Advertisements

Financial abortion and equality for men under the law


In the United States constitution, the 14th amendment is an equal protection clause which states that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws“.

If the above is true, than every person is entitled to the same treatment and protection that the law provides.  There shall be no discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, etc.  But if that is the case, why are men and women treated differently when it comes to choosing whether a life is allowed to continue, or whether abortion is a choice?  Why are women given the sole decision making without contribution from, or participation from the men who had equal parts to play in creating them?

We have all heard of the precedent-setting case Roe vs. Wade, in which case determined the legality of abortion and on a woman’s right to choose.  Since that case in the 70’s, it  has been held in many places that a woman has a right to choose whether she will carry a pregnancy to term.  If a woman feels that the burden is too great, she can choose to end her pregnancy.  If she feels that the pregnancy and resulting baby would cause her financial hardship, she can choose to end her responsibility and have an abortion.  If she wakes up some random Tuesday, and just decides she isn’t ready for the commitment that parenting entails, she can choose to abort, and she can do so without the knowledge, permission, or say of the man who fathered the child.  Let’s face it, men don’t really have much say in whether a woman chooses to keep a baby or abort a pregnancy once the knowledge of the pregnancy is out in the open.  A man is gagged and barred from any decision making, and his future rests entirely in the decision that is made unilaterally, often without his consent.

Let’s look at it this way:  A woman has a relationship with a man who is financially less advantaged than she is.  She earns, let’s say, double his income.  Together, they conceive a child, and she has to decide whether the pregnancy will continue.  On her mind is the financial hardship that having this child will cause.  She also knows, that since she and the father are not married or co-habitating, and that the likelihood that their relationship will not end well is high.  If she has the child, he will be entitled to shared custody of the child, and if he so chooses, their respective incomes will be taken into account in order to determine child support amounts.  Knowing that she makes more money than he, having this child means that she will likely be paying him child support for a child that she will be pregnant with, birth and co-raise, but as a single parent.  All extraneous expenses like daycare and lessons, and classes will be split according to their proportionate incomes, which means that she will be paying a higher share of those expenses than he will.  She gives it a lot of thought, and in the end, decides that the burden is too high, and she opts to abort the pregnancy.  She has the right to do that, and does not even need, nor seek the father’s opinion on the matter.  Perhaps he has always wanted children.  Perhaps he would be a fantastic father.  It doesn’t matter.  She doesn’t want the child, she doesn’t want the financial hardship, so she has an escape clause.  Men just don’t have one, so where is this “equal protection under the law” for men?

In 2004, a man by the name of Dubay became involved in a romantic relationship with a woman who claimed she was unable to have children.  He was pleased, as he did not wish to have children, and had made this clear to the woman throughout their relationship.  One day, she turns up pregnant, decides unilaterally that she wishes to have the baby, and demands child support from a man who never wanted to have a child in the first place.  Her rights outweighed his on an issue that they both had equal participation in.  Dubay went to court to argue that Michigan laws favoured women as women are not required to pay child support for children that they do not wish to parent, but men do not have that same option.  The law ruled that the needs of the child to receive contributions from both parents outweighed their individual rights.  Why doesn’t that work in reverse?  If the needs of the child to receive contributions from BOTH parents outweighs individual rights, why doesn’t it outweigh when the woman doesn’t want to pay?  She can decide to not parent the child and be accountable for nothing.  Men simply don’t have that option.  Dubay was encourageed to appeal his case to the supreme court, but decided against it.  He is now paying support for a child he was quite clear that he did not want to have.

Does this seem fair in the eyes of the law?  In my mind, it does not, especially as the wife of a man whose DNA was used as ammunition against him, held hostage in an attempt to have him leave his family, and then again as ammunition when she unilaterally decided to keep a child she never wanted for the purpose of punishing us, using her child as a pawn in her wicked game.

