If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun News Network)   Poking holes in your girlfriend's condoms? That's a jailin   (sunnewsnetwork.ca) divider line 251
    More: Dumbass, black holes, Nova Scotia, girlfriend  
•       •       •

20652 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 8:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-04 12:22:50 AM  
Looks like she got the last laugh when she aborted the pregnancy anyway.
 
2013-01-04 01:18:47 AM  

Cymbal: Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?


Because screw the guy's rights, wimmenz is vulnerable and can't provide for themselves.

Our family court system is still predicated on the assumption that women are nearly always better parents and men are the only ones with earning power. It's built to protect the interests and vulnerabilities of 50's stereotypes. In that context, it actually makes sense. Women had dramatically less earning power than men, and women were expected to stay home and raise the kids. If the dad forgoes a stable relationship, the mom still needs enough money to raise the kid. That comes from the person the court recognizes as the father, regardless of circumstance, since without that money, mom and the kid are going to live a pretty hard life. In many cases, it still makes sense. But it can certainly be abused, certainly has been, and more modern recognition of gender equality makes some of the assumptions in the system much more suspect. I've seen a male farker or two pop up in threads like these relating stories of trying to get custody of their kids in a bad divorce- it is insanely difficult for a father to get custody, even if he wants it and is a demonstrably far better parent than the mother. It often takes proof of straight up abuse to get that to happen.

Anyway, it's a mess, but fixing parts of it carries a huge risk of nasty unforeseen consequences. Right now, it's the devil we know being better than the one we don't
 
2013-01-04 01:24:43 AM  

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: OgreMagi: Agreed. A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.  As it currently stands, a woman has nothing to lose by using fraud to get pregnant and everything to gain.  I am so glad I got a vasectomy.

It wouldn't surprise if a lawyer could get around this somehow.


Sadly, you are correct.  A woman could put me down as the father of her child, even though it is impossible, wait two years, and WHAM, I can't get out of paying child support because I did not contest it.  It doesn't matter that I was never told I was listed as the father.  I'm supposed to have super magical powers to know this.

/results vary by state
//not to be used as a suppository
///may cause drowsiness
 
2013-01-04 01:24:45 AM  

Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: there's no reason he should be paying for  his child

... except, you know, the child.


Ianal, but I seem to recall that the legal reasoning for what we are considering draconian in this thread re:child support is that the state has determined that an innocent child deserves to be protected, no matter what.
 
2013-01-04 01:38:32 AM  

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.

Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?

Forcing some young guy to pay 20 years of child support has the potential to ruin his life.

Forcing some young child to go 20 years with half the support of the parents he's entitled to has the potential to ruin his life.

If the state is going to choose between "potentially ruining the life of an adult" and "potentially ruining the life of a child", the adult is going to lose every time.


Why is that support not provided by the state? Forcing the suspected (male) parent to provide it is punitive, and therefore questioning the accuracy of the charge is certainly in order.
 
2013-01-04 01:39:09 AM  

Fano: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: there's no reason he should be paying for  his child

... except, you know, the child.

Ianal, but I seem to recall that the legal reasoning for what we are considering draconian in this thread re:child support is that the state has determined that an innocent child deserves to be protected, no matter what.


It's still a massive financial penalty on the man with no standard of evidence or due process whatsoever. How 'bout this: in the case of a mother poking a hole in the condom or whatnot, the baby, upon birth, is immediately placed in foster care or the dad, and she immediately goes to prison like the guy in TFA. Loses all rights to the child, and HER wages are garnished to take care of the kid once she's out.

"For the Children" almost universally makes for horribly unjust law, and any contention that you try to support with it will be inherently suspect in my book. It's just too often an excuse to cover for a half assed "solution" to a problem that dramatically undercuts rights and due process, with the expectation that the emotional weight of kids will ensure that no-one can point out the massive flaws in a proposal.
 
2013-01-04 01:45:05 AM  
Theaetetus: C'mon, now.

Consider the hypothetical case of a 14 year old boy who is statutorily raped by a 23 year old woman, who becomes pregnant and has a baby.

Are you really telling me that the 14 year old should be on the hook for child support? Because that's how the laws work now. Granted, mommy would spend some time in prison, but probably not for half as long as the boy was paying for his raping.

