If you got an SP pregnant, would you take responsibility for the child?
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Yup. And that's why we have laws. Because, from the poll, only about half of people would step up and do the morally correct thing. The other half have to be forced to by courts.People are douches and unethical and immoral acts abound. Always have and always will. What ought to be done I think is fairly clear. Thankfully the responders to the poll are clearly showing their moral/ethical mettle, and on the whole (if I recall the poll results rightly), their mettle is generally lacking. Nothing new there.
People with criminal minds, like themexi, scoff at the courts and feel they are superior to the system, that they know how not to get caught. Sometimes scofflaws like that get away with it. Sometimes they don't. Either way the rest of us look down on them.
As I said, YOUR rights are superseded by the rights of the child to be supported by its biological parents.If a woman becomes pregnant, it's BOTH bio parent's responsibility.
If she chooses to continue the prgnancy it's BOTH bio parent's responsibility to a POINT.
But if her chosen partner didn't give her reasonable expectation that they WOULD stick around & support the kid? It's SAD but her choice is Adoption or tough it out on her own.
Sorry but AGAIN I assert that at that point so long as my ability to decide is removed, so is my responsibility.
I will NOT give up this RIGHT. And this IS a right so long as I can enforce it.
This I believe, is the premise of the child support laws. This trumps OUR own rights.
Furthermore, a woman has a right to choose either to abort, raise the child (assuming she's fit), or give up the child for adoption.
If she doesn't give up for adoption, she invokes the child support laws by default.
I don't think you have a right to force a mother to give up her child for adoption (if you can't force her to have an abortion, then it follows that you can't force her to give up the child for adoption if she's fit to be a mom). I've never heard such a thing except in certain cases involving teenagers or adults who are drug addicts or suffering from mental illness.
I also don't think you'd be succesful at suing her to indemnify your child support duties because she failed at promising you a NSA encounter. At least not in the ordinary course of a SP-Customer association, unless both of you agreed to such terms BEFOREHAND.
These are contractual terms which do not trump the child support laws. They are also not necessarily implied. What's a premium price? What is the norm in the industry?I tend to agree with everything else you said, in almost any other context I can think of.
But in the context of John who paid Candy a premium price for her "companionship", don't you think that there is an unspoken understanding that what he is paying for, in addition to the sex, is a no-string-attached (which in my opinion would include no-unwanted-child) and time-limited affair?
Of course, once the child is there, this is all irrelevant. But I still think that it would be unfair for an SP who a) made the (relatively free) choice to be in this business; b) is working in the higher end of the industry; and c) has easy and affordable access to reproductive health care and information to make the choice to carry the pregnancy to term and expect/demand that the client take responsibility for this child.
If we all understand that a client would expect his SP to not call him at home unless specifically instructed otherwise, to not make a scene if he doesn't call her the next day or see other women, and to be ready to engage in sexual activities (despite disclaimers that "time paid is for companionship only"), I would think that there's also an understanding that a client would expect an SP to not get pregnant and/or to provide alone for a child she would choose to carry to term. No?
I think to have this sort of guarantee, you need to get it in writing or have such terms posted (and the price has to reflect this guarantee), just like a confidentiality agreement or celebrity non-disclosure contract.
Finally, just because there's a child support order, it doesn't mean that an SP gets off without contributing her share of the child's upbringing.
CHOICE is the operative word.Sir,
You seem to be totally ignoring ADOPTION here.
If she has some moral or medical reason to Have to keep the pregnancy that's fine. She NeeDN'T be penalized for choosing not to have an abortion.
However. ADOPTION is a viable CHOICE.
This is where it enters into the totally 100% HER CHOICE department whe it's ON HER to live with the consequences of her choices ALONE
And what I mean by that is, you can't force her to not have that choice by imposing on her the sole cost of rearing the child that she decides to not give up for adoption.
Don't forget now that the courts are not saying that you alone are the only one paying. If she decides to keep the child, she will change the diapers, feed the child, etc. etc. etc. and perhaps even spend her own money too.
Both of you pay in kind and/or money.
We live in Canada, not Iran or Saudi Arabia. The courts aren't going to allow a child to be taken from her mother just because a man insists on this. The courts also aren't going to have you abdicate your responsibility to support a child that you produced.
