Sticky Green
Bluelighter
I've only studied a little bit of contract law. I do now see potentially that such disclaimer to waive liability could be illegal due to public policy.
-
-
SLR Moderators: Senior Staff
Question: Do men have the right NOT to be fathers?
- Thread starter Raz
- Start date
posner said:
Precisely. There's no reason for it NOT to, other than the fact that women seem to not want to take the risk of playing without making the men potentially pay.
If I were to be laughed out of the bedroom for requesting such a contract, then that would be a shining beacon that that's not the sort of woman that I would want to have intimate contact with, as she more than likely would not respect my choice to not want children. So that would be a very good thing, indeed.
I fully understand that at this point such a contract would not be held up in any court of law. What the gentleman in question is trying to do is to look at child support/responsibility from a perspective of equality. A radical notion, to be sure, but even radical notions have had their time come about now and then.
Last edited:
Sticky Green
Bluelighter
***totally off-track*** i'm sorry but....
you guys gotta turn on NBC. 20 minutes of play could decide the Stanly Cup champions. It's a great game!
you guys gotta turn on NBC. 20 minutes of play could decide the Stanly Cup champions. It's a great game!
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
posner said:
Correct - My statement was poorly worded. A contract of that nature would certainly be rendered unenforceable, because it is illegal not to pay child support once paternity is alleged and/or established.
I'm sorry, I'm just being finnicky but agreements made to absolve someone of paying child support between two people would be "void." Contracts made under duress are "unenforceable" (usually). "Void" and "unenforceable" have two different meanings.
Sticky Green
Bluelighter
I wonder why my teacher said contracts made under duress were void.
I'm trying to think up a situation where the outcome of a void contract and an unenforceable one would be different. Enlighten me.
I'm trying to think up a situation where the outcome of a void contract and an unenforceable one would be different. Enlighten me.
Rusty Cage
Bluelighter
Raz said:What are y'all thoughts on this? I can kind of see this guy's point....he didn't want the child, he made that very clear and as far as he knew precautions had been taken to stop a child from being born.
On the other hand, he could have used a condom rather than just take her word for it...and this isn't just about what he wants anymore; what happens here doesn't just affect him, it affects a child who has no say in it at all. I do feel sorry for this guy, but I don't know if opening up this can of worms is really a good idea...
I dunno...discuss!
Opening up this can of worms is only scarey because in this country Women get to claim childsupport, Women get the custody of children, Believe it or not as far as divorce goes... the woman gets everything... (usually).
And as far as I'm concerned... A guy should have the right to decline fatherly duties.... I mean if a chick wants to get an abortion, then she can... DESPITE what the would be father would have. This should be a two way street... an abortion should require both "parents" signature. And fatherly rights should be allowed to be signed away.
(I want kids at some point so don't look at me and start calling me some chauvanistic pig...)
mindbodysOul
Bluelighter
Lies or no lies the fact of the matter is that there is a child that has been born here in the midst of all the drama, through no fault of its own and whom deserves to have financial AND emotional support from both parents.
End of story.
End of story.
mindbodysOul said:
No. That is not fair. You are blindly using the child as leverage against the father.
I rekon if the man can prove he was deceived into becoming an unwanted father and was left out of the decision process when the woman was pregnant (like not told at all) - he should not be forced to support the child financially.
A man is not a sperm machine just as much as a woman is not an incubator.
Imagine if a woman got pregnant by IVF - would the sperm donor become financially responsable ? I think not.
Before a woman decides to keep a child conceived out of deception, she should consider the possibility of bearing total financial AND emotional responsability for the child.
It IS sad to say, but let the woman see the results of her decision.
It is also sad to say, but if a child is born into crap circumstances - it happens for a reason...
Last edited:
QuestionEverything
Bluelight Crew
Rusty Cage said:
First, the woman does not automatically get 'everything' in a divorce, not usually, not even most of the time. The woman can't get anything that isn't there to begin with and child support is based on BOTH parent's income, not just on what the father makes and not just on what it costs to raise a child.
Second, a father CAN sign away his parental rights, and many do, however I do believe the mother has to agree to it due to the child support issue. I still don't understand why this woman is pursuing this man for child support. Based on his actions and his attitude I would have to guess it's purely for the principle at this point.
