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

[Laize]

never said it was justified, just that the notion that women are out to get men in general is pretty stupid.

Who anywhere is suggesting that?

How many times must it be pointed out that no one is saying women in general are out to get men.

Why do you keep insisting someone said that?!

[Stelio Kontos]

So what you're saying is you're refusing to believe anything that could point out the system isn't as perfect as you like to believe it is? Ok, in that case you may wanna go to the MLP thread or something.

FYI, I did edit my post to add in more info about the UK.

[Deleted]

Please point out where I said or even implied that all women do that.
You seem to believe NO ONE does or that there should be no protections for those that do deceive.

You never said all women do that.

No, I do not believe nobody does it but what I do believe in is personal responsibility - the government shouldn't come in and save everyone all the time. The government shouldn't be like a big nanny for people who refuse to be responsible in their actions even though it can be useful in some cases but when it comes to such things they should not get too involved imo.

You refuse to address situations where partners DO trust each other and that trust is betrayed.

I can't really relate to someone doing that at all, might be why I have trouble understanding why someone would do it. I've always had trust in my relationships, both ways.

I'm actually done speaking to you. You and Darenyon have it in your heads that I'm a misogynist or that I think men should shoulder no responsibility for birth control. Neither of those things could be farther from the truth.

Why would I think you're a misogynist just because I think you should be equally responsible as the woman for protection and not solely rely on her for the protection?


You also have to understand that countries laws regarding child support differ, what is in place in your country is not in place in another country.

Who anywhere is suggesting that?

How many times must it be pointed out that no one is saying women in general are out to get men.

Why do you keep insisting someone said that?!

Because it does come off a bit as just that tbh.

[Urti]

Could we get the same survey for men and see who is worse?

I suspect that you would get similar results, seeing as how moral and ethical stances aren't governed by genitalia. I'd suspect there would be just as many male assholes as female asshole, statistically.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Got some case law to back up your claim then? You did make the claim, so let's see case law and court opinion.

You can look it up yourself. Its happened to friends of mine, so I looked it up. I have been in this debate many times, and looked it up and cited sources many times.

But knowing how you ignore things and just say some sarcastic line, you would ignore it, try to discredit it with straw mans anyway.

Call someone a liar, its up to you to disprove them.

[Stelio Kontos]

You can look it up yourself. Its happened to friends of mine, so I looked it up. I have been in this debate many times, and looked it up and cited sources many times.

But knowing how you ignore things and just say some sarcastic line, you would ignore it, try to discredit it with straw mans anyway.

Call someone a liar, its up to you to disprove them.

You made the claim: Courts can force an unrelated male to pay child support.

The burden is on you to defend the claim.

Court case name please. Let's see some legal material backing what you said. The claimant brings the proof, not the one questioning it.

[Laize]

You never said all women do that.

No, I do not believe nobody does it but what I do believe in is personal responsibility - the government shouldn't come in and save everyone all the time. The government shouldn't be like a big nanny for people who refuse to be responsible in their actions even though it can be useful in some cases but when it comes to such things they should not get too involved imo.

No, of course the government shouldn't come in and save everyone all the time. But in these instances, it's the government that's actually doing the harm. So yes something needs to change.

I can't really relate to someone doing that at all, might be why I have trouble understanding why someone would do it. I've always had trust in my relationships, both ways.

So because you have no experience with it means it doesn't happen? By that logic, I've never been to the Moon so the Apollo missions must have been faked.

Why would I think you're a misogynist just because I think you should be equally responsible as the woman for protection and not solely rely on her for the protection?

Because I'm not suggesting that ANYWHERE. In fact I think if RISUG ever hits the market it'll be the most successful birth control since the pill.

You also have to understand that countries laws regarding child support differ, what is in place in your country is not in place in another country.

And what does that mean to me? That I should simply ignore what happens in my country because it doesn't happen elsewhere?

---------- Post added 2013-01-17 at 01:53 PM ----------

You made the claim: Courts can force an unrelated male to pay child support.

The burden is on you to defend the claim.

Court case name please. Let's see some legal material backing what you said. The claimant brings the proof, not the one questioning it.

Here you go.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You made the claim: Courts can force an unrelated male to pay child support.

The burden is on you to defend the claim.

Court case name please. Let's see some legal material backing what you said. The claimant brings the proof, not the one questioning it.

Again, you call me a liar, you can disprove me.

[Deleted]

Questions are answered the the way you ask them. Never trust surveys unless you know exactly how the questions were phrased.

In the end, if you force people to answer "yes" or "no", there's no room for gray areas. A majority of women might say if pushed to it that they would lie about who's the father, but you also have to remember that most women probably first would say "that's not a reasonable scenario". I doubt that the question actually answered were that simple, but instead put in a way similar to this:

"If you had a child with another man, and you decided that you wanted to keep said child, and you also still deeply loved your husband, then would you lie about who's child it is?"

Suddenly it's no longer so black and white.

[Laize]

Again, you call me a liar, you can disprove me.

