Man tricks girlfriend into taking abortion drug, gets 14 years.

[Senator Pleasury]

It is not the same sort of fraud. Though I know you guys want it to be.

No. One is lying and the other is lying. So people must see the difference or women will be discriminated yet again and won't be free to make a man pay them forever for a child they didn't want.

 

[Endeavor]

I realize some would like to equate this to contract fraud, but it is not the same. It either is reproductive coercion or it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion

It should be, and that's why we're arguing the laws are flawed.
The example you quoted is only concerned with the child not being made to pay for the mother's wrong doing, but there are scenarios in which the child could still be cared for but the mother still held accountable for her deception. I think a law that provides for such a scenario would go a long way in helping prevent cases like that, which at the same time would help reduce the number of unwanted and neglected children.

 

[charl_huntress]

Ah but so you admit it's fraud!!

I was speaking of actual reproductive coercion. That is fraud, but the situation we are talking about is not. She deceived him.... Yeah...but legally it's not the same.

You're completely ignoring that it's still deception. Deception and fraud.

It does not matter unless it was reproductive coercion. The case I described was not. She did not defraud him of his sperm. He gave it to her during unprotected sex.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I was speaking of actual reproductive coercion. That is fraud, but the situation we are talking about is not. She deceived him. Yeah...but legally it's not the same.

It does not matter unless it was reproductive coercion. The case I described was not. She did not defraud him of his sperm. He gave it to her during unprotected sex.

I wonder why he had unprotected sex? Maybe he wanted the baby? No. He did not. Then why would he....? Oh, he was lied! It's a fraud!

She got his sperm the same way a con gets people's money. No guns, no violence. Just a lie.

 

[Teelie]

I agree 100% with this. Ever see divorce laws? My lord.....if that's not sexist in favor of female I don't know what is.

If only there was a support group for men.......

Too bad our leader is Al "4 touchdowns in a single (high school) game" Bundy.

 

[charl_huntress]

No. One is lying and the other is lying. So people must see the difference or women will be discriminated yet again and won't be free to make a man pay them forever for a child they didn't want.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

It should be, and that's why we're arguing the laws are flawed.
The example you quoted is only concerned with the child not being made to pay for the mother's wrong doing, but there are scenarios in which the child could still be cared for but the mother still held accountable for her deception. I think a law that provides for such a scenario would go a long way in helping prevent cases like that, which at the same time would help reduce the number of unwanted and neglected children.

The law does provide some remedy, but the man has to seek renumeration from the mother...not the child. He is responsible for the child still.

I wonder why he had unprotected sex? Maybe he wanted the baby? No. He did not. Then why would he....? Oh, he was lied! It's a fraud! She got his sperm the same way a con gets people's money. No guns, no violence. Just a lie.

That was the same question the judge asked...

 

[TheBat812]

I was speaking of actual reproductive coercion. That is fraud, but the situation we are talking about is not. She deceived him. Yeah...but legally it's not the same.

It does not matter unless it was reproductive coercion. The case I described was not. She did not defraud him of his sperm. He gave it to her during unprotected sex.

He only 'gave it to her' under the false pretense that it couldn't result in a child. A straight up lie. Had she not lied, he likely would have used his own form of protection, or at least tried to minimize the risk in his own way. But she told him there was no need.

 

[Endeavor]

The law does provide some remedy, but the man has to seek renumeration for the mother...not the child. He is responsible for the child still.

Obviously not enough. Women like that need to be made aware that they are perpetrating a criminal act, like fraud, not just some civil slap in the hand. Only then would it be enough of a deterrent to prevent more of these cases.

 

[charl_huntress]

He only 'gave it to her' under the false pretense that it couldn't result in a child. A straight up lie. Had she not lied, he likely would have used his own form of protection, or at least tried to minimize the risk in his own way. But she told him there was no need.

He did not only give it to her for that reason. Point is he had unprotected sex and a child resulted from that. The lie is immaterial to his responsibility for the child.

 

[Feenix]

I don't understand what you are saying here.

