Pyrrho

You are probably confusing religious rules with laws. Legally, having an affair does not end a marriage, regardless of how many children are produced. So no, being unfaithful does not void the contract. (And, as an aside, many religions don't regard infidelity as voiding the marriage, either. But that is unimportant for the topic at hand.)

Some of the things that can void the contract are things like one of the persons being underage at the time of the marriage, one of the persons being already married, etc. You can also get a divorce, but that generally involves many troublesome complications. And then, of course, there is death, which always ends one's legal obligations.

When you get married, you are signing a legal document. Regardless of any other considerations, you should consider the legal ramifications of that document before you sign it, just like any other contract. Don't sign anything if you don't agree to it.

And you don't need any excuse to 'butt in' on any of these threads.

Pyrrho

In theory, a woman can prevent situation 5 by having an abortion. However, there are places or situations in which a woman cannot get an abortion. In the U.S., for example, there are many areas where there is simply no one who is willing to perform abortions. So it can involve some difficulties in travel, probably involving a stay in a hotel in the city in which the abortion is performed, not to mention the fact that one must have some way of making the payment for the abortion.

Also, a woman must make that decision during a specific time period, after which it is too late to decide on an abortion.

In practice, situation 5 does occasionally occur.

But, again, you are right; a woman can avoid 5 because of 3. So, because of 3, there is, as I said, an inequality in the options available. However, I am happy that I could not possibly get pregnant, and therefore cannot have the risks to my life and health that are present with pregnancy. I don't think men are getting a bad deal on this.

Additionally, both men and women can avoid the problem, virtually always, by getting sterilized. Here the man has, by far, the advantage, as the surgery for him (a vasectomy) is less invasive, and therefore cheaper, less dangerous, and less problematic for side effects. Additionally, he can have his semen tested afterwards from time to time so that he can be absolutely certain he is sterile, which is something a woman cannot do who has had a tubal ligation (she will just have to hope that the surgery is successful [which it almost always is], and will only know of its failure if she becomes pregnant). Usually, men don't bother with very much testing afterwards (just once or twice), because the success is almost certain. So, a man who never wants children has a very easy out. And, as an added bonus, there is the possibility that he may be able to have surgery to restore his ability to have children, though that is often not successful, so a man should never count on that.

And, of course, some individuals are naturally sterile, so they obviously never have the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

And both men and women can avoid the problem always by celibacy, if they wish.

So, a man is never forced into a situation in which he might become a father. He chooses to be in that situation.



This is a bit of a tangent, but I think it is interesting for our discussion at present:

http://drkoop.com/template.asp?page=...p=93&id=513178

Whether one will end up with situation 1 or not is, statistically speaking, often linked to the sex of the child.

alek0

Same argument can be used against abortion. A woman could have abstained, she could have gotten a tubal etc. If abortion is legal, a man should have a way out of consequences of unwanted pregnancy.

As your sterilization scenario, it does not take into account that method is permanent and therefore inapplicable to all those young people who don't want to become parents at that moment but would want to in the future. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to find a doctor willing to do sterilization surgery on a young person with no children.

Soyin Milka

Crappy out of topic stuff.

I just reread my last post. I want to offer apologies to Loren. That was the last time ever I tried to save time by answering multiple PMs with a public posts. I'm embarassed by the result. Sorry everyone.

Soyin

Soyin Milka

Back on topic.

I thought about this scenario last night (I hate insomnia).

A married couple gets a divorce. They have three kids together, two daughters and a son. When the couple divorces, the daughter is three years old. Three years later, for some reason, the man learns he's not the biological father of the daughter. Only the two sons have his genes.

Should the man be allowed to stop childcare payment for the son? I can see the unfairness to the man. But if he stops making payments for the boy, he will learn about it eventually. He could lose his parental rights on his son (Basically by renouncing them to avoid making payments any longer) and his relationship with him. In that scenario, I think if we correct the unfairness toward the man, we risk being unfair to the boy.

UMoC also suggested in an earlier post that men should be allowed to sue their former spouse for previous childcare money paid for a child they now learned was not biologically theirs. In a situation like the one I've just described, I think that would be unfair to the kids again.

I'm not sure what could be done about that.

Soyin

Loren Pechtel

The situations you describe are the woman's fault--she slipped one in on him. If she gets hurt in the process I don't see a problem.

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.

As for recovery of past child support payments--agreed but care should be taken to not drive her into poverty in the process.

Soyin Milka

Kids already often believe they are to blame for their parents' divorces. If in the scenario I described, the man keeps paying child support for the two daughters, but not the boy, I think there's a risk he could be adversely affected by this. Maybe you think it's fair the woman gets hurt in the process, but what about the kid?

If the mother keeps custody of the three children, he would punish all three of them by reducing the money she has available. Suing her for past childcare payment will not only hurt the woman.

But most importantly...
You advocate a married woman who gives birth from a man other than her husband (after she cheated on him) should accept the full burden of that child on her own.
Yet at the same time...
You advocate for something that would make it possible for a cheating husband who fathered a child out of wedlock not to be forced to pay childcare for it because it happened during a casual relationship.

That sounds like old ideas saying it's okay for guys to act like jerks (boys will be boys) and cheat on their wives, but that women who cheat on their husbands need to be punished and single women who have casual sex are asking for trouble.

Yay.

Soyin

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Soyin Milka Kids already often believe they are to blame for their parents' divorces. If in the scenario I described, the man keeps paying child support for the two daughters, but not the boy, I think there's a risk he could be adversely affected by this. Maybe you think it's fair the woman gets hurt in the process, but what about the kid?

Why would the kid know?

If the mother keeps custody of the three children, he would punish all three of them by reducing the money she has available. Suing her for past childcare payment will not only hurt the woman.

That's why care must be taken with the amount collected. In many cases I suspect it would have to be deferred many years.

But most importantly...
You advocate a married woman who gives birth from a man other than her husband (after she cheated on him) should accept the full burden of that child on her own.

Correct, unless she told the true father and he accepted responsibility.

Yet at the same time...
You advocate for something that would make it possible for a cheating husband who fathered a child out of wedlock not to be forced to pay childcare for it because it happened during a casual relationship.

What's the problem? She went and had a child despite not having the father's support. It's her burden. The fact that she's married is irrelevant.

That sounds like old ideas saying it's okay for guys to act like jerks (boys will be boys) and cheat on their wives, but that women who cheat on their husbands need to be punished and single women who have casual sex are asking for trouble.

Not at all. She could still have an abortion or put it up for adoption.

I do agree that the burden falls unfairly upon women, but that's biology, not sexism. If she won't abort, isn't sterilized and doesn't want to raise a child herself, what is she doing having sex with someone other than someone willing to be the father?

I don't see this as punishment. It's a regrettable situation but she took a chance she wasn't able to afford. I don't see how anyone else has an obligation in this situation.

Soyin Milka

Loren,

I want to be sure I understood you correctly.

You advocate that:
A married woman cheats and gets pregnant from her lover. She's on her own.
A married man cheats and gets his lover pregnant, he's under no obligation to her or the child.

You want to bring back that old double standard about sexuality and put it into law but you don't see this as sexist.

Did I understand you correctly?

Soyin

Soyin Milka

If a man isn't sterilized and doesn't want to raise a child, what is he doing having sex with someone other than someone he's sure will get an abortion?

Soyin