• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Roe v. Wade for Men"

TragicMonkey said:
Of course. If sex is nonconsentual, then the responsibility for the consequences does not rest with the victim, but with the perpetrator. Likewise if you are forced to steal at gunpoint, you are not guilty of theft, either ethically or legally. (Well, some idiot might charge you, but no jury would convict.)
Click to expand...

So...if you are raped, and father a child as the result of rape, how can you advocate forcing this victim to support the child?
 
It would be so much simpler if fertility was extracted at birth and pregnancy initiated strictly by choice....
 
family law is more a matter of equity than law. in fact 7th Amendment protections do not apply to family law matters as they're not within the common law. doubtful that the courts will see this as equitable or as a matter of good policy.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Yes, but you're saying the guy's complaining, and asking society to bear the burden. I was extraopolating, perhaps unfairly.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the case this thread is about, not hypotheticals about pregnant female rapists. Which sounds like more like an erotic story aimed at a very select subset of the population than anything in real life.
 
JamesDillon said:
Can you offer some evidence for this? I'm not an expert in family law but I would think that, if the ex-husband can rebut the presumption of paternity (i.e., prove he's not the father), then he would have no legal obligations toward the child. The sort of evidence I'd like to see is a statute or court opinion holding that the ex-husband owes child support regardless of the fact that he has proven himself not to be the father-- I believe it is the case that many states presume that a child born to a married man is that man's child, but I think that presumption can be rebutted, ending any legal obligations the man may have.
Click to expand...

These articles are a good start to show how men are getting screwed.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48871
http://www.glennsacks.com/veteran_feels_mixed.htm
 
TragicMonkey said:
Yes. But I wouldn't whine about it and hire lawyers and start a campaign about how I ought to be protected from the consequences of my own carelessness or bad luck. I wouldn't expect other people to pay for my treatment. And I certainly wouldn't go online and argue that the responsibility wasn't mine.
Click to expand...

What if:

1. A potential sexual partner tells you that they have been tested for STDs and been cleared, and have not engaged in any unsafe practises since being cleared.

2. They are lying and they in fact know that it is highly likely you will get an STD if you sleep with them.

3. You have sex with them on that basis.

4. You get an STD.

Do you think you have a basis to whine and/or sue?

It seems to me that you have some weird kind of sexual ethic going on where if you ever trust anyone enough to engage in an unsafe sexual practise, then even if the person you trust is deceiving you you still deserve whatever you get.

Maybe that makes sense if we are talking about hooking up with strangers in bars, but I don't think it does if we are talking about long-term relationships.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
What if:

1. A potential sexual partner tells you that they have been tested for STDs and been cleared, and have not engaged in any unsafe practises since being cleared.

2. They are lying and they in fact know that it is highly likely you will get an STD if you sleep with them.

3. You have sex with them on that basis.

4. You get an STD.

Do you think you have a basis to whine and/or sue?
Click to expand...

Of course you do. That's a pretty clear case of battery, maybe fraud. Probably criminal, too. I think there have been some criminal convictions for HIV positive people engaging in that sort of behavior.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
What if:

1. A potential sexual partner tells you that they have been tested for STDs and been cleared, and have not engaged in any unsafe practises since being cleared.

2. They are lying and they in fact know that it is highly likely you will get an STD if you sleep with them.

3. You have sex with them on that basis.

4. You get an STD.

Do you think you have a basis to whine and/or sue?

It seems to me that you have some weird kind of sexual ethic going on where if you ever trust anyone enough to engage in an unsafe sexual practise, then even if the person you trust is deceiving you you still deserve whatever you get.

Maybe that makes sense if we are talking about hooking up with strangers in bars, but I don't think it does if we are talking about long-term relationships.
Click to expand...


Step 3 will never happen. I have never had unsafe sex, and I never will.

The sexual ethic is that it's stupid to not use condoms*. "Long-term relationship"? So what. The virus doesn't know that, or care. So you've been seeing each other for a while? So you feel True Love Brand Love? The virus doesn't care. It's either there or it's not, despite what you hope, believe, or feel. And you only have to be wrong once. Why take the gamble? People lie, people cheat, people betray. People can be infected without knowing it. People can know it but be in denial. Why take the chance, when the stakes are so high?

Given that it's so very, very easy to just use a condom, I don't see why not.


*Unless you're the married-to-each-other, monogamous, lifelong marriage, no swinging, no cheating, tested-periodically couple that doesn't do needle drugs or get transfusions. You might consider these to be reduced risk circumstances, with some justification.



eta: Oh, and to answer the hypothetical, supposing Step 3 did occur:

No, I'd have little basis for complaining about my own stupidity. The other party would be culpable for deception, but that doesn't erase my own responsibility for taking care of myself.
 
A child is not a disease.

These discussions of STDs are interesting, and pregnancies resulting from females sexually assaulting males are useful thought experiments, but the case from the OP isn't about a disease, and it isn't about sexual assault.

The guy with the lawsuit has a child. He didn't ask for it, but he did create it. He really ought to offer to marry the mother of that child, but that is a moral issue, not a legal one. Legally, he should be obligated to provide support for his child.
 
The question is one of "equal rights". We assume the baby will be well cared for- there are lots of babies raised in one parent homes.

Perhaps "equal rights" should mean "equal opportunity", or "chance" ? Lets say we settle all child custody questions with a coin toss? A judge flips a coin, one parent gets custody, the other gets the monthly bill... "Winner" can "abort" by putting the baby up for adoption... I bet that would change how many women have "accidental pregnancies".
 
TragicMonkey said:
Step 3 will never happen. I have never had unsafe sex, and I never will.

The sexual ethic is that it's stupid to not use condoms*.
Click to expand...

And an additional benefit of that approach is that it solves the world overpopulation problem in just a couple of decades ...
 
LW said:
And an additional benefit of that approach is that it solves the world overpopulation problem in just a couple of decades ...
Click to expand...

Well, obviously if someone wants to reproduce, they'll not be using contraception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom