Buddrow_Wilson

What about when one person who is married cheats with someone who is also married? Assuming that those marriages are to continue, the husband of the cheating woman will be supporting the child of the cheating man, in which case it seems unnecessary to demand money from the man who also has a family to look after. Taking money from the family hurts more than just the man.

Maybe your marital status should have no bearing?

Pyrrho

First of all, I specifically mentioned that sterilization was something that should generally be regarded as permanent (even though it is sometimes reversible with men). Secondly, at least in the United States, doctors are willing to perform sterilization surgery on people with no children. I believe, for men, it will go something like this if one goes to a place where vasectomies are performed: First, one will go in and talk with them. They will talk about how it is permanent, etc. After talking about exactly what is involved and the man is still interested, then, if the man has never gotten a woman pregnant, they will ask him to bring in a semen sample later so that it can be tested. After all, he may be naturally sterile, in which case the surgery would be pointless. After the results come back from that, if he is not naturally sterile, he can set up an appointment for the vasectomy. So there is some time between him first saying that he wants it, and him getting it. And he has to come in at least three times for the procedure to be done (assuming, of course, that he has not ever gotten a woman pregnant). So the man is given plenty of time to think about it, even after he had originally decided he wanted it.

Of course, not every doctor performs vasectomies, just like not every doctor performs any other particular type of surgery. One must obviously go to one who does such things.


As for the idea that a woman could have avoided the pregnancy as well, that is certainly true (in the kinds of cases we are discussing; obviously, this idea does not apply to cases of rape). But it does not follow from that that she should not be allowed to have an abortion. It is perfectly legal to have a tattoo removed, though obviously one could have avoided the tattoo in the first place. For any procedure to be illegal, there should be a reason for it to be illegal. Now, there may be some reason to prohibit abortions, and that is certainly something that people argue about. It is not, however, the subject of this thread, and I do not care to discuss whether or not an abortion should be legal or not here. But from the mere fact that the pregnancy could have been avoided, it does not follow that abortions should be illegal.

You state:

"If abortion is legal, a man should have a way out of consequences of unwanted pregnancy."

Why do you believe that? The reason why women can have an abortion and men cannot is NOT the result of inequality in the law, but the simple fact that men cannot get pregnant.

Let us imagine, for the sake of clarifying that idea, a world in which both men and women can get pregnant. We would then add to our current list of 5 possibilities:

6. The man gets pregnant, not the woman. Woman wants to keep it, man doesn't and he aborts. Fair enough, it is his body.

(Notice the borrowed wording from your # 3.)

We then have a precisely symmetrical set of situations. And thus, the rules are precisely the same for both men and women. (The pregnant one, and only the pregnant one, can have an abortion; otherwise, all results are the same regardless of which one is pregnant.) Consequently, they are perfectly fair (at least in the sense that they treat men and women the same; they still could be the wrong rules for some other reason, but there would be perfect equality between the sexes regarding this matter).

The only difference between that world and ours is the fact that men cannot get pregnant. That is a biological fact, not one that is part of the law. So, if you do not object to the rules in the imaginary world pictured above, your objection to applying the exact same principles to this world is simply the fact that men cannot get pregnant, which, again, is a biological inequality, not a legal one.

Pyrrho

I see two big problems with this. First, the way the law is now, when a man signs the marriage license, one of the things he is agreeing to is to be legally considered the father of all of his wife's children, regardless of who the biological father(s) might be. If you don't like all aspects of a contract, you are a fool for signing it. Don't get married if you don't want to be bound by the contract. So, any married man who complains about this is in exactly the same position as someone who signs any other legal contract that has clauses he does not like. He has no one to blame but himself for not bothering to concern himself with the consequences of what he voluntarily chose. He agreed to it, and later on if he wants to weasel out of what he voluntarily agreed to, he is the one who is being unfair.

