Should the father pay child support if he was set up?

[dies-l]

What it all comes down to is that child support is not mama support, so mama's misconduct should have no bearing on whether dad has to pay child support. If dad did the deed, then he is responsible for the consequences. If he prove, however, that mom is using the baby just to get child support, he can sue for custody, in which case mom's misconduct might be relevant.

 

[LyraJean]

If there are instances where a man does not have to pay child support then there should be instances allowed for a woman to receive an abortion.

 

[LittleNipper]

Yes, the man is taking a risk - but he is intentionally and maliciously deceived about the size of that risk! Does that count for nothing?

The same applies to the finance analogy. There may be a risk involved in financial investments, but if one is lied to about that risk, then that's a case of fraud, isn't it?

However, human logic is just human logic. And playing roulette can hardly be considered a concerted financial investigation worthy of risk.

 

[jwu]

However, human logic is just human logic. And playing roulette can hardly be considered a concerted financial investigation worthy of risk.

Well, when it comes to roulette, what situation in a casino would be analogous to being lied to about birth control?

 

[ebia]

Last time I checked, driving was not a homeostatic drive. Sex is (or is the closest thing to one which is not one).

In other words, while sex is not needed for our survival unlike food intake, water intake, and temperature control, it is shares much of the same pathways and is controlled much the same way.

In sociology, a host of problems occur from blockage of the sexual drive. Only the rarest of people are more effected by not driving their car than blockage of their sexual drive.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not share the view - common though it is in our culture (and 1st century paganism for that matter) - that sex is something people need to engage in in that way.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not share the view - common though it is in our culture (and 1st century paganism for that matter) - that sex is something people need to engage in in that way.

Even Paul considered celibacy a gift from God, one which he said it would be better if everyone had, but which he freely admitted few did have. He suggested marriage so that one does not burn with passion. Basically, get married to have sex and avoid sinning. So if science, Paul, and pagans all agree on something... I think it is a pretty safe bet. Sex was, after all, God's first command ("Go forth and multiply.").

 

[dies-l]

Even Paul considered celibacy a gift from God, one which he said it would be better if everyone had, but which he freely admitted few did have. He suggested marriage so that one does not burn with passion. Basically, get married to have sex and avoid sinning. So if science, Paul, and pagans all agree on something... I think it is a pretty safe bet. Sex was, after all, God's first command ("Go forth and multiply.").

Paul also considered the solution to get married, not to have sex whenever the urge struck, with whomever happened to be around. And, the problem addressed in this thread is rather unique to unmarried sexual partners.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Paul also considered the solution to get married, not to have sex whenever the urge struck, with whomever happened to be around. And, the problem addressed in this thread is rather unique to unmarried sexual partners.

But my point in the previous post was that sexual desires exist far more on the level of hunger and thirst than many think. Regardless of how whomever thinks is the best way to handle these desires, these desires exist.

We could just outlaw all sex outside of marriage... I would be expecting to see a lot more marriage and divorce though.

 

[Wirraway]

Well, when it comes to roulette, what situation in a casino would be analogous to being lied to about birth control?

single 0 or double 0 wheel?

 

[dies-l]

But my point in the previous post was that sexual desires exist far more on the level of hunger and thirst than many think. Regardless of how whomever thinks is the best way to handle these desires, these desires exist.

Just trying to bring it back to the context of the thread. The best way way to avoid the problem addressed in the OP is not to have sex until marriage. If a man chooses to do otherwise, I am not going to have much sympathy for him when he gets stuck paying child support.

We could just outlaw all sex outside of marriage... I would be expecting to see a lot more marriage and divorce though.

Or, we could just say that, if you do the deed you pay the consequences (e.g., child support) no matter how careful you thought you were being.

 

[Wirraway]

...we could just say that, if you do the deed you pay the consequences (e.g., child support) no matter how careful you thought you were being.

and dispose of the absurd and socially destructive "she defrauded me into having sex" defense and counterclaim.

 

[white dove]

Just trying to bring it back to the context of the thread. The best way way to avoid the problem addressed in the OP is not to have sex until marriage. If a man chooses to do otherwise, I am not going to have much sympathy for him when he gets stuck paying child support.



Or, we could just say that, if you do the deed you pay the consequences (e.g., child support) no matter how careful you thought you were being.

Bingo.

 

[BlackCherry]

It is a shame, not just for the dad, but for the children, who have to grow up facing the fact that their real dad doesn't wish real contact, or maybe they will never realize that they grew up with the wrong daddy.

Paying child support in itself is wrong, as women who spread their legs without being in a marriage should have known better. Child support should be restricted to those children born in wedlock.

 

[Wirraway]

...Child support should be restricted to those children born in wedlock.

and what possible justification do you have for demanding to punish the only innocent person in the whole affair?

 

[Autumnleaf]

and what possible justification do you have for demanding to punish the only innocent person in the whole affair?

If the guy got tricked then he is innocent as well.

 

[BlackCherry]

and what possible justification do you have for demanding to punish the only innocent person in the whole affair?

Alleviating the hardships of one innocent, by wrongly punishing a semi-innocent is plain wrong, when this is largely under control of the mother.

 

[dies-l]

It is a shame, not just for the dad, but for the children, who have to grow up facing the fact that their real dad doesn't wish real contact, or maybe they will never realize that they grew up with the wrong daddy.

The dad gets no sympathy for me. If he doesn't want to have a relationship with the child he helped bring into the world, he should be ashamed of himself for that.

Paying child support in itself is wrong, as women who spread their legs without being in a marriage should have known better. Child support should be restricted to those children born in wedlock.

Men who impregnate women who spread their legs outside of marriage should know better too. Why shouldn't they help foot the bill?

 

[dies-l]

If the guy got tricked then he is innocent as well.

I'm sorry. I am trying to figure out how a guy gets tricked into having sex. Usually, it's a volitional act and not one that a guy engages in by accident.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Just trying to bring it back to the context of the thread. The best way way to avoid the problem addressed in the OP is not to have sex until marriage. If a man chooses to do otherwise, I am not going to have much sympathy for him when he gets stuck paying child support.

Injustice is injustice, a lesser wrong does not justify or excuse a greater one.

Perhaps if the man was seducing women with false promises of long term relationships I would feel no sympathy, but being tricked into something so life effecting, even if you were doing something immoral, still garners my sympathies.

Or, we could just say that, if you do the deed you pay the consequences (e.g., child support) no matter how careful you thought you were being.

And fraud is fraud. Just because someone chooses to gamble does not mean I am okay when they are cheated by someone giving false odds.

 

[lawtonfogle]

and what possible justification do you have for demanding to punish the only innocent person in the whole affair?

Because secondary harm is not taken into account in justice, as I already pointed out. Our society does not run on a maximum of doing what is best for the child, it only relies on that claim when it is useful for ulterior goals.

Once we stop punishing children whose fathers get put in prison for the most insane reasons (basically racism), then I'll listen to your claim. Till then, I won't be able to hear you over the sadness of lives ruined to fulfill prejudice.