Support NeoGAF

[vooglie]

Implement the system they have in the Netherlands, women wouldn't even get child support until the man agrees to it. But there should be more failsafes just to be sure and avoid a situation where a man tells a woman that he'll support the child and then changes his mind.

A woman should for example contact the social services and inform them that she is pregnant, and who the potential father is, whom they'll then contact to confirm whether or not he will take responsibility and become the legally recognized father of the child. If he says no then they'll directly contact the mother and inform her of his choice, and she can either try to discuss with the guy or just get an abortion.

Christ this would be a retarded system. Child support is about supporting the child, not the mother/father. It's about fairness to the child, not to the mother/father. The mother does not have "more power", except exercise her right to have a child (or change her mind).

In your system, a guy could knock up a girl and as soon as he finds out he could bail. What then happens to the child?

As someone has already explained, the system exists to support the child, not give more power to the woman or some bullshit like that.

So you want ME, the taxpayer, to financially support the child you created, until that child reaches adulthood, because YOU don't want to accept financial responsibility for it?

FUCK YOU.

Another good point.

 

[Vanillalite]

Legit Male birth control.... WE NEED IT ASAP!

 

[Freshmaker]

Too tired to reply, I'll repost this:

All summed up as: Guys shouldn't have to ever pay for making stupid decisions. Even though it's really not that hard to avoid the situation in the first place.

 

[Evlar]

All summed up as: Guys shouldn't have to ever pay for making stupid decisions. Even though it's really not that hard to avoid the situation in the first place.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my post. I defy you to show where I said what men should or should not have to do.

 

[Shanadeus]

All summed up as: Guys shouldn't have to ever pay for making stupid decisions. Even though it's really not that hard to avoid the situation in the first place.

Yeah, those posts weren't about that.

 

[Freshmaker]

That has absolutely nothing to do with my post. I defy you to show where I said what men should or should not have to do.

The man has more choices than to not have sex. You know this.

The woman has control over the fetus for obvious reasons. Pregnancy definitely impacts her health both short term and long term, and giving a guy a "yeah, let's pull that cord or not" vote impacts her far more than it does him.

Child support goes right back to the iffy personal responsibility demonstrated by the failure of the man's first two choices. 1 to have sex and 2 to not use protection. Waiving child support preemptively might be possible in a system where the mother doesn't have to worry about paying for medical care, but since there's no such system in place in the US, this becomes less viable.

So it still boils down to the following line of thought. "I don't want a kid, but I'm too stupid and lazy to do ANYTHING to avoid such a situation. I'd rather settle up with no consequences after the fact."

 

[Cindres]

I -think- i'm with the OP, providing we're on the same page.
I'm just with, imagine he didn't wear a condom, why is that his fault. She should remind him, and if she's so bothered, she should force him to wear it or not bother doing it.
To be honest the horror stories of child welfare and men getting fucked over have left me bitter, i just got lucky that my dad was a good man about it and fully offered the full amount as long as it was needed to support me and then some as after 13 years it was his decision to leave.

 

[Hilbert]

Legit Male birth control.... WE NEED IT ASAP!

This is really confusing me. Aren't condoms male birth control? They are 98% effective, which is comparable to any pharmaceutical solution.

 

[pakkit]

Don't have sex with crazy women.

 

[Shanadeus]

where is RiskyChris!?!?

He'd probably just agree with me, equality and all that.

 

[Freshmaker]

I -think- i'm with the OP, providing we're on the same page.
I'm just with, imagine he didn't wear a condom, why is that his fault.

Why indeed?

 

[pakkit]

they need to do way instain mother

 

[Shanadeus]

they need to do way instain mother

... what?

And lying about wearing a condom should be a fucking offense, if she on the other hand agrees to uncondomed sex then it's a whole other matter. It's a moot point though, I think more women would check for condoms if they don't have the guarantee that someone will pay for any child that might result from the sex.

 

[Scarecrow]

Don't have sex with crazy women.

impossible. all women are crazy

 

[Gaborn]

say Shanadeus, you mentioned you're not from the US, that you're a socialist, that abortions are normal, etc. Are you saying that your country of origin has your system in place and you hope we adopt it? What country is that, out of curiosity?

 

[OrangeYouGlad]

... what?

