I doubt it, because Sweden has single-payer health care and care would be paid for either way, other than nominal co-pays for doctor visits. And your monstrous tax bill, of course.

Swedish abortion law is that it’s on-demand up to 18 weeks. From 18 to 22 weeks you have to get permission from a national health board (death panel!); if there is a major health concern permission is generally granted, otherwise not. After 22 weeks it’s illegal.

Sweden IS pretty liberal as far as how late you can get an abortion. It’s 12 weeks in other Euro nations.

Sorry, Myca. It’s been a long time since the original post went up and I’ve been moderating the frequently psychotic comments that show up in this thread for years now.

Oh, totally not a snark. I was commenting on it because when I googled for the info for my first comment, I actually didn’t notice that I was quoting something Ampersand had already linked.

In any case, the statutory rape bit doesn’t surprise me (though it upsets me) but the second one I posted is really bad. Surprisingly bad. Way worse than I would have expected.

—Myca

which Amp actually linked in the original post

Sorry, Myca. It’s been a long time since the original post went up and I’ve been moderating the frequently psychotic comments that show up in this thread for years now.

Thanks for the information.

Another case reaching the same result on facts that are, quite frankly, bizarre is S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). In that case, the father testified that he went to a party at the mother’s house. He had been drinking for several hours before he arrived, and had in fact gotten sick on the way to her house. At the mother’s house, the father continued to drink, and the last think he remembered was getting sick again and his brother putting him in bed at the mother’s house. The next morning, the father awoke in that same bed with only his shirt on. The father did not remember having sex with the mother, and he did not knowingly and purposely have sex with her.

The father’s brother testified as to the same facts. A friend of both the mother testified as to the same facts, plus the fact that about two months after the party, the mother said she had sex with the father while he was “passed out” and that it saved her a trip to the sperm bank. Another friend testified that the mother had said she had sex with the father, “and he wasn’t even aware of it.”

A physician testified that it is possible for a man who is intoxicated to the point of losing consciousness may nevertheless have an erection and ejaculate; they are not conscious, voluntary activities.

The father argued that because he did not have sex voluntarily with the mother, he was not liable for child support. The court disposed of the argument, comparing it to the arguments made in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.: the wrongful conduct of the mother in causing conception did not obviate the father’s support obligation. The court also compared the father’s argument to the arguments put forth in the statutory rape cases, concluding that the “rape” of the father could not preclude a finding of liability for support.

The dissent would have held the father liable for child support, but would have deviated from the presumptive child support guidelines because “the mother’s sexual conduct was reprehensible and is a misdemeanor. Because of the mother’s inappropriate conduct, the trial court should have deviated from the guidelines.” 695 So. 2d at 1191.

The lesson one can take from Frisard is simple: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up when he voluntarily engages in a sexual act. The lesson one must take from S.F. v. T.M., however, is somewhat troubling: a man is strictly liable for where his sperm ends up even when he unknowingly and involuntarily engages in a sexual act. Instead of comparing the father’s predicament with the mother’s predicament in Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), where a mother was relieved of her child support obligation because she was raped, the court imposed a child support obligation because of the fact of paternity. This can only be termed a strict liability theory of sperm.

Emphasis mine.

—Myca

I certainly think it’s appalling that men have been made responsible for child support payments to women who raped them. Do we have evidence of this happening? Apart from drive-by commenters’ assertions, I mean?

From here:

II. “YES, YOU WERE UNDERAGE. NOW PAY YOUR CHILD SUPPORT.”

What if, however, the man is legally incapable of “intending” to have sexual intercourse because he is underage? Is he still liable for child support? Again, the answer is yes.

In every case that has addressed the issue, the court has held that a man who was underage at the time of the conception of the child, and was therefore a victim of statutory rape, is nonetheless liable for child support. Typical of the reasoning in these cases is San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., 50 Cal. App. 4th 842, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996). In that case, the court stated:

One who is injured as a result of a criminal act in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. It does not necessarily follow that he is a victim of sexual abuse.

The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two week period.

