The more I hear men’s rights activists fulminating about the unfairness of child support, the more I wonder how typical my situation is, and whether there are any general lessons to be drawn about expectations of men and women when it comes to child-raising.
My relationship with the father of my child ran into difficulties before my pregnancy was even confirmed. Initially, we hoped to live together, but it quickly became clear that there were too many barriers, both logistical and emotional, for this to be a viable possibility, at least for a few years. I did some research into the rights and obligations of a non-custodial parent and found that although I would be entitled to a certain level of support as a custodial parent, I wasn’t legally obliged to demand it.
I had no desire to take him for every penny I could get: he was someone I cared deeply about but couldn’t live with. Since bearing and raising a child would affect my ability to work, and since I hoped he would want to see his child well cared-for, I envisaged a compromise whereby he made voluntary support payments and was in other ways an active father.
I reckoned without his stubbornness and commitment to traditional family structures. He informed me that it would be better for the child if he was in no way involved, since this would free me up to find a stepfather I could live with and build an approximation of a traditional family. That I have emotional problems that would make the search for a stepfather the worst possible fate I could inflict on myself or the child did not enter into his thinking: the child needed two parents who lived together, and since we couldn’t provide that, he didn’t want to be involved.
Later, he tried to soften that approach by saying that we lived too far apart to make visitation practical. If I lived closer to him, he suggested, it would be far easier to work something out. When I finally ended the relationship, he said that he’d hoped we would be able to find a solution, although I’m not sure what that solution should have been. I can only assume it would have involved my seeing the light and moving halfway across the country to live close to someone who had proved himself incapable of respecting anything about me that he didn’t agree with.
When I look back over the uglier arguments, I’m struck by how often he tried to put both blame and responsibility on me for the fact that he’d fathered a child without being ready for fatherhood. My explanation that I hoped to get pregnant was rendered meaningless by my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose. That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough: I should also have told him the date of my last menstrual period. He believes that a child needs a father figure on the spot, therefore I had to enter another relationship despite my own understanding of myself.
I’ve also been told by family members that I’m not being fair to him and should have done more to make the relationship work. I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience, but I suspect that is a sacrifice I was expected to make. Not for him, of course, but for the child. It would be equally reasonable to expect him to move halfway across the country to be closer to me, but no-one is demanding that. Because I have no job to leave? Because I’m a woman? Because all my reasons for not wanting to move have been sifted through the mesh of rationality and found wanting?
The bottom line is that we both made a choice when we engaged in unprotected sex, and that choice has consequences for both of us. I go through the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth and have the joyful but heavy responsibility of a child at the end of it. He has to pay a percentage of his income to support the child.
And yet he’s the one who feels treated unfairly.
It’s not about you. None of this is about you–it’s about his desire to be a blameless victim who doesn’t have to face and take responsibility for the consequences of his choices, and about everyone else’s desire to control you through the choices they want to impose on you.
I hope things get to the point where he feels and is reponsible enough to act like more than jsut an unwilling sperm donor.
Not to sound too cold and practical about this Nick, but if you haven’t done so already you should talk to a family law attorney sensitive to your issues. Not because you necessarily need to take any kind of legal action, but because you’re going to need a good idea of all the respective legal rights and obligations at work here. Mr. “I don’t think I should have to act responsibly here” could easily turn later into Mr. “I think I should be allowed to start asserting parental rights even though I’ve been out of the picture for eons.” It wouldn’t be the first time.
Nolo, a visit to my local citizens’ advice bureau is scheduled in the near future to confirm exactly what the legal situation is.
hmmm. I think it can be argued that you did, in fact, use him to get pregnant. Isn’t that what you informed him of when you told him you wanted to become pregnant and that you weren’t on birth control? I think that also implies that pregnancy was more important to you than the viability of your particular relationship with him. Why do *you* feel he is financially obligated to pay child support? You actively chose to become pregnant — did you discuss his views on fatherhood prior to your doing so?
I’m not sure what you mean about using him to get pregnant. Yes, I made use of the fact that he was prepared to have unprotected sex with me, but that’s not to imply I saw him as a walking sperm bank. With hindsight, I can say that it would have been better to discuss our different views on parenthood before the event, but I assumed that he understood my views (I’ve expressed them openly and we were friends for over a year) and would speak up if he disagreed enormously.
I get the impression that his views on fatherhood have shifted as he considered them. When I told him I wanted to get pregnant, he was enthusiastic about it, and even when he started having misgivings he spoke of his long-held dream of being a father.
I do sometimes feel that I was slightly unfair to him in that I had plenty of time to consider getting pregnant and he hadn’t considered the possibility before that night. On the other hand, the option was always open to him to say “Well, I need some time to think about that, in the meantime we’d better use condoms, OK?” He didn’t, and now we both have a child to consider.
Q, I strongly disagree with you on this one.
If a man is unwilling to be a father, he shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse. If he’s really really really unwilling to be a father he shouldn’t engage in any activity where semen gets close to a vagina.
If he’s willing to engage in those activities he needs to be prepared to face the consquences, be they seeing his potential progeny aborted against his will, or finding himself with a child to raise.
Men have a surefire method of keeping themselves from parenting. If they don’t use it, they have every responsibility for that.
If a man is unwilling to be a father, he shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse.
If a woman is unwilling to be a mother, she shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse. True or false?
If true, what happens to abortion rights? If false, why the different treatment for different genders?
Robert: women get pregnant through rape and coerced intercourse. Don’t even try to paint that as the same scenario. For many women, the choice to have sex or abstain from it is not theirs to make.
Why the different treatment? Seriously? Um, maybe because it’s the woman who goes through the pregnancy?
Nick: I meant “use” in the utilitarian sense, not the “take advantage” sense.
Jake: I’m not sure I’m suggesting a blanket “men don’t have to step up to the financial plate” rule. I was curious about the specifics of this pregnancy and relationship and why Nick feels that it might be male entitlement that is wrapped around the financial question.
Robert, that’s an old question with an oft-repeated answer. Has something to do with that nine-month gestation period.
Nick– glad to hear you’re taking the steps to get all the info you need. I hope my advice didn’t sound insulting.
I know this thread isn’t supposed to be about abortion, but in tangentially it is.
In another thread on this site about pregnancy being a process (or some such thing) someone introduced the idea that abortion wouldn’t be necessary with an artificial womb. It was very interesting how many pro-choice arguments seemingly turned from “its not the fetus that is the problem its the pregnancy” AND “Its my body so its my choice” TO “I want the control as to whether or not I have offspring”. In other words, if the fetus could be removed safely (thereby negating the “my body my choice” argument) and raised in an artificial womb many would still want to kill the fetus. Many of the arguments maintained that outlawing abortion is simply punishing women for having sex. It seems to me those arguments could apply equally to men in the case of whether or not they want to be fathers and whether or not you are simply punishing men for having sex. If a woman’s right is not simply “its my body my choice” but rather “I don’t want offspring”, why can’t men have the same right to absolve themselves of all parental responsibility?
If a woman’s right is not simply “its my body my choice” but rather “I don’t want offspring”, why can’t men have the same right to absolve themselves of all parental responsibility?
As soon as men can be impregnated, they too can have the same choice.
But Larry is positing the question in a context where women aren’t impregnated either, Jake.
Jake Squid: “As soon as men can be impregnated, they too can have the same choice. ”
Ahh hemm. Maybe you didn’t read the whole post? You know, the part that removed pregnancy from the equation of abortion (at least partially)?
But pregnancy has never been removed from the equation, it’s merely been extremely shortened in the hypothetical future technology scenario. See, the hypothetical future technology scenario doesn’t forego intercourse & uterus. Sexual intercourse does happen and insemination, fertilization & implantation all happen. The woman, in hypothetical future technology scenarioland, does get pregnant & then has the option of moving the zygote/embryo/fetus to the artificial womb.
So, I will say again that as soon as men can get pregnant they can have the same choice.
She did discuss that she was not on birthcontrol and wanted pregnancy, which ultimately means he failed to take the precautions that were right for him at the time if it was something he did not want. He had sex knowing that his partner was not using birthcontrol and took a gamble.
As for the abortion tangent, it’s interesting how anti-choice men like to swing the argument about to make women who are choosing life be the one’s that hold the lions share of accountability. My best advice to those men is to find out in advance what your lover’s feelings are on pregnancy, pregnancy right now and parental responsibility. Men have a choice as well and whether the choice is to leave yourself open to impregnating a woman, getting an STD or using a condom, the myth that choice is not available is nonsense. And if somehow you do end up with an STD, it’s not like the woman giving you an STD has any right to demand you not get that STD treated, right?
You don’t have to like your choices or consequences any more than the woman you sleep with does, but it doesn’t mean that you aren’t accountable if the dice roll lands on ‘she’s pregnant!’ and you slept with someone that has different reproductive beliefs than you do.
There’s a difference between garnishing someone’s paycheck and taking control, even temporary control, of their body. Pro-choice (and anti-“choice for men”) activists differentiate between the choice to not continue a pregnancy and the choice to not pay child support for the same reason the courts allow people to sue for money but not for pounds of flesh.
I think Kim has it spot on. It sounds like there was at least the knowledge that Nick was unprotected and hopeful for pregnancy, and if her partner was not ready to seriously consider that burden then the onus would IMMEDIATELY be on him to use birth control (condoms) until he had fully examined the topic and decided on what he wanted. It’s called personal responsibility.
Now that this person has not taken responsibility previously, he doesn’t want to do so now. Unfortunately, this should not be an option for anyone (not taking responsibility for personal actions).
Jake Squid: “So, I will say again that as soon as men can get pregnant they can have the same choice.”
Or until women no longer need to go through the pregnancy to reproduce?
I have a couple of things I’d like to toss out.
In discussions of abortion, I really think it’s useless to suggest abstinence on the part of a man that uses some form of birth control, and who doesn’t want to accidentally impregnate someone. A truly tiny sector of society is abstinent – for everyone else, sex is a necessary part of their daily life. This is as true for men as it is for women.
Also, I believe that by virtue of biology, a woman has the last say in whether a fetus inside her is carried to term – her body, her choice. But in the baby-incubator secnario, both possible-parents-to-be have an equal say as to whether the fetus matures. When the zygote is not in her body, she loses the veto power.
Perhaps male entitlement was the wrong word for what I was trying to describe, but it was more than the financial question that I thought of as an entitlement issue. He tried to paint me as responsible for a decision we both made freely, and expected me to rearrange my life to fix what he saw as a problem (lack of two-parents-together). I don’t know whether that was individual assholishness on his part or a symptom of a wider problem, which is why I just wonder whether there are general lessons to be drawn.
“Robert: women get pregnant through rape and coerced intercourse. Don’t even try to paint that as the same scenario. For many women, the choice to have sex or abstain from it is not theirs to make.”
Most of women who abort their children had consensual sex. Further abortion is not the only legal option for woman to avoid her parental responsibilities, it’s one of 3.
Abortion, adopting out, and legal abandonment allow for *women,
only* to evade the consequences of sex and legal responsibility toward
their children.
Men are held to have “chosen” at time of sex, while women are NOT.
Take this hypothetical:
My wife and I are worried about having babies. We set aside some eggs.
We have a divorce, and I get half of the eggs.
I then hire a surrogate mother, fertilize the eggs and implant them.
Can I now get child support from my ex-wife?
Would it be different if the lab had fertilized the eggs before freezing them?
Nick:
The ex and I had an unplanned pregnancy which resulted in our parenting of our son. At the time I figured that at age (almost) eighteen and with enough resources to follow through with the pregnancy, I would do so and make my decision whether or not to adopt or parent through the course of the prengnacy. During this time it became clear that he viewed pregnancy and fatherhood as a Hallmark card, while I was kicked out of my parents’ home and couch-crashed with friends for the duration of my pregnancy.
Arguments ensued and we had little to no contact while I was pregnant. We tried to make decent arrangements but couldn’t on our own. However, soon after our son was born we decided to give it another go, at which point I “sacrific[ed] my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience” because I was indeed expected to do so by everyone involved but me. Not knowing better, I dove in to the most horrible year of our lives. We were miserable, depressed, at one another’s throats. I moved out after both of us experienced a serious emotional breakdown apiece.
After we split we tried to make arrangements for visitation and child support outside of court, both of us agreeing that because I had a more flexible schedule I should be primary caregiver and he would have copious visitation time. He would pay child support in $X on N day every month. We did this for awhile with sporadic success, but for whatever reason the lack of a court order allowed him to feel free to trample all over me and our original agreement, and would withhold child support if he thought I was being mean to him or if he thought it would give him leverage. We then changed it to him paying the full price at an in-home daycare (same amount of money) but that fell through when I found out that he hadn’t paid our daycare provider in months. She continued to keep our son, and keep me in the dark, because she knew I was stuggling to get through college.
We embarked on a horrific custody and child support lawsuit that had me accused of everything from mental illness, drug abuse, child abuse and neglect. Though I tried to play fair the whole time, I was forced to bring out his skeletons, leading to wounds that still have yet to heal on both sides.
The irony is that the arrangement ruled on by the courts was exactly the one we had agreed upon in the first place. And it works! It was tense for awhile but the two of us get along now quite well. We have a modest child support agreement, he covers our son’s insurance expenses, and gets an overnight twice a week and pretty much any other time he asks for one.
All this is to say that boundaries must be established in the relationship if you want the relationship between him and your child to continue. If he wants nothing to do with the child, I would strongly suggest you have him sign away his rights to be a parent. This is not to say that he couldn’t become a positive force later on, but it prevents him from being a negative one by trampling on your rights as the parent. Foregoing child support in a case where he is disinterested or resistant to fatherhood will save you a lot of grief in the long term.
This may not be the most popular (somewhat unsolicited) advise, but “Forget the semantics and start thinking about the bigger picture” is the most honest advice I can give you with my experience and the experiences of my friends.
Now back to your thread derailment.
>>Most of women who abort their children had consensual sex. Further abortion is not the only legal option for woman to avoid her parental responsibilities, it’s one of 3.
Abortion, adopting out, and legal abandonment allow for *women,
only* to evade the consequences of sex and legal responsibility toward
their children.>>
Men are accountable for child-support iff the woman assumes the greater role of custodial parent. Both parents have parallel support obligations after the child’s birth; the only reason women aren’t usually seen as having non-custodial parental obligations is that they’re usually the custodial parents.
Seeing as how there are now two “Larry”s in this thread could some mod change the name in my previous posts to “TheEngineerFormerlyKnownAsLarry” or something unique?
I second Lauren’s advice.
Also, for all the folks who are wondering why a woman ought to have veto power over a fetus growing outside her womb (this of course being a purely theoretical conversation, as it is doubtful that artificial wombs are likely to be around for at least several generations to come, if that)—exactly how do you think that fetus is going to get from the woman’s womb to an artificial one? You do realize that scalpels and anaethesia are going to be involved, right? You do realize that it would be an invasive medical procedure, right? And that since it’s still her body that is going to be impacted by any decision she makes, it’s still her choice what, if any medical procedures are going to be performed on her, right?
Sheesh.
Ah, it’s cute when the anti-feminists think they’ve worked in a “gotcha”. I suppose the sentence could have been phrased better, but that’s quibbling over semantics.
In our legal system, if you give someone a gift, it’s theirs to do with what they like. If a man ejaculates inside a woman, he has given her his semen and she is free to use it as she likes. She can make a baby with it, if she wants. She can abort if she wants. She can squeeze out the semen and put it in a vial to wear around her neck so people can sniff it if she likes and the man, having given it freely to her, has no rights to stop her.
As much as many men would like our law to follow the piss on it/spit on it/come in her view of legal ownership over a woman’s body, that’s simply not how the law works. You come in a woman, she gets to keep your semen. If you don’t like that you have two choices–don’t give her your semen (use a condom) or give her the kind of semen she can’t use to make a baby (get a vasectomy). Thems the law, guys. Sorry.
This question is discussed in copious detail here
My short answer is that both men and women should have the right to do whatever they want to with their own bodies to protect themselves from unwanted parenthood.
This brought to mind a rather disturbing scene from a rather disturbing book I read when I was 18. It featured a young girl finding a discarded, tied-off condom in some public place and carrying it around inside her as part of some kind of sexual experimentation.
That’s hardcore demented. I love it.
I have three headaches right now. One from the sun beating down on my head all day (local county fair), one of the ice cream variety, and one from all the stupidity I keep running into online. So please excuse any snarkiness that’s too, well, snarky.
“My explanation that I hoped to get pregnant was rendered meaningless by my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose.” There are people stupid enough to think these things cancel each other out?!
“That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough . . .” Speaking of unbelievable stupidity.
“If a man is unwilling to be a father, he shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse.” versus “If a woman is unwilling to be a mother, she shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse,” OBVIOUSLY, she has the option of birth control, which unprotected vaginal intercourse does not override. Once male birth control is available (I think they’re working on developing a male oral contraceptive), men who don’t want to be fathers can have unprotected vaginal intercourse without worrying (about that, anyway). In addition, either of them have the authority to require the use of a condom in any sex they have.
Regarding the argument about how “I don’t want offspring” relates to abortion and to men’s and women’s options, 1) both men and women can choose not to contribute their genetic material to a pregnancy, and 2) women, because they carry the fetus for nine months, also have that option during most of the pregnancy. Each person, male and female, loses control over their genetic material the instant it leaves their body, men at conception, women at birth.
Piny–You. Are. A. Genius. “Pro-choice (and anti-“choice for men”) activists differentiate between the choice to not continue a pregnancy and the choice to not pay child support for the same reason the courts allow people to sue for money but not for pounds of flesh.” Absolutely brilliant!
