Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you Get a random girl pregnant and she doesnt know your real name nor your address, she cant put you on child support can she?

If she can't find you and knows nothing about you, then there's not much she can do. A private investigator could probably track you down if you're still in the same area and she has a good description of you, though she may not have the money for that.

K, The real story is that my cousins girlfirend tricked him into getting her pregnant. The good news is he never took her to his house nor does she know his real name, just his nick name.

She got the condum from the trash and dumped the contents inside her i hear. She wanted to get pregnant so he wont leave her"shrug"

Turn him in. We already have a system to punish women who have unwanted pregnancies. I see no reason guys should be excluded from that fun.

Originally posted by dadudemon

What is this system and describe it for me. I'm drawing a blank.


Religion.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C

She got the condum from the trash and dumped the contents inside her i hear. She wanted to get pregnant so he wont leave her"shrug" how did he obtain that information?

Depending on where you live, a nickname can be used to find someone.

Originally posted by red g jacks
how did he obtain that information? She admitted to it.

be more careful where you put your penis

/shrug

Originally posted by Oliver North
be more careful where you put your penis

/shrug

If you're going to quote Gandhi, you should probably use quotation marks and name him as the source. Just saying.

If you really don't want to pay child support, make sure they can't be found.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But he doesn't want it and there's nothing he can do about it, apparently.

Actually in retrospect you should have said "He didn't do anything so he can't get turned in for it."

Originally posted by dadudemon
What is this system and describe it for me. I'm drawing a blank.

Its usually called "getting unexpectedly pregnant". There are no options following that which do not come with considerable social, economic, or psychological cost. I'd call it a system simply because the response is so often "she shouldn't have been a ****" more than "how do we help get her out of the situation as smoothly as possible?".


In any event he'll probably never pay a penny unless he goes to see her again or something. I have family members who work with child services. Finding a father who doesn't want to be found is too difficult to be worth anyone's time for the very little money they can usually get from him (though maybe Big-C's cousin is loaded).

If she ****s with the condom than its not an unwanted pregnancy.

Let the whore rot with her baby. She doesn't deserve child support.

It's pretty convenient for the guy to say "she used my sperm from a discarded condom"; that's not something a woman would openly admit if she's trying to use a pregnancy to keep the man from leaving.

Story sounds BS, imo; for more than just that reason.

Possibly. On the other hand, the setting of the story sounds like it takes place in the Ghetto. I've heard far worse stories than this that have ended up being true.

Just as an example, my sister-in-law admitted to poking holes in her husband's condom because he wouldn't marry her. She thought that if he ended up getting her pregnant, he'd be forced too.

I don't know why people try to deny the fact that women have just as much of an inclination to be scumbags as men, if not more so.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Possibly. On the other hand, the setting of the story sounds like it takes place in the Ghetto. I've heard far worse stories than this that have ended up being true.

Just as an example, my sister-in-law admitted to poking holes in her husband's condom because he wouldn't marry her. She thought that if he ended up getting her pregnant, he'd be forced too.

I don't know why people try to deny the fact that women have just as much of an inclination to be scumbags as men, if not more so.

I'm fully aware that there's many a crazy ***** out there.

This story though, girl's never been to his house, she only knows him by his nickname, but here she's digging through the garbage to dump the contents of a used condom to have a baby with the guy? Sounds BS.

Sounds insane, yeah.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
If she ****s with the condom than its not an unwanted pregnancy.

Let the whore rot with her baby. She doesn't deserve child support.

If it had been an unwanted pregnancy you'd still be calling her a whore. If we're going to make sex a minefield for women it may as well be a minefield for men as well. Share the love, you know.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If it had been an unwanted pregnancy you'd still be calling her a whore. I wouldn't actually- a lot of people wouldn't. And a lot of the people who would, would also call the guy a low-life.

So, there goes that.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
If you Get a random girl pregnant and she doesnt know your real name nor your address, she cant put you on child support can she?

