me that she had tricked a guy, I would advise her exactly the same thing. I would not advise her to sue for support. If she lied about her fertility status and/or her feelings for the guy, how is encouraging her to sue in line with my advice for her to accept responsibilty? She's my daughter, so why would I encourage her admittedly deliberate deception by suggesting that she seek money from her victim? How the hell is that encouraging her self-responsibility? All of us here talking that talk - could/would you encourage your own daughter to sue for support if she admitted to you that she deliberately tricked a guy into getting her pregnant? This "you stick your dick in her pussy, you pay the price" talk is all "manly" and shit, but frankly, I'm afraid that there's an undertone of condescension towards women in all of it, as well as some lowered expectations for ourself. "Girls will be girls, you oughta be smart enough to know that you can't really trust 'em". isn't that the message we're ultimately sending? And if "girls will be girls" and it's ok (as it seems to be), then surely it's ok for "boys to be boys". We just gotta be prepared to pay to play, that's all. Yeah, go ahead and fuck'em, just have the checkbook handy if you're dumb enough to knock one of 'em up. Serves you right for trusting them in the first place. Is that what it means to be a man, to expect women to be deceitful, and to chalk it entirely up to our own stupidity when it turns out to be the case? Pretty poor excuse for "manliness", I think, and as long as that's the "best" we can do for ourselves, why should we expect more out of women? And why should they expect more out of us? The cycle continues, and to what end? Thnk about it... And now, I really am going to bed! Edited March 10, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 All of us here talking that talk - could/would you encourage your own daughter to sue for support if she admitted to you that she deliberately tricked a guy into getting her pregnant? Yes, I would encourage her to sue for support, even if she deliberately tricked someone. And I'd also make damn sure that money was spent solely on the kid and nothing else AT ALL. Why? Because again, this idea that the man deserves none of the blame, that he was bamboozled, and that by paying for the child he's assuming 100% of the blame as the victim is bullshit. My daughter would still have to carry the pregnancy to term (not exactly an easy task), she'd still have to give birth to the child (not exactly an easy task), she'd still have to raise the child from an infant to the age of 18 (the hardest thing in life to do that there is). All the guy has to do is pay some money per month. It seems to me he's getting off easy. This "you stick your dick in her pussy, you pay the price" talk is all "manly" and shit, but frankly, I'm afraid that there's an undertone of condescension towards women in all of it, as well as some lowered expectations for ourself. "Girls will be girls, you oughta be smart enough to know that you can't really trust 'em". isn't that the message we're ultimately sending? No. The message I'm sending is take responsability for your actions, whether or not they are the result of being "duped", especially since an innocent human life is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) Maybe I'm not going to bed after all! This is getting silly. You're telling me that the laws of nature are trumped by the laws of man? Tell that to the next hurricane. Tell it to the judge the next time a pedophile molests a child, or a cleptomaniac shoplifts. Yes, sometimes they do. That's because a human being isn't a piece of merchandise. I thought we did away with that notion back in Lincoln's time. Indeeed. But not, apparently, with the notion that a human being is a quantity to be unrestrictedly exploited and manipulated for entirely self-serving ends. So you want the government to get into the game of defining, regulating, and making laws about intimacy? Even more-so than they already are, that is? Intimacy itself, no. Using intimacy as a tool of extortion, yes. Who says the man is accepting 100% of the "blame"? The mother still has to care for the child, right? She still has to physically bear him/her into the world, pay for the hospital bills, raise the child for 18 years. So just because the state demands the guy pay child support, he's shouldering 100% of the "blame"? Well, if the woman actually comitted fraud, and if she's not held accountable for spending the support money wisely, yeah, he is, at least financially. "Blame", not responsibility. big difference. Show me some good statistics proving that the majority of legitimate complaints about misuse of child support payments result in either an adjustment of the payments or punitave action against the offender, and then maybe I'll reconsider. But when you see a guy scuffling to make payments to a waomn who's remarried or oterhwise gotten "involved" (sometimes more than once) & she's using her current "man" as a means of support for her various kids and spending the support money on self-indulgence, and the courts don't do a damn thing to provide some sort of equity for all concerned, then that's wrong. And I see that all the time. That what Child Protective Services is for. They can take away your kid these days if you look at him/her funny. I'm talking about abuse of support money, not abuse of the child. I might not have made that clear. Careful now. If the moral character of a plaintiff is to be the sole detrminant of the overriding, general validity of said plaintiff's specific legal complaint, then we might well have legitimate grounds for overturning Roe v. Wade. Or Miranda v. Arizona. Be very careful... It's funny, because when I first read that article, the first thing I thought is, "These guys want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and they are using this lawsuit as an example." By saying that women have all the rights and men have none, you could frame the argument in a way that paints women's rights as being overbearing, based on Roe v Wade, and men the victim and then seek to overturn that. Well, sure, that's always a possibility (even though it fails to address the actual point which I was making). But the law often works in mysterious ways, and the road to hell is frequently paved with lawyer's fees. The best we can do is try to make things right. Or at least better. And that, in any given scenario, is a coin toss at best. Edited March 10, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