Let's be clear. An SP may not expect the father to take FULL responsibility, just half the responsibility. I believe this is what the law requires, unless the mother is incapable of an equal amount of financial support.Legally of course, the biological father has a responsibility to the child. But I didn't understand fuji's question to be about the legality of this hypothetical situation. If it was, there wouldn't be anything to debate here: the law is the law. I thought we were debating the ethical/moral aspect of the question.
And ethically, I believe that the SP/client relationship includes the expectation of no-strings-attached, which in my opinion, would include no-unwanted-child to care for. If she gets pregnant AND decides to carry the pregnancy to terms in this context, I do think that it is unfair of her to expect the client to take responsibility for this child. Of course, this wouldn't hold in court, and if she could demonstrate that John is indeed the father, he would have to pay for child support. But legality and ethics are two different things.
Sue me for parental support and I will bring the force of the law down and go after custody and support from the mother.
Well put, and so are your posts subsequent to the one I quoted above.@ Sweet Serenity @ Genintoronto @Malibook....Yikes!! let me try to put this in perspective:
If you had a fling with a man, and got pregnant, and kept the child, he'd have to pay..
If you were an escort who saw a man 5 times and got pregnant...he'd still have to pay
Why would the legal system care about the circumstances under which the child was conceived? You think they have time to individualize the THOUSANDS of child support cases a yr and do you honestly think this argument would hold up in court?:
"Well you see your Honor, my escort was selling me a fantasy, I PAID for her NOT to get pregnant but SHE stupidly did anyway and kept the child even after I DEMANDED her to get an abortion, so therefore I'm off the hook right?"
If that convoluded logic held then ANY guy who knocked up ANY girl would be off the hook for child support if he DECIDED he didn't want to pay on the basis of not wanting it in the first place... Being an escort and being a civilian are no different in the legal system's eyes, bc when you take away the title, it just boils down to TWO adults deciding to have sex and a child was the result. Period.
FYI-SHE didn't knock herself up, it takes 2 to tango. You can't make the argument that bc she was an escort she was irresponsible & HAS to get an abortion, bc then it would be legally ok to FORCE ur gf/wife/whoever to get one too when the guy thinks she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the beginning. As I stated in another post, no man or institution can govern a woman's body...that's how Canada works...So therefore when ANY woman decides to keep a child TWO ppl made, the father will pay support unless the courts decide otherwise.
You need to take away the words "fantasy" and "escort" bc it really has no bearing in the real world's 'Bigger Picture', regardless of what you are "selling him" and what your "job is". There is no such thing as "No strings attached" "Hassle free" sex in ANY aspect of life, including escorting even if you are 'paying' for it. You can't buy an insurance policy on sex bc it doesn't exist. The only 100% guarantee of not becoming a father is not having sex,sorry but it's true. You may view this as unfair but unfortunately, Biology and the Legal System say otherwise. I'm glad you practice responsible safe sex, more girls and guys should (Teen Mom anyone?),then we wouldn't have to be debating this, but until ppl start taking this more seriously and the Law starts looking @ each child support case on an individual basis, today this is the best way to ensure that any child born out of ANY circumstance receives the support they need....
With all due respect to themexi, learned judges and lawmakers have argued and debated these points that you raise over and over again.
It's easy for us lay persons to presume that the courts haven't considered all the facts, but that's their full time job, and in most cases, they have dealt with all these arguments before.
Sueing the SP to recover the child support cost because she failed to provide a NSA encounter sounds like a novel idea, but unless she was criminally negligent, I doubt very much that such a lawsuit would be successful or legal (it would defeat or circumvent the child support laws, which may even provide that you can't 'contract out' of them either).
I can't blame themexi for arguing that an 18 year financial burden (which can affect you emotionally and physically too) on a man is a greater violation of his rights than giving up the child for adoption to a couple that really wants the child, but to not impose such a burden would mean that a child is taken away from it's natural mother who wants to keep that child, which I think is a greater injustice.
Just because a pregancy is not planned, that doesn't mean that the child is unwanted later. This happens all the time with married and unmarried people (gosh, I know of many ummarried strippers or SPs who are single mothers who don't want anything to do with the father for whatever reasons).
Furthermore, as you also stated, if we were to allow this to happen between SP & client (force to give up the kid for adoption), then it should happen in the 'civilian' world (which it doesn't).