And lying about wearing a condom should be a fucking offense, if she on the other hand agrees to uncondomed sex then it's a whole other matter. It's a moot point though, I think more women would check for condoms if they don't have the guarantee that someone will pay for any child that might result from the sex.

Lying about being on the pill should be an offense. You can see that he's not wearing a condom, you can't tell if she's on the pill.

I made her eat that package of day after pills when she came clean. GUILT IS THE ULTIMATE WEAPON!

 

[civilstrife]

If only there was a male version of the pill.

 

[Kittonwy]

Right now it seems to me that the woman has absolute control over whether or not she will become a mother, as well as over whether the partner contributing to the pregnancy will become a father. If she does not want a kid then she can just get an abortion, and she won't be burdened with a child.

But if she wants to keep the child, then the father of the child is obliged to at the very least support it economically (do correct me if I'm wrong as this is what I have an issue with) - no matter what he personally wants. He is always at the mercy of the female, who can decide whether or not he'll be the father regardless of whether he wants to become one or not (I am sorry for the gaffers here who've wanted a child but been denied when your partner got an abortion.)

This is a completely imbalanced and unjust system in my honest opinion.

While we cannot do anything against the last situation I mentioned above, where the mother wants an abortion and the father wants to keep the child, we can at least shift some power away from the mother to the father when he does not want a child yet the mother choses to have one by not aborting. The father should be able to opt out of parenthood if he's informed her in due time for an abortion that he is not interested in being a father, so that the mother will still have time to get an abortion in case she does not want to end up as a single mother.

He will be absolved of all responsibilities if the mother choses to proceed with the pregnancy and won't be legally bound to anything, with perhaps the mother not being allowed to tell anyone (including her child) who the father is - o that the effect will be that the guy simply isn't a father in any sense but biological.

What does gaf think?

You mean men should have the right to be dead-beats, I agree.

 

[Shanadeus]

Gaborn: I'm from Sweden and I'm not sure whether or not the father has to pay for child, I sincerly doubt that you have to do that here with our social security. The system we've kinda been talking about exist in the netherlands though I believe (but I'm not sure of that)

But yeah, abortions are normal here. There's even been talk about allowing pregnant polish to come here in order to get abortions they'd otherwise have problems getting in Poleland.

 

[siddx]

females don't chase dick, men chase pussy therefore, women have the power to pick and choose who they have sex with.

I just had to quote this and nominate it as the most naive statement of the day.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

OP is correct.

It is wrong for one person to be financially at the mercy of another person for 18-21 years with zero choice in the matter.

"It's her body" doesn't come into play here. Nobody is forcing anyone to get an abortion or carry a child to term. The woman still has 100% legal control over the fetus.

A man should be able to legally say he does not want the child and waive all economic responsibility for it, just as a woman can through abortion or adoption. A man should have X amount of time to make this legal decision, after being informed (either of the pregnancy or of the child if it has already been born).

Worried about guys abandoning kids? With this option there's no room for "Of course I want this baby." and then running off as soon as it's born. Women have full control of whether or not they have or keep the child. They also have full control of whether or not they get pregnant in the first place (see all the "keep it in your pants" and "use a condom" retorts, and apply it to women). Women have many more options for birth control than men, and have many more options to get it cheap or free.

An increase in the number of "abandoned children" will only happen if women let it happen. They'll be less inclined to let it happen if they know that they can't legally get a man on the hook for child support.

A woman gets pregnant and can't afford a child. She has the legal right to terminate the pregnancy or give the child up for adoption. If she keeps the child, she gets financial support from the state and from the father.

A man gets a woman pregnant with a child he can't afford. He has no say in the matter, and if the woman keeps the child he will be forced to pay child support for 18 - 21 years. If he can't pay child support, he can wind up in jail.

This speaks nothing to the corrupt and broken family court system where child support amounts are often ridiculously high and inflexible in the event of job loss, where a good chunk of child support paid is eaten by the court itself, where plenty of men are paying for kids that aren't even theirs, where there is no oversight regarding the use of child support paid, where men who do keep up with child support still get little to no access to their children, etc.

The man does have a choice. It's not the same one a woman has, but he still has one.

