• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A woman can cheat on you, tell you a child is yours when it's not and then keep you on the hook for 18 years even after you prove it's not your child.

But you do have to have sex with her for her to claim it is yours.

Her: honey, we're pregnant! You're going to be a father!

Him: How? We haven't had sex yet!

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

So a man shouldn't have sex if he doesn't want to risk being victimized for 18 years?
 
Maybe rare that it ends up in court, but it is certainly not a rare scenario and I’d bet a lot of cases are not known about at least by the poor sucker
Its actually pretty rare
 
So a man shouldn't have sex if he doesn't want to risk being victimized for 18 years?
Not what I said. You made the statement that a man (A) doesn't have to have sex with a woman for another man (B) to impregnate her. A true enough statement. But how is the woman supposed to accuse man A of being the father, when man A never had sex with her?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Not what I said. You made the statement that a man (A) doesn't have to have sex with a woman for another man (B) to impregnate her. A true enough statement. But how is the woman supposed to accuse man A of being the father, when man A never had sex with her?

Your statement is true but it shouldn't be relevant. If it's relevant then a man does indeed need to abstain from sex to avoid the possibility of 18 years on the hook for a child he was deceived into believing is his.
 
Your statement is true but it shouldn't be relevant. If it's relevant then a man does indeed need to abstain from sex to avoid the possibility of 18 years on the hook for a child he was deceived into believing is his.
Your entire one post runs counter to your point of this thread. You said:

I think you're confused. You don't need to have sex with a woman for her to be impregnated by another man.

Which, in the context of the post that one responded to, implied that the man might still be declared the legal father.

I get the point that no matter what, a man having sex with a woman, always risks (however improbable) that she is having sex with another man who could impregnate her. But the above quoted post runs counter to the point you're trying to make.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
In most cases, no. But I think it should be looked at on a case by case basis, what were the circumstances?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
I believe that is what family court judges do. They do have some discretion.

Again...most of the judges are still men, so when men complain about this, I like them to keep that in mind...women are not driving the results here.
 
So a man shouldn't have sex if he doesn't want to risk being victimized for 18 years?
If they're not married, and she's preg, he can...and would be smart to...request a DNA test. They can wait to get married, cant they? He should worry if she tries to get him hitched sooner. I think the whole big wedding thing is a waste of $$, so not very sympathetic to women who put their whole lives on hold to plan them. But men need to look out for their best interests too. It's like asking for a pre-nup...uncomfortable but smart (not that everyone needs that).
 
No. The real father can pay for his kid.

Why should he get stuck paying for a kid that he did not want, had no say in not having and was denied the right to see and that he has no bond with?
 
Why should he get stuck paying for a kid that he did not want, had no say in not having and was denied the right to see and that he has no bond with?

Because he's the biological father and he should bare the responsibility for his biological child over some poor SOB that was cheated on and lied to.
 
Because he's the biological father and he should bare the responsibility for his biological child over some poor SOB that was cheated on and lied to.

He was lied to and probably cheated on as well...
 
Why should he get stuck paying for a kid that he did not want, had no say in not having and was denied the right to see and that he has no bond with?
You dont know any of that stuff happened. Even if it did....its his kid
 
I am actually shocked at the argument you are trying to make.

I am shocked to hear grown men saying that they not only want to emotionally abandon a child that they are raising but to then want to financially **** over the kid. It is disgusting and I keep hoping that some of the men making that argument will man up and stop being assholes.
 
This is too wrong. This included, a lot of things in the society we live in anger me. Lucky for me, I don't plan to have kids.
 
Lucky for me, I don't plan to have kids.
Plans don't always go according to plan. Only way to guarantee such is to either no have sex with any woman, limit sex to women with no uterus, or get your own testicles removed. Everything else runs at least some risk.
 
Back
Top Bottom