“Abortion, adopting out, and legal abandonment allow for *women,
only* to evade the consequences of sex and legal responsibility toward
their children.” Generally the latter two happen AFTER the guy in question has abandoned the mother (and hence the child)–otherwise I see no reason why the father could not request to take the baby if the mother didn’t want it. Around where I live there’s this organization called the Fathers’ Adoption Registry; I know nothing about it but what was depicted in the commercials, which was a man who wanted the baby his ex-girlfriend was planning to give up for adoption. And, OBVIOUSLY, if men got pregnant, they could have abortions, too.
Too often, people think of child support as money lost to the custodial parent, when it should be thought of as money paid to the child, for, well, child support. And mothers, by the time said child is born, have given nine months worth of total child support, life support, full-time, with no breaks and at great inconvenience. Translate that into money–say, minimum wage, plus overtime for all but forty hours in every week, plus medical expenses, cost of extra food and maternity clothes, plus a bonus for the time, energy, and pain spent during labor, and that’s a shitload of child support right there, of which no father will ever pay.
Mike–“My wife and I are worried about having babies. We set aside some eggs.
We have a divorce, and I get half of the eggs.” Why would you get half? They’re hers. Fertilized embryoes, yes. Eggs, I doubt it. But, if this did happen, once YOU have sole control over them and how they’re used, she ceases to be responsible for them. It’s the same principle as sperm donors being exempt from being sued for child support.
La Lubu–VERY good point. Person in whom fetus is contained controls how it gets out of her. I had a nightmare a couple nights ago in which I was pregnant and in a car accident and some pro-life surgeon decided the (viable) fetus was more important than I was and just sliced me open to get it out, which dramatically increased the danger I was in, and I was struggling to stay alive so I could sue him. There was a murder up here, too, about six months ago, in which one woman cut another one open like that and kidnapped her fetus, and left her to bleed to death. (Unfortunately, I’m not kidding.)
Thank you La Lubu – that is exactly what I’ve been trying to communicate. So,
Or until women no longer need to go through the pregnancy to reproduce?
Yes. Once reproduction is completely removed from the human body, both (or, perhaps at that point, all) genetically contributing parents will have equal say on what happens to the embryo that they all purposely created outside of any human body. I think, however, that Mr. Sperm ‘n Eggs will hunt you down and hurt you if you pursue this line of inquiry as it is, apparently, objectively immoral to reproduce in such a way.
And, as long as we’ve gone down this long weird road of tangential speculation on reproductive technologies of the future, I would like to bring Raznor’s womanbabykeet & attendant moral quandries into the discussion.
I think the fake-womb argument is one of the lamest derails of abortion/child support discussions ever. It’s the kind of thing you bring up around the bong in grad school (dude!). If we ever get to Brave New World territory where all babies grow in glass bottles from conception, then we’ll have to adapt our laws accordingly. But that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.
And the sniveling “but why don’t MEN get to decide about abortions too?” argument is just too annoying. Put on your jimmy hats or get a vasectomy, fellas. It ain’t brain surgery. It’s not that hard to avoid being a daddy, and once you’ve ejaculated, your choice is already made. If those aren’t enough options for you, start agitating for male birth control pills that work better than condoms. No sensible woman is going to have a problem with you doing so.
As far as Nick Kiddle’s question, I would just second what everyone else says here; either get a legally-enforced child support set up, or make sure he terminates his parental rights. He made his choice on the night in question, and for your child’s sake, you have to make sure its future is as stable as possible no matter what bio-dad does.
In our legal system, if you give someone a gift, it’s theirs to do with what they like.
In our legal system, if you turn around and then ask for payment to buy the gift nappies, you get laughed out of court. The “semen is a gift” argument is a perfectly valid position – in a world where males bear no responsibility for children.
Since males DO bear responsibility for children, coequal with females, that analogy breaks down.
My short answer is that both men and women should have the right to do whatever they want to with their own bodies to protect themselves from unwanted parenthood.
Ah, again we find ourselves in agreement, Amp. And it hurt no one, do what thou wilt. But let’s not start down that road again; I haven’t had time to do my research.
The problem is, abortion ultimately -is- a form of birth control, but saying that frankly ends up having people run with it into territory of people assuming women use it as ‘standard’ birthcontrol.
So either you find out all the options of birthcontrol available, and what sort your partner will or will not be comfortable with and proceed knowingly, or you risk it and risk paying child-support, or risk a woman choosing a form of birth-control you may not be comfortable with.
Kyra said:
I figure at minimum wage, plus overtime, a pregnancy should entitle a woman to $46,350 in simple pay alone. Not counting expenses. Not counting harm to her health or body. Not counting pain and suffering. Ouch.
Warning: strong opinions ahead.
The artificial womb concept is ridiculous and insulting. A woman provides more to a fetus than a place to gestate. There is psychic/psychological connection that affects the child’s emotional well-being, and even the movement of her body provides for the child’s neurological development. There will never be a surrogate equal to a mother.
First, do establish your legal rights immediately. Judges are very unsympathetic if a problem arises and you haven’t made the effort to see that the child is properly supported, or terminated the father’s rights. Don’t worry about taking his money. You told him you wanted a baby, he had sex with you, he took the risk. It doesn’t matter if he used a condom or not – he knew your intent was to be a mother. I’m also put off by the idea of someone who isn’t trying to reproduce having unprotected sex. There’s a plague on the planet, ya know. I hope the baby is smarter than he is.
I’m sick to wretched death of men who think they can get away with impregnating women and then whine about child support. He risks a few dollars- she risks her life and most times the complete care of the child is going to fall on her even if they stay together. She gets the blame for getting pregnant. She risks death or severe injury in giving birth. She gets to raise them if he splits. She’ll change the diapers, give up her career or have her career limited, and more likely than not, she’ll live in poverty if she raises the child alone. His life will only change if he wants it to.
Even if a woman has an abortion, her body may be permanently changed by the pregnancy, and she may never recover from the emotional scars. If she gives a child up for adoption, she may never get over the guilt. There is no such thing as an easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy for a woman. It is a life-changing event no matter what the final outcome. Men rarely even bear the burden they should feel at having abandoned a child, and are generally unchanged emotionally and physically. There’s nothing even approaching equality in the situation, so forget all the arguments about fairness.
A man will often lie to obtain sex and it isn’t unusual for a man to impregnate multiple partners, each of whom believes herself to be in a monogamous relationship. Men face absolutley no burden for lying, infidelity, even murder if they have unprotected sex when they know they have HIV. Consider child support a BARGAIN to what I’d make men responsible for if I made the laws.
I start from the assumption that people are going to have sex. It’s natural, it’s healthy and it doesn’t have to have procreative intent or a blessing from state or church to be a positive activity. People do have a responsibilty to prevent the spread of disease, though, and to make a good faith effort not to create children they don’t want. Accidents happen, though, as do rape, coercion and abuse, so I believe abortion should be not just legal, but free so that poor women have fair access to it.
In the specific case we’re talking about, Dude made his decision, so he lives with the consequences. You want the baby, which is awesome, and I hope you’re both very healthy and happy. He pays, or he gives up parental rights. When given that choice, you may be surprised how quickly he finds the cash he should be providing. You make the decisions that are best for you, because your well-being will have a direct effect on the well-being of your child. Your family will almost certainly be more supportive when they see the baby.
Women have been raising children alone since the beginning of time. The first couple wasn’t an “Adam and Eve” it was a Madonna and Child. You can do it. If he chooses to stay away, it is truly his loss. He’ll regret it when he’s older.
I am disappointed at how a post about conflicting ideals about how to raise a child (and whether an absent progenitor has a right to dictate how the custodial parent should conduct him/herself) has devolved into a discussion of hypothetical artificial wombs.
This man had sex with a biological woman who *flatly stated* she’d gone off the pill and was interested in getting pregnant. She did not sneak in and steal his sperm. She did not trick him into having unprotected sex. She did not assault him. He willingly participated in the act of procreation. Then he decided he’d rather not have any contact with the child and didn’t want to pay child support, but wanted to dictate how that child was raised.
I think it’s horrifying that this ex-boyfriend feels he has a right to impose his will on Nick, especially given the circumstances. Is a hastily-selected secondary parent with whom the relationship may or may not work out prefereable to a single-parent home? For some people, maybe. But whose choice is it? I’d say the people who would be having this relationship and raising the child should decide whether to participate, rather than the ex-boyfriend has dropped this baby like a hot potato.
This man had sex with a biological woman who *flatly stated* she’d gone off the pill and was interested in getting pregnant. She did not sneak in and steal his sperm. She did not trick him into having unprotected sex. She did not assault him. He willingly participated in the act of procreation.
Yep. He’s totally responsible for that child, and will be for at least the next 18 years.
