A brief, "re" introduction.....

[Kulindahr]

I saw it heading that way...I have been reading and agreeing with you. I meant to post days ago, but it has taken me this long to think about what I actually wanted to say.

Tanks.

The thing is, if a guy is happy with being just a sex toy, that's his privilege; he's fully within his rights to let the gal make all the decisions. But to get to that point the basic responsibilities have to be examined.

 

[construct]

I do think it is funny (in general) that many women's rights activists are so stead fast in their belief that the fathers have no rights, opinion, say, etc in the pregnancy, but let that child be born, and they will be the first to come after him for child support.

It is certainly a double standard, me thinks. When a women becomes pregnant (unexpectedly) they dismiss the argument that she knew the consequences of sex "she didn't intend it-she ensured condoms were worn-etc-let her abort"...but going after the father for support.."you knew the consequences...it doesn't matter if you ensured you had a condom on...YOU took that risk, and now you will pay!"

Okay. Here's another approach. I'm not endorsing it; I'm just bringing it up to see how it flies with you and the others.

Potential father wants the abortion. Potential mother does not. Potential father renounces all parental rights and avoids child support. This gets rid of the double standard that some fathers seem to be annoyed by.

"I never wanted the little bugger in the first place! Now I have to foot the bill?!!! Fuck that!" Does he have a legitimate point?

 

[JB3]

Okay. Here's another approach. I'm not endorsing it; I'm just bringing it up to see how it flies with you and the others.

Potential father wants the abortion. Potential mother does not. Potential father renounces all parental rights and avoids child support. This gets rid of the double standard that some fathers seem to be annoyed by.

"I never wanted the little bugger in the first place! Now I have to foot the bill?!!! Fuck that!" Does he have a legitimate point?

It depends. Was there an effort made to avoid pregnancy? If there wasn't, he made a choice to have unprotected sex, and should bear some of the burden.

In this specific case, if I was a creative family court judge I would order the father to pay 9 months of child support, plus medical costs. That's the same burden the mother would bear if the father wanted the child and she carried it to term and gave it to him.

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay. Here's another approach. I'm not endorsing it; I'm just bringing it up to see how it flies with you and the others.

Potential father wants the abortion. Potential mother does not. Potential father renounces all parental rights and avoids child support. This gets rid of the double standard that some fathers seem to be annoyed by.

"I never wanted the little bugger in the first place! Now I have to foot the bill?!!! Fuck that!" Does he have a legitimate point?

Quite legitimate -- and a clause needs to be in there that if later he decides he wants visitation rights, he has to pay some support -- e.g., he gets to spend time with the kid thirty days out of the year, then he pays 30/365ths of the kid's upkeep.

Though if I was the mom and he'd wanted an abortion, I'd refuse to agree to visitation until the kid was old enough to understand the situation and decide if he wanted to see the dad -- like, at least sixteen.



I ran into one recently that totally boggles my mind: dude is living with his gal-friend. They have a kid. Then she's pregnant again. Before the kid arrives, they break up. Judge awards child support for both kids. The dude doesn't believe the second kid is his, so he pays for DNA testing. Not only does the testing show it isn't his, they find the real father.
Dude goes to court to stop child support for kid that isn't his. Judge says no, because he was the 'partner of record' or some such crap at the time of the conception.
So here's a dude who isn't even the dad, and he's paying child support!



Another, from when I was in college -- this was a buddy's g-friend's weird situation: her dad and mom got a divorce. Her mom was independently wealthy. Everything was shared when they were married. But with the divorce, the court decides the mom doesn't have to share any of the wealth she brought to the marriage, but the dad has to give up half of everything that was his, and also has to pay child support!
Interesting twist: his attorney noted that it wouldn't be fair to require the dad to match the amounts the mother could provide, so he got the court to agree that the dad would pay the same percentage the mom did. In a side note, it was agreed that gifts didn't count as income. Creatively, dad managed to arrange his life so he technically has no income. Meanwhile, mom, who'd gotten the wealth in a trust fund that became hers when she married, managed to blow an inheritance of seven figures.
So mom goes back to court to try to get money out of dad. Dad's attorney present evidence that the IRS has never been able to establish that dad has any taxable income; judge says he's not going to argue with the IRS.
But the girls were supported mostly by their dad anyway, with gifts of clothes and all not from him, but from his [STRIKE]clients[/STRIKE] (oops) friends.

I figured I'd tell the whole story, but the point is how strange it was to require a dad with a net worth possibly in six figures to have to provide child support after giving up half of everything that was his, when the mom had a net worth on the order of upwards of twenty times his.

 

[Kulindahr]

It depends. Was there an effort made to avoid pregnancy? If there wasn't, he made a choice to have unprotected sex, and should bear some of the burden.

In this specific case, if I was a creative family court judge I would order the father to pay 9 months of child support, plus medical costs. That's the same burden the mother would bear if the father wanted the child and she carried it to term and gave it to him.

I was assuming an accident. In this case -- as a judge I'd be tempted to award half of medical costs until the kid can read and write. But I like your reasoning.

