You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #20: Even if the woman obtains the sperm under false pretenses? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-25-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Even if the woman obtains the sperm under false pretenses?
Let's take the not too uncommon scenario of a married woman. Her husband has had a vasectomy, so she isn't on the pill. She has a one night fling, or a "momentary lapse of judgment". Or perhaps hubby does the math and figures out he was in Memphis or on the other side of the planet at the time conception must have taken place. Or maybe the kid turns up with flaming red hair or an impossible blood type.

So hubby walks away from the marriage, he does his duty by any kids that are his, but he refuses to acknowledge the cuckoo in his nest, which I believe is fair enough. Now, what gives the mother (or state) the right have to seek restitution/support from a bloke she picked up in a bar, or inveigled across her threshold with a filmy negligee and crooked finger?

Let's play let's play a little more. The father is above the age of consent, but below the age of majority. He can not legally enter into a contract or assume a debt. Can/should the mother have his parents forced to assume the financial burden his actions created? Can she wait for him to reach his majority and then seek to have him made liable for the results of his actions as a legal minor?

Between one in four and one in three children are born as the result of cuckoldry. And in all probability in the majority of those cases the cuckolding male knew what he was getting into or had reason to suspect that the situation was not entirely on the up and up, in which case I have no objection for him being made to "pay to play".

What I object to is situations where there is bad faith on the part of the woman, and the (a) man is expected (and legally obligated) to cough up even when his actions were in good faith. Yes the child is entitled to support, but I do not believe it should be at the expense of a person who is in all (most) other senses a victim of fraudulent behaviour. Let the state pay "reasonable" support and seek to recover that money from the mother after the child has reached their majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC