I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.
Why would she need to do that? She could just name him, give the address where she thinks he last was living, and then when he doesn't show up at court, they give a default judgement of paternity.
BTW, just over 80% of paternity cases are default.
bunge would find at about it when he suddenly couldn't renew his license. However they used the application to update his address and soon after are garnishing his wages.
His time for appeal would already be past.
No sperm stealing necessary. No actual paternity, necessary.
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.
Thatswhy he has 18 different tabascos in the fridge (maybe) ...
No sperm stealing necessary. No actual paternity, necessary.
So wait - I could fsck with whoever I want to, get somehow pregnant, and then claim that e.g. Bill Gates did it? If no testing is necessary, he'd just have to pay a LOT due to his incomes ..
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.
Ok, at least we are getting somewhere. I don't see why it's an impossible system. She opens the wrapper and gives the man her fingerprint on the contract, he gives her his. A woman can make all sorts of arguments about foul play, but those can always be argued in nullifying any contract. I certianly think you would support a man getting out of financial responsibility if he could prove the woman tricked him or stole his sperm from a discarded rubber after sex.
Anyway, at least in principle you are ok with the man and woman agreeing in advance, so all it really comes down to is what is the default condition without a contract. In my scenario the default state is no implied consent to parental responsibility in consensual, non-marrital sex. A women would be free to use a "red" condom to commit her partner to potential parenthood, but by default a man could not be tricked into being a parent.
Quote:
Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.
Exactly, post conception is too late for a woman to change her mind and decide to alter the purpose of a casual sexual encounter into producing a child.
I'll grant that there are many complicating factors to the situation. You could, for instance, argue that if a man and woman have consensual, unprotected sex and the woman is not on birth control (and doesn't lie about that fact) and doesn't communicate that she doesn't want to produce a child that in this situation the man cannot assume anything. BUT, if the woman indicates the use of birth control or agrees to the man wearing a condom or coitus interruptis or indicates that she does not want a child, then the man is given the clear indication that they are not going to have a child. Since such subtle factors are at play it's best from a legal standpoint to establish a salient, simple standard and that should reflect reality. And the reality is that in the vast majority of sexual encounters both parties do not want a child and only the woman can alter the intent of the act by proceeding through an unintended pregnacy.
Why would she need to do that? She could just name him, give the address where she thinks he last was living, and then when he doesn't show up at court, they give a default judgement of paternity.
I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.
Sure it would. 3 months from finding out that he's supposed to be a dad (or 3 weeks, whatever) that "father" can decide he wants no part of it. BAM. Not a problem anymore.
My Opt-in approach certianly stops this. If they are not married the father has to formally agree to assume parental responsibility. No one can force him by rubber theft.
So wait - I could fsck with whoever I want to, get somehow pregnant, and then claim that e.g. Bill Gates did it? If no testing is necessary, he'd just have to pay a LOT due to his incomes ..
Well you might need to pick a slightly less famous target. I think someone who scans the daily court docs would notice a name that famous and investigate it.
However as for the rest of it. Yes, that was why I started the thread about paternity fraud.
I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.
Actually opt out would stop that. He would have to be notified of his right to opt out of parenting. Right now they hold a hearing to determine the father and requested custody. They will default on both based off the woman's word.
However they could not take a woman's word that the man choose to be a father and didn't forgo his right not to parent. She would have to prove that.
The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.
Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.
How is that equal?
The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.
Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.
How is that equal?
The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
Or perhaps women could be more responsible too and not have kids to trap men when they can't afford one themselves.
My Opt-in approach certianly stops this. If they are not married the father has to formally agree to assume parental responsibility. No one can force him by rubber theft.
I actually do like this opt-in approach much better. It will make women think twice before telling a guy she's on the pill when she really isn't. It's entirely fair.
The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.
Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.
How is that equal?
The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
I'm still waiting for you to address the two points I made in my last post to you. Instead you just repeat yourself.
Well you might need to pick a slightly less famous target. I think someone who scans the daily court docs would notice a name that famous and investigate it.
However as for the rest of it. Yes, that was why I started the thread about paternity fraud.
Nick
I think they should require the DNA testing of both parents for any of those cases. It is unfair if someone can claim falsely anyone to be her child's dad. If the child is not genetically his (it is, untill otherwise proven), at least in that case I think it's unfair to make the guy get his punishment.
But for the rest, the best solution I still see is a man keeping track of his sperm. Don't leave it in places where it can be hijacked or abused, and never trust the word 'pill'.
I think they should require the DNA testing of both parents for any of those cases. It is unfair if someone can claim falsely anyone to be her child's dad. If the child is not genetically his (it is, untill otherwise proven), at least in that case I think it's unfair to make the guy get his punishment.
But for the rest, the best solution I still see is a man keeping track of his sperm. Don't leave it in places where it can be hijacked or abused, and never trust the word 'pill'.
It is unfair. Yet if you go read that thread there are folks advocating that not only is it okay for them to have been declared the father, but to continue paying support as well.
Likewise they really don't require the testing of both parents since the mother's motherhood really isn't in question.
The courts don't resort to paternity tests in these interests because the father isn't even there to demand it. As I said the word of the mother is very powerful in these instances.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.
Why would she need to do that? She could just name him, give the address where she thinks he last was living, and then when he doesn't show up at court, they give a default judgement of paternity.
BTW, just over 80% of paternity cases are default.
bunge would find at about it when he suddenly couldn't renew his license. However they used the application to update his address and soon after are garnishing his wages.
His time for appeal would already be past.
No sperm stealing necessary. No actual paternity, necessary.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if you were screwed by a woman who digs a condom of a trash can, steals your sperm, gets pregnant, and sentences you to 18 years of garnished wages. Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.
Thatswhy he has 18 different tabascos in the fridge (maybe) ...
Originally posted by trumptman
No sperm stealing necessary. No actual paternity, necessary.
So wait - I could fsck with whoever I want to, get somehow pregnant, and then claim that e.g. Bill Gates did it? If no testing is necessary, he'd just have to pay a LOT due to his incomes ..
Originally posted by BR
Really? It's that hard to save a wrapper?
If you have sex three times, can you connect one wrapper out of three to a pregnancy?
Let's think clearly about the issue.
Originally posted by BR
Under the current system that is a very real possibility and that is entirely unjust.
I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.
Originally posted by bunge
At face value, no, because it's an impossible system. But what you're getting at, a contract that holds over like in the case of a sperm doner, is something I would entertain. I don't know enough about the legal implications of that scenario to see how to jury one up for regular birth.
Ok, at least we are getting somewhere. I don't see why it's an impossible system. She opens the wrapper and gives the man her fingerprint on the contract, he gives her his. A woman can make all sorts of arguments about foul play, but those can always be argued in nullifying any contract. I certianly think you would support a man getting out of financial responsibility if he could prove the woman tricked him or stole his sperm from a discarded rubber after sex.
Anyway, at least in principle you are ok with the man and woman agreeing in advance, so all it really comes down to is what is the default condition without a contract. In my scenario the default state is no implied consent to parental responsibility in consensual, non-marrital sex. A women would be free to use a "red" condom to commit her partner to potential parenthood, but by default a man could not be tricked into being a parent.
Post conception is too late. It's not a good situation to change your mind because of all the implications. The opt-out system would give unfair leverage. The pre-birth contract, like in the case of a sperm doner, is probably already possible.
Exactly, post conception is too late for a woman to change her mind and decide to alter the purpose of a casual sexual encounter into producing a child.
I'll grant that there are many complicating factors to the situation. You could, for instance, argue that if a man and woman have consensual, unprotected sex and the woman is not on birth control (and doesn't lie about that fact) and doesn't communicate that she doesn't want to produce a child that in this situation the man cannot assume anything. BUT, if the woman indicates the use of birth control or agrees to the man wearing a condom or coitus interruptis or indicates that she does not want a child, then the man is given the clear indication that they are not going to have a child. Since such subtle factors are at play it's best from a legal standpoint to establish a salient, simple standard and that should reflect reality. And the reality is that in the vast majority of sexual encounters both parties do not want a child and only the woman can alter the intent of the act by proceeding through an unintended pregnacy.
