Is that the wailing and gnashing of MRA teeth I hear?
 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/#.URn5TleDSIR

Oh look. MRAs are gonna think this is the silver bullet to feminism.

I'm off to the angry dome. The comments are soul blackening.

It all began when Dr. Sharon Irons (an internist) and Dr. Richard Phillips (a family practitioner) began dating in January 1999. Dr. Irons led Dr. Phillips to believe she was divorced and within a few months, they became engaged. According to Dr. Phillips, the two discussed the possibility of having children and he made clear his intentions: that he did not want children until after they were married and any pre-marital sex would require the use of condoms. Throughout the course of their relationship, they engaged in only three instances of oral sex: they never went “all the way."�

On one of these intimate occasions, Dr. Irons did something rather remarkable: After fellating Dr. Phillips, she held his semen in her mouth (where it was suitable to sustain viability) and then inseminated herself with it. She did not inform Dr. Phillips of her actions.

Dr. Irons also never informed her boyfriend that she was, in fact, still married. Five months into their relationship, she confessed to Dr. Phillips that she was not divorced and he decided to end their relationship.

Fast-forward to November 2000, when, surprise! Dr. Irons slapped her surely stunned ex-boyfriend with court papers to establish paternity and child support for daughter.

---

Fairy tale level evil.

I'm really sick of scumbags wishing they could just shoot their load and not have to worry about the consequences, regardless of where they did it. They hooked up with a consensual partner, a child was conceived and born because of it. Time to man up, pay your dues and act like an adult.

It's not that hard to practice birth control people. Do you have to be vigilant? Damn skippy but that's part of being an adult.

"But condoms don't feel natural." Have fun explaining to the kid that you were to lazy to take the proper precautions and that's how they came to be.

Except he was worried about the consequences, and made what any reasonable human being would consider to be safe decisions.

Would you only extend female reproductive rights up to the moment of conception? That consent to engage in intercourse necessarily implies a binding consent to have a child?

Just as a woman shouldn't trust her boyfriend with her birth control, the same should be applied to when a man shouldn't trust his girlfriend with his birth control. If he had used the proper precautions, he wouldn't be in the current predicament. Condoms, spermicide, holding the condom on before flushing it afterwards are just several examples. There's also the option to get a vasectomy and if you wish to have a kid, putting your little fellas on ice.

Despite what you pointed out, he still could have used a condom and flushed it afterwards. Is it entirely his fault? No. However, he should have kept that possibility in the back of his mind if she was past a certain age that she might try something.

Especially when there are women who openly admit that they will do anything to have a child of their own:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...#axzz2KgoZRohp

He could have also not dated a psycho. Apparently there are flaws in that nearly half the women who responded to that dailymail poll would lie or otherwise go to astonishing lengths to conceive from an unwilling partner as opposed to say, adopting or going to a fertility clinic, or I dunno finding a willing partner, so the only way to be safe is to assume anyone you are dating is "a duplicitous creature willing to go to any lengths to fulfil her dreams of having a family".

What a healthy nurturing environment for a child to be raised in!

Yeah, the kid should starve to death.

Sadly, children are being raised by women like that. However, dating a psycho is never obvious until it's too late. Based on my own experience, one faked a pregnancy when I was still in high school hoping I'd get back with her but when I didn't she freaked out and did all sorts of crazy shit. Slashing the tires of a friend's car, starting a fight with a mutual acquaintance because we were sharing a smoke in the parking lot, calling up another mutual friend and threatening suicide because I wouldn't get back with her, etc., etc. Up until the point we broke up, she seemed like your average high school teen, a little tomboyish, but average just the same.

Was it a hard learned life lesson that people aren't as stable as they appear? Absolutely. The other hard lesson I learned were the tactics she'd employ to ensure I'd stay in her life should we get back together and broke up a second time. She planned to do exactly what the intern did to the family practitioner because "That's the only time he didn't use a condom when we were together." Others included approaching me while under the influence of your average high school drunken party and a number of other scenarios so you get the idea.

The only way to keep away from people like that is to stay alert. They may be in the minority, but it's still a group sizable enough to be aware of.

No, the kid should not starve to death. That is a stupid and heartless thing to say.

But that's ultimately what child support is about, and why the judge can't deny it. If a woman is ***** and carries a baby to term, she's legally responsible for it unless she gives it up to the foster care system or adoption. If the rapist was not convicted, he has parental rights, and is also legally bound to give child support. If the rapists raises the baby, he can force the woman to pay child support. This happens, I've also heard of a case where a woman wanted to give a child up for adoption, and the father refused, but also refused to raise the child himself. To do this you need permission from both parents, so sadly the child ended up in foster care instead of getting adopted into a loving home.

Child support is for the child, not for the parents. Its not a him versus her thing, if you don't like things like this, fight for universal childcare and child support and take the burden off individual parents.

some highlights from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/ar...-child-support

"Specifically, the courts' justification that all children are entitled to support from both biological parents has been seriously undermined by the laws regulating artificial insemination. In that context, a man (regardless of whether he is the sperm donor or the non-donor husband of the inseminated female) only becomes the legal father of an artificially inseminated child if he affirmatively consents. I argue that it is incongruous to allow exceptions for formal sperm donors yet wholesale deny similar protections for those who, although not in the setting of a sperm bank, never consented to the use of their sperm. Accordingly, I propose a solution whereby courts adopt an approach similar (albeit narrower) to that used in artificial insemination cases to adjudicate child support claims against those men who were forced into fatherhood as a result of non-consensual insemination."

___

"The question the courts should be asking ... is not whether it is in the child's best interest to receive support from both parents, but ... whether it is the child's best interest to have the victimized parent reimburse the state for payments it made on behalf of the child."

___

"..even if the state is unable to collect child support payments from the victimized father, the child will likely continue to collect benefits from the state. ... Accordingly it is the state - and not the child - who is the one most in danger of harm should the state be unable to collect support payments from the victimized father."

Actually, there has been a case in Kansas where a sperm donor was forced to pay child support, because the couple he gave sperm to filed for state financial assistance. They don't want it from him, apparently the government will make you pay even if the other person doesn't want you to. The Kansas ruling stated that it only counts if it takes place in the doctor's office through proper artificial insemination. In the UK, donors have the right to see their children. I know of a lesbian couple going through this process right now and they're ordering sperm from the states so there's more distance there, and they've decided they'll let the kid seek them out later in life if they so please, but from what I understand the donor doesn't have total anonymity.

We've talked about this before.