You can white knight for the chilluns all you want, but face it: our current system is unfair and gives males the short end of the stick, with half the liability but 0% of the control over the situation.
 
2013-01-04 02:09:24 AM  

pxlboy: topcon: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

How old were you when you got it? A guy I work with, his nephew wanted to get one at like 22 with no kids. He had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do it but finally did. Weird how they're so "ethical" about such a thing.

It's even worse for women; they get a patronizing "you'll change your mind" lecture.


This. I got laughed out of a goddamned Planned Parenthood for trying to get the snip three months before my 29th birthday. The doc took one look at the clipboard, noting my age and the number of kids I'd already had (0), and glazed over, charitably allowing me to state my case even though she clearly wasn't listening before telling me flat out that she refuses all under-30s as being too young to make such a permanent decision, and to come back in a year - to give me some more 'thinking-it-over time' (on top of the years I'd already been waiting just for a decent insurance plan). If I'd been trying to conceive, do you think I'd have been asked to think on it for another year, or would I have gone home that very day with a list of vitamins to take and techniques to try? Last time I checked, having a child is a rather permanent decision too.

Luckily the second doc I talked to gave me the greenlight, and with no bullmess. Two months after the first doc's refusal, I was snipped.

/holy hell does this article reinforce how glad I am to have had the snip
//don't stick crazy in it, folks
 
2013-01-04 02:26:02 AM  
Not this crap again.

You guys have raised some interesting issues in this thread vs. the other one.  I think the sperm donor to the lesbians should never have to pay a penny of child support, but don't blame women for this:  the lesbians agree he should not be billed.  It was the state that decided they could pass the bill on to somebody/anybody.  It was a bad decision.

I don't know of any babbies that have been made by sticking needles in condoms.  I can see how it works in theory, but the last time I saw a condom over an excited dick, back in the 1920s IIRC, it would have been immediately obvious that needle had been inserted into condom.  That little pin prick (I'm talking about the needle hole, relax) would be a great deal larger when the condom was in use.

The simple fact is that most babbies are made the old-fashioned way; man has unprotected sex with fertile woman's vagina.  Then thinks (per the other thread) that he should have a say in whether she has an abortion (no, you can't) or be off the hook for child support (no, you can't either and it's not about you or the woman you impregnated; it's because the baby needs support).

If you all hate women so much, I suggest abstinence, wanking, or homosexuality.  It's gross to hear how you speak here - fark her in the ass - but no, that's not safe, she'll keep some of your precious seed that spills from her rectum and insert it vaginally!   As if.  Way to get a beyond-the-yeast infection.

There are men's rights I will vote for immediately.  The sperm donor to the lesbians should not be on the hook (and especially because the judge ruled on the technicality that a doctor didn't do the insemination).  Men should be considered equally capable of being parents in family court, with no presumption that the mother knows best.  I would back that.  Men should not be presumed to be the father of their wife's child if a DNA test proves otherwise.  I'd back that.

But for the mostly whiny bunch of male biatches on this thread with their knickers in a twist because they want to fark and don't want the consequences, stop.  Go get snipped, like Ogre did, if you are so paranoid. If you don't, and you conceive a child, it's your child and you should pay for it.  It's equally likely the child is male.  This isn't a matter of men's rights.
 
2013-01-04 02:27:17 AM  

rat_creature: This. I got laughed out of a goddamned Planned Parenthood for trying to get the snip three months before my 29th birthday. The doc took one look at the clipboard, noting my age and the number of kids I'd already had (0), and glazed over, charitably allowing me to state my case even though she clearly wasn't listening before telling me flat out that she refuses all under-30s as being too young to make such a permanent decision, and to come back in a year - to give me some more 'thinking-it-over time' (on top of the years I'd already been waiting just for a decent insurance plan). If I'd been trying to conceive, do you think I'd have been asked to think on it for another year, or would I have gone home that very day with a list of vitamins to take and techniques to try? Last time I checked, having a child is a rather permanent decision too.


Not if the $$$ paid to Planned Parenthood says anything about it.
 
2013-01-04 02:28:11 AM  

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.

Sorry, no court in the world lets the child suffer because daddy was stupid. That's the general basis for child-support laws. The general thinking is that regardless of whether the parents were careless, mommy was a sneak, or dad was thoughtless, the result was a baby who deserves to be taken care of. Daddy could have kept it in his pants. If mommy poked a hole in the condom, well....daddy could have kept it in his pants.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this, but that's where the child-support laws are coming from.

