What an asshole...

[marcello]

There ya go Jim!

You have to stand up and lift your burdens on your shoulders; like a Man.

And ultimately, put the children first; it's never their fault.

[skeith]

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.

Yes, Jim

You have a point there, I guess if I really think about it, the kid deserves sympathy - I just have a hard time separating the kid from the Mom, and from my friend's rather dire financial situation.

But when I really think about it, yes you are right about the kid.

[Jazzmoose]

Well, maybe that's the answer: separate the child from the woman. If the allegations are true, she's not exactly what I'd call a fit parent anyway.

[Jazzmoose]

is it time yet to move this thread to the politics section?

Must admit, I wondered that through the whole thread as I was reading...

[BruceW]

EXCUSE ME,

When we all get through with the "politically right" things to say maybe the thought just might appear that the guys are still getting screwed. There seems to be agreement on "consensual sex, consensual birth of babies, consensual responsibilities, agreement on it is not the babys fault, agreement that there will be no baby from the sexual act BUT

none of us are addressing the rights of the "father." What are his rights?? What are the rights of a man "entrapped?" What are the rights of a man who is deliberately tricked into planting his seed when the "consensual agreement" was NOT to have a baby?? What are the rights of the man who did not want a baby but would readily STEP UP TO THE PLATE if there is one and the agreeing woman gets an abortion based on her decision alone??

Just some questions guys. The general opinion I keep reading here is that everything is okay if a guy just pays his child support and shuts up.

Edited March 11, 2006 by BruceW

[RDK]

EXCUSE ME,

When we all get through with the "politically right" things to say maybe the thought just might appear that the guys are still getting screwed. There seems to be agreement on "consensual sex, consensual birth of babies, consensual responsibilities, agreement on it is not the babys fault, agreement that there will be no baby from the sexual act BUT

none of us are addressing the rights of the "father." What are his rights?? What are the rights of a man "entrapped?" What are the rights of a man who is deliberately tricked into planting his seed when the "consensual agreement" was NOT to have a baby?? What are the rights of the man who did not want a baby but would readily STEP UP TO THE PLATE if there is one and the agreeing woman gets an abortion based on her decision alone??

Just some questions guys. The general opinion I keep reading here is that everything is okay if a guy just pays his child support and shuts up.

As I said before, the rights of both the father and the mother are trumped (as they should be) by the rights of the child. There's no excuse for the child to have to suffer just because daddy doesn't want to pay. I'd be all in favor of daddy suing momma for "fraud," but either arresting momma or having her pay some settlement to dad would only be detrimental to the child in the end. This is a complex moral/ethical/legal issue in many ways - and it's often not fair to either mom or dad - but it's often quite simple when it comes to doing what's best for the child.

[BruceW]

EXCUSE ME,

When we all get through with the "politically right" things to say maybe the thought just might appear that the guys are still getting screwed. There seems to be agreement on "consensual sex, consensual birth of babies, consensual responsibilities, agreement on it is not the babys fault, agreement that there will be no baby from the sexual act BUT

none of us are addressing the rights of the "father." What are his rights?? What are the rights of a man "entrapped?" What are the rights of a man who is deliberately tricked into planting his seed when the "consensual agreement" was NOT to have a baby?? What are the rights of the man who did not want a baby but would readily STEP UP TO THE PLATE if there is one and the agreeing woman gets an abortion based on her decision alone??

Just some questions guys. The general opinion I keep reading here is that everything is okay if a guy just pays his child support and shuts up.

As I said before, the rights of both the father and the mother are trumped (as they should be) by the rights of the child. There's no excuse for the child to have to suffer just because daddy doesn't want to pay. I'd be all in favor of daddy suing momma for "fraud," but either arresting momma or having her pay some settlement to dad would only be detrimental to the child in the end. This is a complex moral/ethical/legal issue in many ways - and it's often not fair to either mom or dad - but it's often quite simple when it comes to doing what's best for the child.

NO disrespect to you but you are avoiding the issues like the rest. Why is it so politically correct to say the child would suffer if you pursue "fraud" on the part of the mom? Why shouldn't she pay if that is the case?? The DA's in every American town lick their chops at relection time by "going after" dads who do not pay for whatever reason. Why is it okay to put them in jail or prison. Won't the child suffer from having a "debtor felon father" just as much?? In a society that is now deeply engrossed in "male bashing" isn't it time to break that mold?? If dad's are so important, then why do we strip them of their manhood so quickly and publically, especially in the eyes of the child?? I don't really aim to cut off any bodys balls here but when is at least one other male on the bulletin board going to speak up for the men???

