Do you think "tricked" men should have to pay child support?

Question

If it can be demonstrated that a woman has decieved a man to conceive, e.g lied about taking the pill, do you think she should still be able to sue for child support, or do you think the welfare of the child justifies rewarding an act of sexual piracy?

Also, can you think of any ethical way of resolving this issue?

Please justify your choice, and don't bother answering if all you have to say is "keep it in your pants" - that's just avoiding the question.

If you don't want children, then of course the best advice is not to do the baby-making, so "keep in in your pants" is the best advice to anyone worried about this, but I'm more interested in the ethical side of this - hence it being in "law and ethics"

joshcating: it's not because I want people to agree with me. The question is NOT "should people have sex?" The answer to that is always "Not unless you want to deal with the consequnces."

oh and don't worry about me, this is a theoretical question.

Answer 1

So long as the sex is consensual, the man should be on the hook for half. You simply cannot rely on the other person to tell you the truth about their birth control methods. A lot of women don't take the pill correctly, which lessens its efficacy. Therefore, even if they think it is safe, they don't know any better (or they do and they are decieving themselves and or their partner). Short of abstinance, which I agree is not a realistic solution, the only way for the situation to be managed is for men to take responsibility for birth control methods. This means using a condom at all times. And not a condom handed to you by the woman. One you purchased yourself and put on yourself.

Aside from the reason that both parties are consenting adults and should be responsible for their actions, a defense of fraud or trickery would set a dangerous precedent and result in an endless stream of litigation with less than reliable testimony. If the woman admits that she tricked the man into fatherhood to keep him or get child support, that should be entered into evidence, but I am still hesitant to say what should be done with the evidence, because family court revolves around the best interests of the child. Lowering child support obligations only punishes the child. The mother should be punished in some way. I guess this is a matter for the legislature.

Answer 2

This question is much harder to answer now than it was decades ago. One such issue to consider is the fact that a woman can decide to have an abortion even if the father wants to keep the baby. That seems to limit the father's involvement in any decision about an unborn baby yet the full weight of the law comes down on him monetarily if the baby is born.

So this leaves us with the woman choosing to engage in sex, choosing not to use and lie about contraception and choosing not to have an abortion. All are decisions that affect other peoples' entire lives. Talk about pro choice. How many choices does she get? How many lives other than her own does she get to control?

It is quite a dilemma. The law is the law but if I were making the decisions, I would probably make the father pay a modified form of child support based on minimum amount required rather than on father's income. I would also limit it to until the child is 18 whether or not he intends to attend college.

I see the child as being at least partially the father's responsibility but I would not want to reward the mother with more than she would get if she were impregnated by a poor or unknown person.

.

Answer 3

The key to law is remembering the phrase "what is in the best interests of the CHILD." Did the child trick you? No. The child is an innocent victim of two adults. The support of the child is mandatory , even if the wrtched woman plotted and schemed for it. Because birth control is not 100% effective and because some women lie, it puts the culpability back on the man because he knows there is a risk possible. Bummer huh? My husband has 4 child support cases!!

Answer 4

In the day and age of HIV and HPV, no man can justify being "tricked" into an unwanted pregnancy - he should wear a condom religiously. Aside from contracting incurable, life threatening diseases, it is a reasonable expectation of sexual intercourse (protected or not) that pregnancy may occur. That being said, when a man has sex that results in the creation of a child, he becomes a father. As a father, he is responsible financially and otherwise. Yes, he should pay child support, even if he doesn't make good personal decisions about contraception.

Answer 5

I think that any time a man inserts his penis into a woman he has to accept that regardless of what he has been told or thinks he knows that he can indeed create a baby. The only birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence.

If the man decides that he is going to take the risk he does it withy FULL knowledge that Tab into Slot B can equal 18 years of child support. If he thinks he is being "lied" to or "deceived" then he must make the conscious choice on whether or not to proceed with the sex act.

So - YES I think a man who beleives himself to have been deceived still has to pay child support because he failed to mitigate his own potential damages by a.) NOT having sex or b.) using a condom....and the condom is STILL not 100% effective. So if he is absolutely adamant that he does not want a child then he ought not be having sex in the first damn place!

Answer 6

Absolutely. First of all, you're missing the point. Child support isn't "about" man vs. woman, or whose "fault" a pregnancy might be. It's "about" ensuring that parents take responsibility for a HUMAN LIFE that has been created.

As a matter of biology, women carry children. Men do not. And there are a myriad of different ways for men (and women) to prevent pregnancy (although only one - "keep it in your pants - is 100% effective). Your average 5th grader knows how this works.

But sex is an adult activity, which should only be engaged in by consenting, responsible, INFORMED adults. INFORMED adults know the risks of sexual activity, and are prepared to deal with the consequences, including the obligation to support any resulting children.

Instead of whining about "sexual piracy" (nice), men, like women, should take responsibility for their OWN contraception. Any person, man or woman, who doesn't take that responsibility deserves EXACTLY what he or she gets.

In short, if you roll the dice, you take your chances.

Answer 7

What about all the women who are told that their man of choice has had a vascetomy? What about all the women who are told by the man they are with won't "come" in her, or will only "put it in a little bit" or that they are sterile and can't get anyone pregnant.? I can't count how many women have been told such foolishness and then told..."Come on baby, don't you trust me?" She still has the baby on her own and pays for all the results of that bad choice and the guys often talk about her in the locker rooms. If she's considered a stupid women, a man who is tricked isn't any smarter...so pay up. Its the price of stupidity. When a woman tries to fight it in court, she is criticized as an economic drain on society and you know all the bad connotations of "Unwed Mothers" and "Welfare Moms".

A tricked man is just a welfare dad...so pay up.

Life is just so unfair. If you don't watch what you do with your body, you have to pay the consequence. Don't believe everrything you hear and don't go jumping out infront of any trains either.

Answer 8

Keep it in your pants.

That's not avoiding the question. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for the RISK that you might be deceived, or that birth control will fail, or whatever, don't take that risk. Only do it with women you trust, or are willing to have a baby with if things go wrong.

So the answer is yes, he should pay. Child support is for the child, not the mother. The child can't help why he was born.

Answer 9

Yes, I do think so,,,,,,,,,here's my reasoning..
The pill is not 100% accurate. The man should be wearing a condom anyway. Even then that's not 100%.......So in the back of the man's mind, he should be thinking, if I have sex with this woman or that woman, then there is a CHANCE she could become pregnant. That small chance, regardless if she "tricked" him, should be enough reasoning for the man to take responsibility of his actions.

Answer 10

i dont feel they should pay for the child because the woman did deceive him, no woman wants a man to say ive had a vasectomy and then end up pregnant when she would have made him use a condom or take the condom off while we arent looking - i think it is completely irresponsible on the womans part -

i also do not think she should be allowed to collect public assistance in this situation either - unless shes been taking care of the child for so many years and something happens -

the hard thing is proving she did in fact tell him that she was on the pill -

i dont have a way to solve this except birth control for men and woman - when both parties agree its time for a child then both parties come off the pill - condoms protect against disease yes but if your in a monogamous relationship you may not want to use one - and they do break - i feel like if both parties were on birth control or sperm control for the men - it would lower the risk of pregnancies than a condom - and both parties would be protected -

while the pill isnt one hundred percent its a lower risk - i can let the man put brakes on my car now and i have a better chance of not wrecking due to faulty breaks or i can drive with none - i know i may still wreck but i also know im protected - now if the man says he put the breaks on and he didnt and i drive i was never really protected i should sue the man for acting like he fixed it i shouldnt act like its my fault - he told me the breaks were on the car