The problem is a man has absolutely no say in the matter, even if the woman poked the holes in the condom.  The woman can choose to abort or not.  A man can pay child support, or he can pay child support.  I'm not suggesting we start forcing women to have abortions.  However, if she committed fraud (pin holes in the condom or fetched the condom out of the trash), I might consider an exception.

Well, that's why I don't always agree with the laws. If he was entrapped into the situation, there's no reason he should be paying for  his child; unless, you know, he WANTED to because he's a decent person. But in that case, he should get custody and mom shouldn't be able to contest it. If HE commits fraud, like in this case, then mom should get 100% support and he never gets a chance at custody because obviously he's a rat. Or something similar. But just making the guy pay willy-nilly without considering all the circumstances is often not fair.


I agree 100%.
 
2013-01-04 02:30:07 AM  

Fano: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: there's no reason he should be paying for  his child

... except, you know, the child.

Ianal, but I seem to recall that the legal reasoning for what we are considering draconian in this thread re:child support is that the state has determined that an innocent child deserves to be protected, no matter what.


Well, that's why...but having done some work in Child Support Services, I question whether the child gets protected anyway. I agree that if a guy knew what he was doing (as far as having sex even if he thought he was using protection) he SHOULD pay if he's any kind of a man...but if he's going to be a deadbeat and give the mother and/or child (and the state) all kinds of runaround about actually doing the supporting, then it just may not be worth anyone's effort.

Couple anecdotal cases to point up what I mean: In one case, the guy was a scumbag, fled the country owing over $250K in back support. The county suspended his passport, so he wasn't coming back till he paid up--but is he likely to now? By the time the extradition goes through, if ever, he'll owe more than he can ever pay back. Another case, the guy was more than 25 years in arrears. Kids were grown, he was disabled and old, on disability, so nothing to garnish or withhold. He was going to die without ever repaying the more than $300K he owed. He felt bad about stiffing his wife and admitted he'd been a f*ckup but there was nothing he could do anymore.

Point being, if the man wants to pay support, great. But if he doesn't, or can't, then he forfeits his rights to be a father, and that should be it. A man who can't do the right thing financially isn't going to be doing the right thing any other way; the mom is going to be on welfare one way or another; so allow her to cut the man off earlier and easier and end it. We should stop pretending that a guy who flees the country is somehow going to realize his responsibilities and "not let his kids suffer" or that we can make him pay up. It ain't gonna happen.
 
2013-01-04 02:41:23 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: Not this crap again.

You guys have raised some interesting issues in this thread vs. the other one.  I think the sperm donor to the lesbians should never have to pay a penny of child support, but don't blame women for this:  the lesbians agree he should not be billed.  It was the state that decided they could pass the bill on to somebody/anybody.  It was a bad decision.

I don't know of any babbies that have been made by sticking needles in condoms.  I can see how it works in theory, but the last time I saw a condom over an excited dick, back in the 1920s IIRC, it would have been immediately obvious that needle had been inserted into condom.  That little pin prick (I'm talking about the needle hole, relax) would be a great deal larger when the condom was in use.

The simple fact is that most babbies are made the old-fashioned way; man has unprotected sex with fertile woman's vagina.  Then thinks (per the other thread) that he should have a say in whether she has an abortion (no, you can't) or be off the hook for child support (no, you can't either and it's not about you or the woman you impregnated; it's because the baby needs support).

If you all hate women so much, I suggest abstinence, wanking, or homosexuality.  It's gross to hear how you speak here - fark her in the ass - but no, that's not safe, she'll keep some of your precious seed that spills from her rectum and insert it vaginally!   As if.  Way to get a beyond-the-yeast infection.

There are men's rights I will vote for immediately.  The sperm donor to the lesbians should not be on the hook (and especially because the judge ruled on the technicality that a doctor didn't do the insemination).  Men should be considered equally capable of being parents in family court, with no presumption that the mother knows best.  I would back that.  Men should not be presumed to be the father of their wife's child if a DNA test proves otherwise.  I'd back that.

But for the mostly whiny bunch of male biatches on this t ...