Thats horrible if its true but children do not ask to be born they just are, stand up for your responsibilities is what I would tell him... be a man regardless whos to blame! There are too man dadless children out there ; I feel sorry for the kid really, he or she will never know what it feels like to have a father.

That's kind of ridiculous. The man shouldn't have to dedicate the next eighteen years of his life to supporting a child that he himself didn't even make.

Saying that the man should "step up" and take care of the kid in this situation would be the equivelent of saying that a Sperm Donor should pay child support to a woman who gets artificially inseminated by his sperm at the sperm bank.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If it had been an unwanted pregnancy you'd still be calling her a whore. You really shouldn't make claims that you have a slim to nonexistent chance of proving.

If the story is true, why should he have to pay for a child that he wouldn't actually be having had the woman not tampered with the condom without his consent?

Though... Yeah, story sounds like bullshit to me, Robtard has the right of it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually in retrospect you should have said "He didn't do anything so he can't get turned in for it."

That's going to be tough to sell. How can he claim he didn't do anything when she's preggo with his babuh?

Dude: "She put the spoot in her vag, maaaaan."

Judge: Uhuh. uhuh



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its usually called "getting unexpectedly pregnant". There are no options following that which do not come with considerable social, economic, or psychological cost.

I thought an abortion was was an option.

I recently read the entry for all the negative effects of aborting on Conservapedia. So I suppose you're right but I don't know how 'for real' all those things listed on conservapedia are legit. But I did not think you were considering all of those things in the face of an easy "get out of jail" card: abortion.

But that's still not a system. I thought you were talking about something government. You got my "hopes" up. uhuh




Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd call it a system simply because the response is so often "she shouldn't have been a ****" more than "how do we help get her out of the situation as smoothly as possible?".

I see, now, why you called it a "system". However, that's not a system, imo. Also, your justification for why it is a system doesn't seem legit to me. Why can't she discretely get an abortion? She doesn't even have to tell her family or friends. Bam, abortion. No baggage.

Of course, from my moral community, an abortion is not an option for most pregnancies (medical necessities, rape, incest...those are givens). However, there is a massive social and financial system in place to help the gals especially in the absence of the father and/or parents. Most women do not have these options or support.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In any event he'll probably never pay a penny unless he goes to see her again or something. I have family members who work with child services. Finding a father who doesn't want to be found is too difficult to be worth anyone's time for the very little money they can usually get from him (though maybe Big-C's cousin is loaded).

I agree.


Just wish there was a way, early in the pregnancy, for the man to sign a paper that says he did not want the child but she does...releasing him from his financial obligations. I have 0 problems with her keeping the kid...in fact, I respect women who do that (who can). But I do not respect or like the idea that a man is forced to take responsibility for something he shouldn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought an abortion was was an option.

I recently read the entry for all the negative effects of aborting on Conservapedia. So I suppose you're right but I don't know how 'for real' all those things listed on conservapedia are legit. But I did not think you were considering all of those things in the face of an easy "get out of jail" card: abortion.

Abortion rarely seems to come without psychological cost, even for people who do not believe there is anything morally wrong with it. And of course there are some very minor health risks involved.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see, now, why you called it a "system". However, that's not a system, imo. Also, your justification for why it is a system doesn't seem legit to me.

Yeah, poor choice of words.

I think its fascinating that when you say "this boy should be punished for something that isn't his fault" that's apparently totally shocking but replace "boy" with "girl" and you'll get choruses of agreement for a huge portion of the country.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just wish there was a way, early in the pregnancy, for the man to sign a paper that says he did not want the child but she does...releasing him from his financial obligations. I have 0 problems with her keeping the kid...in fact, I respect women who do that (who can).

I tend to agree, especially given that there is support in most of the country for her to follow up on her various options.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I do not respect or like the idea that a man is forced to take responsibility for something he shouldn't.

