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

[fuji]

Of course ideally a child should have 2 active parents, 2 loving competent fit parents, but this is often not a biological reality, especially since we are talking about the hooker and john scenario.
Sometimes the father is unfit, sometimes the mother is unfit, and sometimes both are unfit.

That's irrelevant to support. An unfit parent maybe should be denied custody rights, perhaps in an extreme case even denied visitation rights. That does not absolve the unfit parent of having to provide support though.

 

[themexi]

Erm... Just to chime in on this great thread themexi, where your understanding and incorrect position IMHO arises is in your last line. Once you decided to blow your load in the SP, that is the momen when you made your decision and decided whether or not to live with the consequences. Your ability to decide was not removed. You chose to take the risk with xyz SP and knowingly or not took the risk that a child of your making might come into existence. That child has its own independent claim on you that arose out of your decision to have sex (in whatever circumstances). The right to support is the right of the child and the child cannot give up that right no matter what you might think on the matter. I know that you and a great many other men like to think differently, but that is the law and IMHO the moral position. The child didn't decide for you to blow your load in its SP mother. You made that call. You make the call, you carry the ball.

A more "responsible" man would either A) jerk off, B) only have sex with his wife, C) get a vasectomy before having sex or D) only engage in non procreative behaviour and ensure that all his sperm are flushed down the toilet. I agree that even I don't go to such lengths and never have and most of us never will (we're human after all right, not "responsible" human beings).

Support is the right of the child. A man's duty to any child of his, however conceived, originates in his decision to blow his load in a woman's vagina. Full stop.

The only guy's who aren't responsible for the children created from their sperm are sperm donors (and that's debatable both in law and morally) and the dead guys whose sperm is harvested to impregnate a woman after they have died (yes, this is actually done).

In pretty much every other case (unless perhaps you were raped by a woman, but that shit's not really gonna fly if you're an adult male. If you were 14 year old "seduced" by your 24 year old teach in grade 9, that might fly, otherwise) you're fucked...

Yeah, I know. Sucks to be a man. But we don't have periods or menopause either, so its not a terrible deal...

Any other arrangement is unjust and immoral IMHO.

Respectfully, you have given NO logical rebuttal to my argument.

All you have done is basically restated the same tired "best for the child" & "it sucks to be a man"

I do not accept either of those on their logical merits.

In most of these child support cases the BEST thing for the child is ADOPTION. Sorry if that inconveniences the Mother here... but not ONLY is it a Lesser imposition on her than the Father.... but it IS the most likely way to ensure whats ACTUALLYbest for the child.

2 "sucks to be a man" is NOT valid. I WILL NOT surrender my right to freedom so long as I am able to enforce it. Call me what you will. Hiding in the face of an overpowering adversary like the legal system would be my best bet to do whats best for ME... Since its a GIVEN that the courst WILL screw men no matter the circumstance... that is the only choice I have to protect myself from needless exploitation...


Why is MY loss of a portion of my resources for 18 YEARS less of an imposition than a woman giving up a child she never meant to have to people that WANT IT???????

 

[hinz]

Interesting observation after reading the threads here and Post# 47 & 48, say

Maybe fuji`s kid is fat and he hates himself because he is failing at being a father? That would explain his attitude.

I don`t have a kid.

 

[genintoronto]

A man's duty to any child of his, however conceived, originates in his decision to blow his load in a woman's vagina. Full stop.

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?

 

[slowandeasy]

i'd wrestle her to the ground and force a morning after pill down her throat!

Then help her up, apologize and give her a hug.

lol.

 

[hinz]

Speaking of taking responsibility for the child, this is interesting.

 

[Malibook]

That's irrelevant to support. An unfit parent maybe should be denied custody rights, perhaps in an extreme case even denied visitation rights. That does not absolve the unfit parent of having to provide support though.

The best interests of the child might be best served by both parents, one or the other, or neither.

"Best interests" goes way beyond cash.

Obviously the gross amount of available dollars is going to be higher with 2 parents as opposed to one or none.

 

[Zombie]

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?

Totally agree. Case closed. Unless you two want to keep bickering at each other.

 

[my name Peggy]

@Themexi: I was going to write you off, but you seem to be speaking more thoughtfully and making actually thought provoking points so I will offer you this:

I'm not just 'throwing' in ANY argument for the sake of arguing against your point. I don't need to. I stand behind what I say, so let's get that clear right off the bat...

..When I was refering to the 'best interests of the child' it was to make the case for a woman who decides to keep the child and whether or not the Father should financially support it. In this case, yes making the father pay for the child's provisions is in it's best sake as rather than your previous and still standing argument of "Well I didn't want the "thing" to begin with so I'm going to fuck off and "hide" and let the mother raise it on her own"......