You are completely ignoring the simple fact that women HAVE used trickery to become pregnant, grabbing the condom out of the trash, "saving" after a beej, etc.  Those are the circumstances we are arguing.  You are trying to change the debate by arguing that most pregnancies occur the normal unprotected sex.  Again, WE AREN'T DEBATING THAT SITUATION since any reasonable man would agree he took his chances and is responsible for his actions.

So back to the actual argument.  If the woman uses fraud and trickery to become pregnant despite the man taking every reasonable precaution to prevent it, are you arguing that he not only has no say, but is also on the hook for the next twenty years for financial support?
 
2013-01-04 02:58:35 AM  
In regards to child support, if the woman is pregnant because she sabotaged the birth control and/or lied about using birth control then the father should NOT be required to pay child support.
 
2013-01-04 03:01:07 AM  
Ogre:

Totally okay.  If the woman used fraud to become pregnant, then we as a society have to agree to support the child.  (Under any circumstances, the child must be protected).  The man whose sperm was somehow illicitly taken should not be on the hook for 18+ years of support. No argument from me.

Someone has to pick up the bill, so it will be the tax-payers.  I will gladly pay my part of that if you will too; the child has to be raised anyway.

And for the 99% of children conceived the old-fashioned way, will you agree - that Daddy pays first even though he doesn't want to, didn't know he had to, just wanted a one-night-stand, doesn't want baby, wants to be able to force the mommy to have an abortion so he can get out of it and doesn't get to do that?

Deal?
 
2013-01-04 03:10:58 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: And for the 99% of children conceived the old-fashioned way, will you agree - that Daddy pays first even though he doesn't want to, didn't know he had to, just wanted a one-night-stand, doesn't want baby, wants to be able to force the mommy to have an abortion so he can get out of it and doesn't get to do that?


Why shouldn't this bill be picked up by society, also? The state is more capable than the unwilling father, here, so it sounds like you are advocating inferior care for this infant so that it may be used to punish the father for his sexual activity. Presumably he pays taxes and is already caring for the aforementioned socially-funded fraudulent children, so his debt should be paid, no?
 
2013-01-04 03:27:02 AM  
I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.
 
2013-01-04 03:38:13 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: Ogre:

Totally okay.  If the woman used fraud to become pregnant, then we as a society have to agree to support the child.  (Under any circumstances, the child must be protected).  The man whose sperm was somehow illicitly taken should not be on the hook for 18+ years of support. No argument from me.

Someone has to pick up the bill, so it will be the tax-payers.  I will gladly pay my part of that if you will too; the child has to be raised anyway.

And for the 99% of children conceived the old-fashioned way, will you agree - that Daddy pays first even though he doesn't want to, didn't know he had to, just wanted a one-night-stand, doesn't want baby, wants to be able to force the mommy to have an abortion so he can get out of it and doesn't get to do that?

Deal?


Agreed.  Be responsible.  I still, however, am not happy with the current system where the man has no choice when the "accident" happens.  A woman can decide to have an abortion if she chooses, or she can choose to have the baby and that puts the man on the hook for child support.  The man has zero say.  But I am even more uncomfortable with allowing a man to force an abortion.  I chose the only safe route (snip snip), but that's the radical solution.
 
2013-01-04 03:59:06 AM  
Thanks for being responsible.  I understand why men resent that they have no say in a pregnancy, especially when they are on the hook to support the kid and it is usually a lot of money.  But they can't have a say. I'm copying this from the other thread, and this is written by a man :


You are correct that a man is financially responsible if the baby is born but does not get a legal vote as to whether the baby is taken to term or aborted.

The alternative is force a woman to take a baby to term (the word for this is slavery) or force a medical procedure on the woman (cutting into to someone without their permission is called assault).

Yeah, the man doesn't have as much control over the situation after intercourse.  The fact is that men and women are not completely equal in this situation.  Women's bodies are the incubation system -- they just have more control over their bodies than anyone else.

There is no alternative that modern society considers acceptable (and I am happy for that).


And the only edit I would make to his post is this:

they just^ly have more control over their bodies
 
2013-01-04 04:19:30 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.


But you just said that if a woman takes sole responsibility for creating a baby (through fraudulent activity involving deception of the partner) that society should pay for it, and not the woman. Yet here you are saying that if the man has any responsibility, he should pay for it. Why should the woman's share be taken care of by society, whilst the man's share is not?
 