Having an abortion and waiving economic responsibility aren't equivalent. One results in no child. One results in a child without a parent.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

There are so many people here using completely illogical and/or irrelevant arguments. Regarding all the people saying stuff like having sex constitutes a man's choice in becoming a father, let's put that in perspective; if a man doesn't want to be a father, he should never, ever have sex? Well, I guess abortions shouldn't exist at all, because the same can be said for women. Unless we're using double-standards, that is. Men have to be held accountable for an unplanned pregnancy, but a woman gets to choose to abort? Sounds like we're right back where we started, to me.

Also, as for saying that "it's her body", I don't think anybody here is disputing that women should make the decision as to whether to abort or not. Of course that's completely their choice. But the problem is that she gets to choose on both counts; she can deny a man who wants a child the chance to be a father, but she can force a man into bearing the financial and parental responsibility of raising a child when he doesn't want it, even if they used protection.

Imagine if the law said that the woman in a married couple was the only one who had a say in whether they adopted a child. The husband just comes home one day, and all of a sudden has an extra mouth to feed. That would be outrageous, and I don't see how this is any different. A woman has the right to choose to be a mother, but a man should also have the right to choose to be a father. Neither has any right to force it upon the other.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Sired is an interesting word. What is the equivalent word for the mother's activity during conception?

Because it appears to me your argument hinges on obscuring the fact that the mother has multiple decision points: at least two proactive decisions (whether to have sex, and whether to use contraception) and at least two reactive decisions (whether to abort, whether to give up for adoption). The father, in most jurisdictions, has the first two options but not the second two. I say you obscure this by using the word "sire" and balance it against the word "birth", because your argument tries to present the male's decision points (both proactive) against only some of the female's decision points (the two which are reactive).

The ethical dilemma, then, is why are two adults given equivalent responsibility for a happenstance when one adult is allowed multiple paths to avoid that responsibility, both proactively and in reaction to information about the pending circumstance (news that she is pregnant), and the opportunity to spend weeks or months deciding how to respond; the other adult, with equal legal responsibilities, is accorded no reactive response, and if you admit the possibility of contraception failing his options whittle down to only one: to refuse to have sex? And bear in mind, this happens in committed relationships, too: If a man does not want to have a child, the only way to ensure it is to refuse to have sex and bear the consequences of possible estrangement from the other person, even in a marriage or other committed relationship.

The reason why women have a reactive decisions point--getting an abortion--is because pregnancy occurs within them.

The reason why men don't have reactive decisions points is because they are unable to have one because of biology.

 

[Hilbert]

There are so many people here using completely illogical and/or irrelevant arguments. Regarding all the people saying stuff like having sex constitutes a man's choice in becoming a father, let's put that in perspective; if a man doesn't want to be a father, he should never, ever have sex? Well, I guess abortions shouldn't exist at all, because the same can be said for women. Unless we're using double-standards, that is. Saying the man should have no say because he had sex in the first place is ridiculous. Especially considering that the same can be said for women as well.

Also, as for saying that "it's her body", I don't think anybody here is disputing that women should make the decision as to whether to abort or not. Of course that's completely their choice. But the problem is that she gets to choose on both counts; she can deny a man who wants a child the chance to be a father, but she can force a man into bearing the financial and parental responsibility of raising a child when he doesn't want it, even if they used protection.

Imagine if the law said that the woman in a married couple was the only one who had a say in whether they adopted a child. The husband just comes home one day, and all of a sudden has an extra mouth to feed. That would be outrageous, and I don't see how this is any different. A woman has the right to choose to be a mother, but a man should also have the right to choose to be a father. Neither has any right to force it upon the other.

Post number 3 in this thread has your solution:

Use a condom.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

Maybe you should actually read what you quote?

If a man has to take responsibility for an unplanned pregancy (and believe it or not, condoms don't always work), then so should a woman. Which means abortions aren't an option AT ALL. Arguing otherwise is just using circular logic, as we're back at the original question: why does the woman get to choose, but the man doesn't?

 

[Gaborn]

There are so many people here using completely illogical and/or irrelevant arguments. Regarding all the people saying stuff like having sex constitutes a man's choice in becoming a father, let's put that in perspective; if a man doesn't want to be a father, he should never, ever have sex? Well, I guess abortions shouldn't exist at all, because the same can be said for women. Unless we're using double-standards, that is. Men have to be held accountable for an unplanned pregnancy, but a woman gets to choose to abort? Sounds like we're right back where we started, to me.

