Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[Grizzly Willy]

Having a man donate sperm and then expecting they pay for the child, as in the case that popped up recently, is completely backwards and antithetical to the whole sperm donor process to begin with.

[Jackmoves]

When the woman takes everything in her hands and stops using contraception, it stops being risk it becomes fraud/entrapment/robbery.

If you don't trust your girlfriend or wife divorce her/end it, or end the sex somewhere els, for example on her tummy.
Sabotaging condoms/lying to the man to get pregnent should be punishable by law. But how do you prove that?

[Castiell]

Female: i want this baby
Male: i dont

Female gets pregnant through whatever measure

Female now has all the options in the world.

Abort it and keep the partner
Abort it and dump the partner
Keep the baby and keep the partner
Abort the baby, dump the partner and be set for life

Male has the following options:
Accept his fate and stay in a relationship where trust has been broken forever
Abandon his flesh and blood, ruining his life with the alimony payments


males get shafted.

[Laize]

quite a few men have this view, and men were the ones who enacted legislation on it.

Quite a few men also have the view that the Earth is 6000 years old. That doesn't make it any more correct or intelligent.

you cant claim inequality for a nonexistent right.

I'm sorry but... wat?

hardly. raising a child is a huge burden not only financially but physically, emotionally, and a good chunk of time that could be spent in other areas. he pays a fee in return for doubling every other burden.

Nope. The only unequal burden is in pregnancy. She is obviously willing to have a child if it's born. If he is not, he should not be held liable for her decision. If she decides to have it against his wishes (Which is her entitlement) and he is forced to support that decision the burden is then unequal for him.

[Xarkan]

But you can force a man to pay for the child he never wanted for 20 years, because the woman chose to keep it. Again, is this fair? Is this a form of sexual discrimination?

I think the misconception and issue is this

Child support is money to the child not money to the woman. The child did nothing wrong in being born so of course that should still be payed

But the flip side is the woman should be able to be forced to document spending twice that amount on the child. That is only fair. She may spend more (and in all fairness most probably do) but it should not be allowed to spend less than twice (that is to say both parties would account for expenses on part of the child equal to the child support amount) Maybe it is also already the case?

[Bruddoris]

its illegal to use someone as a sperm doner without their consent already afaik. if he consented to have sex with her, he consented to her potential pregnancy.
as did she. so they are both equally responsible.

I can't tell if you are incredibly unintelligent, completely not following what I'm saying, intentionally avoiding the obvious issue of the woman intentionally misleading the man so that she is acting under the premiss of attempting to get pregnant while he believes she is using contraceptives, or if you are so unwavering in your belief that no action could ever make a woman more responsible financially for a child that you refuse to see any perspective that might suggest that.

regardless I don't need to know what reason you have for your response I simply know I'll be avoiding this thread and any more you post in of this topic as there is no point in logical discussion with someone who can't or won't consider a logical counter point to their stance.

[darenyon]

Having a man donate sperm and then expecting they pay for the child, as in the case that popped up recently, is completely backwards and antithetical to the whole sperm donor process to begin with.

i believe the reason for that was because there was no official documentation that he was a donor.

[Jackmoves]

The problem is that when she lies about contraception, it's 0% safe.

You remember that russian roulette analogy? How having sex is like playing russian roulette. And the problem was when the woman rigged the game and put a bullet in every chamber.

Men's financial future shouldn't be subject to the risk of "crazy bitch impregnates herself on purpose".

No, but it shouldn't mean people should be able to walk away without a care in the world, leaving the sole responsibility on the partner when there was no lies involved. It's like crying to the government because you made a bad investment and lost all your savings, tough luck. People should take responsibility for their own actions.

[Cybran]

If you don't trust your girlfriend or wife divorce her/end it, or end the sex somewhere els, for example on her tummy.
Sabotaging condoms/lying to the man to get pregnent should be punishable by law. But how do you prove that?

You can't prove that. What you can do is give men rights in court to defend themselves. Make it clear to women that if they could bear the whole burden of the child and it will discourage them from trying.

The problem is that now they are above the law. This gives them the power to manipulate and rob their partners blind.

[Laize]

i believe the reason for that was because there was no official documentation that he was a donor.

There was a signed contract. That's pretty damn official.

The problem the government had was that it wasn't done by a licensed physician (AKA they turkey basted it).

That's not his fault.

[darenyon]

I can't tell if you are incredibly unintelligent, completely not following what I'm saying, intentionally avoiding the obvious issue of the woman intentionally misleading the man so that she is acting under the premiss of attempting to get pregnant while he believes she is using contraceptives, or if you are so unwavering in your belief that no action could ever make a woman more responsible financially for a child that you refuse to see any perspective that might suggest that.

regardless I don't need to know what reason you have for your response I simply know I'll be avoiding this thread and any more you post in of this topic as there is no point in logical discussion with someone who can't or won't consider a logical counter point to their stance.

i already addressed the issue. it doesnt matter if there was any "misleading". if a woman misleads a man, both are responsible. if a man misleads a woman, both are responsible.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 06:50 AM ----------

There was a signed contract. That's pretty damn official.