2013-01-04 04:31:45 AM  

sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.


yeah but War on Women yo
 
2013-01-04 04:57:53 AM  

desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?


Buddy got it done after he and the wife had two kids.

He doesn't regret it, but he DID say the procedure wasn't nearly as painless as the doc promised, despite the local anesthetic.

"Hard tugging on the lines" was the way he described it...I didn't really want to know more :)
 
2013-01-04 05:01:03 AM  

lewismarktwo: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

And all because the state doesn't want to have to pay anything for the kid. It's basically slavery.


As a taxpayer, I pay enough for welfare babies, etc. I have no problem sticking the actual father with the bill, if he can be found.

Your best defense? Don't stick it in the crazy.

/has stuck it in the crazy
//got lucky
 
2013-01-04 05:19:42 AM  

Dokushin: ElizaDoolittle: I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.

But you just said that if a woman takes sole responsibility for creating a baby (through fraudulent activity involving deception of the partner) that society should pay for it, and not the woman. Yet here you are saying that if the man has any responsibility, he should pay for it. Why should the woman's share be taken care of by society, whilst the man's share is not?


I think she's saying, if the man is a decent person, he would accept responsibility even if the child was conceived by fraud, because after all, he helped make it. And it is a baby, not, say, a car or a cake. It's going to be a person. If she was a whore and tricked him, that's a coont move on her part, but still, there's a baby. But if he wants to opt out, that should be his choice IF she lied and said Oh yea, I took my pill and knew it was a lie.

BUT if he wants to opt out of financial responsibility, MY point of view is that he doesn't get ANY share in that baby. My opinion is that if he says "Nope, you lied, that's not my problem!" then he has zero say in that baby from that moment forward. No whining if she gets an abortion, no coming back five years later to claim "parental rights," no contesting mom's marriage to another man. Either he accepts responsibility--and that's cool, he's a better man than she is a woman--or he doesn't, and then that's not his baby, end of story.

There are too many men out there who don't want to pay for baby because mama lied (or "How do I know it's mine?"); but then raise holy hell because "She ain't raisin' my kid right," I've seen that happen, and it's disgusting. Raise it or don't, but no half measures.
 
2013-01-04 05:53:22 AM  
Poking holes in condoms is attempting inverse murder.
 
2013-01-04 07:11:21 AM  

pxlboy: Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court.


No. Children get the sharp end of the fark stick in family court. They aren't even parties to the case that decides their fate, they aren't legally entitled the money ostensibly supporting them, and if they are old enough to figure out that their parents suck they can choose between exactly two legal options: living in an abusive home until they're legally allowed to leave or being passed around the foster/group care system for years (17% of kids spend 5+ years in foster care; 45% spend >2 years in care)
 
2013-01-04 07:21:18 AM  
Gyrfalcon:
It's going to be a person
claim "parental rights,"


I'm confused. Is it a person, or is it some sort of property that's subject to the will of person? You say that paying for a child entitles you to rights over that child, while failing to pay for them means you abandon those rights -- that sounds a lot more like a thing you can own than a person.
 
2013-01-04 07:29:33 AM  

profplump: Gyrfalcon:
It's going to be a person
claim "parental rights,"

I'm confused. Is it a person, or is it some sort of property that's subject to the will of person? You say that paying for a child entitles you to rights over that child, while failing to pay for them means you abandon those rights -- that sounds a lot more like a thing you can own than a person.


That's a good point, but it's one most courts have ruled on.

Basically, kids are people, but w/o full rights until they hit adulthood; until then, a parent or guardian(s) has (some) control.

The reason this is 'OK' legally is because childhood is a temporary condition, as opposed to, say, owning a slave based on their skin color or gender.
 
2013-01-04 08:21:34 AM  
Gyrfalcon
BUT if he wants to opt out of financial responsibility, MY point of view is that he doesn't get ANY share in that baby.

That happens anyway. Mom commits fraud, has babby, sues Dad to collect support while maintaining primary custody, leaves the state. Et voila.

I know this happens because, well, it happened to me. :(
 
2013-01-04 08:35:30 AM  

Dokushin: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.

Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?

Forcing some young guy to pay 20 years of child support has the potential to ruin his life.