Now, if you say the law should be changed, that still does not alter the fact that EVERY man who is presently married has agreed that all of the children that his wife bears during the marriage are legally to be considered his children. EVERY married man agreed to the old laws, not a new one that is yet to be passed. So any married man who complains, is complaining about what he himself agreed to, and really has no one to blame but himself for his own stupidity (if the agreement is stupid).

(My take on the reason for the law to be as it is, aside from not being able in the past to be certain who the father is, is that society has an interest in making sure that children are properly cared for, and, unless one found the biological father and made him pay, someone needs to be providing for the child, and it is better to get the benefit of two incomes rather than one (or, in "old-fashioned" relationships, the income of the parent who is making money). This interest is still present. It would be extremely problematic to try to track down all of the biological fathers and make them pay, as well as the custody issues, of which man has a right to which children, etc. However much people imagine that lawyers want complications, that would involve terrible complications.)

Second, the idea that a man should have all the rights of being a parent and none of the responsibilities is what you are suggesting when you say: "As for what happens to the boy--I would say that the father retains parental rights if he wants them even if he no longer supports the child." Why do you think that is fair?

Majestyk

I see why women like you. You point out the law's position on the contract as it pertains to the husband's obligation to act as parent to any child produced during the marriage and yet completely ignore the women's obligation under that same contract to engage in sexual activity with no one other than her husband.

I'd like to see a reference to this point of law, by the way.

Pyrrho

What you are suggesting is unfair to single men when compared with married men. Why should a married man get off free and clear, but a single one has to pay? The married man, if he had another child with his own wife, would have less money to spend per child anyway, so paying money to his neighbor's wife would do no worse. So, if everyone is going to pay for his or her own biological children, then he should have to pay all the same.

Furthermore, the only way to keep track of who is really whose biological father would involve genetic testing of all people, and keeping a record of each on file, so when a child is born, it can be known who the father is. Any other way will be just as it is now, where people may claim anything they want about who the father is. Not only would that be a lot of trouble and expensive, it would also, under current U.S. law, be considered a violation of people's right to privacy. You have no right to demand DNA samples from me, and I don't want to give any for such a project.

But, in point of fact, by signing a marriage license, a man is voluntarily agreeing that all of his wife's children are to be considered his children. The way things are now is far simpler. And that is an extreme virtue. When the law becomes more complicated, then more lawsuits are filed, and more money is wasted in court. The more complicated the rules are for who has to pay for what child, the more time and trouble it will take to make sure that each one is paying the "right" amount. And all that extra time wasted for extra bookkeeping is a real expense, so there is less money and/or time to spend on raising the children.

If you don't trust a woman to be faithful, and if you don't want to pay for raising children whom are not yours biologically speaking, then you should not marry that woman.

Buddrow_Wilson

What if you did trust her? Why should I be responsible for her infidelity? I definately don't accept the marriage contract as you state it.

How about if my wife cheats and has a child. We divorce and I am forced to pay child support for the child I didn't create. Why shouldn't the actual father be forced to pay support as well? He is getting of "scott free" because the woman that he helped get pregnant was married? This is rediculous. If both are required to support the child, that is also rediculous.

You seem to be trying to make this simple when it is clearly not, the variables are enormous.

Statements like your quotation almost imply that so many people get married with partners that they don't trust. I think that's bullshit. Even long term relationships experience breeches of trust.

Pyrrho

You presume too much. The same idea applies when a man has children with his neighbor's wife. The man, even though he is the biological father, is not generally considered to be the legal father. So he pays nothing, and does nothing to raise the child, generally speaking. So, while one man may be "stuck" with legal paternity, another gets away without any responsibility whatsoever.

In other words, there is nothing stopping a husband from being unfaithful, either. So you have as much reason to say, 'I see why men like you', as you do for "I see why women like you."

