Pyrrho

But from a legal point of view, if we did enact your policy, Loren, he would be free unless she could prove that he had earlier agreed to father a child. You see, no matter what the law is, it will not eliminate unfairness in the world.

If people want to be safe, they need to be very clear in advance what everyone involved expects. And, if they are not absolutely certain that they can trust the other person, they need a legally binding contract before they do anything. This is the ONLY way to be safe, no matter what the law might be. Otherwise, people are always taking a risk that the other person will have different expectations, or that the other person will change his or her mind.



Here we see quite clearly the fact that different people have different expectations. Is this really a surprise to anyone? This is why it is essential to TALK FIRST before engaging in any sexual activity that may result in a pregnancy. To do otherwise is, in my opinion, extremely foolish. (And I am not interested in any lame complaint that such talk is "unrealistic" in many cases. Of course it is unrealistic to expect that fools will not be foolish. I fully expect that people will continue to do things without taking appropriate precautions, which is what people are doing when they don't talk before having sex.)



Here I side completely and absolutely with Soyin. Marriage is a legal contract, with specific laws pertaining to it. As one enters into such contracts voluntarily, one voluntarily agrees to the appropriate laws. By getting married, a man has agreed to be regarded as the father of all children his wife has. If he does not wish to agree to such things, he should never marry. Loren, you may as well say that anyone should be able to weasel out of any contract that results in things they don't like. Such a position would make contracts meaningless.



Not that I wish to sound callous, but I agree with Loren on this one. If men can have sex while being jerks, they are not being motivated to change. Soyin, you deserve better than that, so don't tolerate it.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Pyrrho
But from a legal point of view, if we did enact your policy, Loren, he would be free unless she could prove that he had earlier agreed to father a child. You see, no matter what the law is, it will not eliminate unfairness in the world.

Yeah, if there's nothing written it comes down to a he said/she said.

Here we see quite clearly the fact that different people have different expectations. Is this really a surprise to anyone? This is why it is essential to TALK FIRST before engaging in any sexual activity that may result in a pregnancy.

In a casual situation the assumption is no children. By the time this isn't an assumption they certainly should have talked. The absence of talking to me would imply the status quo--no children.

Here I side completely and absolutely with Soyin. Marriage is a legal contract, with specific laws pertaining to it. As one enters into such contracts voluntarily, one voluntarily agrees to the appropriate laws. By getting married, a man has agreed to be regarded as the father of all children his wife has.

That's a hold-over from the pre-contraception, pre-DNA era. I don't believe it's valid in today's world.

If he does not wish to agree to such things, he should never marry. Loren, you may as well say that anyone should be able to weasel out of any contract that results in things they don't like. Such a position would make contracts meaningless.

Can one not marry for reasons other than childbearing?? I do not regard childbearing as an essential part of marriage.
We agreed there would be none before we married.

Not that I wish to sound callous, but I agree with Loren on this one. If men can have sex while being jerks, they are not being motivated to change. Soyin, you deserve better than that, so don't tolerate it.

Exactly. If you don't sleep with jerks you sleep alone more often but you get a better partner in the long run.

Pyrrho

Thank you.

I completely agree with your concern (expressed elsewhere) that many men will become even less responsible if Loren Pechtel's approach were enacted. Of course, some are so irresponsible now, that their behavior would not be affected. And, of course, some men will be responsible no matter what the law is. But I think that there are some men who now behave somewhat responsibly because they don't want to be stuck with 18 years of child support payments. By enacting Loren Pechtel's approach, their motive to act responsibly will be gone, and we can expect that their behavior will consequently be altered. And that, I think, is a good reason to reject that approach. There is too much irresponsibility in the world as things are, so making laws that encourage more irresponsibility is a very bad idea.

Soyin Milka

About men being oopsed...
No method of contraception is perfectly safe, short of having your gonads taken out of your body. Even vasectomy and tubal ligation have failure rates as contraceptive methods. Diaphragm used with spermicide has a low failure rate, but if that's what a woman uses, she has to expect she'll eventually become pregnant, because it's a real possibility. It's a statistical fact.