Nor do I, I was being politically incorrect to see how people reacted

It is true that if a woman becomes pregnant against her will she is forced to take responsibility for what happened, no matter how good social support happens to be. Guys can (and often do) just walk away.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Abortion rarely seems to come without psychological cost, even for people who do not believe there is anything morally wrong with it. And of course there are some very minor health risks involved.

Yeah, that's part of what the conservapedia harped on. The health risks and the psychological effects of abortion. I am probably much more heartless about it since I will never get pregnant.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think its fascinating that when you say "this boy should be punished for something that isn't his fault" that's apparently totally shocking but replace "boy" with "girl" and you'll get choruses of agreement for a huge portion of the country.

I could be wrong...but...

wait for it!


...


That's sexism.

"I brought up a similar point with my "buddies" about that. Dude gets it on with 10 chicks in less than a year: he's a stud.

Chick gets it on with 10 dudes in less than a year: she's a dirty filthy WHOORE! "


Why?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I tend to agree, especially given that there is support in most of the country for her to follow up on her various options.

BAM!



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nor do I, I was being politically incorrect to see how people reacted

It is true that if a woman becomes pregnant against her will she is forced to take responsibility for what happened, no matter how good social support happens to be. Guys can (and often do) just walk away.

Dead beat dads are lame. Sorry, they are. I hate to be so harsh as I am not familiar with every situation but I can hardly think of legit exceptions.

Originally posted by dadudemon

"I brought up a similar point with my "buddies" about that. Dude gets it on with 10 chicks in less than a year: he's a stud.

Chick gets it on with 10 dudes in less than a year: she's a dirty filthy WHOORE! "


A key that can unlock any lock is a super-efficient key . A lock on the other hand , which can get unlocked by any key , is a super-sh!tty lock . Understand ?

She inseminated herself from a condom she dug out of the trash?

I have nothing to add to this conversation. Just wanted to double check that she actually did that. What. The ****.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
That's kind of ridiculous. The man shouldn't have to dedicate the next eighteen years of his life to supporting a child that he himself didn't even make.

Saying that the man should "step up" and take care of the kid in this situation would be the equivelent of saying that a Sperm Donor should pay child support to a woman who gets artificially inseminated by his sperm at the sperm bank.

I agree this girl must be nuts to do such a thing but the child is half his wheather he likes it or not.. a child without a dad thats just not fair to the child. I think he could still be in the childs life without being with the girl?

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
A key that can unlock any lock is a super-efficient key . A lock on the other hand , which can get unlocked by any key , is a super-sh!tty lock . Understand ?

I understand what you're trying to do: it just doesn't make sense since Secure System Controls have nothing at all to do with human genitalia.

A vagina should not be a lock. Nor should a penis be a key.

Originally posted by Tripple T
If you really don't want to pay child support, make sure they can't be found.
But shouldn't she have to provide credible evidence before she can put you on child support? "I've not slept with anyone else!" could well be a lie, and a DNA test is quite pricy.

I know damn well that I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on a DNA test if some woman I've slept with accused me of being the father of her child in expectance of child support.

Now I can understand a court decision ruling for child support if the man chooses not to participate in a test that the woman is willing to pay for. But if she's just a one-night stand, then the man should have no obligations to put out as much as a dime for the test. It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

I further believe that men should have the option to abort the child. If a woman disagrees with the man's decision and keeps the child regardless, then the man shouldn't have any obligations to pay for the child.

I'd take one step further and say that unless the woman have given the man the option to abort the child, he should have no obligation to pay child support.

I don't necessarily believe that a man should be obligated to pay for the abortion though, as he can't know whether or not the child is actually his. Of course if the man trusts the woman, and is willing to help her financially then he should be allowed to, obviously.

yes, because the cost of sexual intercourse should be prohibitively high for women, and non-existent for men.

Originally posted by Syren
She inseminated herself from a condom she dug out of the trash?