Forcing some young child to go 20 years with half the support of the parents he's entitled to has the potential to ruin his life.

If the state is going to choose between "potentially ruining the life of an adult" and "potentially ruining the life of a child", the adult is going to lose every time.

Why is that support not provided by the state? Forcing the suspected (male) parent to provide it is punitive, and therefore questioning the accuracy of the charge is certainly in order.


Supporting your biological child is punitive? Or are you adding a new wrinkle regarding suspect paternity that we haven't yet discussed? We're talking about poked holes in condoms, where the male parent <I>is</I> the father.
 
2013-01-04 08:41:40 AM  

Dokushin: ElizaDoolittle: I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.

But you just said that if a woman takes sole responsibility for creating a baby (through fraudulent activity involving deception of the partner) that society should pay for it, and not the woman. Yet here you are saying that if the man has any responsibility, he should pay for it. Why should the woman's share be taken care of by society, whilst the man's share is not?


Sorry if I was unclear.  I meant the man should be off the hook and society should support the woman.  She would remain responsible.
 
2013-01-04 08:43:23 AM  

mrexcess: Theaetetus: C'mon, now.

Consider the hypothetical case of a 14 year old boy who is statutorily raped by a 23 year old woman, who becomes pregnant and has a baby.

Are you really telling me that the 14 year old should be on the hook for child support? Because that's how the laws work now.Granted, mommy would spend some time in prison, but probably not for half as long as the boy was paying for his raping.


So? Again, as I said, if you're asking the courts to choose between an adult - or even a teenager - and a child, they're going to choose the child. Family courts explicitly are directed by statute to act in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child are that it receives support from both parents. Period. Any further complaints about are irrelevant, because the child is not the perpetrator of fraud or rape, so what right do we have to diminish the child's rights?

You can white knight for the chilluns all you want, but face it: our current system is unfair and gives males the short end of the stick, with half the liability but 0% of the control* over the situation.

You can ignore the chilluns all you want, but face it: you're not proposing to  end unfairness, but merely to pile it on an innocent third party. Your complaint is hypocritical, because  your proposed system would give children the short end of the stick, with 100% of the liability and 0% of the control over their situation.

*see, however, vasectomies. Just as with an abortion, there are voluntary medical procedures a male can undergo to prevent any possibility of bearing a child. Just as you can't order a woman to have or to not have an abortion, she can't order you to have or to not have a vasectomy. It's absolute parity.
 
2013-01-04 08:51:41 AM  

Gyrfalcon: BUT if he wants to opt out of financial responsibility, MY point of view is that he doesn't get ANY share in that baby. My opinion is that if he says "Nope, you lied, that's not my problem!" then he has zero say in that baby from that moment forward. No whining if she gets an abortion, no coming back five years later to claim "parental rights," no contesting mom's marriage to another man. Either he accepts responsibility--and that's cool, he's a better man than she is a woman--or he doesn't, and then that's not his baby, end of story.

There are too many men out there who don't want to pay for baby because mama lied (or "How do I know it's mine?"); but then raise holy hell because "She ain't raisin' my kid right," I've seen that happen, and it's disgusting. Raise it or don't, but no half measures.


There are plenty more men out there who have no interest in raising their kids or paying for them, however. Accordingly, the "you can opt out of child support and you forfeit any legal rights to your kids" exchange will simply result in a lot more kids and mothers on welfare.
Plus, it's not a contract anyone other than the kid (or a guardian ad litem) could make. The support is the right of the child, so the only person who can forfeit that is the child or a legal representative. The father would simply have no ability to make a binding agreement waiving someone else's rights.
 
2013-01-04 08:57:36 AM  

Tumunga: The Irresponsible Captain:

[i.imgur.com image 461x766]

It would be an asshole baby?


not sure if serious jpeg?
 
2013-01-04 09:12:50 AM  

PunGent: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Buddy got it done after he and the wife had two kids.

He doesn't regret it, but he DID say the procedure wasn't nearly as painless as the doc promised, despite the local anesthetic.

"Hard tugging on the lines" was the way he described it...I didn't really want to know more :)


It feels like getting (lightly) hit in the balls while the procedure is going on. It doesn't take long though.
 
2013-01-04 10:22:14 AM  
In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.