 

[nurseboy269]

Potential father renounces all parental rights and avoids child support.

I brought up the issue of the double standard because I thought that it was interesting and tied in well with the current subject.

However, my ultimate position is that pregnancy is a known possible outcome of sex. As much as I believe the women has to take responsibility for it (not oops...got pregnant...off to have an abortion), I also believe the man should be held responsible (not oops...got her pregnant...not going to support the child).

I am pro-life...if they women is not prepared for the possibility of getting pregnant, and doesn't take appropriate measures to prevent it, then she shouldn't be having sex. If the man is not prepared for the possibility of having a child and supporting it, and does not take appropriate measures to prevent it, then he shouldn't be having sex.

There is always an outcome for everything we do. We should be held responsible for knowing such outcomes and being prepared for their possibilities.

 

[nurseboy269]

In Missouri, the partner of record issue only applies when the couple is married, and then the husband is the presumed father...otherwise, there is no tie to the man unless paternity is established in a court.

On the issue of child support:
My father, at the time of his divorce from my mother, was working a great job. His child support order was $600/child/month. There was 3 of us. A few years after that, he lost that job and took another that was not as good financially. He went back to court to have it reduced, and the judge refused. He obviously couldn't pay $1800/month anymore, but never went a month without paying. He built up a rather large sum of back support over the years.

When I went to live with him, he went back to court to have the amount adjusted...the judge refused because he owed so much back support. Doesn't make sense, as keeping the amount the same is not going to do anything to reduce that amount, especially when it should have been reduced since I was living there.

My father payed on back child support until I was 25. During the time I was over 18 until 25, I would tell my mother that she should give the money to me and my brother and sister as the support was for us...she would reply "I still have kids to raise"...HAHA, my father is not obligated to pay for your other children mother!

 

[Kulindahr]

My father payed on back child support until I was 25. During the time I was over 18 until 25, I would tell my mother that she should give the money to me and my brother and sister as the support was for us...she would reply "I still have kids to raise"...HAHA, my father is not obligated to pay for your other children mother!

I've known a few mothers like that. They're why the whole child support system makes women look like scheming, grasping shrews. I won't even venture a guess as to what the proportion is who are like that, but it's enough that many people regard the whole business as a scam.

 

[construct]

In Missouri, the partner of record issue only applies when the couple is married, and then the husband is the presumed father...otherwise, there is no tie to the man unless paternity is established in a court.

I wondered about this. Perhaps the "partnership" was a common law marriage? What state was it in? Otherwise, I'd expect something statutory.

On the issue of child support:
My father, at the time of his divorce from my mother, was working a great job. His child support order was $600/child/month. There was 3 of us. A few years after that, he lost that job and took another that was not as good financially. He went back to court to have it reduced, and the judge refused. He obviously couldn't pay $1800/month anymore, but never went a month without paying. He built up a rather large sum of back support over the years.

When I went to live with him, he went back to court to have the amount adjusted...the judge refused because he owed so much back support. Doesn't make sense, as keeping the amount the same is not going to do anything to reduce that amount, especially when it should have been reduced since I was living there.

My father payed on back child support until I was 25. During the time I was over 18 until 25, I would tell my mother that she should give the money to me and my brother and sister as the support was for us...she would reply "I still have kids to raise"...HAHA, my father is not obligated to pay for your other children mother!

I'm surprised that the amount wasn't adjusted when he got the new job. Could the judge have thought he was intentionally underemployed?

Child support should go to the parent that the child normally lives with. After the move, I would have expected the back child support would have been an offset to support paid by your mother to your father.

What you're describing here does seem pretty screwy.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Lol. A bunch of homos debating str8 sex and child birthing, lmao.

 

[construct]

Lol. A bunch of homos debating str8 sex and child birthing, lmao.

I see some irony here, but not much once you get beyond caring only about what affects one personally.

For me, both gay rights and abortion regulation are primarily matters of economic justice.

 

[nurseboy269]

Lol. A bunch of homos debating str8 sex and child birthing, lmao.

Two posts in the thread and both with the sole intention of baiting with snide remarks...interesting.

Considering there are bisexual men "debating" as well, the issue is FAR from irrelevant.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I love the high and lofty tones about "guys aren't just dicks". Puleeeese. You're on a GAY PORNO FORUM people. LMAO! Take a look at nearly everyone's posts in various "is he hot" type threads, and our own behavior regarding male on male sex.... come on! Get fucking real! It's like arguing high moral tones, that a guy should be able to trust another guy on a one night stand to be honest about his HIV status. Only a dumbshit would do something like that.

For over 3,000 years women have been treated as chattel, and forced by men to bend to their will on what to do with their bodies. They died in the millions during childbirth. And now, in only the past 20 or 30 years that the tables have changed a bit where a woman has a perhaps outsized position regarding child rearing are men all up in arms. Give me a break.

If you're a male and don't want some woman you fuck to abort your fetus, don't fuck her without a condom, end of fucking story!

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Maybe you're obsessed with porn. I haven't seen any lately; they don't post it here, or in Hot Topics or Fun and Games or Religion or Tech or Coming Out or the wellness one.