I have nothing to add to this conversation. Just wanted to double check that she actually did that. What. The ****.
This thread was started by Big-C . In all likelihood , its another one of his wild stories . It shouldn't really be taken seriously .

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, because the cost of sexual intercourse should be prohibitively high for women, and non-existent for men.
Once a woman can provide evidence that a child that grows in their womb belongs to a certain man prior to the birth of the child when it's still in a state where abortion is acceptable, then it would be reasonable to expect the man to partially pay for it.

But any expectations on men paying for the abortion when the woman can't verify that he's the father are ridiculous, as they could easily be abused.

In the same breath though women will have the sole right to abort their child, men won't. Meaning that there are benefits for being a women, as there are benefits for being a man.

The reasonable conclusion is; unless you're with a willing future provider, then take the after-morning pill.

Originally posted by Astner
Once a woman can provide evidence that a child that grows in their womb belongs to a certain man prior to the birth of the child when it's still in a state where abortion is acceptable, then it would be reasonable to expect the man to partially pay for it.

But any expectations on men paying for the abortion when the woman can't verify that he's the father are ridiculous, as they could easily be abused.

In the same breath though women will have the sole right to abort their child, men won't. Meaning that there are benefits for being a women, as there are benefits for being a man.

The reasonable conclusion is; unless you're with a willing future provider, then take the after-morning pill.

you don't think that puts an unreasonable burden on women, whereas exempts any man from child rearing if they simply don't feel like it?

don't get me wrong, I think men get the short end of the current system in a lot of ways, and should have more rights over a fetus that they are expected to be responsible for, but I think them having abortion rights sort of goes too far.

though, yes, for sure, the man should bare no responsibility if there is a question if the child is his.

Originally posted by Astner
I further believe that men should have the option to abort the child. If a woman disagrees with the man's decision and keeps the child regardless, then the man shouldn't have any obligations to pay for the child.

If he has the option to abort the child but she has total veto power then he doesn't actually have the option to abort the child, just the right to say "I want you to have an abortion" which already exists.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you don't think that puts an unreasonable burden on women, whereas exempts any man from child rearing if they simply don't feel like it?
No I don't. If the man doesn't trust the woman to speak the truth then he should have no obligations -- whether legal or moral -- to help to pay for the abortion.

Originally posted by Oliver North
don't get me wrong, I think men get the short end of the current system in a lot of ways, and should have more rights over a fetus that they are expected to be responsible for, but I think them having abortion rights sort of goes too far.
Obviously men can't decide whether or not a woman should have their child aborted. You can't have small police force busting into the woman's apartment, drug her, and then force her to an abortion clinic, simply because she's not cooperative with the man's demands of an abortion.

The only answer to this is to make child support optional. In that case the woman will have to come to terms with that she can't afford to keep the child. And if she does, the man -- who didn't want the child -- would be financially unaffected by it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If he has the option to abort the child but she has total veto power then he doesn't actually have the option to abort the child, just the right to say "I want you to have an abortion" which already exists.
My entire argument can be reduced to that child support should be optional.

Originally posted by Astner
The only answer to this is to make child support optional. In that case the woman will have to come to terms with that she can't afford to keep the child. And if she does, the man -- who didn't want the child -- would be financially unaffected by it.

yes, thus putting a far higher cost on women for sexual activity than there is on men

I can bang who ever I want with no consideration, so long as I say "I don't want a kid", whereas a woman is now put in the position of having an abortion or having a child with no support.

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, thus putting a far higher cost on women for sexual activity than there is on men

I can bang who ever I want with no consideration, so long as I say "I don't want a kid", whereas a woman is now put in the position of having an abortion or having a child with no support.
Yes. However, there are contraceptives, and so an unwanted pregnancy would mean that the woman didn't act responsibly to begin with.