Dear Dad,
When I was in my 30’s you sent me a Christmas card. Last year after the funeral a lawyer sent me a copy of your will, in which I was named as a beneficiary of any remainder. There was no remainder, but it meant a lot to me that I was named.
Ma didn’t require you to pay any support. She said I could sue you myself when I turned 18. I talked about it with Sis — if she wanted to do something through a lawsuit, I would cooperate with the effort. Otherwise, I did not have any interest in taking action.
We had survived the worst of times without you. We used the “Hansel & Gretel” model for survival. We would leave a trail of pebbles, in order to find our way back home. Those pebbles were little acts of loyalty to each other, honesty with each other. We would not allow the facts of our lives to be carried away by the birds. We would verify each other’s reality.
We were dirt-poor, we moved a lot, and along the way we survived physical, mental, emotional & sexual abuse. I felt bad for being unable to protect my sister. She felt bad for letting me take some of her beatings. But we confessed to each other, forgave each other.
Everywhere we went, people would comment on how nice it was, how rare it was, to see a brother and sister so close. But we felt the pain of our symbiosis. Later in life, we would follow the trail of pebbles; we would do what was necessary in order to have individual lives.
I had to let go of all my angry claims against you, because you provided me with a dear sister who made all the difference in my life. We made it home. Still, it boggles my mind that you & Ma couldn’t know how much it would have meant to us if you had cared one shit.
Your son,
Pete
Sorry. I can’t let this one go. Engineer Larry wrote (13) :
Maybe you should go re-read that thread. Nick conceded in it once it got rolling that she herself had always asssumed that this “artificial womb” business would lead to an end to abortion. After being reminded that there would always be women who would not want offspring under any circumstances, she re-evaluated her opinion. But that hardly means that pro-choice women on this blog had never voiced the last view in your salad bar of quotes before, Engineer Larry. It also hardly means that the three quotes you picked are somehow each standing in splendid isolation from one another.
Either you’ve failed to read the abortion threads in depth or you’re being disingenuous. In either case, the idea that the “control” argument appeared like nowhere out of the blue just a couple of weeks ago is crap.
piny
Have you even read my post? Mother can avoid all legal responsibilities toward her child after it’s birth, including financial support, by simply returning it to the hospital within 72 hours of birth, no questions asked and no input from the father (who may have wanted to raise his child) required.
She can also give the child away for adoption that is again doable without even letting the father know he has a child.
So since mother is not required to pay for child support if she choses to return the child to the hospital within 72 hours, or when she decides to give her child away for adoption why should a man be responsible for financing her decision to give birth to, keep, and raise her child?
In our legal system, if you turn around and then ask for payment to buy the gift nappies, you get laughed out of court. The “semen is a gift” argument is a perfectly valid position – in a world where males bear no responsibility for children.
Wrong again. But a nice try. Once the baby is born, and I know this pains anti-feminists to admit this, it’s a separate human being and not just your semen in its full form. As such, it’s not a “gift” or an “object”. It’s a person and he/she has rights.
The problem is that you have got to learn that semen is not the end all, be all of making a child. It’s one of the raw materials, definitely. And you gave the raw material to a woman, knowing that one of the things she is legally allowed to do with it is make a child that you have responsibility for.
Indeed, it is hard to cast around for an analogy for a child’s right to support from both parents. And that is because a child is a human being, not a bottle of semen. And human beings, unlike bottles of semen, have rights. That anti-choicers can’t tell the difference between the contents of a used condom and a classroom full of kids doesn’t change the facts.
Seriously, this whole notion that giving up semen means you give up responsibility for your own child presupposes that there is no difference between semen and children. An eerie view inside the anti-choice mind.
Ampersand, in the thread you linked you stated this:
There are documented cases of women doing something pretty darn close to that – statutory raping underaged boys who were later forced to pay for child support.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm
“In County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., the California Court of Appeals stated that although a 15 year old boy who was seduced by a 34 year old woman, was a victim of the 34 year old (she was prosecuted for statutory rape), the 15 year old father is obligated to pay child support to the child.
The 34 year old mother was prosecuted and convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. According to the criminal court, the 15 year old was a victim. The willingness or lack of willingness of a 15 year old having intercourse with a 34 year old, was not an issue. Statutory rape is statutory rape with those age differences.
The father admitted paternity. The courts switched over to the family law component. There, the same District Attorney’s office which said he was a victim of statutory rape, contended that the new born child should not become a further victim by allowing a parent (15 year old) to avoid the responsibility of supporting the child when and as he is able.
Father’s attorney argued that the California Constitution states that “all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crime for losses they suffer.”
The clincher for the court, as it turned out, was that the 15 year old admitted that he was a willing participant in the intercourse.”
Although not relevant for the criminal action against the mother, the court found that the willingness of the father did allow them to differentiate between a minor who has been the victim of willing statutory rape and one who was not a willing participant.
There is also a strong history of case law precedents in California and other states, where courts have found that for purposes of child support, voluntary intercourse resulting in voluntary parenthood, allows the minor parent to be liable for the financial support of the minor infant.”
Imagine this for a second with sexes reversed, 34 year old man statutory raping 15 year old girl, getting custody of the child that resulted from rape, and then suing her for child support.
Here’s another, rather famous case:
“When Shane Seyer was twelve years old, he was sexually molested, repeatedly, over a period of several months, by his babysitter.
Colleen Hermesmann, the babysitter, was initially charged with statutory rape (“indecent liberties with a child” in Kansas) but plea-bargained to a lesser charge — “contributing to a child’s misconduct.
When Colleen Hermesmann and her new baby went on welfare, the state did what it usually does in cases of single mothers seeking state assistance — it tried to find the father, in this case young Shane Seyer, and to get him to pay child support.
In March, the Kansas state supreme court ruled that when Shane Seyer was molested by his babysitter at age 12, he consented to 18 years of child-support payments. “We conclude,” the court wrote, “that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.”
The court ruled that “[i]n an action by the State against a minor father for reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, even if criminal, has no bearing on the father’s duty to support such child.”
The last two paragraphs, Ampersand, seriously challenge your insertion that women cannot legally rape men to get sperm and then later sue them for child support.
Amanda,
If you’re going to state your opinion on a subject can you at least offer a logical and rational viewpoint that can be substantiated with physical evidence? So far you have offered the most absurd, illogical, erratic, delusional, sexist, hypocritical, and insane concepts in regards to the various gender issues whether they be domestic violence, child support, child custody, alimony, etc.
It would be a good idea for you to educate yourself on the subject of gender issues because so far you have demonstrated that you know very little about the subject. If your views on gender issues were to be used as a reflection of your knowledge on the subject, then it must be said that you know very little about the state of law system, the history of feminism, the structure of the Government and the actual relations between men and women.
Please educate yourself on the subject, because your views are insane and fallacious; making you appear to be an uneducated bigot who wishes to live in a society that is built on female supremacy rather than equality.
It is quite easy to refute the claims made by Amanda Marcotte as can be seen at the following web pages:
http://www.mens-rights.net/commentary/chriskey/29-04-05-amanda-marcotte.htm
http://www.mens-rights.net/commentary/chriskey/19-05-05-amanda-marcotte.htm
Forgive me for being sceptical, Larry. The site you linked has plenty of charming stuff (why no link to any bigger media, governmental agency? Oh, right. Liberal media and government is evil.):
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/forlegalchildporn.htm,
An article advocating for legal possession of child pornography, and
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/notabuse.htm
Well, folks, decide for yourself: (emphasis added)
Parents and laws cause rape? That’s novel. On the “real abuse”, the article goes on:
I see.
School, church, hugging a grandma = abuse, being an object or participant in child pornography = not abuse. Oh boy am I glad I was “abused” in the sense this writer considers abuse, not the way most sane people do.
And did I mention the “cool teen sites” -links? Yuck. Enough is enough. Now I must take a shower.
Larry, you are wrong about women having unilateral right to avoid responsibility for a child. If a woman wants to give up a child for adoption, the father must consent. If he doesn’t consent and wants to assume custodial care, he has as much legal entitlement to obtain support from the mother as if their roles had been reversed. Don’t argue about this, it is incontrovertibly the law, with Supreme Court backing, and I know some, and know of many other, men who refused their consent and made life extremely complicated for the mother of their children. As was their right.
The law may be uneven as it flows from biological differences, but once the child is born the law assumes equality (even if many judges don’t).
Second, let’s just say it like it is: Nick’s case is unusual. In most cases the pregnancy is an unwelcome surprise to both parties (even if it shouldn’t be). And in the real world, men have a great deal of influence over whether their SO has a baby — visit a few abortion clinics and it is evident that many women are there (at least ostensibly) because their boyfriends make it clear that there will be no marriage, no roping them in, so to speak, via parenthood, whether unplanned by both or just the father.
So women who “surprise” their SOs with a pregnancy that they intended without consultation are usually quite disappointed by the results, because the intent usually isn’t just to have a baby, but a full-blown family life. And that you cannot coerce from anyone. (I had a babysitter who found this out, and who ended up having an abortion — she was disgusted by her boyfriend’s response to her “oops pg”, but any neutral party could have told her that it was quite predictable that when you stop taking OCPs without consulting your boyfriend he might resent the consequences.)
More legal advice for Nick: support is for the benefit of the child, not you, and judges do not look kindly on parents who they perceive as holding their interests above those of their children by foregoing support. But they do appreciate a parent who is extremely reasonable about what is expected. Which is to say, paternity should be legally established, and a reasonable amount of support requested, in lieu of an agreement to terminate parental rights. (But I would never ask for the latter without consulting an attorney well versed in local law and custom — asking for the termination of a parent’s rights in the absence of demonstrated abuse or incapacity is also extinguishing the child’s rights to support that, even if not necessary today, may become necessary in the future.
Um, my ranting against those articles was kind of off topic, on the topic at hand I think it would be a fair suggestion if men could, with the approval of the woman (beforehand) write off at many of their responsibilities. Along with rights, of course. But then again, the issue of the born child being an actual human being with rights regarding to parents comes into conflict with this.
Argh. I don’t know really (and I suppose I am parroting plenty of people here)… Having an obligation towards the born child should be the responsibility of both parents, and due to several reproductive choices really affecting the one being pregnant more (abortion, giving the baby for adoption… A man might become a father without even noticing, I think women notice the process known as “pregnancy” and “childbirth” when it happens to them.)
Oops, pressed enter too early: the comment should follow: Due to the process being much more time/health-consuming for women it is only natural that women have control over the process, not just intercourse/contraception like men do. (And if men can get pregnant by some freakish technology, or women can sire children, then the roles are defined by whoever is pregnant, is given more choice during/immediately after the pregnancy.)
Tuomas, ageofconsent was the first page that came up on google. With little trouble I’m sure you could have found a more reliable source.
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/50/842.html (requires free registration)
County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 842 , 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 843
[No. B100055. Second Dist., Div. Six. Nov 4, 1996.]
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHANIEL J., a Minor, etc., Defendant and Appellant.
(Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, No. FS13368, Paul H. Coffee, Judge.)
(Opinion by Gilbert, J., with Stone (S. J.), P. J., and Yegan, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
Patrick J. Perry for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Roderick E. Walston, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Ann White and Mary A. Roth, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
GILBERT, J.
Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.
A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child’s father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support.
Defendant Nathaniel J. appeals a judgment establishing paternity and reserving an order of child support. We affirm.
Facts
On January 20, 1995, Ricci Jones gave birth to a daughter. The child’s father, Nathaniel J., was 15 years old when Jones conceived the child. Jones then was 34 years old. [50 Cal.App.4th 844]
Upon complaint, San Luis Obispo police officers investigated Jones’s unlawful sexual intercourse with Nathaniel J. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) fn. 1 During an interview with a police officer, Nathaniel J. described the sexual intercourse as “a mutually agreeable act.” The San Luis Obispo County prosecutor prosecuted Jones and obtained a conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s office sought child support and welfare reimbursement from Nathaniel J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 11350, 11350.1, 11475.1.) Nathaniel J., by a guardian ad litem, admitted paternity but contended he was not required to pay child support because he was a victim of statutory rape. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) The trial court ruled that paternity was established and reserved an order of child support. Presumably when Nathaniel J. reaches majority or completes his schooling, the court will reassess his ability to provide support.
Nathaniel J. appeals and contends exacting child support from a victim of statutory rape violates public policy. He also argues that the procedure followed herein denied him due process of law.
Discussion
I.
[1] Nathaniel J. asserts that public policy protects him from the effects of sexual exploitation by an adult. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225 [44 Cal.Rptr.2d 197] [strong public policy protects minors from sexual exploitation].) He points out that strong public policy inheres in penal statutes criminalizing sexual exploitation of minors. (E.g., Pen. Code, §§ 261.5, 288a, 273f, 288.2, 310.5, 311.1.)
Nathaniel J. contends the reserved child support order “is exactly the exploitation which the Legislature intended to prevent” because it inflicts economic loss on a crime victim. He points to the constitutional declaration that “all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b).) Nathaniel J. adds that the child will not suffer because she will receive welfare support. We reject these contentions. [50 Cal.App.4th 845]
California law provides that every child has a right to support from both parents. (Fam. Code, §§ 3900, 3901 [former Civ. Code, §§ 196, 196a, 242]; County of Shasta v. Caruthers (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1838, 1841 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 18].) Family Code section 3900 provides that, subject to other statutes governing support, the father and mother of a child bear “equal responsibility” to support the child.
The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.
In an action to impose vicarious liability upon a minor’s parents, Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1045 [279 Cal.Rptr. 94], held a minor’s consent to unlawful sexual intercourse was “a permissible consideration” in denying liability. “[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly participated in the offense about which a complaint is made.” (Id., at pp. 1046-1047.) One who is injured as a result of criminal conduct in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. (Id., at p. 1047, fn. 13.) It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse. (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 261 [226 Cal.Rptr. 361].)
Authorities from other states support imposition of a child support obligation upon a minor who has been the victim of unlawful sexual intercourse. State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer (1993) 252 Kan. 646 [847 P.2d 1273, 1278], held that a 13-year-old boy’s presumed lack of consent to intercourse under criminal statutes was irrelevant in paternity and child support proceedings. “This State’s interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State’s competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent.” (Id., at p. 1279.)
In re Paternity of J.L.H. (1989) 149 Wis.2d 349 [441 N.W.2d 273, 276-277], held that for purposes of child support, voluntary intercourse may result in voluntary parenthood, although the child’s father was 15 years old. Other states agree. (Jevning v. Cichos (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) 499 N.W.2d 515, 518 [child’s interests in receiving support supersedes economic consequences minor father suffers from statutory rape]; Mercer County DSS v. Alf M. (1992) 155 Misc.2d 703 [589 N.Y.S.2d 288, 289-290] [16-year-old [50 Cal.App.4th 846] victim of statutory rape legally responsible for child support]; Weinberg v. Omar E. (1984) 106 A.D.2d 448 [482 N.Y.S.2d 540, 541] [age of putative father irrelevant in paternity proceeding and does not excuse support obligation].) We agree with the reasoning and holdings of these decisions.
II.
[2] Nathaniel J. claims the procedure followed by the trial court denied him due process of law because the district attorney’s noticed motion did not inform him that “in order to exercise his … right to trial, he … must appear at the hearing on the motion.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11350.1, subd. (a).)
Here the district attorney filed a noticed motion for child support, stating that Nathaniel J. “admits paternity but disputes liability because he was the victim of [statutory rape].” In accompanying points and authorities, the district attorney stated: “Judgment in Actions Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 11350 and 11350.1 May Be Rendered Pursuant to Noticed Motion.” At the July 19, 1995, hearing at which Nathaniel J. appeared through his attorney, the district attorney stated: “[O]ur office is seeking to establish paternity. We are not seeking a child support order … until such time as the minor becomes an adult and is able to pay support.” fn. 2 Nathaniel J. did not request a trial. He requested a continuance to “find authority” for his defense. He added: “I may want to appeal.” The trial court granted two continuances, amounting to two months. Nathaniel J. appeared by his attorney at further hearings and did not request a trial. He received adequate notice and may not now complain.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
Stone (S. J.), P. J., and Yegan, J., concurred.
FN1. Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (a) provides: “Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor….” Subdivision (d) provides: “Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony ….”
FN2. We grant respondent’s motion to augment the record to include the reporter’s transcripts of the July 19, 1995, and September 6, 1995, hearings.
Larry:
I suppose I could have done that (apologies on associating you with age of consent -folks, and the media/government cracks), but it usually is the responsibility of the one making a claim to provide the evidence, so I figured out if there is better evidence you will dig them up (as you have, thanks).
I don’t think such situations are all that common, and therefore I think there maybe ought to be special laws regarding such cases, or exemption of child support in such cases, but I get the feeling you are using those incredible rare cases as sort of a guideline for more normal cases, as in “because some very rare men become fathers against their will, we should always assume that a man is unwilling to become a father” and rework the whole system on basis of that, on giving him choice to be left out of the equation against the needs of the child (which basically child support is all about).
Here’s an anecdote about a man getting non-violently raped for sperm–a woman who I’d met randomly told me that her husband didn’t want to have a child, but she did–so she got him drunk after the Super Bowl and had unprotected sex.
She told the story as somewhat humorous, with the punchline being that her son (then about 10) was a sports fan.
I’m not good at moral denunciation, so I just suggested tactfully that perhaps her husband wasn’t too pleased with all this. She looked unhappy, and said that it probably had something to do with the divorce.
I’m certainly not saying such things are at all common, but I also would be surprised if I’d heard of the only one.