As for the specifics of the law, different states have their own laws, though, for the most part, they are substantially the same. Here is a link for Connecticut:

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/No...m#_Toc16596315

If you click on the link above, however, you will find that it is really more complicated than that (even when you just read the outline there, which is all that it is at that link). One can, in some cases, have someone else be considered to be the legal father. But you had better be prepared for things being considered to be the way of what I have quoted. You generally have to go to court and convince the court of something different, or the husband is legally the father. The details of how this will work will depend on the particular state.

babdon

this is some good discussion. I like how everyone can keep it on a nonpersonal level....

here's my lil' input...

It makes sense to me that responsibility should go in hand with authority. Whoever has more authority should have more responsibility.

Also, as a side note, sometimes when you are forced to do something, you tend to want to rebel but when you have a choice, you become more willing to do it.

From this thread you would think men don't care. I think this assumption is unfair because both genders are equally capabable of irresponsibility and stupidity.

I can think of two of my friends off the top of my head that had unknowningly fathered children that were not theres simply due to their moral integrity. I know the law didn't play a role in their decision making UNTIL they later found out that the child wasn't there's (i know cuz in one of the cases, i encouraged my friend to do a test to confirm because i was suspicious of the girl due to what i had heard -- but he didn't listen because he felt the call of duty "as a man" because he had slept with her in the past). The mothers knowingly lied. They knew these guys were NICE guys and moral individuals and could be suckered.

You might be tempted to say they were stupid fools and deserved what they got (and yes they were stupid fools) but would you say that about a girl that slept with a "jerk" and got pregnant? Yea, it was stupid of her to expect he'd stick around and help if she got pregnant but does that make it fine? Should he be left unaccountable because of her stupidity? No one deserves to be used and abused.

Anyhoo, all i'm saying is that the current law is far from perfect (aren't they all) and needs some improvement to fix some of the inconsistences as far as fairness goes. There's no silver bullet, there's no magic pill, but at least we can make it easier for those unfortunate enough to go thru it, whether male or female.

thanks for your time.

B.

Pyrrho

Then I hope you are not currently married, because otherwise, you have agreed to its terms.



Yes, there are variables in the law, and the presumption that the husband is the father is not absolute. However, in practice, most of the time the presumption that the husband is the father may as well be absolute. But, of course, there are occasional exceptions to this.

Probably, the sooner you make the discovery the better, and you will probably be better off if you did not sign the Birth Certificate stating that you are the father. (A Birth Certificate is a legal document.) However, if you have any legal questions, you should speak with an attorney in your area who specializes in the matters that concern you. (You should, if this is not patently obvious, regard all of my comments here as "entertainment", not as legal advice from an attorney.)

If you are in doubt, and if you really want to know paternity in any particular case, you can have testing done. But be warned: Your wife is likely to regard such testing as an accusation of infidelity (wouldn't you if you were tested in some way?), and if you find you are the father, that may not save the relationship. She may decide that your lack of trust, and your accusation of her without any evidence, means that she does not want to be with you. Then, not only might you be looking at child support, but also you may look forward to alimony!

So, if you have a burning desire to part with your money, I urge you to have any children you have tested, so you can pay the medical community for the actual testing, and, no matter which way the test goes, the legal community for any subsequent divorce proceedings!



I do not mean to imply anything about the numbers of people who are unfaithful. I doubt it is possible to get accurate statistics for such things. It is reasonable to suppose that there are people who are completely faithful to their spouses, though I would not care to make any guesses about most of the people I meet.


If it makes you feel any better, I am married. I know that I am presumed to be the father of any children my wife has. I do not have a problem with this. I am supremely confident that I can trust my wife. And I believe she is similarly confident that she can trust me. (And, as a matter of fact, I have never cheated on her; I don't want to; I don't want a dishonest relationship, and in order to have an honest one, I must do my part; my wife is intelligent enough to understand this concept as well.) And I have no desire to write a lengthy explanation of why I have this trust in her. Suffice it to say, we got to know each other very well before we were married. You, of course, have no particular reason to believe that my confidence is justified. And that is fine. It is nobody's business but ours.

alek0

Also, there is another issue here - if a woman cannot provide for the child, it is morally wrong of her to have it at all.