...You do make a semi- case for adoption however you're still not off the hook legally. It was your further attempt of shirking responsibility under the guise of "Well it's not the best interest me for me have it-oh AND the child's- so wouldn't it be better if some other family took care of it"? This is proven by your tearing out of the gates with a "Fuck this shit, anti-man legal system, I'm not keeping this thing I didn't want, I'm running away" attitide from the get go...any many posts after. Adoption was just a secondary thought...

.. The case for whether or not you should be deemed responsible to pay for YOUR child is not based on you wanting to give it up for adoption and ESPECIALLY NOT BECAUSE IT "INCONVENIENCES YOU" and it never will be ...

..Adoption can be a wonderful option for children, and for parents who feel unfit to raise them but ultimately if that is not the route that is chosen(nobody can make this an opttion) you are still the biological father and are legally on the hook to pay for support...
....Having a child out of wedlock is just not a viable way to determine the parents are unfit.The legal system doesn't work like that, as there are millions of single mothers/fathers in this world who are raising children. Some are raising them great, others are shit parents. And guess what buddy, married couples aren't doing do great in the "raising kids" dept themselves either but they still have to take care of them. So while we can make assumptions and play to ideals as to 'WHO' would be the better parent, unless adoption is the chosen option, the courts view the biological parents(YOU) as primary guradians and the best ' fit' until further proven ... So guess what? You're STILL on the hook...

..What it comes down to is this: You knock any girl up, escort or not and she decides to keep it, you're on the hook plain and simple. Only the courts can determine if she's unfit to raise it through proof of neglect, not bc you don't want to be financially responsible and never bc it simply inconveniences you. Who the mother is and your complete unwillingless to raise this kid, make for a sad situation, but until the courts have proof of your kid being neglected, you are still the father and are responsible for it I'm afraid so you and 'your life' get put on hold for the next 18yrs-yep that's what happens when you become a father-even an unwilling one. The only way to guarantee this is to not have sex, you keep arguing against this, but I'm sorry, its still true as there is no such a thing as an 'insurance policy' for sex-whether you pay for it or not...

 

[my name Peggy]

@Genintoronto "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?"

I'm not sure why you keep alluding that escorting is somehow excluded from this bc of an "unspoken understanding" or bc he's 'paying a premium'? There may be an understanding but that doesn't make it a guarantee bc if it doesn't hold up in a court of law, where it counts, does it really matter?

Your rational is that because a guy paid for sex he paid for her NOT to get pregnant? While that may be the technically true under 'unspoken' rule, it doesn't make him any less off the hook should she decide to go through and have the child if she gets preggers bc the escort never signed a waiver or legally promised anything(I dont even know if you can do this)..
That might make her a sneaky, kniving bitch, but it still makes him the father and he will be on the hook for child support.

 

[genintoronto]

@Genintoronto "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?"

I'm not sure why you keep alluding that escorting is somehow excluded from this bc of an "unspoken understanding" or bc he's 'paying a premium'? There may be an understanding but that doesn't make it a guarantee bc if it doesn't hold up in a court of law, where it counts, does it really matter?

Your rational is that because a guy paid for sex he paid for her NOT to get pregnant? While that may be the technically true under 'unspoken' rule, it doesn't make him any less off the hook should she decide to go through and have the child if she gets preggers bc the escort never signed a waiver or legally promised anything(I dont even know if you can do this)..
That might make her a sneaky, kniving bitch, but it still makes him the father and he will be on the hook for child 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.

 

[themexi]

@Themexi: I was going to write you off, but you seem to be speaking more thoughtfully and making actually thought provoking points so I will offer you this:

I'm not just 'throwing' in ANY argument for the sake of arguing against your point. I don't need to. I stand behind what I say, so let's get that clear right off the bat...

..When I was refering to the 'best interests of the child' it was to make the case for a woman who decides to keep the child and whether or not the Father should financially support it. In this case, yes making the father pay for the child's provisions is in it's best sake as rather than your previous and still standing argument of "Well I didn't want the "thing" to begin with so I'm going to fuck off and "hide" and let the mother raise it on her own"......

...You do make a semi- case for adoption however you're still not off the hook legally. It was your further attempt of shirking responsibility under the guise of "Well it's not the best interest me for me have it-oh AND the child's- so wouldn't it be better if some other family took care of it"? This is proven by your tearing out of the gates with a "Fuck this shit, anti-man legal system, I'm not keeping this thing I didn't want, I'm running away" attitide from the get go...any many posts after. Adoption was just a secondary thought...