Nancy, in your example above, it doesn’t sound like it was the sex the husband objected to; only the child conceived from the sex. He wasn’t “raped” if he said yes to the sex, but no to the pregnancy, ok? He may have a legitimate beef, but it isn’t “rape”.
If he was drunk enough that he didn’t realise what he was saying yes to (unprotected rather than safe sex), doesn’t that render his consent meaningless?
Yep. He’s totally responsible for that child, and will be for at least the next 18 years.
Who said anything about totally? If I understand the law correctly, a father’s responsibility is limited to paying a proportion of his income in child support; the bulk of the responsibility still falls on the mother.
Yeah, so here we go with another thread derailment. Thanks, Nancy; thanks Larry; just what we need. Let’s put aside the actual topic and discuss the exceptions so that you guys can feel better.
Nancy, your site contains copyrighted phrases from the work of someone I sort of know. Do you have her permission to use those phrases and make buttons and sell them?
Who said anything about totally?
Me.
If I understand the law correctly, a father’s responsibility is limited to paying a proportion of his income in child support; the bulk of the responsibility still falls on the mother.
Damn the law. I am speaking of moral obligation.
The creators of new life bear responsibility for it. The responsibility is total until the new life becomes a sufficiently independent moral actor to take on its own agency. (With a muddled period of joint agency in there during the transition, which is one reason adolescence is such a bitch.)
In my view, acceptance of the first sentence of the above paragraph is a prerequisite for sexual adulthood; your ex is not a man, he is a boy.
If he was drunk enough that he didn’t realise what he was saying yes to (unprotected rather than safe sex), doesn’t that render his consent meaningless
Nick, I just don’t want to see any more devolution of the term “rape”. I’ve seen too many of these conversations devolve into “but she told me she was on the Pill! I was raped! Financially raped!!”
You know I vaguely feel guilty when I come into these threads and point out that this struggle has shit to do with children and everything to do with the struggle for women’s equality vs. male dominance. That draws the whining MRAs out. Boo-hoo, boo-hoo I came in her doesn’t that mean I get to tell her what to do? It used to be that way, boo-hoo boo-hoo. Why couldn’t the world stay unjust until after my death?
Larry, point well taken. If you want to pass a law making it clear that victims of rape (including statuatory rape) cannot be forced to take responsibilty for a resulting child, I’ll certainly support that. It’s unjust to make a victim of rape pay chid support – unjust enough, in my view, to even outweigh the right of the child to support from both parents.
However, if such a law existed, that wouldn’t establish that men who consent to sex, should have a right to cut and run from responsibilities towards the resulting child.
Larry, for a long time, it was considered to be impossible for a man to be the victim of rape. Basically, the attitude was, “a guy should be so lucky.” So now we are enlightened enough to apply statutory rape principles to boys, a very good thing. What you are describing is a clear gap in the law that ought to be rectified. I honestly can’t tell you what parental rights a rapist has (I mean to a baby borne by a woman he raped), but I’ll try to look it up.
Here, here. I agree with both Amp and Barb.
The fact is, Larry, that I don’t think you’ll find many people on this blog of ‘man hating feminists’ that would disagree with you that said case is both disturbing and unjust, but isn’t it a bit insulting to the very serious subject matter at hand to pass it off as anything but an exception to the rule? The implication ends up being that this case makes all of responsiblity shirker’s are somehow cleared of wrong-doing by a wrongly judged case with a minor victim.
Barbara answered Larry’s question about parental rigts of a Rapist.
I honestly can’t tell you what parental rights a rapist has (I mean to a baby borne by a woman he raped), but I’ll try to look it up.
I read the case Larry’s posted and saw a link to “cases citing this one”. That led to sevaral including In re Kyle F. (2003)112 Cal.App.4th 538 , — Cal.Rptr.3d —
So, it would appear that rapists do not have parental rights when the rape is forcible. However, if intercourse is consesual, men’s parental rights are ensured by the constituion.
California seems to be consistent in distinguishing between forcible and consensual statutory rape with regard to parental rights and responsibilities. Whether the victim is male or female doesn’t matter, forcible rape affects parental rights and responsibilities; consensual statutory rape does not.
As to my opinion, I’d prefer it if California severed the parental rights of both the male and the female adult parents in cases like these and permitted the 16 year old girl to give her child up for adoption, and the 15 year old boy be permitted to give his child up for adoption without interference of the adult who committed statutory rape. T
Actually I’m curious – a 16 year old girl having sex with an 18 year old boy isn’t necessarily statutory rape as I understand it – one of you lawyer types feel free to correct me. Basically, there seems to be a sliding scale of unlawful sexual intercourse and statutory rape. One being a child that has no protected right to engage lawfully in intercourse (generally under age 15 in most states if I recall), versus a minor engaging in lawful sexual intercourse with other minor’s (a 16 and 17 year old). I know that the law then changes when one becomes an adult and is then having sex with the minor, but the specific age of the minor shifts the law around some.
For instance, the case on Family Scholars has a 13 year old impregnated by a 22 year old. At what age does a child shift from being out and out molested (plenty of children give consent, but it still represents molestation/pedophilia) to this nebulous area where the adult engaging in this activity is considered outside of the rape contingency?
Depends on the state, Kim. Some have Romeo and Juliet clauses where the age difference between the two parties has to exceed a number of years and some don’t.
Any twenty-two-year who’s having sex with thirteen-year-olds is a rapist. There’s too big a maturity gap there. I notice John Howard was really eager to bring up those exceptional cases rather than deal with the reality of early teen pregnancy: the younger the girl at impregnation, the older the guy. These girls aren’t getting impregnated by other thirteen-year-olds; it’s guys who are old enough to drink who are doing it.
But, yeah, let’s talk about those rare cases, though.
She did discuss that she was not on birthcontrol and wanted pregnancy, which ultimately means he failed to take the precautions that were right for him at the time if it was something he did not want. He had sex knowing that his partner was not using birthcontrol and took a gamble.
Kim has said it all, really. Who could be so brain dead as to have UNprotected sex with a woman that tells you UP FRONT that she is ‘hoping to get pregnant” and then whinge about it? he’s a moron. The greatest concern for me is that the kid might inherit his mental capacity.
Now I think I’ll go and lie down in the road (it’s night time here in Australia) so I can complain and sue someone who runs over me.
Also: besides male entitlement, the issue is also of men assuming the responsibility for birth control must lie with the woman. No pun intended. This is probably the most extreme (and ridiculous) example of that kind of thinking I’ve seen.
I was going to try to describe general consent laws but the link I used to have still works, though I am not really sure how up to date it is:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm
The site has some annotations too (though this may be from the sources). Note that the info on California states that 70% of children that are borne by underage teen mothers are fathered by adults.
Also, I apologize if anyone is offended by this site, because it seems that it is consulted by those who like to go right up to the line but not cross it, age-wise but not otherwise.
“…my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose”
See, there in itself is the majority of the problem: It’s “YOUR” right to choose, where is HIS right; his opinion; his choice? Comments like that are typically sexist and reflect the supremacist attitude of many women in today’s world.
“I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem…”
And there’s another issue – you’re so stuck up your own rear-end you can’t see beyond your own nose. Other people are less important to you than your ‘self esteem’. “Hey hunny, I just had a real hard day at work.. I’m ready to flake out, could you make me a drink please?” – “Hell no, that would lower my already oh-so fragile self-esteem, and I’m not here to bow to your patriarchial demands of coffee-making, you chauvinistic bastar…”
“…and that choice has consequences for both of us”
For which ONLY you get to choose the outcome of. Again, he has no recourse, no options, no nothing. His life and his wallet are in your hands and you know full well they are. If feminism truly is about equality; they’ll have no problems fighting for his right to choose whether he wants to be a McDaddy and your personal piggy-bank for the next 18 to 21 years.
Of course, you’d never consider thinking that the money he gives be spent on you.. that would be selfish, and so far you’ve not done annnnnything selfish *cough*
Oh, for FUCK’S SAKE ALREADY! SAY SOMETHING ORIGINAL!
I spoke too loosely, and I of all people should know better. I’m commited to a pregnant person’s right to choose; naturally trans men should have the same choices available to women.
But somehow I doubt that’s what you were referring to.
I don’t know what issues with women you’re projecting onto me here, but I don’t have to be the receptacle for them. You can pull imaginary conversations out of your ass for as long as you like, but it doesn’t prove that self-esteem is as inherently frivolous as you seem to be suggesting.
He had a CHOICE to fuck me or not fuck me, to insist on condoms or say “OK, I’ll make you a present of my semen.” I had a CHOICE to continue the pregnancy or get and abortion. Because of the CHOICES that both of us made, there is now a third person whose needs need to be considered.
He had plenty of options, but one by one he’s given them all up. He had the option not to fuck me, he had the option to insist on condoms, he had the option to go out and get snipped years ago. He also had the option to negotiate with me like an adult after I became pregnant, but he chose instead to push all the responsibility onto me.