Man and woman get pregnant. Man want baby, woman no want baby, but no want kill baby. Woman has baby, signs over all rights never pay for baby no backsies.
 
2013-01-04 10:26:55 AM  

Loren: Chabash: If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...

He made it far more risky than she consented to. The court was right.


This.
But also:

pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.


This too.
 
2013-01-04 10:38:28 AM  

lewismarktwo: In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.

Man and woman get pregnant. Man want baby, woman no want baby, but no want kill baby. Woman has baby, signs over all rights never pay for baby no backsies.


This post should be sung bby Harry Belafonte
 
2013-01-04 11:03:10 AM  
I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream.

It all evens out though.  There's a lot of shiat women have to deal with that I would hate.
 
2013-01-04 11:09:03 AM  

dfenstrate: I've thought for a while that if I ended up getting pegged with a BS child support order, I'd go for custody of the child.


I agree.  If I'm going to pay for it, then it's parent is going to be ME - and I'm going to actually get the joy of raising my child instead of just being some shmuck it's mother trapped into subsidizing her life.

I feel bad for the guys that get dooped into paying for a kid and then get wedged out of the picture while his kid gets pressured into calling every one of mom's new boyfriends "dad".
 
2013-01-04 11:13:57 AM  

spiderpaz: I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream believe that some child shouldn't have to suffer a lack of support because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents.


FTFY.
 
2013-01-04 11:16:49 AM  
Rabid Turnip

PunGent: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Buddy got it done after he and the wife had two kids.

He doesn't regret it, but he DID say the procedure wasn't nearly as painless as the doc promised, despite the local anesthetic.

"Hard tugging on the lines" was the way he described it...I didn't really want to know more :)


Get a specialist to do it. Ask the doc how many vasectomies he performs per year. If it is a low number (in your opinion) get a referral to a specialist. When I had it done my doc referred me to a specialist straight away since he doesn't do them. The specialist does 400+ per year and I didn't need pain meds or even an ice pack afterwards. If I hadn't watched him do the procedure (that was surreal !) I wouldn't have known it was done. Worst thing about the whole operation was the awkward nurse who shaved me (good suggestion from someone upthread to shave yourself beforehand). It all depends on the quality of the doc.

/bonus, I'm Canadian, so I paid $0 out of pocket.
 
2013-01-04 11:43:30 AM  

Theaetetus: spiderpaz: I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream believe that some child shouldn't have to suffer a lack of support because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents.

FTFY.


However I suspect you're totally okay with the mother sending it to an orphanage or aborting it, causing the child to suffer "because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents ".  What a hypocrite.  Interesting that all your posts seem to put every shred of burden onto a man in every scenario possible, but never a woman.  You must believe women to be hapless fools who always need an out and men to be all powerful, omniscient beings who don't deserve the same.  Too bad your profile doesn't contain a pic.  I was hoping to see what an unabashed man hating twat might look like.
 
2013-01-04 11:50:51 AM  
Ooh, here is the woman trapped me into child support thread again. I am out of here!
 
2013-01-04 12:08:09 PM  

spiderpaz: Theaetetus: spiderpaz: I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream believe that some child shouldn't have to suffer a lack of support because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents.

FTFY.

However I suspect you're totally okay with the mother sending it to an orphanage or aborting it, causing the child to suffer "because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents ".  What a hypocrite.


I suspect you eat puppies. What a hypocrite.

Pro-tip: rather than accusing people of hypocrisy based on what your fevered imagination dreams they believe,  ask them.

Here, I'll even do it for you. First time's free. After that, you're on your own.
1) "Are you okay with the mother sending the child to an orphanage, causing the child to suffer?"
No, I'd prefer that didn't happen, but the alternative would be slavery, and we as a society has determined that slavery is bad enough that it trumps even the child's rights to support.

2) "Are you okay with the mother having an abortion, causing the child to suffer?"
What child? If the mother has an abortion, there's no child, so what are you talking about? Do you not understand that abortion occurs prior to birth? Are you confusing "abortion" and "infantcide"? If so, then of course I'm not okay with infantcide. What a dumbass question.

Interesting that all your posts seem to put every shred of burden onto a man in every scenario possible, but never a woman.