The law does provide some remedy, but the man has to seek renumeration from the mother...not the child. He is responsible for the child still.

That was the same question the judge asked...

A criminal cannot benefit from their crime. For the man to still have to pay child support is ignoring the issue with that in the first place - the woman used him to get pregnant to get his money to use on herself. From what I've seen in my own area, the courts aren't strict when it comes to the finances of the mother. They assume the funds from the father are going towards the kid, which is not always the case.

And given the bias in the court system in favor of the woman, trying to get that money back from the mom would be near impossible.

 

[Feenix]

He did not only give it to her for that reason. Point is he had unprotected sex and a child resulted from that. The lie is immaterial to his responsibility for the child.

No, it isn't. The lie caused the child to be born in the first place. Had the lie not occurred, neither would the pregnancy. He should not be responsible for something he didn't want and only came about because he was lied to.

You could say the woman used the sperm for fraudulent means.

 

[charl_huntress]

Obviously not enough. Women like that need to be made aware that they are perpetrating a criminal act, like fraud, not just some civil slap in the hand. Only then would it be enough of a deterrent to prevent more of these cases.

Well...it's a double edged sword. Do you jail a new mother, or make things financially difficult for her by suing her when they are also raising a child? Is it better to put a new baby in the foster care system, or with a father who does not want him/her?

A criminal cannot benefit from their crime. For the man to still have to pay child support is ignoring the issue with that in the first place - the woman used him to get pregnant to get his money to use on herself. From what I've seen in my own area, the courts aren't strict when it comes to the finances of the mother. They assume the funds from the father are going towards the kid, which is not always the case.

And given the bias in the court system in favor of the woman, trying to get that money back from the mom would be near impossible.

Refusing to support a child would be seeking remedy from the WRONG person. Go after the mother...not the child. Though even that is tricky due to the reasons I have stated above.

No, it isn't. The lie caused the child to be born in the first place. Had the lie not occurred, neither would the pregnancy. He should not be responsible for something he didn't want and only came about because he was lied to.

Yes it is. He is the biological father of the child and in the eyes of the law financially responsible. It's as simple as that. If there was reproductive coercion the party in the wrong is the mother. She should pay, but that does not free the father from supporting said child.

 

[Feenix]

Well...it's a double edged sword. Do you jail a new mother, or make things financially difficult for her by suing her when they are also raising a child? Is it better to put a new baby in the foster care system, or with a father who does not want him/her? Refusing to support a child would be seeking remedy from the WRONG person. Go after the mother...not the child. Though even that is tricky due to the reasons I have stated above.

Yes it is.

Put the kid in foster care. Clearly, the mother is an awful person and should be put in jail and the father doesn't have to pay child support.

And no, it isn't. Byproducts of fraud are not the responsibility of the person being defrauded. It's not as simple as the guy being the biological father and so he should pay. He is only what he is because of lies. The choice was taken away from him when he wasn't given all the facts upfront. Stupid? Yes. But, what the mother did is still illegal.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I'd like to point out, if telling a lie in order to obtain consensual sex was fraud, every man on the planet would have a criminal record. Come on, you all know what I'm talking about.

 

[Endeavor]

Well...it's a double edged sword. Do you jail a new mother, or make things financially difficult for her by suing her when they are also raising a child? Is it better to put a new baby in the foster care system, or with a father who does not want him/her?

Jail the mother. She's not going to care for that child anyway, to her it's a meal ticket.
Put the baby in the foster care system.
Have the father pay child support to the government, which will in turn make sure the money is being used for the kid's care and nothing else.
Yes the guy still gets the raw end of the deal, but at least his money isn't going to some conniving gold digger... If he decides he wants the child (he could change his mind) then he can obtain full custody, pending a time of observation by child services.
But the criminal that decided to use a baby for profit? she should never have more than minor visitation rights.

Edit to amend: The father should pay support as long as the child is under the care of child services, but if and when the kid is fully adopted by another family, then he should no longer be responsible. This would also help alleviate some the hardships of childless couples looking to adopt and having to look overseas for a chance to adopt an infant.