Once again, I understand she was deceptive in getting pregnant, which is not right, but he also has some responsibility in this. Just because someone tells me they don't have HIV doesn't mean that they don't and I surely wouldn't just go on their word, but protect myself anyway. He should have taken the responsibility on himself if he felt that strongly about it and not left the decision up to someone else, which is exactly what he did by only counting on her.
Men choose not to be parents every day, they wear a condom, they get a vasectomy, or they don't have sex. They don't leave the responsibility up to someone else if they feel that strongly about it.8(
Sticky Green said:
An unenforceable or voidable contract is one that can be enforced at the instigation of one of the parties (the one against which the action was taken e.g. the one who suffered duress).
A void "contract" is one that cannot be enforced by either party.
Last edited:
Rusty Cage
Bluelighter
QuestionEverything said:
And women can get their tubes tied. Honestly if a woman gets pregnant... INSTANTLY it's the guys fault.... You know what it takes two to fuck.
Pure plain and simple if a chick can choose to have an abortion DESPITE the wouldbe fathers wishes... Then So a wouldbe father have the right to option out of being involved in any way.
I really hate this subject. I'm not going to talk about it anymore.
Beatlebot
Bluelight Crew
I think the main reason this debate pisses me off is because you get so many guys who just can't accept the fact they should be responsible for their own part in this.
It's like there are heaps of guys out there who think they should be able to stick their penis into any warm hole without a second thought and never be made to feel the consequences of it. Nevermind leaving women and children to suffer behind them.
Newsflash: If she is a crazy, lying bitch that you don't want to be with, don't put your penis inside her.
Seems simple to me.
It's like there are heaps of guys out there who think they should be able to stick their penis into any warm hole without a second thought and never be made to feel the consequences of it. Nevermind leaving women and children to suffer behind them.
Newsflash: If she is a crazy, lying bitch that you don't want to be with, don't put your penis inside her.
Seems simple to me.
L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
Every single child deserves significant contributions from BOTH of his or her parents no matter what the parents agreed upon or didn't agree upon amongst themselves.
The fact that some men are unscrupulous and some women are unscrupulous is completely and utterly beside the point.
Any "rights" or "choices" either parent wishes to assert are unequivocally trivial when compared to the interests of the child.
In.
My.
Opinion.
The fact that some men are unscrupulous and some women are unscrupulous is completely and utterly beside the point.
Any "rights" or "choices" either parent wishes to assert are unequivocally trivial when compared to the interests of the child.
In.
My.
Opinion.
If there's one clear message to take away from this debate it's this:
Regardless of what the woman says, a man must protect his seed from the egg - unless HE wants to run the risk of pregnancy etc
If a woman encourages unprotected sex and the man doesn't want children (or a STD) don't go there. For all you know, she may have a habit of this.
By the same token, girls don't let a man sleep with you unprotected unless you want to risk catching a STD. You never know, he may doing it out of habit also.
It may be HARD at the time...
- but worth it in the end.
Regardless of what the woman says, a man must protect his seed from the egg - unless HE wants to run the risk of pregnancy etc
If a woman encourages unprotected sex and the man doesn't want children (or a STD) don't go there. For all you know, she may have a habit of this.
By the same token, girls don't let a man sleep with you unprotected unless you want to risk catching a STD. You never know, he may doing it out of habit also.
It may be HARD at the time...
- but worth it in the end.
Last edited:
joannie_mhm
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Messages
- 5,693
Beatlebot said:
It's not always obvious when someone's a crazy lying bitch though BB.
It's always the quiet ones... :D
Raz
Bluelighter
Respectfully, I disagree.Beatlebot said:
I don't think it's at all fair to blame the guy for fucking someone who has lied to him. That's kind of like saying if you get food poisoning from going to a dodgy take-away, well it's your own fault for going to that take-away. You didn't know it was dodgy until it was too late...
On the other hand though, and someone else brought this up as well....if your partner tells you they're HIV- and you fuck them and get HIV, doesn't that make you the dickhead for not insisting on protected sex? I think it's an accepted truth in society that if you have consenting unprotected sex and get an STI, it's your own stoopid fault....doesn't it then stand to follow that if your feelings against having children are so strong, that you should do everything in your power to ensure it doesn't happen and not just trust your partner to do her part?