Also, as for saying that "it's her body", I don't think anybody here is disputing that women should make the decision as to whether to abort or not. Of course that's completely their choice. But the problem is that she gets to choose on both counts; she can deny a man who wants a child the chance to be a father, but she can force a man into bearing the financial and parental responsibility of raising a child when he doesn't want it, even if they used protection.

Imagine if the law said that the woman in a married couple was the only one who had a say in whether they adopted a child. The husband just comes home one day, and all of a sudden has an extra mouth to feed. That would be outrageous, and I don't see how this is any different. A woman has the right to choose to be a mother, but a man should also have the right to choose to be a father. Neither has any right to force it upon the other.

Bearing? No. Sharing in, yep. 2 to make a baby and 2 to care for it. and 1 to carry it, so 1 to decide whether to do so or not. If men were like sea horses then you could make an argument for giving the man a bit more say.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

The man does have a choice. It's not the same one a woman has, but he still has one.

Having an abortion and waiving economic responsibility aren't equivalent. One results in no child. One results in a child without a parent.

Based on the woman's choice to have the child the father didn't want.

The post you're responding to is from the viewpoint of a man that doesn't want anything to do with the child.

 

[Shanadeus]

Post number 3 in this thread has your solution:

Because condoms are failproof?
When a birth controll pill fail, the woman still has the abortion. It's 100% a choice to become a mother for the female, and we should adjust the law so that the same applies to the males choice of becoming a father.

 

[Hilbert]

Maybe you should actually read what you quote?

If a man has to take responsibility for an unplanned pregancy (and believe it or not, condoms don't always work), then so should a woman. Which means abortions aren't an option AT ALL.

That's true, they don't always work. However if that small chance(equivalent to any pharmaceutical birth control) bothers you AND you think the person you are having sex with might be thinking about screwing you over, perhaps you should not have sex.

My basic thoughts on it are:

1: The parents are irrelevant, the child needs to grow up healthy. State support should come after parental support.
2: It might not be fair law, but biologically it is not fair either.
3: Get a vasectomy.
4: Don't have sex with people you don't trust.

 

[Diatribe1974]

Right now it seems to me that the woman has absolute control over whether or not she will become a mother, as well as over whether the partner contributing to the pregnancy will become a father. If she does not want a kid then she can just get an abortion, and she won't be burdened with a child.

But if she wants to keep the child, then the father of the child is obliged to at the very least support it economically (do correct me if I'm wrong as this is what I have an issue with) - no matter what he personally wants. He is always at the mercy of the female, who can decide whether or not he'll be the father regardless of whether he wants to become one or not (I am sorry for the gaffers here who've wanted a child but been denied when your partner got an abortion.)

This is a completely imbalanced and unjust system in my honest opinion.

While we cannot do anything against the last situation I mentioned above, where the mother wants an abortion and the father wants to keep the child, we can at least shift some power away from the mother to the father when he does not want a child yet the mother choses to have one by not aborting. The father should be able to opt out of parenthood if he's informed her in due time for an abortion that he is not interested in being a father, so that the mother will still have time to get an abortion in case she does not want to end up as a single mother.

He will be absolved of all responsibilities if the mother choses to proceed with the pregnancy and won't be legally bound to anything, with perhaps the mother not being allowed to tell anyone (including her child) who the father is - o that the effect will be that the guy simply isn't a father in any sense but biological.

What does gaf think?

Don't want to be a father? Wear a condom or get your boys fixed & do your yearly checkup afterwards to make sure it's all "Okie Dokie" still after the operation.

Otherwise? You get her pregnant, buck up and be a man.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Based on the woman's choice to have the child the father didn't want.

The post you're responding to is from the viewpoint of a man that doesn't want anything to do with the child.

What's your point?

 

[Cindres]

Why indeed?

I can't tell if you're with or against me here.

But if it's against, hurr hurr well done at forming an argument by cutting off half my post.

It it's for, then i apologise.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

Bearing? No. Sharing in, yep. 2 to make a baby and 2 to care for it. and 1 to carry it, so 1 to decide whether to do so or not. If men were like sea horses then you could make an argument for giving the man a bit more say.

"Bear" and "share" aren't mutually exclusive. Multiple people can "bear" a responsibility. There's even the term "sole bearer" for just an individual.