He's actually right. The burden of proof is on the one making the ontologically positive claim. It's a good thing I did your work for you.

[Xanjori]

He's actually right. The burden of proof is on the one making the ontologically positive claim. It's a good thing I did your work for you.

I can't even believe what I just read. How are people stupid enough to think that even makes sense? I'm like sitting here with a literal WTF face on atm.

[Raiju]

"If you had a child with another man, and you decided that you wanted to keep said child, and you also still deeply loved your husband, then would you lie about who's child it is?"

Suddenly it's no longer so black and white.

Yes, yes it is. Why is it acceptable to you to have such a big lie to the husband you "deeply love"?

[Stelio Kontos]

Here you go.

Excellent, thank you, much better than lemonparty's sniveling.

Well, it appears I was wrong in some of the cases, and that US law isn't consistent on the issue.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure whether the first half is meant to be taken as a joke or not...

Well the math is sound, doesn't mean the premisse is

[Daskapital]

Here you go.

Laize, that father is paying child support to a child that is effectively still his daughter. He still gets visitation and still fathers her. If you position yourself as a child's parent you become responsible for that child. He is not paying money to an "intact family" he is making support payments to his daughter. The only weird thing about this situation is that the guy who the mother hooked up with happens to be the original sperm donor.

[Stelio Kontos]

Laize, that father is paying child support to a child that is effectively still his daughter. He still gets visitation and still fathers her. If you position yourself as a child's parent you become responsible for that child. He is not paying money to an "intact family" he is making support payments to his daughter. The only weird thing about this situation is that the guy who the mother hooked up with happens to be the original sperm donor.

I thought the same thing as well, he was still actively fathering the girl, which legally creates a responsibility. But it just looks like such a murky area of US law.

[Cybran]

"If you had a child with another man, and you decided that you wanted to keep said child, and you also still deeply loved your husband, then would you lie about who's child it is?"

Suddenly it's no longer so black and white.

It's still pretty black and white. Why would you have someone else's child when you are "deeply in love". This is total Bull. The only reason they lie is to protect their own interests.

[Grym]

That is why I am staying single, if they get pregnant with casual sex, not mine.

[Laize]

Laize, that father is paying child support to a child that is effectively still his daughter. He still gets visitation and still fathers her. If you position yourself as a child's parent you become responsible for that child. He is not paying money to an "intact family" he is making support payments to his daughter. The only weird thing about this situation is that the guy who the mother hooked up with happens to be the original sperm donor.

You're joking right? Tell me you're joking.

[Mihalik]

But there is a legal basis for making a man pay child support for a child that's not his. It usually involves cases where, if I recall, the birth father is dead, incarcerated, otherwise not a possible source of support, and IF the man had contributed to the care of the child in the past (IE was raising it as if it was his own before they split up), the court's rule, and rightly so, that the well-being of the child takes precedence in those cases, and that it is acceptable for a non-biological father to pay support for a child if not doing so would detrimentally harm the child. As in, the mother was too poor to support it on her own.

This topic always seems to bring tempers to boiling point.

I do understand to some degree both point of wievs. But what do pisses me off is the ---Uh first world problems man QQ moar!----crap.

How geography has anything to do with this? We are talking about severe emotional and financial issues here. Unless you willingly admit to male disposability and say that the person of a man has less value then that of a woman and her offspring (take a case where the man did not contribute genetically to the creation of the child and has been tricked into caring for the child trough deception), one cannot reasonably argue that the above mentioned case would be any way justifieable.

Some laws are unjust. Like the ones that discriminate women. Altough there is a legal basis for said discrimination once we become aware of the fact that we are being morally unfair we overturn said laws.

Making someone pay for years for something he does not want anything to do with, and has been lied about to and is probably suffering from emotional trauma aswell as financial damages is UNFAIR.

But the well being of the kid and bla bla bla bla....

Who cares? Why should he? By the same logic we could Tax every single childless man 40% of his income to take care of orphans. I mean think about the kids!

There is no simple answer. But if a child is born and his conception was achieved trough deception of the father by the mother, the mother morally speaking is in the wrong and has forfeit her partners trust, aid and support if he wishes to have no further contact. It is simply morally unfair to a person to bind him financially and emotionally for 18 years or more and cripple the rest of his life because HE WAS DECIEVED.

Just as well it is unfair to cripple a person emotionally and financially for the rest of his life by forcing him to care for someone to whom he has no genetic ties, did not contribute to his birth and did not compromise himself willingly (adoption).

The law needs to protect everyone equally. Kids, Women and MEN. All are equal before the law as persons.

But I agree. If the a child is created trough mutual irresponsability, both parents are responsable. If the kids are yours and you wanted them you need to care for them, you cant change your mind after a couple of years or months or once they are born.

But I also believe that DNA tests should be mandatory for all kids born, informing the fathers if the kids are theirs or not, and if they aren't the law should automatically protect the father from all further financial or parental obligations, unless he wants to assume them (adoption) after which he can't go and change his mind again.