....and just to throw something else into the ring....if a guy is so deadset against becoming a father, what kind of father is he gonna be anyway? Is it maybe more healthy for a child to grow up poor with one parent who does love him than financially better off knowing that the money is coming from a father who couldn't give a fuck about him/her?
PS: that's not as naive as it may sound....I come from a single parent family, we didn't have much when I was growing up, but I feel a lot more emotionally sound not having anything at all to do with my father than if I'd had a father who gave me money but no emotional support..
IzaBadger!
Bluelighter
So long as the guy practised safe sex (if she lied to you about being on the pill, how the hell is that your fault), and never gave her any shit about him wanting kids, i don't see why he should have ANY obligations to the sprog.
Things getting so complicated these days though, if i was a guy i'd be tempted to find out a girl's views on abortion before doing anything (if circumstances allowed, obviously ..half way through drunk making out mightn't be so easy!), because the difficulty would be with someone you were still with, or who was a close friend, if they got pregnant and were going to have it purely because that was their belief, i wouldn't want to pay them when i'd clearly said i didn't WANT a baby, but equally i wouldn't want to end the friendship..
This kind of topic does show the flipside of 'it sucks being a woman, you get pregnant & you have to go through 9 months of horribleness followed by giving birth to the thing, ahh!' - i've never had an abortion, but compared to being financially bled dry for 18 years, that doesn't look so bad..
Things getting so complicated these days though, if i was a guy i'd be tempted to find out a girl's views on abortion before doing anything (if circumstances allowed, obviously
..half way through drunk making out mightn't be so easy!), because the difficulty would be with someone you were still with, or who was a close friend, if they got pregnant and were going to have it purely because that was their belief, i wouldn't want to pay them when i'd clearly said i didn't WANT a baby, but equally i wouldn't want to end the friendship..This kind of topic does show the flipside of 'it sucks being a woman, you get pregnant & you have to go through 9 months of horribleness followed by giving birth to the thing, ahh!' - i've never had an abortion, but compared to being financially bled dry for 18 years, that doesn't look so bad..
Rhombus
Bluelighter
Let's have a thought experiment:
Suppose in a few years we make some great medical advances and come up with an artificial womb which stands a greater chance of raising a health baby than a natural womb. This probably won't happen for a long time but it might happen one day. Anyway that's not really the point.
As soon as a zygote forms, it becomes standard procedure to transfer it to the artificial womb. Surely now both parents have equal say on whether to allow the embryo to continue to develop, or to shut off the machine. If they both agree, the machine is turned off and the "pregnancy" is terminated. However it would be completely unethical to allow the termination if either parent is against it, seeing as the baby will continue to grow without having to be connected to either parent. If the woman wants the baby and the man does not, the pregnancy continues as normal, and at the end of the 9 months the woman takes her new baby home with her. If the man wants the baby and the woman does not, then again, the pregnancy continues as normal and the man takes his child home after the 9 months.
In this situation, both parents have made completely independent decisions. Decisions on which the other had no say. Surely then, it is wrong to force the parent who didn't want the child in the first place to become involved, financially or otherwise?
Suppose in a few years we make some great medical advances and come up with an artificial womb which stands a greater chance of raising a health baby than a natural womb. This probably won't happen for a long time but it might happen one day. Anyway that's not really the point.
As soon as a zygote forms, it becomes standard procedure to transfer it to the artificial womb. Surely now both parents have equal say on whether to allow the embryo to continue to develop, or to shut off the machine. If they both agree, the machine is turned off and the "pregnancy" is terminated. However it would be completely unethical to allow the termination if either parent is against it, seeing as the baby will continue to grow without having to be connected to either parent. If the woman wants the baby and the man does not, the pregnancy continues as normal, and at the end of the 9 months the woman takes her new baby home with her. If the man wants the baby and the woman does not, then again, the pregnancy continues as normal and the man takes his child home after the 9 months.
In this situation, both parents have made completely independent decisions. Decisions on which the other had no say. Surely then, it is wrong to force the parent who didn't want the child in the first place to become involved, financially or otherwise?