If you got an SP pregnant, would you take responsibility for the child?

[pjoe43]

check the hawaiin birth certificate

Let the Donald investigate it.

 

[my name Peggy]

@Malibook, the 1st time I personally referenced you in my own seperate posts was when i made a comment to @gen@Sweetserenity and you about not being responsible based on the accord of the escort assuming responsibility. I took that post and answered it accordingly based on what you said when u made that statement..

From that point on, our 'correspondence' begun and it was with THOSE posts that followed that I took the information you provided me that formed my opinion, not the posts you mades pages back as we hadn't begun 'talking'-so to be blunt no sorry I wasn't following you. As there 11 pages on this thread, I can only answer to the posts you directly post me or are within the 'area' of the convo, and vice versa. So therefore, I wasn't making my comments based on your previous statements, I was making them based on our correspondance so it's unfair to say i'm inaccurate or make bullshit statements as I feel they were pertinent to the convo we were having ...

..Based on the your posts with me, I gathered your understanding was that bc a client has an unspoken rule with the escort, it's her job she would 'assume' the responsibility therefore the client shouldnt be held responsible. I'm paraphrasing, but that is essentially would u said... My confusion or challenge with that sentiment and i answered accordingly was how this could be applied to the court of law and therefore is there really such a thing as "should' he be held responsible and if the ethics of this situation have any real 'weight' in the real world ...
..Because ethics do trickle down into the legal system, its hard to seperate the two because many laws such as this are based with ethics in mind , and my confusion arosed from well if the man is held accountable in the court of law, then wouldn't that also be somehow consistent to what he would do ethically?? How a man would react on his own accord shouldn't be so disconnected with what the legal system,as I believe the system is just, not perfect, but just.. Yes you went in with the expectation to not get her pregnant and are paying a premium for this, but guys who have one night stands also dont want to get a girl knocked up, and it still happens, so in real life its the same situation and I dont believe it should be handled any differently ethically either..

Now...what exactly is the point you're making on this whole thread? If I can establish your full stance on this then I can more accurately respond to it bc I have a complete 'idea' of where u stand and we can avoid confusion...bc the comments you made to me are somewhat different to the ones you made when i was out of the 'convo'so to speak and they weren't taken into account of my opinion of where u stand..

 

[Powershot]

I'm trying to figure out how an SP would figure out who the dad is and thus how I would ever have this decision to make.

 

[Malibook]

I will concede that this doesn't occur very frequently as this is a very rare situation nor did I ever try to make it sound common place, or as a conspiracy theory, however I am acknowledging that is does happen period, when you have simply chosen to deny it completely on the basis of some escorts here saying what they would do hypothetically and as a "far-fetched hypothetical scenario for judgmental holier-than-thou preachers to blow their loads over themselves"..uhhh that was classy??

Shouldn't they have gotten off bc of this "unspoken rule"too??

Everything trickles down from the top, my point wasn't to say this happens daily but it DOES happen, however rare that may be. You keep denying it period.

You're still 'ASSUMING' that these men would chicken out like you under the faulty logic of it being the escorts "responsibility' ,her 'never getting pregnant period" and "well if someone here told me they would never do it, then I guess it doesn't happen"

For you to make the absurd rational that bc you didn't hear about a lawsuit, it NEVERS happens and is only used as a tool to be "judgmental" only further illustrates your naivety and cowardice towards the situation of wanting to bail out on the kid or because of the laughable "unspoken rule" you think you have in the bedroom that applies to the courtroom.

I don't see how you came up with this crap from my recent (or any) posts in this thread.

Perhaps you already have your mind set before you even read a post and you expect to see confirmation of your baseless assumptions?

However,there are some people here who think that just bc what the escort did was unethical, this makes them off the hook legally.

Who are these people that claimed they could get off the hook legally and in which posts were these claims made?

 

[GPIDEAL]

I would demand DNA

And if I am not the father I would subject her to a 1 million dollar suit

Of course you have a right to demand proof. Child support orders aren't generated by unsubstantiated claims.

A million dollars? Good luck.

 

[Malibook]

bc the comments you made to me are somewhat different to the ones you made when i was out of the 'convo'so to speak and they weren't taken into account of my opinion of where u stand..

Show me these supposed contradictions and I will try to enlighten you.

 

[Polecat]

I think this question would be a great topic on Jerry Springer, better yet on Maury(?) and wait for him to say YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!

 

[fuji]

I'm trying to figure out how an SP would figure out who the dad is and thus how I would ever have this decision to make.

SP's always inspect the condom at the end of the session. She would notice that it's broken, realize that your cum is inside her, and make careful note of your contact information, which she has since you booked the session. Condoms don't break often, there's not going to be a long list of people whose condoms broke--you'll probably be the only one. She'll have your phone number from the booking and she'll make sure and keep that handy after she's seen the broken condom.

 

[Narg]

I find this whole thread amusing. First, there's Fuji. He has a pattern, which I can tell after only a short time on this board. He starts a thread stating or implying his opinion on some issue, usually one with significant economic, moral, political or religious implications so his post is more controversial. Then he defends his initial statement at all costs and never backs down. Second, there's the fact (as I think Jane? mentioned early on) that the poll Fuji constructed presupposes the answers Fuji wants ... you either take responsibility voluntarily or you're subhuman (see his exchanges with theMexi). Third, the purpose of the thread appears to be to debate personal, moral choices, not legalities. The question asked is "would you take responsibility?", not "should you take (or be made to take) responsibility?". This means that there is no possible "correct" answer, since no two people operate with identical moral codes. Finally, most of us can invent different circumstances which change our answer to the question ...

 

[wet_suit_one]

I find this whole thread amusing. First, there's Fuji. He has a pattern, which I can tell after only a short time on this board. He starts a thread stating or implying his opinion on some issue, usually one with significant economic, moral, political or religious implications so his post is more controversial. Then he defends his initial statement at all costs and never backs down. Second, there's the fact (as I think Jane? mentioned early on) that the poll Fuji constructed presupposes the answers Fuji wants ... you either take responsibility voluntarily or you're subhuman (see his exchanges with theMexi). Third, the purpose of the thread appears to be to debate personal, moral choices, not legalities. The question asked is "would you take responsibility?", not "should you take (or be made to take) responsibility?". This means that there is no possible "correct" answer, since no two people operate with identical moral codes. Finally, most of us can invent different circumstances which change our answer to the question ...

Yeah, but it leads to interesting discussion doesn't it? Beats most threads on the board hands down in my view...

 

[fuji]

the poll Fuji constructed presupposes the answers Fuji wants ...

No it doesn't. It clearly includes option #4, "No, it's her fault for getting pregnant, I want no responsibility whatsoever". Given that was the most popular answer to the poll it's very hard to argue it was biased against that answer. Presumably 55% or so of respondents did not feel that by selecting #4 and clicking vote they were electing themselves "scum of the year".

you either take responsibility voluntarily or you're subhuman

Certainly that's my opinion, but it's equally certainly not written into the poll.

Third, the purpose of the thread appears to be to debate personal, moral choices, not legalities.

Absolutely. The legalities are clear cut--what's to debate there? The moralities I think are equally clear cut, but morality is always debatable.

Finally, most of us can invent different circumstances which change our answer to the question ...

Such as?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Then he defends his initial statement at all costs and never backs down.

I've seen this before too, but then again, sometimes we're on the same page.

 

[themexi]

SP's always inspect the condom at the end of the session. She would notice that it's broken, realize that your cum is inside her, and make careful note of your contact information,

So she's making a note of nothing.....

which she has since you booked the session. Condoms don't break often, there's not going to be a long list of people whose condoms broke--you'll probably be the only one.

Thankfully this IS a rare occurrence. I've Never had one break on me thank god

She'll have your phone number from the booking

From throwaway phone bought in another city, in cash & activated to a different area code.... Oh & written beside a Fake Name

and she'll make sure and keep that handy after she's seen the broken condom.

Ant Do WHAT with it exactly??????

 

[fuji]

i'm aware your phone is anonymous the point is it will still ring and she will still be able to inform you that j you are a dad and then you will have to decide whether to stand up and be a man or hide from your responsibilities like a cockroach.

You may or may not be able to hide from her but you will not be able to hide from yourself, a dead beat who fails on his most fundamental obligation to his own family. Pathetic.

 

[fuji]

I just want to make this observation:

There are some men who, if necessary, are willing to die to protect their children. Then there are guys like themexi who boast that they can hide from their own children so as to avoid ever having to provide any help whatsoever.