50 Cal. App. 4th at 845, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 844. Similarly, in State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 252 Kan. 646, 847 P.2d 1273, 1279 (1993), the court concluded:

This State’s interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrieds the State’s competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent…. This minor child, the only truly innocent party, is entitled to support from both her parents regardless of their ages.

Accord Schierenbeck v. Minor, 367 P.2d 333 (Colo. 1961); Department of Revenue ex rel. Bennett v. Miller, 688 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); In re Paternity of J.S., 193 Ill. App. 3d 563, 550 N.E.2d 257 (1990); Rush v. Hatfield, 929 S.W.2d 200 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 387 Mass. 678, 442 N.E.2d 1155 (1982); Jevning v. Chicos, 499 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 1993); Mercer County v. Alf M., 155 Misc. 2d 703, 589 N.Y.S.2d 288 (Fam. Ct. 1992); In re Paternity of J.L.H., 149 Wis. 2d 349, 441 N.W.2d 273 (1989). Cf. Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031), (mother of children did not have to pay child support for children conceived as a result of the rape/incest of her brother; intercourse was involuntary and nonconsensual).

The message from these cases is equally clear: If a man intends to have sexual intercourse with a woman and a baby results, the man is liable for child support. The sexual intercourse in these cases is “factually voluntary” and thus intentional, even if it is nonconsensual in the criminal sense.

Aaaaand, see, this is why our age of consent laws are bullshit. But I digress.

—Myca

Tentatively, I’d like to see something like that in place where men (or women? haven’t thought that out) could terminate their parental rights in exchange for having the government pick up the child support obligation..

*

I certainly think it’s appalling that men have been made responsible for child support payments to women who raped them. Do we have evidence of this happening? Apart from drive-by commenters’ assertions, I mean?

To recycle something I wrote earlier this thread:

I wouldn’t say that about women because men and women don’t have the same reproductive systems; women get pregnant and can therefore choose to have an abortion. Men don’t and therefore don’t have that choice.

If I say that short people will have to live with the fact that tall people have a higher reach, does that mean I’m advocating prejudice against short people?

Women can get pregnant. That gives women the ability to have abortions (and it gives women many, many severe disadvantages that MRAs ignore). Both men and women have the right to control their reproductive systems to reduce the risk of parenthood, but their exact options differ because their reproductive systems differ.

To quote one judge’s ruling:

While it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women … is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature.

Ince v. Bates, 558 P.2d 1253, 1254 (Or. App. 1977).

If a man doesn’t want to “get trapped” into paying child support, he should keep his dick in his pants or put a rubber on it — Actually, make that two rubbers. Better yet, get a vasectomy.
Yeah for as hip as and righteous as that sounds I wonder if you would tell a woman with an unexpected child that she should have kept it out of her pants.

I think that one thing that would help with this would be the development of more birth control options for men. Hell if men supposedly want power then it makes sense to have power to product children only when they are ready, willing, and able.

The ridiculousnes sof child support laws are so outrageous that men and young boys who were RAPED (yes RAPED) have been forced to pay child support to their rapists as well. Even when the man/boy was drugged, even when he was disabled- courts victim-blame male rape victims. If a man raped a teenaged girl, took the child and forced her to pay child support we’d all raise hell. Fluke or not NONE of us would say “oh its in the best interest of the child to live with the rapist and have teh rape vicitm pay child support.”

If a man doesn’t want to “get trapped” into paying child support, he should keep his dick in his pants or put a rubber on it — Actually, make that two rubbers. Better yet, get a vasectomy.

This blog is a classic example of boys who refuse to grow up, aka Narcissim.

Call me crazy, but i think there is a big distinction between an ineffective birth control pill and a girl forgetting to take them. I don’t think forgetting should happen, and IF it does, then there’s no way the guy can complain, he was supposed to be on top of it too.

That was what I did and i never worried once about getting a girl pregnant. Of course, birth control between a man and woman is very intimate situation, and i’d be interested to hear how guys and girls handle this, and any comments on my suggestion

You couldn’t be any more wrong.