Sorry if it seems like I'm being pedantic, but I don't want to be misunderstood; I'm well aware that both the man and woman share the same responsibility.


Anyway, so because a woman carries an unborn baby for nine months, she gets to determine whether the man will have to raise it, emotionally and financially, for god knows how many years? Nope, you can argue it all you want, that is not fair in the slightest.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

What's your point?

Point is if a man doesn't want to be a father, he won't be be it financially or emotionally.

It sucks but it happens all the time.

I agree that a man should have the ability to legally 'opt out'.

If she wants to go through with it for her own reasons, then she should assume full responsibility.

Just my opinion.

(this only applies for me in circumstances of deception and/or sabotage)

 

[Beezy]

Poleland

:lol

 

[Cubsfan23]

just need male birth control

hurry the fuck up scientists

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Point is if a man doesn't want to be a father, he won't be be it financially or emotionally.

It sucks but it happens all the time.

I agree that a man should have the ability to legally 'opt out'.

If she wants to go through with it for her own reasons, then she should assume full responsibility.

Just my opinion.

(this only applies for me in circumstances of deception and/or sabotage)

But in circumstances of deception and/or sabotage, if a man is allowed to opt then you have are punishing an innocent child. How can you justify that?

 

[Gaborn]

"Bear" and "share" aren't mutually exclusive. Multiple people can "bear" a responsibility. There's even the term "sole bearer" for just an individual.

Sorry if it seems like I'm being pedantic, but I don't want to be misunderstood; I'm well aware that both the man and woman share the same responsibility.

Fair enough, I just think "bear" has a very negative connotation and I wanted that point clarified.

Anyway, so because a woman carries an unborn baby for nine months, she gets to determine whether the man will have to raise it, emotionally and financially, for god knows how many years? Nope, you can argue it all you want, that is not fair in the slightest.

I don't think it's an ideal system either but I would err on leaving it up to the woman's decision as long as it's in her body, and if she decides to see it through? Then it'd be unfair to the kid for the dad to just be able to totally walk away. It would also increase the likelihood of requiring governmental assistance to help raise the child, which would be unfair to taxpayers. If you make the baby you should have to care for it, not tax payers.

 

[Hilbert]

But in circumstances of deception and/or sabotage, if a man is allowed to opt then you have are punishing an innocent child. How can you justify that?

Not to mention proving deception or sabotage would be next to impossible legally, unless there is a contract.

And trying to get a woman to sign such a contract is a nice way to make sure you never have sex, so you never become a parent.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

Don't want to be a father? Wear a condom or get your boys fixed & do your yearly checkup afterwards to make sure it's all "Okie Dokie" still after the operation.

Otherwise? You get her pregnant, buck up and be a man.

OK, then no abortions for any women at all. You know, because otherwise, it would be a double-standard, what with women getting to choose whether to "buck up" or not.

Fair enough, I just think "bear" has a very negative connotation and I wanted that point clarified.




I don't think it's an ideal system either but I would err on leaving it up to the woman's decision as long as it's in her body, and if she decides to see it through? Then it'd be unfair to the kid for the dad to just be able to totally walk away. It would also increase the likelihood of requiring governmental assistance to help raise the child, which would be unfair to taxpayers. If you make the baby you should have to care for it, not tax payers.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that an ideal system exists at all, but I think what we have now certainly isn't the best system.

Maybe make it so that the man has to pay for the abortion (regardless of whether he wants it or not)? Of course it would suck that some men would have to pay for the abortion of a child they may want, but it's much better that than a man having to pay for and raise a child he doesn't. Plus, it somewhat counterbalances the fact that it is the woman who has to carry the child, which is a burden in itself.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

But in circumstances of deception and/or sabotage, if a man is allowed to opt then you have are punishing an innocent child. How can you justify that?

In any case the child would be punished. Let's look at this from the perspective of a man who wants NOTHING to do with said child.

1) Man is ordered to pay child support. Fires off faceless check every month, grudgingly. Innocent child is denied his/her father.

2) Man doesn't pay or visit. Innocent child is denied his/her father.

The only difference here is money.

If a woman deceives a man into fatherhood and elects to carry it full term, she should have to assume responsibility.

She made the choice to have the child instead of abortion or adoption.

 

[ChronicleX]

Ofc the man has a choice, its not like coat hangers are hard to come by.