That must be because you didn't bother reading "all my posts". Scroll up and you'll see that I place "every shred of burden" on both parents.
In the future, you should avoid statements like this if you haven't checked that they're true. They merely make you look stupid when they're so easily proven false.

You must believe women to be hapless fools who always need an out and men to be all powerful, omniscient beings who don't deserve the same.  Too bad your profile doesn't contain a pic.  I was hoping to see what an unabashed man hating twat might look like.

And, similarly, you should avoid statements like this. They make you look like a misogynistic dickbag, and destroys any credibility the rest of your post could have had. While one  could have thought you were merely lazy in not bothering to read the posts you're replying to and making statements about, now you just come off as an asshole who intentionally lied about them. Why should we listen to anything you say at this point?

Perhaps it would be best if you apologized and tried re-writing that entire post again, yes?
 
2013-01-04 12:21:13 PM  

Theaetetus: Here, I'll even do it for you. First time's free. After that, you're on your own.
1) "Are you okay with the mother sending the child to an orphanage, causing the child to suffer?"
No, I'd prefer that didn't happen, but the alternative would be slavery, and we as a society has determined that slavery is bad enough that it trumps even the child's rights to support.


LOL ... this is the funniest part of your ridiculous, rabid, frothy mouthed post.  When a mother is forced to support a child she doesn't want IT'S SLAVERY.  But in your opinion it's okay to force a man to pay for it when his sperm has been used against his will.  haha.  Oh yeah, you're "totally" not a hypocrite.

There is no low you will not sink to at this point.  There's no more use talking to someone so ridiculous.  I've been on fark for a long time, and you might be the FIRST person worthy of being blocked.

To be clear, that makes you worse than:
9beers, maxalt, JoeBlowme, SillyJesus, EWReckedSean, MyRandomName, LtCheaseWeasel, Cletus C, and all the other right wing trolls.

You were just highlighted in a group with other idiot man hating tools, but you are clearly in a class by yourself.  A whole new level of crazy.
 
2013-01-04 01:11:36 PM  
The double standard at play here hurts my head.
I hate them both.
 
2013-01-04 01:30:17 PM  

spiderpaz: Theaetetus: Here, I'll even do it for you. First time's free. After that, you're on your own.
1) "Are you okay with the mother sending the child to an orphanage, causing the child to suffer?"
No, I'd prefer that didn't happen, but the alternative would be slavery, and we as a society has determined that slavery is bad enough that it trumps even the child's rights to support.

LOL ... this is the funniest part of your ridiculous, rabid, frothy mouthed post.


Actually, the funny part is that I was quite polite, while you were calling me a twat. Apparently, you think helpful suggestions are "rabid, frothy mouthed".

When a mother is forced to support a child she doesn't want IT'S SLAVERY. But in your opinion it's okay to force a man to pay for it when his sperm has been used against his will.  haha.  Oh yeah, you're "totally" not a hypocrite.

Actually, your question was regarding  orphanagesand physical care of the child, not payment of child support. It's SLAVERY if you require someone to physically care for the child, regardless of whether it's the mother or father. Either parent has the ability to abandon the child to the state. There's no gender discrimination there.
Paying money for support, however, is not SLAVERY. And either parent - male or female - may be required to pay support for a child if the other parent has custody. Again, no gender discrimination.
And again, no hypocrisy.

There is no low you will not sink to at this point.  There's no more use talking to someone so ridiculous.  I've been on fark for a long time, and you might be the FIRST person worthy of being blocked.

Pro-tip: read the FArQ. Telling someone you're blocking them is trolling, and can result in a timeout. You could just block me, y'know.
 
2013-01-04 02:21:26 PM  

SnarfVader: If your girlfriend is wearing the condom, holes are the least of your concerns.



I was minding my business, just reading and giggling... then I make it to this comment. And squirt water out my nose.

You owe me a godd*** monitor.
 
2013-01-04 02:23:42 PM  

lewismarktwo: In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.

Man and woman get pregnant. Man want baby, woman no want baby, but no want kill baby. Woman has baby, signs over all rights never pay for baby no backsies.


And here's a further example of how farked up the system is against men.  Girl gets pregnant.  Doesn't want baby but is morally opposed to abortion.  Has baby, puts baby up for adoption.  Father wants the baby, judge tells him to bugger off.  Baby is adopted against the father's wishes.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report