-Dick

“I only meant the tale as an example of the power shift in this kind of relationship. If the male in question is not anxious to be caught in this particular dilemma, whatever the rest of his character may be like, he would be well advised not to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse. ”

The “power-shift” only exists when he decides not to be a father and live up to his responsibilities”. GET IT?

This isn’t a “rule”, it’s a law. Laws are pretty specific about what they apply to; if a law says “employees of a business with more than 50 people have rights A, B, and C,” then the law doesn’t apply to you if you work for a tiny cafe that employs 10 people. Your employer, if it is a partnership, may argue that they do not meet the definition of “employer” under the law.

The point you’d rather avoid is that it’s not the case that all gender discrimination in all employment everywhere vanished in 1964.

Uh, no, that’s not at all a point I’m trying to avoid. I just don’t expect the world to improve overnight, and I don’t consider a failure of things to change instantly to be proof of an overall failure. A substantial amount of discrimination was made illegal in 1964, and over the years the loopholes have been closed, with fewer remaining open year over year. We should, of course, continue to solve problems as they are identified.

I herd cats for a living, I’ve learned to be patient. Otherwise I’d go crazy …

I’m sorry to disappoint you by refusing to disagree with you on everything.

Oh, damn. Now you’re being all reasonable and stuff.

This isn’t a “rule”, it’s a law. Laws are pretty specific about what they apply to; if a law says “employees of a business with more than 50 people have rights A, B, and C,” then the law doesn’t apply to you if you work for a tiny cafe that employs 10 people. Your employer, if it is a partnership, may argue that they do not meet the definition of “employer” under the law.

The point you’d rather avoid is that it’s not the case that all gender discrimination in all employment everywhere vanished in 1964.

And I’ll note that you ignored the links showing changes in men’s attitudes about fatherhood that I provided in #157 upthread. :p

I’m sorry to disappoint you by refusing to disagree with you on everything.

That’s only true for very large values of 20.

The Civil Rights Act was not, at that time, thought to apply to businesses that were partnerships, like law firms. And enforcement of what laws existed was not exactly as vigorous as today.

Exceptions don’t prove rules. I know English speakers have a hard time translating “prufung” to mean anything other than “prove” (it means “test” …), but the existence of someone, somewhere, who wasn’t protected, somehow, by Title VII doesn’t invalidate the overall factoid that Title VII made sex discrimination in employment illegal in 1964 (and wage discrimination became illegal in 1963, which is an even larger value of 20 …)

And I’ll note that you ignored the links showing changes in men’s attitudes about fatherhood that I provided in #157 upthread. :p

Isn’t it easier just to teach kids “Stick to homosex, you’ll never have to worry about a little surprise”? :P

Hey, I want grandchildren. I expect tiny munchkin to be out producing grandchildren at every possible turn, all of which will then be spoiled as rotten as I can possibly manage.

How about teaching him to be a kind and caring human being so if he does end up in this situation, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, he’ll chose to become an actual father instead of a resentful, irresponsible, schmuck living in fear of ending up under a bridge. If you grew up with a good father, I’m sure you are greatful that he decided not to run for the hills (or the troll-bridge).

Pat, you can’t know this, but the son in question is seriously mentally ill. Of course if possible it’s always better to raise both our sons and our daughters to be loving and responsible people. In this case it wasn’t possible to have much impact on his behavior, much of which is dictated by illness.

I only meant the tale as an example of the power shift in this kind of relationship. If the male in question is not anxious to be caught in this particular dilemma, whatever the rest of his character may be like, he would be well advised not to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse.

Some of these men have the nerve to act surprised when intercourse results in pregnancy. (No!) Thus the “entrapped” in the title of this thread. Like she raped him or something. Even if - or especially if - the male in question is mentally ill or just a schmuck, he needs to exercise some rudimentary alertness, or at least not claim later that, well, it was all a trap of some kind.

The Civil Rights Act was not, at that time, thought to apply to businesses that were partnerships, like law firms. And enforcement of what laws existed was not exactly as vigorous as today.

Isn’t it easier just to teach kids “Stick to homosex, you’ll never have to worry about a little surprise”? :P