 

[Endeavor]

I'd like to point out, if telling a lie in order to obtain consensual sex was fraud, every man on the planet would have a criminal record. Come on, you all know what I'm talking about.

 

[TheBat812]

I wonder if your religion and/or gender has anything to do with your viewpoint. I straight up disagree with you. There's a blatant cause and effect here - a lie directly leads to him thinking he doesn't need other contraception, leads directly to a child he did not sign up for and her lie made him think it wasn't a concern this time.

The correlation is so direct it's a bit perplexing that you don't see it.

 

[Feenix]

I'd like to point out, if telling a lie in order to obtain consensual sex was fraud, every man on the planet would have a criminal record. Come on, you all know what I'm talking about.

That's true. But, other than the women feeling betrayed, there are no lasting issues (other than maybe psychological ones which are another story).

Unless the other party had an STD that they did not disclose beforehand. And that can be used as grounds for a lawsuit.

Children are no different. It's a byproduct of fraud.

 

[Primal Slayer]

I doubt she tricked him into getting pregnant. And it is a major difference between a woman choosing to get an abortion and being forced into getting one. I dont even think they usually allow women to get abortions if they are 7weeks along.

 

[TheBat812]

I doubt she tricked him into getting pregnant. And it is a major difference between a woman choosing to get an abortion and being forced into getting one. I dont even think they usually allow women to get abortions if they are 7weeks along.

Haha were all discussing a whole other case. You're right though, I don't think it applies to this case.

 

[Endeavor]

I doubt she tricked him into getting pregnant. And it is a major difference between a woman choosing to get an abortion and being forced into getting one. I dont even think they usually allow women to get abortions if they are 7weeks along.

Our current discussion isn't about the case that originated this thread. I think pretty much everybody here agrees that the guy in that case is a *****e that went about his situation the wrong way.

 

[charl_huntress]

I wonder if your religion and/or gender has anything to do with your viewpoint. I straight up disagree with you. There's a blatant cause and effect here - a lie directly leads to him thinking he doesn't need other contraception, leads directly to a child he did not sign up for and her lie made him think it wasn't a concern this time. The correlation is so direct it's a bit perplexing that you don't see it.

I see it. What I don't see is a father being absolved for caring for his child. I do not care how the child came into being. The child is not at fault and the father is still the father. It's as simple as that. I also see very dangerous precedents in letting mothers or fathers opt out because they didn't sign up for parenthood.

Jail the mother. She's not going to care for that child anyway, to her it's a meal ticket.
Put the baby in the foster care system.
Have the father pay child support to the government, which will in turn make sure the money is being used for the kid's care and nothing else.
Yes the guy still gets the raw end of the deal, but at least his money isn't going to some conniving gold digger... If he decides he wants the child (he could change his mind) then he can obtain full custody, pending a time of observation by child services.
But the criminal that decided to use a baby for profit? she should never have more than minor visitation rights.

Edit to amend: The father should pay support as long as the child is under the care of child services, but if and when the kid is fully adopted by another family, then he should no longer be responsible. This would also help alleviate some the hardships of childless couples looking to adopt and having to look overseas for a chance to adopt an infant.

Wow...I guess that's an option. I disagree that is the right way to go. Unless the mother proves she's unfit to be a caregiver then it's best for the child to stay with her, unless she voluntarily cedes those rights. I don't support anyone in foster system if there is someone willing to care for them. The state can always set up a trust for the child or a CPS monitor to ensure the child is being well looked after.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

He did not only give it to her for that reason. Point is he had unprotected sex and a child resulted from that. The lie is immaterial to his responsibility for the child.

I lied to some people and they gave me their money. Important thing is I got my money, who cares that I lied to get it? And they did want to give it to me. Because I lied.

 

[Quasimod0]

If you are going to have sex with someone, you better be ready for the possibility of having a child. Even if it is protected, there is still a chance.

 

[NickNitro]

This is why we need sex robots.