Originally posted by trumptman
Why would she need to do that? She could just name him, give the address where she thinks he last was living, and then when he doesn't show up at court, they give a default judgement of paternity.
I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.
Opt-out doesn't stop this.
Sure it would. 3 months from finding out that he's supposed to be a dad (or 3 weeks, whatever) that "father" can decide he wants no part of it. BAM. Not a problem anymore.
Originally posted by bunge
Opt-out doesn't stop this.
My Opt-in approach certianly stops this. If they are not married the father has to formally agree to assume parental responsibility. No one can force him by rubber theft.
Originally posted by Giaguara
So wait - I could fsck with whoever I want to, get somehow pregnant, and then claim that e.g. Bill Gates did it? If no testing is necessary, he'd just have to pay a LOT due to his incomes ..
Well you might need to pick a slightly less famous target. I think someone who scans the daily court docs would notice a name that famous and investigate it.
However as for the rest of it. Yes, that was why I started the thread about paternity fraud.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
I'm all in favor of a law that prosecutes this unjust-ness because you're right, it's a bunch of crap. Opt-out doesn't stop this.
Actually opt out would stop that. He would have to be notified of his right to opt out of parenting. Right now they hold a hearing to determine the father and requested custody. They will default on both based off the woman's word.
However they could not take a woman's word that the man choose to be a father and didn't forgo his right not to parent. She would have to prove that.
Nick
Opt-out is a blanket approach that covers more than the unjust-ness of what you're speaking about. Target that alone and you'll have a solution.
Why not opt-in for both?
The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.
Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.
How is that equal?
The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's take a realistic look.
...
The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
This
is
true.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's take a realistic look.
The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.
Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.
How is that equal?
The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
Or perhaps women could be more responsible too and not have kids to trap men when they can't afford one themselves.
Originally posted by BR
Or perhaps women could be more responsible too and not have kids to trap men when they can't afford one themselves.
Just because a women gets child support doesn't mean she couldn't afford to raise them on her own.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
My Opt-in approach certianly stops this. If they are not married the father has to formally agree to assume parental responsibility. No one can force him by rubber theft.
I actually do like this opt-in approach much better. It will make women think twice before telling a guy she's on the pill when she really isn't. It's entirely fair.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Let's take a realistic look.
The iniquity of the current system is that a woman can force an unwilling man to assume parental responsibility for his child or for his children while a woman can decide for herself whether to assume parental responsibility before birth. A woman can undergo invasive (though outpatient) surgery to exercise her choice.
Choice for Men's only act is to make voluntary what was once mandatory child support payments. Choice for Men impoverishes children and punishes women as a result. A man can sign at the dotted line to exercise his choice.
How is that equal?
The laws in favor of women are far better than potential laws in favor of men.
I'm still waiting for you to address the two points I made in my last post to you. Instead you just repeat yourself.
Kids these days...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Well you might need to pick a slightly less famous target. I think someone who scans the daily court docs would notice a name that famous and investigate it.
However as for the rest of it. Yes, that was why I started the thread about paternity fraud.
Nick
I think they should require the DNA testing of both parents for any of those cases. It is unfair if someone can claim falsely anyone to be her child's dad. If the child is not genetically his (it is, untill otherwise proven), at least in that case I think it's unfair to make the guy get his punishment.
But for the rest, the best solution I still see is a man keeping track of his sperm. Don't leave it in places where it can be hijacked or abused, and never trust the word 'pill'.
Originally posted by Giaguara
I think they should require the DNA testing of both parents for any of those cases. It is unfair if someone can claim falsely anyone to be her child's dad. If the child is not genetically his (it is, untill otherwise proven), at least in that case I think it's unfair to make the guy get his punishment.
But for the rest, the best solution I still see is a man keeping track of his sperm. Don't leave it in places where it can be hijacked or abused, and never trust the word 'pill'.
It is unfair. Yet if you go read that thread there are folks advocating that not only is it okay for them to have been declared the father, but to continue paying support as well.
Likewise they really don't require the testing of both parents since the mother's motherhood really isn't in question.
The courts don't resort to paternity tests in these interests because the father isn't even there to demand it. As I said the word of the mother is very powerful in these instances.
Nick