The problem the government had was that it wasn't done by a licensed physician (AKA they turkey basted it).

That's not his fault.

i guess they want to be very careful about it. regardless, they simply didnt follow the correct procedures.

[Laize]

i already addressed the issue. it doesnt matter if there was any "misleading". if a woman misleads a man, bkth are responsible. if a man misleads a woman, both are responsible.

You're being incredibly obstinate.

You're attempting to hold a man responsible for something he never wanted a part of. Tell me, what harm is done if she is given plenty of notice and makes an informed decision?

[darenyon]

You're being incredibly obstinate.

You're attempting to hold a man responsible for something he never wanted a part of. Tell me, what harm is done if she is given plenty of notice and makes an informed decision?

he decided he wanted a part of it when he had sex. he just decided the risk was worth the cost.

[Rukentuts]

Having a man donate sperm and then expecting they pay for the child, as in the case that popped up recently, is completely backwards and antithetical to the whole sperm donor process to begin with.

To be honest, there's a difference between donating to a sperm bank and just giving the sample to someone without any legal documentation. The case I believe you are alluding to was the latter.

[Xarkan]

i already addressed the issue. it doesnt matter if there was any "misleading". if a woman misleads a man, both are responsible. if a man misleads a woman, both are responsible

But would you object to the man being able to sue her for the costs she gave him by said misleading though? In a fair world when we force expenses on others these others can sue us for the costs. Child support is an expense, by misleading (if such can be proved) you force such an expense on another. Is it not fair that this other should be able to sue you for said cost (in reasonable installments over 18 years)

The child support should still be payed ofcourse

[darenyon]

But would you object to the man being able to sue her for the costs she gave him by said misleading though? In a fair world when we force expenses on others these others can sue us for the costs. Child support is an expense, by misleading (if such can be proved) you force such an expense on another. Is it not fair that this other should be able to sue you for said cost (in reasonable installments over 18 years)

The child support should still be payed ofcourse

thats entirely reasonable.

[Stir]

i already addressed the issue. it doesnt matter if there was any "misleading". if a woman misleads a man, both are responsible. if a man misleads a woman, both are responsible.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 06:50 AM ----------

i guess they want to be very careful about it. regardless, they simply didnt follow the correct procedures.

Whut..?
Point one: If a man pokes holes in his condom to impregnate a woman against her wish, then HE is responsible and should take care of the child and pay for the damages he caused. Actually, she could probably get a case of rape through; even though the intercourse itself was not involuntary, the conditions of the intercourse were demonstrably involuntary.
The same goes the other way round.

The one doing the deceiving is at fault, and as such is responsible. And yes, I do consider it rape since the conditions of intercourse were involuntary, and had the partner been aware of these conditions, then the partner would have rejected intercourse. Which is... Rape.

As for point two: They had an official document in which both parties agreed that the male would be nothing more than a sperm donor. Who cares if they save some money by not using a test-tube?

[Laize]

he decided he wanted a part of it when he had sex. he just decided the risk was worth the cost.

Wow... if you think that's the thought that goes through anyone's head before they have sex I have to wonder if you've actually had sex.

While it's true that I advocate personal responsibility, it's just that. I advocate personal responsibility. I do NOT advocate having obligations you've made clear you don't want thrust upon you.

When a woman keeps a pregnancy and the father does not want it, there is no sound reason he should be held liable for her decision.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 03:00 PM ----------

i guess they want to be very careful about it. regardless, they simply didnt follow the correct procedures.

Do you support the court's position that he should pay child support because the lesbian couple didn't go through the proper channels to have IVF done?

[Rukentuts]

Wow... if you think that's the thought that goes through anyone's head before they have sex I have to wonder if you've actually had sex.

Considering I have been propositioned without protection, and I turned down said encounter due to such circumstances, I'd say yes responsible men do think about pregnancy.

[Cybran]

No, but it shouldn't mean people should be able to walk away without a care in the world, leaving the sole responsibility on the partner when there was no lies involved. It's like crying to the government because you made a bad investment and lost all your savings, tough luck. People should take responsibility for their own actions.

How can i get in through your skull? It's like you making an investment with moderate risk and your financial partner screwing you over behind your back. You need to be able to defend yourself from fraud/entrapment.

Men as it is have no rights in court, this empowers women to abuse their power and ruin lives. Laws cause the problem and they should fix it.