Now, I think the "oopsing" that bothers you the most is the one voluntary on the part of the woman, but it can also be accidental. How can you be sure which is which?

Are you advocating a man could have sex with a woman for a long period of time (like ten years), on a regular basis, yet be able to walk away on his responsibilities if she accidentally gets pregnant, just because he's not ready to be a father at that time?

Don't you see how this could put pressure on women to use the contraceptive pill or have an abortion if they get pregnant? How is that "pro-choice"?

After three months of sexual exclusivity and being cleared of STDs by a test, there's no need to use a condom anymore. Diaphragm and spermicide becomes good enough and, from personal experience, I know men can't wait not to have to use a condom anymore. Ten years with no worries for the guy, the woman takes care of contraception. Then she gets pregnant and he still has the option of walking away. Can you see why I object to what you're advocating?

About your last reply: So, demand better off your partners...

That's what I'm doing by raising my objections here. Both men and women should feel equally responsible about protection. Some of the options you're advocating for men would make the failure of paying attention to contraception have no or very little consequences for them at all. I don't see how this would motivate men to do a better job at it.

Soyin

Majestyk

Well this renders much of my argument invalid. Although, I disagree with law as it is presented here. If, a mother chooses to carry the pregnancy to term becasue, she does not want to submit to a medical procedure, and then, give up the baby for adoption, regardless of whether the father chooses to take custody of and responsibilty for the child, the mother should be released from her responsibilties.

Buddrow_Wilson

I would love to see some evidence to support this. If there were actual significant numbers backing it up, I would be open to adjusting my opinion accordingly.

One of my premises is that the current legislation does little or nothing to curb male irresponsibility.

Soyin Milka

I never called any of the guys I slept with jerks. That's a word you chose to use. As a matter of fact, most of these guys were nice overall. Some of them were just ignorant about protection and had to be reminded to use it. I only said some men had been disappointing about protection.

Loren's last comment is particularly revealing tho.

Soyin

Pyrrho

Yes, there is generally the presumption that there will be no planned children. But there is no reason to make any assumption about what everyone will do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. Not only do some women regard abortion as murder, in point of fact, many women do not know in advance whether they will want to have an abortion or not. If a man simply assumes that a casual acquaintance will have an abortion, he is making an unwarranted assumption. This is a mistake he is making, and he cannot reasonably blame someone else for his own stupidity in making bad assumptions.



Marriage is a contract that has many aspects. Whenever you sign a contract, you are agreeing to ALL of the clauses, not just some of them that you like. You and your wife may not have any children, but if your wife does bear any children, you have signed a legally binding document that says that you will be regarded as the father.

In my case, I have done precisely the same thing. My wife and I have a verbal agreement that we will not ever have children, and we have taken the appropriate steps to make that a reality. Nevertheless, I am fully aware of the fact that I have signed a legally binding contract that states that any children my wife bears are mine. The difference is, I am not complaining about what I have voluntarily agreed to.

Again, people should not sign any contract unless they agree to it in its entirety. One does not get to decide later to only go along with some of the clauses of the contract and not others.



I agree. Before I was married, I spent many nights alone when I did not have to. But I think it is far better to be alone than with the wrong person. Others may disagree, but whatever people choose to do, they should consider the possible consequences of their actions before they act.

Pyrrho

It will probably be fairly difficult, if not impossible, to get accurate numbers for such things. You seem to be suggesting that the vast majority of men don't concern themselves with whether or not they will be paying child support for 18 years. Do you really mean that? If what you are saying is true, then most men are extremely stupid.

Buddrow_Wilson

No what I'm questioning is whether the number of men who are not concerned about causing a pregnancy are affected in any way by the legislation. I would hope that the majority of men are inherently responsible and for those the legislation is also useless.

Obviously, this is purely speculation on my part.