take5 Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 If the women has all the responsibility of choice, then she has all the responsibility of consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) All of us here talking that talk - could/would you encourage your own daughter to sue for support if she admitted to you that she deliberately tricked a guy into getting her pregnant? Yes, I would encourage her to sue for support, even if she deliberately tricked someone. Well then, we have a fundamental, profound, & irreconcilable disagreement as to what truly constitues personal responsibility. Fair enough, I suppose, and it renders all further debate irrelevant. The "baseline" has been reached, and there's nowhere to go after that. At least, now knowing that, I can finally go to bed. Edited March 10, 2006 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron S Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 All I know is that when I first saw the title of this thread, and that Jim A had started it, I was sure that it was about me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 If the women has all the responsibility of choice, then she has all the responsibility of consequence. Bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 If the women has all the responsibility of choice, then she has all the responsibility of consequence. Bullshit. Agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 All I know is that when I first saw the title of this thread, and that Jim A had started it, I was sure that it was about me. The funny thing was, having heard about this story yesterday, the minute I saw the thread title I knew exactly what it was about. But it coulda been about you too, Ron... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...00318/1007/NEWS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceW Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) Well, all of this sure sounds like it comes down to those famous words that just about every father has told his son at one point or another "Son, keep your dick in your pants until you are ready to settle down." PERIOD Some of the old school ways really worked.... at least you didn't become any kind of a victim until........ you got divorced and then you find out the power of women. Edited March 10, 2006 by BruceW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 is it time yet to move this thread to the politics section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 I have a friend who was dating a woman a few years back and she told him she was on the pill and they had a mutual understanding there would be no children. This was a fling and no real love match. They later broke up (she dumped him) and after the break up, she is pregnant with what he admits is his baby (he got tested). She later told others she was tired of the dating scene and wanted a child- she did not share this with my friend whose baby she decided to have unbeknownst to him. Meanwhile, he finds mrs. right and gets married for real, but the fling woman is hitting my friend up for total support of her and the child while she is unwilling to lift a finger. My friend's wife later has unfortunately some real health issues and they were temporariily without health insurance and so they have a six figure medical bill to deal with and he does not really have the funds to support his sick wife and this baby he never agreed to have. I do not think my friend is an asshole and I have little sympathy for fling woman and her baby. I think that in this day and age, with birth control, the decision to have and raise a child must be consensual. If you have a scenario as my friend has - I don't think it is fair to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny weir Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 (edited) Kenny, your situation sounds tragic and quite a bit different than this guy. Two different situations, it sounds like. I hope things work out well. Jim - not tragic at all these days, we've done real well, really. Bennie's just turned 5 and he rocks seriously and I have him 3 nights a week and holidays. But thanks anyway. One good thing - support payments + rent = a helluva lot less than the killer mortgage that crushed us = $ for CDs! Interesting thread - as I've come to discover, there's not much black and white about these issues. There are changes coming in Australian family law, and rightly so as there's myriad dads who've been fucked over. But I have an almighty dread that altering the balance even a little is going to see even more women and children killed by assholes Edited March 11, 2006 by kenny weir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Geez, a thread XXX posts long titled "What an asshole..." and is isn't about me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted March 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 I do not think my friend is an asshole and I have little sympathy for fling woman and her baby. I don't think your friend is an asshole, either. The topic of this thread refers to the guy in the story I linked. Obviously, every case is different. And I don't blame you for not having sympathy for the woman, but not having sympathy for the child, who had no choice in this matter, is rather callous, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.