In fact, at least one option still remains open to him. He could go to court and demand custody, whereupon he would become the custodial parent with responsibility and I would become the non-custodial parent, or in your words “personal piggy-bank”.
I happen to think it’s in the best interests of any child to have a custodial parent who is well-fed, well-sheltered and not being dragged off to the debtors’ court. I also think it’s in the best interests of any child if his or her parents are able to interact like adults without random accusations of selfishness being flung around, something that you appear to believe is optional.
Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible. For men and women both, that means they should have the choice not to fuck, if they don’t want to. For men and women both, that means they should have access to every kind of birth control. And for women (and pregnant trans-men), that should mean access to abortion.
Cutting either men or women off from their biologically possible options is wrong, in my view. But “abortion” just isn’t one of most men’s biologically possible options.
In fact, for the record, let me say that I strongly support men’s right to have an abortion if they choose. As soon as you get pregnant, I will strongly support your right to choose between aborting your fetus or giving birth, Karl – regardless of if the man or woman who got you pregnant agrees with your choice.
Do MRAs really, truly think that women don’t make our own money and live solely off men?
Barb and Amanda;
Thanks for the answers on that question. I did find this tidbit of information as well, with regards to Nebraska:
Nebraska law forbids sexual relationships between a person 19 or older and a person younger than 16.
Amanda: now that isn’t that an interesting question? IF they’re the ones preyingon thirteen-year-old girls that might not be an inaccurate depiction of their world.
Nick,
I have to say that I find your story troubling on a many levels and it left me very conflicted. Unquestionably, dad should have stepped up to the plate and decided to be a father after you got pregnant. He also had no basis for expecting you to abort the child–especially since you were so unusually frank that you were shopping for a dad/sperm donor–although I don’t think he should necessarily be faulted for suggesting it.
But I guess I am rather baffled about your decisionmaking in this whole family drama. You wanted to have a child and decided, I assume, that this was the guy to do it since you’ve said you aren’t emotionally capable of finding a step-father for the child. Why was this the guy? Why not be more upfront about the planning and include him in it, instead of approaching it so casusally? Wouldn’t someone who was involved in getting your pregnant and who wanted to a child be a better candidate whose only qualification appears to be he was willing to have unprotected sex?
As a lawyer, I am also a little baffled by the deals you are willing to make on behalf of your child. You were willing to forego child support, I sense in part as a carrot to keep dad involved. You weren’t even prepared to go to court to set out legal expectations, as if this were a puppy or an couch instead of a child.
You appeared to have a fantasy about how this was all going to play out, but now the fantasy has tuned into a nightmare. Did you consider this could all go awry when you orchestrated this childmaking?
Yes, I was unquestionably naive in the way I tried to handle things. The father and I were good friends, and I assumed that was enough of a foundation to build on (my desire for a child overruled a lot of my logical thinking here). He did claim, initially, that he wanted a child and that if I became pregnant it would fulfil his long-deferred dream of having a family of his own, but apparently he only wanted a family on his narrow terms. Lots of miscommunication there that a longer discussion period might have solved, but hindsight is always 20-20.
I was also naive for believing that two adults could work things out with goodwill rather than resorting to the courts. I felt that the system here in the UK is rather harsh on unmarried fathers and that the two of us could manage something better between us. Sadly, I’ve learned the error of my ways.
I don’t think it’s out of line to point out to Resipsa that Nick was upfront: it was the dad who kept changing his mind when he couldn’t have his way. How is that Nick’s fault?
Sorry, Nick, but it was right there. YOU were upfront; he kept waffling.
Do MRAs really, truly think that women don’t make our own money and live solely off men?
Remember, we’re supposed to support ourselves 100%, except when we have children and are married, in which case we should stay home with the babies and let the man be the breadwinner.
I just returned from a visit with a friend whose husband of fifteen years was recently diagnosed with a very virulent form of cancer. Two weeks after receiving that diagnosis they learned he had AIDS. She believed their relationship to be monogamous. It came to light that he had been engaging in unprotected receptive anal sex with men, as well as sex with female prostitutes. There is some evidence that he actually knew his HIV status for awhile. Although my friend is currently testing negative for the virus, she will need to be retested for the next 6 – 12 months.
I suppose we could say that she, in having unprotected sex with her own husband, was engaging in a voluntary transaction whereby she could potentially be the recipient of the “gift” of the HIV virus, but I suspect that must people here would place a higher degree of moral culpability on her husband, to disclose his extramaritial activities and HIV status. He was the only one to have this “special knowledge,” that she was not privy to.
There have been cases of individuals who have knowingly infected partners with HIV, sometimes serially, and they have been held criminally responsible for their actions.
Nick, although you had some hypothetical discussions with your boyfriend where you both acknowledged a desire for parenthood, you were the only one in this relationship that knew that you were actively pursuing this goal, knew you were likely in a fertile period, and were wagering on his not using a condom. Now his using a condom or not, has nothing to do with his fiscal responsibility under the law. If he had used one, and it had broken, or if you had lied and said you had had your tubes tied, and a pregnancy resulted, he would still be financially responsible.
My question goes to what we owe each other as human beings. You were essentially attempting to have your needs gratified, by withholding information that was immediately pertinent to his decision to have sex with you, and banking on the fact that he’s probably not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to female reproduction, and then falling back on the “he could have used a condom,” justification. How is that not using him as a means to your own end? How is that different from a male sexual predator who uses a thirteen year old girl’s immaturity to gratify his sexual desires? How is it different from friend’s husband who withheld the special information that only he held?
You want to treat your act of sex with your ex- as simply being a contractual transaction in which he didn’t read the small print. I think that’s a very impoverished view of human relations.
Emmatropia, I disagree completely. Nick has stated that she made it clear to him that she wanted a child and was not using contraception of any sort. That is absolute foreknowledge.
It seems more likely to me that your own very serious tragic story with your friend (which is horrible, by the way) may be coloring your view of Nick’s actions. For the story to be comparable, it seems to me that your friends husband would have had to have told his wife that he was actively interested and participating in unprotected sex outside of their relationship for the story to have a true parallel.
Kim, I think my example, tragic as it is, is a perfect complement to the scenerio Nick presents. Nick and many others on this thread, have argued that the responsibility for her pregnancy laid solely on the now-remorseful ex, who had failed to use a condom after Nick had told him she desired to become pregnant. In essence, she had given him fair warning (which removed her culpability as a moral agent), and he had closed the deal by not using a condom. His sperm was a “gift.”
First of all, it is unclear to me how explicitly Nick conveyed her intentions to become a mother. She describes the entire relationship in vague terms, and apart from them being “good friends,” I don’t know how intimate a relationship it actually was. The relationship “ran into difficulties before my pregnancy was even confirmed.” (A mere two weeks by my reckoning.) She admits “I made use of the fact that he was prepared to have unprotected sex with me.” And, “I do sometimes feel that I was slightly unfair to him in that I had plenty of time to consider getting pregnant and he hadn’t considered the possibility before that night.” She complains that she was expected to tell him the date of her last menstrual period.
Well, before rushing to defend her honor and bashing him, I’d want to ask a few questions. When and under what circumstances did she tell him she wanted to be a parent? Did she have an ongoing intimate relationship with the man, or was it simply a friendship with occasional benefits? Did she talk about having a child WITH HIM, or was it mentioned more as a hypothetical: “Gee, I’d love to have a child,” within the space of a casual conversation? I suspect from her writing, that she knew the night she slept with him — and maybe I’m wrong here, but she only mentions the one time — that she knew it was a fertile period. Did she have a conversation that night? “I might be fertile, and I’m not using birth control?” Or was she simply relying on some comment she made six months earlier in a passing conversation, to give him fair warning?
If she did, and he was sober, and of average intelligence, and not suffering from mental illness, he conceded to become a father.
My point is this: healthy human relationships are not simply contractual. If I am going to make a decision that is going to effect another person, I have to be clear about my intentions, and not withhold information that they need to make their own informed decisions. If I’m relying on someone else’s ignorance, immaturity or misplaced trust, to help me fulfill my desires, whether they be sexual gratification, a child, or making money, I may be acting legally, but I’m not acting morally.
Let’s apply my friend’s scenerio to Nick. Say her ex had, unknown to Nick, had a history of engaging in risky sexual behavior. At the same time he gave her the gift of semen, he also “gifted” her with the HIV virus. Most people would be up in arms for his failure to fully inform her of the risk.
“we’re supposed to support ourselves 100%, except when we have children and are married, in which case we should stay home with the babies and let the man be the breadwinner.”
….but then we’re parasites, sucking the lifeblood out of a poor, helpless male, taking advantage….but if we then get out and get a job, we’re castrating she-devils, implying that the guy’s not got enough cojones to take care of his woman and his offspring….but if we then give up the job and let him earn the money, we’re parasites again…..