.. The case for whether or not you should be deemed responsible to pay for YOUR child is not based on you wanting to give it up for adoption and ESPECIALLY NOT BECAUSE IT "INCONVENIENCES YOU" and it never will be ...

..Adoption can be a wonderful option for children, and for parents who feel unfit to raise them but ultimately if that is not the route that is chosen(nobody can make this an opttion) you are still the biological father and are legally on the hook to pay for support...
....Having a child out of wedlock is just not a viable way to determine the parents are unfit.The legal system doesn't work like that, as there are millions of single mothers/fathers in this world who are raising children. Some are raising them great, others are shit parents. And guess what buddy, married couples aren't doing do great in the "raising kids" dept themselves either but they still have to take care of them. So while we can make assumptions and play to ideals as to 'WHO' would be the better parent, unless adoption is the chosen option, the courts view the biological parents(YOU) as primary guradians and the best ' fit' until further proven ... So guess what? You're STILL on the hook...

..What it comes down to is this: You knock any girl up, escort or not and she decides to keep it, you're on the hook plain and simple. Only the courts can determine if she's unfit to raise it through proof of neglect, not bc you don't want to be financially responsible and never bc it simply inconveniences you. Who the mother is and your complete unwillingless to raise this kid, make for a sad situation, but until the courts have proof of your kid being neglected, you are still the father and are responsible for it I'm afraid so you and 'your life' get put on hold for the next 18yrs-yep that's what happens when you become a father-even an unwilling one. The only way to guarantee this is to not have sex, you keep arguing against this, but I'm sorry, its still true as there is no such a thing as an 'insurance policy' for sex-whether you pay for it or not...

I understand your points & I respect your view...

But I disagree.

Being in a situaltion where you have to rely upon the courts to compell the father to pay is a LESSER circumstance than giving the child up to adoptive parents.

Keeping & trying raise a child she had with some random guy that would not support without a court coercing him when they can give them up for adoption is the POOR decision.

Being able to rely on the courts to abuse their powers of coersion to force a man to pay in instances like this is what allows them to consider putting their kid in such a poor position. I maintain that WITHOUT that lagal crutch... more often then not the woman would do whats REALLY BEST for the child & give them up... Not have them at all or even better... be more selective with the men they sleep with.

Aside from RAPE (which is about the most evil crime I can imagine)... Deadbeats & losers would have 3 options... Pay for it occasionally... Become upstanding men or get no play...

This type of crutch helps SOME but in general its lead to an increase in irresponsibility for Men AND women... A woman nowadays (the few scumbag ones anyways) dont have to give any though at ALL about the thugs they sleep with because the STATE will either make them pay OR do the paying...

I'm not sorry to say that if I found myself despite my best efforts in a situaton where a one night stand or SP got pregnant I'm GLAD I make it next to impossible & hopefully impossible to trace... because even if I tried to deal with it fiarly, once in the clutches of the legal system I can expect NO reason & NO mercy.... Just shut up & pay does NOT sit well with me.

"sucks to be a guy" "the law is the law" & whatever other slogans out there that re used are meaningless to me. The law is unjust. The law is wrong. So I WILL NOT suffer it's consequences if there s anything I can do to avoid them.

I will NOT participate in that rigged game. It is unfair... It is wrong. I would stand up & pay for a wife, a GF or a FWB... But NOT a 1 night stand or an SP. As long as I was able to void being named & dragged into court I would happily live my life anonymously, sad that a kid may be brought into this world & raised by a selfish fool but really... if my choices are submit %100 to rigged system or do Nothing? Nothing it is

 

[Malibook]

What it comes down to is this: You knock any girl up, escort or not and she decides to keep it, you're on the hook plain and simple.

True but there could be potentially relevant factors that may allow John some relief or recourse or make matters worse.

If the SP is reckless and takes no precautions and John throws caution to the wind and they agree to go BBFSTC, then for sure they are both equally responsible.

If John discreetly removes the condom and the SP had no backup protection, John should be on the hook for maximum support, damages, and criminally charged.

If the SP compromised a condom to try and get knocked up by John, John deserves a lot of sympathy and his support should be at the lower end of the range.
Plus he should have the right to sue for damages.

Does an agency have any obligation to make sure an employee has more protection than just a condom?
Does the SP?



But in a ruling issued this week, the magistrate said the circumstances of the conception made no difference to the child's entitlements under the Child Support Scheme.

The magistrate noted the door might be open for the dad to launch legal action against the owners of the brothel or escort service - or the mother individually - for damages.