[marcello]

No disrespect to you Bruce, but again, you have to put the child first.

Saving them from any further turmoil or ugliness is well worth the money or other satisfactions.

When you have been through one of these scenes, you quiclky realize this; at least I hope you do.

And that takes balls.

[skeith]

What you guys who support that dad paying in all cases are leaving out is the scenario posed by my friend's case (see above).

what if supporting the child you were told you would not have means taking money away from your current wife's medical treatment. Who are you disrespecting now? Should the current wife be consulted? After all she is working and they have pooled their money. What if she says she feels no obligation to support the child? Do you ignore her?

[patricia]

I've noticed that all the posts on this thread are, as far as I can tell, by my male friends on this site.

While all have made good points, I feel that I may have a slightly different perspective.

Having been raised to be responsible for my own well-being, it was never my practice to depend on a lover to look after whether or not I would bear a child before I was ready to do so. So, as a single woman I never assumed that my partner would be the one to prevent a life-changing, for me, pregnancy. Because I would be raising the child, it was, in my view my responsibility ultimately, whether or not the father contributed support. Few fathers actually are assessed the total financial resposibility for raising a child. My view is that assuming he would would be insanity. I didn't want to be a single parent and I always assumed that if I was not talking marriage with the man, I would not be marrying him. Not to diminish the quality of the relationship, but the sex would be purely recreational. Even after I married, I chose when I would have children, having discussed the possibility with my then husband.

Having said that, I am every bit as appalled at the described "entrapment into parenthood" of the man in question. It is difficult enough to obtain financial support from ex-husbands for children born to couples who are married and even more difficult to do so for children born to single mothers, whether the father admits the child is his or not. So, this decision, even if it favours the mother and the unwanted-by-the-father child will have about the same chance, in the long run, as those of other single mothers. So, good luck with that.

I do have an example of a woman who found herself pregnant, not deliberately, but unwisely, having assumed that the father would leave his wife and children and marry her, having been told all the lies and more by her lover. This is a situation that is much more common than women deliberately becoming pregnant to somehow gain financially BTW. She was in love with him and believed him when he told her all the lies married men tell their naive girlfriends. Most married men having affairs will not leave their wives. That's the simple truth. In fact, many times the affair is what keeps them in their marriages, providing what the marriage doesn't. Most walk away from their girlfriend's pregnancies, either by paying for abortions, or breaking off the relationships.

Instead of pursuing any of the avenues provided to her for acknowledgement, or support of her son, my friend, not wishing to have an abortion, or put her son up for adoption, carried him to term. She registered him under her own name and has raised him alone, often at considerable sacrifice on her part, not just financially, but personally. He son is now twenty-seven years old. He has had no contact with his father at all. He is a handsome, 6'6" man now. He graduated in the top 10% of his class and is now a commercial pilot. His father's legitimate children can't hold a candle to him. My friend has never regretted walking away from her former lover. In fact, it was the defining moment of her life when she took control. Though she did not become pregnant deliberately, she didn't exercise the control that she had and the result was that she experienced a rude awakening.

So, to ease the fear of men out there who are worried about being trapped into either parenthood, or marriage, there are more women who handle this alone, either because the fathers don't support the results of their actions, or in more and more cases, don't even know they are fathers.

This case is being publicized, mostly because it is unusual. There are many more cases in which the men didn't care one way or the other that sex is primarily to propogate the species. They just wanted to get laid and justify their carelessness about birth control by assuming that all women are now able to look after themselves. While that may be true, they should never assume that she is, just as women should never have assumed that the man was, before The Pill.

Edited March 12, 2006 by patricia

[marcello]

What you guys who support that dad paying in all cases are leaving out is the scenario posed by my friend's case (see above).

what if supporting the child you were told you would not have means taking money away from your current wife's medical treatment. Who are you disrespecting now? Should the current wife be consulted? After all she is working and they have pooled their money. What if she says she feels no obligation to support the child? Do you ignore her?

Sorry, but everybody has a cross to bear.

His may be heavier than most, but it's his, and by marriage, hers.