What a contrast. Yes, you're being judged themexi, and you come up sorely wanting.

 

[Malibook]

fuji, would you feel the same way if an SP or MPA froze your sperm and took it to a lab to create a bunch of test tube babies?
They would still be your kids, right?

I think the results of this poll are such because of the impersonal business aspect of the scenario.
Obviously the results would be quite different if the question was about a girlfriend or even a first date.

 

[fuji]

fuji, would you feel the same way if an SP or MPA froze your sperm and took it to a lab to create a bunch of test tube babies?.

Yes. Although I would hope to criminally charge any person who did something like that (a pretty far fetched thing to do, too), I would acknowledge and support my child, whose fault it wasn't for the strange way they were born.

 

[JustSex]

there's Fuji. He has a pattern, which I can tell after only a short time on this board. ..... Then he defends his initial statement at all costs and never backs down. ...

Case in point .....

SP's always inspect the condom at the end of the session. She would notice that it's broken, realize that your cum is inside her, and make careful note of your contact information,

It has never happened with me so 'always' by basic rules of logic (which are the foundation of law) cannot have random exclusions thus your argument is moot. A proper term if not 'always' is 'some' but that doesn't help you when your argument is falling apart, does it ? It also is a prime example of you stretching the most ridiculous chain of circumstances to format an event that would support your argument.

It is extremely fortuitous to have Peggy arrive on the scene as she swings out equally wild unsupportable factoids to support both her and Fuji's position that this is a realistic scenario. Challenged that there absolutely no record of any legal action of an SP locating and seeking child support from one of many customers - the rebuttals only skate around the challenges without addressing them.

The allegation in response to my fact that SP's had suggested that they assume responsibility, do not seek customers intervention and welcomed texmex's support was dismissed off hand suggesting that they were merely volunteering lies to please their prospective customers. Your 'nom de plume' here allows you to hide your identity (and sex) so there is no reason for these girls to volunteer anything they do not wish to post. Until they come on line and vote you their spokesperson, I think dismissing their contributions to support your own position is invalid (i.e. a crock).

 

[fuji]

JustSex you are lying, or inexperienced, or maybe just blind, if you think SP's don't check out the condom afterwards. I'll agree that "always" is too strong, but I'll stand on "usually". The difference between "always" and "usually" doesn't alter the argument in any meaningful way, in either case there's a good probability that she is going to be able to contact you to tell you that you're the most likely father.

As for SP's claiming to assume responsibility--they cannot do so. The rights of the child to support are not rights that the SP is in any position to transact away. The child's rights are not the SP's. She has no say in the matter. Your obligations to your children are between you and your child.

As you're including Gen in that please note that she said she felt an obligation to avoid pregnancy, but agreed fully that once the child is born it is entitled to support from its father. In short, it may be "wrong" for an SP to allow a pregnancy to come to term, but once it does, the child's rights clearly prevail regardless of who made what mistake prior to that point.

 

[JustSex]

JustSex you are lying, or inexperienced, or maybe just blind, if you think SP's don't check out the condom afterwards. I'll agree that "always" is too strong, but I'll stand on "usually". The difference between "always" and "usually" doesn't alter the argument in any meaningful way, in either case there's a good probability that she is going to be able to contact you to tell you that you're the most likely father.

As for SP's claiming to assume responsibility--they cannot do so. The rights of the child to support are not rights that the SP is in any position to transact away. The child's rights are not the SP's. She has no say in the matter. Your obligations to your children are between you and your child.

I always dispose of my own condom in front of the SP - your are not there so your fucking baseless accusations are groundless. I usually use their condom and every condom I use goes down the toilet - it is a little phobia I have. I cannot remember anyone requesting an inspection. My SP is usually a non-repeating bi-monthly event so I might not have the experience that you have but enough to know you're full of shit and desparate. It could be that you are slimly sleaze ball and the SP's are worried about insane slight of hand parlor tricks.

You quote child rights again which is irrelevant since the argument from texmex and the SP supporting him that not only is the scenario of the pregnancy remote, but the pregnancy will not come to term. I might as well argue the citizen rights for space aliens landing in Toronto - it would have all the same merits as your arguments. Then you can slander everyone who doesn't support your equally ridiculous assertions for space alien immigration.