It’s just like sex: if we have sex with men, we’re sleazy sluts, but if we don’t, we’re prick-teasing, man-hating frigid bitches. Nope, no way to exist that will actually please your average MRA, is there?
‘In our legal system, if you give someone a gift, it’s theirs to do with what they like. If a man ejaculates inside a woman, he has given her his semen and she is free to use it as she likes. She can make a baby with it, if she wants.’
All fine and dandy then, just don’t ask him to pay…’if she likes’ ‘if she wants’…if you get pergnant purposely just ’cause you wanna, especially without the male’s consent ,don’t come round with your hand out later when you find it a bit more challenging than a Betsy-Wetsy. This is a human life we’re talking about here, not a puppy. Cripes, a dog breeder gives more thought to the sire and dam when breeding puppies than most humans do when they make the same decision to reproduce.
Emmetropia, you need to go back and re-read Nick’s posts on the subject. You’re totally getting it wrong in your desire to nail her for her boyfriend’s actions. She was clear: he was in agreement. Then he changed his mind. You just don’t want to deal with that.
I don’t want to comment specifically about Nick’s situation, but I do think that in it lurks a real conundrum that all of us should realize when it comes to pregnancy and parenthood: we usually don’t know what we are getting ourselves into and feelings can change dramatically when it becomes “real” to us. There are many people who think that, once pregnant, a woman should accept the blessings of motherhood and oppose abortion pretty much on that basis alone. But the fact is, people change their minds. Because of biology, women can change their minds at a later stage than men, and often do even when they were sort of not trying but not doing much to avoid becoming pregnant. Just as I won’t castigate Nick for misjudging her partner or not acting with sufficient foresight, I won’t castigate her partner for changing his mind. Sure, he’s too late to the party, we should all try to anticipate the reasonably likely consequences of our actions and act with insight and good judgment, but at this point the only thing that can be required of him is financial commitment, to the best of his ability, and while it may seem cruel to the child, who had nothing to do with any of this, it’s the way life works. I still have fresh in my mind the shock and disappointment of my babysitter at her long-term boyfriend’s complete rejection of her plans for “their” family. No one can coerce love and affection and no one is at fault if they don’t feel it.
First of all, Emmetropia, I’m very sorry for your friend’s heartache and unwitting jeopardy. I’m glad she’s tested negative so far, and I hope her health remains intact.
However, these situations–your friend’s, which you related in detail, and the other example you referred to briefly–are completely different from what happened with Nick and Nick’s ex-lover.
Your friend was lied to. Her husband made promises of fidelity to her; that’s what most marriages mean. He also promised–“love and honor”–to protect her health and be mindful of her well-being. She had every reason to believe that he was not screwing around, let alone without using any protection. She therefore had no reason to worry about STD transmission, either to him or through him to herself. He did not disclose any of his activities or any of her risks. She had no way of protecting herself from a danger she had no way of perceiving.
Nick told the ex that the ex could not depend on birth control. Nick told the ex that there was no possibility of an abortion in case of pregnancy. The ex knew that there was a very strong possibility that he would become a father. He knew that Nick had legal standing to demand child support, and a great deal of financial and parental interest in doing so. He was informed. If he wasn’t interested in fatherhood, he could have refrained from having sex with a fertile baby-wanting person, or been responsible enough to clarify Nick’s plans. An analagous STD-related situation would not involve him deceiving Nick about his HIV status. It’d be more like barebacking with someone when you know full well that they’re HIV positive. Would your friend’s husband have any cause to complain about whoever (probably unwittingly) gave him HIV, or was he responsible for protecting himself?
>>How is that different from a male sexual predator who uses a thirteen year old girl’s immaturity to gratify his sexual desires?>>
Well, that would be rape. Sex with a thirteen-year-old is considered rape precisely because thirteen-year-olds are not considered mature enough to understand the physican and emotional consequences of sex. The law withholds their consent until they’re old and wise enough to give it. Once someone is an adult, like the ex, the law considers them old enough to be conscious of the potential consequences of sex, and responsible enough to protect themselves from risks and bear potential costs.
What about his responsibility and her potential injury? He wasn’t using a condom, IIRC. What if Nick had contracted an STD or gotten pregnant against her will? Would Nick have any right to complain that he hadn’t taken precautions against conception, or that he hadn’t gotten regular STD tests or taken it upon himself to wear a condom, or that he hadn’t reminded his partner that sex sometimes results in illness and/or babies, or urged birth control on his partner? Or would at least half of that responsibility–protection and planning–be Nick’s?
>>That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough: I should also have told him the date of my last menstrual period.>>
Also–this isn’t Nick complaining about full disclosure. This is Nick’s ex admitting that he damn well knew Nick wasn’t using BC, and then complaining that Nick should have made sure to let him know _exactly how fertile_ Nick was. Which, come the fuck on, asshat. Nick was fertile, full stop. Nick was not using birth control, period. That’s enough for you to wrap up Lil’ asshat if you didn’t want to worry about knocking anyone up.
I’m sure that if Nick had given him a comprehensive briefing of personal ovulatory history and timing, he would have jumped on Nick’s failure to disclose a late period eighteen months before. Either that or complained that Nick’s discussion of monthly cycles caused him to have greater faith that he otherwise would have had in the notoriously unreliable rhythm method.
I’d bet a Violet Crumble bar that he wouldn’t have known what to do with those dates if he’d been given them.
Or failed to disclose that sperm can live for more than 72 hours in the female reproductive tract or that some women ovulate twice and that ovulation can only be “confirmed” after it has already happened and that even in women with normal cycles it can vary its timing from month to month by more than a week. It’s called “hidden fertility” and it is an extremely well-known characteristic of human biology (as opposed to canine or feline biology in which it is abudantly clear when female fertility peaks). She could have offered him the chance to inspect her netherparts under full light to determine the presence of other features of peak female fertility that are too gross to list here. Surely if someone tells you full stop that they are NOT using birth control you have been sent some kind of reasonably clear message.
Thanks for that staunch defence piny and others.
To make everything clear, my now-ex and I spent a night together which we had both hoped would mark the blossoming of a solid friendship into something more. During that night, we had a conversation that went something like this: “So… do we need a condom?” “Well, I’m not really sure. I’ve not taken the best of care with sex over the last six months, so I could have any disease you care to name, and I’m not using any other birth control. But I’d prefer not to use a condom because I was hoping to get pregnant.” “Oh… Well, I sort of hoped you would say that.”
I’m not treating it as “a transaction where he didn’t read the small print”. If anyone’s treating it that way, it’s him, by trying to use my failure to disclose every imaginable detail as some kind of loophole that absolves him of blame even while his legal responsibility remains.
I have every sympathy with the fact that he made a decision he now regrets. I don’t blame him for concluding that fatherhood isn’t for him, although it would have simplified things for everyone if he’d been clearer on that point before we slept together. What I do blame him for, and quite bitterly, is his attempts to put blame and responsibility onto me and me alone for something that he was consciously complicit in.
He was either drunk or drunk with passion. It goes right to the cerebral cortex to think that someone wantst to have your child. People don’t really think straight. This is why women appreciate being able to get an abortion.
What? What does that even mean? Yup, go up to most guys and say “I want you to knock me up” and they’ll fall over and beg for it right on the floor. yes sireebob, everyone knows that!
And that’s why women love abortions! :)
Kittens have fur!
I like chocolate!
And other non-sequiturs.
>>He was either drunk or drunk with passion. It goes right to the cerebral cortex to think that someone wantst to have your child. People don’t really think straight. This is why women appreciate being able to get an abortion. >>
That’s odd. I’ve been in procreative situations and I haven’t noticed any men feeling giddy and flattered at the prospect of a woman not their spouse growing a little smoosh of them. Nor does it seem to keep them from thinking clearly about the ramifications of an unwanted pregnancy.
Maybe you just have an insemination fetish, John.
‘Seriously, this whole notion that giving up semen means you give up responsibility for your own child presupposes that there is no difference between semen and children.’
I vehemently disagree…what we are talking about here is a woman’s unilateral decision to have a child…if she decides to have a child on her own, against the wishes of the male, why then is he obligated to pay?
You say that a woman can do ‘as she pleases’ with a man’s sperm, but then in the next breath say the man has responsibility.
‘ giving up semen means you give up responsibility for your own child ‘
If the man has no intent of having a child, and says so, he should be able to bow out. Ditto for women who save condoms and impregnate themselves. Using a condom=not wanting a child, so his intentions are clear.
‘there is no difference between semen and children.’
If a woman lies to a man , for instance tells him she is on the pill when she isn’t, he has intercourse presuming a child will not result. If she decieves him and concieves, it’s her decision. She made the decision to have the child without his consent….it’s her responsibility.
This attitude of ‘A woman can do what she wants with the sperm’ but then again ‘giving up sperm doesn’t mean giving up reponsibility’ is inconsistent in the extreme. I wish you people would get all your ducks in a row before you presume to tell people how to live their lives…