 

[kono]

I think we should start another thread about SP’s who have daughters from clients who later on in life become SP’s. But here’s the twist….. Lets say the father (not knowing he’s the father) end up booking an appointment with her and they hit it off…. Now it becomes interesting, let’s say a couple years down the road she decides she wants to find her father. Somehow she manages to track him down through DNA because he was a blood donor. She contacts him and they arrange a meeting….. How would that meeting go and what do you do?

 

[my name Peggy]

@Genintoronto, yes they are two different 2, and they really seem to have gotten lost in translation throughout this whole post. I agree, Fuji's poll was a little skewed and vague. However,there are some people here who think that just bc what the escort did was unethical, this makes them off the hook legally. Some posters were using your sentiment about the 'unspoken rule" as further proof of why they 'shouldn't' be held accountable, so I felt the need to interject and explain that it really doesn't matter at the end of the day...

..@themexi...I don't think you can disagree with facts all you can do is hide from them lol...I am sorry you'd bail on your kid regardless of whatever 'efforts' you said you put in to prevent this from happening and this completely negates any point you previously made about looking out for its bests interests by suggesting adoption. You clearly dont give a shit about its best interests and are choosing to take out your contempt for the woman and the legal system on it by running away bc it was born under what you believe to be coercion, a 'rigged system' and less than ideal circumstances & were searching for any excuse to get out of 'dad duties'.
..Your defense of the child being born as the result of her poor choices is severely handicapped by your POORER decision to hide from your kid.
..What you consistently fail to realize is you already decided to 'particpate' in the 'game' when you fucked someone you didn't want a child with, this is also supported legally so again, you can't argue you can just hide...
..So while you have zero ounce of legal credibility and what I believe to be zero ethics, you are indeed more than welcome to keep running from the courts for as long as you can. You better have good endurance bc running for 18 yrs takes the life out of you....

 

[Malibook]

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

I don't recall anybody making such a claim.
Who are you talking about and which posts are you referencing?

 

[fuji]

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?

Gen, the problem is that the SP is not able to sign away the rights of the child. They're not hers to transact. They're the child's rights. I think the law and ethics coincide here--morally, ethically, and legally the mother cannot transact away her child's rights. No understanding, agreement, deal, contract, promise, or pledge between the mother and father can diminish the child's own rights.

Maybe the SP is at fault in some way for allowing the child to come to term, but that doesn't matter--once the child is born, the child is a human being, a person with rights. Absolutely one of those rights is to have the support of both parents.

I think an SP has a moral (though not a legal) duty to try her best not to get pregnant. Certainly she should be careful with condom use, and your suggestion to use multiple forms of birth control is reasonable--although there are risks in taking the pill or using an IUD that might in fact be worse risks to take than the risk of having a child (cancer, it seems to me, is worse than pregnancy).

However if she DOES get pregnant, and the child IS born, as you say, that's all irrelevant. What happens next is without regard to any contract that may have existed between the mother and father. The moral and legal obligation is between father and child, and between mother and child. Their deal with one another is irrelevant to their duty of care to the child.

 

[fuji]

I think we should start another thread about SP’s who have daughters from clients who later on in life become SP’s. But here’s the twist….. Lets say the father (not knowing he’s the father) end up booking an appointment with her and they hit it off…. Now it becomes interesting, let’s say a couple years down the road she decides she wants to find her father. Somehow she manages to track him down through DNA because he was a blood donor. She contacts him and they arrange a meeting….. How would that meeting go and what do you do?

The only reasonable thing to do in such a situation is to call Jerry Springer and have the reunion on national television.

 

[wet_suit_one]

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?

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.

 

[wet_suit_one]

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.

I think that this is where "ethical/moral" aspects runs square into the facts of the situation. Consider the ethical/moral responsibility of the child in this whole mess. The child has no responsiblity or duty to anyone. It did not ask to be born or brought into existence. All the moral/ethical duty and responsibilities lie on the TWO people who brought that child into existence. They both have obligations to the child. Despite strenous arguments to the contrary, I don't see how the duties to the child can ethically or morally be avoided.

That said, it doesn't matter. 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. Most humans aren't saints and can't be made into saints. That's the reality that we live in.

As for the law, there are no questions on the matter. Father, whomever he may be, pays. Once he decided to make the deposit in the woman his responsibility to the child was established. Whether he lives up to that obligation (the poll question) is a personal one. Whether or not the child will get what is ethically, morally and legally due to it is dependant on a variety of factors and one of those factors is the coercive power of the government and the law backing up put into effect by courts. Why is that done? Well, quite simply because some people don't think that moral and ethical guidelines don't apply to them for whatever reason and thus the law must be brought to bear to force them into doing their duty. That's why we have laws and courts.