 

[Evlar]

The reason why women have a reactive decisions point--getting an abortion--is because pregnancy occurs within them.

The reason why men don't have reactive decisions points is because they are unable to have one because of biology.

No, these "decision points" are not always biological. They are sometimes legal (such as the case of adoption). And the point we are arguing is legal obligation. Your body isn't going to force you to pay child support, and your genitals aren't going to drag the rest of you to the state pen if you don't- that is, the consequences are not biological. The rationale for these legal obligations may be based on biological limitations or any number of other influences outside the realm of law, but the obligation itself is legal and may be changed like any other law.

This should be obvious- the current system of parental responsibility isn't old. In many places, 100 years ago men had no obligation to their illegitimate children.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT SYSTEM, OR IMPLYING IT IS IN ANY WAY SUPERIOR TO THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

In any case the child would be punished. Let's look at this from the perspective of a man who wants NOTHING to do with said child.

1) Man is ordered to pay child support. Fires off faceless check every month, grudgingly. Innocent child is denied his/her father.

2) Man doesn't pay or visit. Innocent child is denied his/her father.

The only difference here is money.

If a woman deceives a man into fatherhood and elects to carry it full term, she should have to assume responsibility.

She made the choice to have the child instead of abortion or adoption.

You're acting like money is some small thing. It can be a big difference in a child's life. In cases that money is a difference how can you justify your stance?

 

[Mystic Theurge]

No, these "decision points" are not always biological. They are sometimes legal (such as the case of adoption). And the point we are arguing is legal obligation. Your body isn't going to force you to pay child support, and your genitals aren't going to drag the rest of you to the state pen if you don't- that is, the consequences are not biological. The rationale for these legal obligations may be based on biological limitations or any number of other influences outside the realm of law, but the obligation itself is legal and may be changed like any other law.

This should be obvious- the current system of parental responsibility isn't old. In many places, 100 years ago men had no obligation to their illegitimate children.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT SYSTEM, OR IMPLYING IT IS IN ANY WAY SUPERIOR TO THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

Name for a me a jurisdiction where a woman is allowed to give up a child for adoption despite the objections of the father.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

You're acting like money is some small thing. It can be a big difference in a child's life. In cases that money is a difference how can you justify your stance?

You make it out like emotional attachment and development with both parents is some small thing. All the child gets here is a faceless check and her side of the story regarding his absence.

The child gets punished by having their mother bring them into a situation where one parent doesn't want to be there, through deception.

Again, she is making this choice for both people in this case.

Actually she makes it for all 3, child included.

 

[Freshmaker]

There are so many people here using completely illogical and/or irrelevant arguments. Regarding all the people saying stuff like having sex constitutes a man's choice in becoming a father, let's put that in perspective; if a man doesn't want to be a father, he should never, ever have sex?

It is a shame that a man has absolutely no birth control options outside of not having sex. A real shame. You'd think science would come forward and design some kind of mechanism to block the fluid transmission or something...

1) Man is ordered to pay child support. Fires off faceless check every month, grudgingly. Innocent child is denied his/her father.

2) Man doesn't pay or visit. Innocent child is denied his/her father.

The only difference here is money.

Without the money the kid's quality of life potentially sucks ass too.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

You make it out like emotional attachment and development with both parents is some small thing. All the child gets here is a faceless check and her side of the story regarding his absence.

The child gets punished by having their mother bring them into a situation where one parent doesn't want to be there, through deception.

Again, she is making this choice for both people in this case.

Actually she makes it for all 3, child included.

Yes, the child suffers because its father doesn't want it. But does that mean it should be punished further by being denied critical financial support?

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Yes, the child suffers because its father doesn't want it. But does that mean it should be punished further by being denied critical financial support?

Does a man deserve to pay out money (for 18 years) for child he was deceived into fathering?

Remember, I'm making the case for deception situations, not all cases in general.

 

[Gaborn]

Does a man deserve to pay out money (for 18 years) for child he was deceived into fathering?

Remember, I'm making the case for deception situations, not all cases in general.

Legally, if you have sex with an underage girl and she lies about her age you can still be charged with rape of a child. "deception" is not an excuse, you take a risk whenever you have sex.

I'm sure if "deception" was a valid legal excuse though EVERYONE who was asked to pay child support would be screaming about it.