Yes, it's partially the man's fault as well, but until there's a method through which we can find out who the fetus' father is when it's still subject to abortion, you can't expect a man to pay for it. No man should have the legal responsibility to pay for the abortion of what may actually be another man's child.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes. However, there are contraceptives, and so an unwanted pregnancy would mean that the woman didn't act responsibly to begin with.

Yes, it's partially the man's fault as well, but until there's a method through which we can find out who the fetus' father is when it's still subject to abortion, you can't expect a man to pay for it. No man should have the legal responsibility to pay for the abortion of what may actually be another man's child.

ok, but again, you are placing the responsibility for protection entirely on the woman. If I lie to her, if we both make a bad decision, if, if, if, if... It becomes entirely her problem that I can just walk away from.

I really don't see this as a fair system.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, but again, you are placing the responsibility for protection entirely on the woman. If I lie to her, if we both make a bad decision, if, if, if, if... It becomes entirely her problem that I can just walk away from.
This would only work until we find a way to identify the father of the fetus. In which case you as the father would pay half of the price of the identification of the fetus (assuming that it's yours) and half of the price of the abortion.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I really don't see this as a fair system.
No. But there's no other reasonable option. A woman shouldn't be allowed to choose any man she's slept with during a certain period to pay for her abortion.

Once again it's innocent until proven guilty, and you can't prove that someone is the father of an unborn child.

That said I don't see expecting a woman to take the after-morning pill to be something unreasonable. Go to the pharmacy the day after and put down $10 for a pack, if you don't have one already. In fact you don't even have to hurry, as after-morning pills still works up to 120 hours -- five days -- after the intercourse.

Originally posted by Astner
This would only work until we find a way to identify the father of the fetus. In which case you as the father would pay half of the price of the identification of the fetus (assuming that it's yours) and half of the price of the abortion.


No. But there's no other reasonable option. A woman shouldn't be allowed to choose any man she's slept with during a certain period to pay for her abortion.

Once again it's innocent until proven guilty, and you can't prove that someone is the father of an unborn child.

That said I don't see expecting a woman to take the after-morning pill to be something unreasonable. Go to the pharmacy the day after and put down $10 for a pack, if you don't have one already. In fact you can you don't even have to hurry, as after-morning pills still works up to 120 hours -- five days -- after the intercourse.

I'm talking about child support, not an abortion...

You shouldn't just be able to opt out of taking care of a child you helped create.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm talking about child support, not an abortion...

You shouldn't just be able to opt out of taking care of a child you helped create.
Why not? It's not as if you wanted to keep the child, right? It was her decision to keep the child, and you had no say in the matter.

Explain to me why you think it's right to be forced to pay child support in this situation.

because it places an unfair burden on the woman for what was a mutual decision.

How is the burden unfair?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's pretty convenient for the guy to say "she used my sperm from a discarded condom"; that's not something a woman would openly admit if she's trying to use a pregnancy to keep the man from leaving.

Story sounds BS, imo; for more than just that reason. Its not bullshit,
Women have admitted to upright cheating on men before, so how is this bullshit?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
If you Get a random girl pregnant and she doesnt know your real name nor your address, she cant put you on child support can she?

As with most crimes, you have to be caught to be punished, yes.

I guess you guys never had girlfirends where she didnt know your real names?
Where i live this is common, to avoid getting caught cheating.
None of my past girlfriends ever knew my real name nor meet my parents.

By the way she is 18, not a women in her late 20s or 30s.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
This thread was started by Big-C . In all likelihood , its another one of his wild stories . It shouldn't really be taken seriously . Stop making shit up dude. When have I ever posted "wild stories" here? "sigh"

Originally posted by Astner

I know damn well that I wouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on a DNA test if some woman I've slept with accused me of being the father of her child in expectance of child support.
Why not? What if she cheated with you and got pregnant?
You will be paying child support for a kid thats not even yours, paternity fraud is VERY common.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I guess you guys never had girlfirends where she didnt know your real names?
Where i live this is common, to avoid getting caught cheating.