She doesn't have to sue you. In Ontario, the Family Responsibility Office will garnish your wages, etc. if you're the father and don't pay your fair share, and you can't do anything about it.*Sue me for parental support and I will bring the force of the law down and go after custody and support from the mother.
*As an aside, I receive support orders all the time and have to garnish wages of up to 50% of net pay for child support. The only option for the guy is to disappear and live an underground life of a deadbeat dad.
and what is to stop me from getting a lawyer and demanding a DNA test then going after custody based on who would be the better parent.She doesn't have to sue you. In Ontario, the Family Responsibility Office will garnish your wages, etc. if you're the father and don't pay your fair share, and you can't do anything about it.*
*As an aside, I receive support orders all the time and have to garnish wages of up to 50% of net pay for child support. The only option for the guy is to disappear and live an underground life of a deadbeat dad.
Should I win then I go after support based on her ads
Nothing. Plenty of men are awarded custody over less fit mothers. Whiny mens groups just don't like to talk about that. In fact the legal term is parent and custodial parent, completely gender neutral.and what is to stop me from getting a lawyer and demanding a DNA test then going after custody based on who would be the better parent.
Should I win then I go after support based on her ads
Bang on.The child was not in on the understanding between John and Candy and accordingly the child's right to support is not limited by the decisions or understandings of its parents. What the parents agreed to is completely irrelevant. This is something that themexi is not not hearing in my posts.
The logic of support is that the right to support belongs to the child. What the understanding between the parents are is of no consequence. They decided to have sex. Child ensued. Child gets support. End of story.
Anyways, Mexi likes to drone on about how hard life is and tries to do mental gymnastics to force a woman to give her child up for adoption. There are ways to do that, but I suspect Mexi could not get that to happen if he were in the situation. He would be too busy hiding!
Of course his, "I am repressed sexual rebel and will hide out from the courts" philosophy does not take into account the costs and potential costs of doing so.
Some really sad comments on this post - Almost makes me sad to be part of human race. If the SP gets pregnant and makes his/her choice to have the child why should the child be disadvantaged because of a father who chooses to have no moral or community obligation.
Some may comment on the whole SP industry but I for one fail to believe that humans are monogamous and this is a legit line of business that has is frowned on by society due to Christianity wanting to promote marriage and monogamy
Basically take responsibly for your actions.
Some may comment on the whole SP industry but I for one fail to believe that humans are monogamous and this is a legit line of business that has is frowned on by society due to Christianity wanting to promote marriage and monogamy
Basically take responsibly for your actions.
The other interesting thing that arises from this thread is that the we know now that the sometimes draconian tactics of the government to enforce child support are necessary. IF there are people like Mexi who will try to avoid responsibility by any means possible an aggressive system is needed to make them pay up.
This can make the whole process harder and more unpleasant for non-custodial parents who are trying to support or hit some hard times, but the systems needs to be set up to get guys like Mexi so many others suffer for actions that people with his approach take.
This can make the whole process harder and more unpleasant for non-custodial parents who are trying to support or hit some hard times, but the systems needs to be set up to get guys like Mexi so many others suffer for actions that people with his approach take.
Whatever happened to selling off the child for medical experiments? Seriously now, being raised by adoptive parents is not nearly the hardship made out in the movies. Why should a person OF EITHER SEX who had no intention of having a child be forced to support one.
Because unless we do this the child suffers.Whatever happened to selling off the child for medical experiments? Seriously now, being raised by adoptive parents is not nearly the hardship made out in the movies. Why should a person OF EITHER SEX who had no intention of having a child be forced to support one.
Unless you are advocating that the state force poor people to give up their children for adoption to rich people...
Adoption is a viable choice but are you seriously advocating that someone be forced to give up their child? The TV images of mothers screaming and crying as the police forcibly carry off their children are not going to play well in the next election.Whatever happened to selling off the child for medical experiments? Seriously now, being raised by adoptive parents is not nearly the hardship made out in the movies. Why should a person OF EITHER SEX who had no intention of having a child be forced to support one.
Adoption only works well if BOTH parents agree to it. If either parent isn't in favour of the adoption, then BOTH parents should be on the hook to look after the child. You can't adopt out half the responsibility, it's all or nothing.