So your cousin is, explicitly, a cheating scumbag?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
How is the burden unfair?

men can walk away from any pregnancy with no responsibility for the child, whereas the woman is put in a position where she needs to either abort or find a way to care for the child.

yes, its an unfairness due to biological reality, but I don't think we should set up a justice system that exploits the fact. Its almost like codifying this mentality:

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
A key that can unlock any lock is a super-efficient key . A lock on the other hand , which can get unlocked by any key , is a super-sh!tty lock.

Like I said before, I do think men need more rights in the situation where they do not want a child that a woman does, but the right to just entirely abdicate all responsibility to me is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I guess you guys never had girlfirends where she didnt know your real names?
Where i live this is common, to avoid getting caught cheating.
None of my past girlfriends ever knew my real name nor meet my parents.

By the way she is 18, not a women in her late 20s or 30s. So what you're saying is: You and your cousing are vulgar vermin, and in the case of your cousin, he's probably getting what he deserves?

Good to know.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Its not bullshit,
Women have admitted to upright cheating on men before, so how is this bullshit?

If it's not an entirely fabricated story, the artificial insemination part likely is. ie Your cousin got some young girl pregnant and now he's he trying to avoid all responsibility; cos he's a cowardly loser.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you don't think that puts an unreasonable burden on women, whereas exempts any man from child rearing if they simply don't feel like it?

don't get me wrong, I think men get the short end of the current system in a lot of ways, and should have more rights over a fetus that they are expected to be responsible for, but I think them having abortion rights sort of goes too far.

though, yes, for sure, the man should bare no responsibility if there is a question if the child is his.

Based on this, I think you and Astner largely agree with each other.


He said the man should have the right to request an abortion but he still left the decision up to the woman, in the end. If she refused, then the financial burden would fall to her because she is the ultimate dictator of her body.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If he has the option to abort the child but she has total veto power then he doesn't actually have the option to abort the child, just the right to say "I want you to have an abortion" which already exists.

But Astner is adding an additional provision that if she refuses that demand, the man is now exempt from any obligations.

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, thus putting a far higher cost on women for sexual activity than there is on men


The only thing I would change about Astner's perspective is making the man pay for the abortion if the child is his. I think the physical and psychological damage the woman undergoes pays her side of the deal.

If the man was the sex that carried the child, I would say the woman should pay for it. So don't mistake my perspective as misandrous.

Originally posted by Robtard
If it's not an entirely fabricated story, the artificial insemination part likely is. ie Your cousin got some young girl pregnant and now he's he trying to avoid all responsibility; cos he's a cowardly loser. No, what i said is exactly what my cousin told me. My cousin is young also

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So your cousin is, explicitly, a cheating scumbag? Arent all men cheating scumbags? *shrug*

Originally posted by dadudemon
The only thing I would change about Astner's perspective is making the man pay for the abortion if the child is his.
That was going to be my suggestion as well.


If the man covers the price for the abortion he's exempt from having to pay child support.If he refuses to pay for the abortion, then he has to pay child support. If he offers to pay for it, and she refuses to get one, then he's exempt from having to pay for child support.

Some might argue that that's not fair because the cost for an abortion isn't nearly as much as the accumulative cost of child support over 18 years- that the abortion would still be the "cop-out" decision, but the specific amount of money paid isn't really the point, is it?

Originally posted by Oliver North
because it places an unfair burden on the woman for what was a mutual decision.

While I agree with that sentiment, I do think that the opposite approach (i.e. having to pay for the child for 18+ years) then places an unfair burden on the party that's not interested in raising the child. I don't really know what I view as the ideal, but the way it is currently I don't think is. It's a bit of a complicated topic, of course a parent (or in particular a child) should be supported if they can not afford the necesseties for themselves, but perhaps that should be achieved through a good safety net, rather than personal payment by one of the parties (the common scenario is that the father is the one not interested in raising the child of course, but I do think, at times, it does happen to women as well).