The term “financial abortion” has been used to describe what should be a man’s right to choose when he wants to become a father and bear the financial responsibility for having children.  After all, women can leave their infant children on the doorstep of a church, no questions asked, and simply walk away.  Why can’t men exact these same rights when they feel that a child would be a burden on them, financial or otherwise?  Why aren’t men given a choice?

I understand that many laws relating to child support favour the mothers because often it is us who bear the children, whose bodies are sacrificed for their birth and upon whom much of the parenting decisions lie.  I understand placing the needs of a child above those of the parents, and allowing a child’s rights to life, food and shelter superseding those of the parents who created it.  After all, even when children are wanted and birthed in a family, most parents would agree that they too place the needs and wants of their children first.  What I don’t agree with, however, is the biased laws which allow women to have rights that men just don’t have.  The child’s rights supersede those of the father, but not those of the mother?

Brown University Professor Frances Goldscheider proposed the idea of “financial abortion”.  “If it were law, a financial abortion would allow a man — one who has specifically said to his partner before intercourse that he doesn’t want to be a father — to void all monetary responsibility for any pregnancy. Without question, the woman could carry the child to term, but she and the law could then never come looking for the dad for child support” (http://www.theroot.com/views/what-if-i-dont-want-be-daddy).

I personally like this idea.  I know this professor has taken a lot of slack, but let’s look at it this way:  Those against the idea would do so in favour of protecting the child and their right to financial means in order to be provided for and given a comfortable existence, hopefully outside of poverty. The laws aren’t what they are to allow children more access to their dads, just his money.  But since we want children to be paid for, have their needs met, and prevent deadbeat dads and the needs for government to pick up the cheque, this is seen as a way to lessen the burden on governments to carry the lives of those whose dads didn’t step up.  So good, decent, honest men are now paying the price for the deadbeats –  a very high price.  But what if this was a law?  If a woman had to include a man in her choice, and if a man could forfeit his involvement in parenting and financial duty?  Would this increase costs to the government?   Perhaps in the form of single parent-poverty stricken moms who can’t afford to feed and raise her kids, but then again maybe she shouldn’t have HAD the child in the first place if she couldn’t afford it…that is a whole other post, however.  But, what if this really was law….wouldn’t it cut down on the number of babymama whores like the one my husband bedded down with, if she knew that having the child would bring her absolutely NO reward whatsoever?  Wouldn’t it cut down on the number of women who think receiving child support is a career, and who hunt high-income earning men to father their children so that they can rake in support? Wouldn’t it cut down on the number of unplanned pregnancies if women knew that there was no “fallback” option, and that she was SOLELY responsible for the financial duties for her child if she decides SOLELY to continue her pregnancy?  I would think less women would be as careless with their birth control, and more women would opt to abort or adopt before incurring the kinds of financial setbacks they place on men without even batting an eye.

Laws need to be fair. They need to be fair to ALL involved, and the law shows that often, men are not even considered when it comes to a woman’s right to an abortion.  Why should men pay the price for a child he never wanted, simply because a woman wants to be a mother?  If a woman has the ultimate decision making right, then she should make those decisions prepared to absorb ALL consequences of her choice.  After all, what do we as a society teach our children about taking responsibility and decision making?  That you can make a choice that burdens SOMEONE ELSE without even asking their choice?  Since when is causing harm to another by one’s own single-handed decision making considered good law?  In any other arena, with different terms, we would call that abuse.

For more reading on this subject:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kirsten-west-savali/fathers-financial-abortion_b_1015286.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1173414,00.html

http://lorettakemsley.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Financial-Abortion-for-Men-Viable-or-Legal

http://prospect.org/article/why-financial-abortion-bad-idea

All of my comments above, written based on my personal experience of having my family’s resources, my children’s resources, and my hard-earned resources compromised by a whore who unilaterally decided, for the purpose of punishing my husband and I, to have a child in order to cost us support money.  A woman whose sole interest in her child is to earn more because of it, and who actively thirsts through ongoing communication from lawyers for our tax returns so that she can determine how much more she is making this year, how much more she will take from my kids who had no say whatsoever in the matter and whose lives are forever changed because of her irresponsibility in keeping a child she was never prepared to financially support.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Better Off says:

    I understand your point of view…but in the end, and I know you don’t want to hear this. It is the well being of the child that is at the center of everything. The fact that these women can go to school, go to the gym, etc, all on their child support is sickening to me. However, there does not seem to be a way to pay for shelter and food for the child, and not pay for these sluts. It would be nice if the courts would look at the standard of living for these whores before the child was conceived and base the support on that. But, in the end, it was a man’s decision to take the risk of unprotected sex. I feel your pain.You do make a compelling argument. Have you considered law school? I would love to hear you argue this in the Supreme Court. We women have fought for years for the choice of my body, my choice. Why shouldn’t men have equal say? Why shouldn’t a man that wants a child be able to say ,”No abortion”. Sounds a little unequal to me.

    • What if the woman claimed to be on the pill and got pregnant on purpose? Is that him making the decision to have unprotected sex? Didn’t she do the same? In fact men rely on women telling the truth about their birth control….

      • Better Off says:

        A man that is willing to have sex without a condom really needs to consider the ramifications of his actions, but from what i have read on this blog, in the end it is his wife and kids that suffer. The child of the unholy union suffers and the only ones that seem to prosper are the sluts that talked them into the sex to begin with. It all rests on the mans shoulders to cpnsider the consequences of his behavior.

  2. dotcablogger says:

    I’m going to weigh in here:

    – Yes for a specific case of a woman choosing to have a baby from sex with a MARRIED man.
    – But really and truly no to any blanket law that allows any man to exercise “financial abortion”.

    For instance, I, you, or any of us members here could have been harmed by such a blanket law if it were already in practice.

    For instance what would convince our good husbands to be financially committed to us and the kids? Their love for us and the kids? That sounds naive. Or would it be their personal morals? Again that sounds naive or something of an ivory tower hope. The law is what most people abide by and is what we culturally expect. We all know that no law, or a vacuum where an “honour system” applies, always results in greed, exploitation, and unfair competition. A favourite quote of mine comes from The Princess Bride, where Wesley says to Buttercup, “Life is pain. If anyone tells you otherwise, then they’re selling you something.” But instead of “pain” just fill that in with “rules”. Life simply needs rules, or we’ll be eating each other.

    But my point is that the law you’re asking for, which is Financial Abortion, can be practiced. But ONLY for married men towards a mistress. If that is not clarified, I can guarantee that there will be several married men, boyfriends exercising that right towards their WIVES and GIRLFRIENDS.

    So “financial abortion” should not be a blanket law, but a law that applies to the one very specific situation of what you and the members here have suffered, which is a silly bimbo knowingly choosing to have a baby from her sex with a MARRIED man.

    🙂

    • anonymous3631 says:

      Dear Doctablogger
      Its like you have taken away my lines. I think the same as you! Good to know someone is there who thinks the same as I do.

      I am strongly against other woman being allowed to keep the child. It is not good for the child nor the wife and her family. These women not only spoil their own child’s future but also intentionally create problems in wife and her already broken marriage.
      These women spend the CS on their makeup and die and ask the daycare to call the husband to pay the bill.
      They say they want visitation because it would hurt the child .If they were so much worried of child getting hurt, they would have chosen a worthy father.
      They say they want high CS payments so that child can enjoy basic facilities Ask them this:If they do not have even basic facilities, why did they bring the child onto this world at all?
      They say they shouldn’t be blamed as it was the husband who had taken the vow. Then why do people criticize men who don’t want to be in th extr marital child’s life and remain commited to a family he has vowed off? Why do people call wife the selfish while she is trying to protect her children.YES the man is to be blames more but these women don’t share any less blame.
      Looks lke they only want authority; not responsibility.

      WHEN A WOMAN DECIDES TO RAISE A CHILD OF MARRIED MAN, IT IS SHE WHO IS SPOILING THE KIDS FUTURE AND NOT THE SPOUSE.

      But no, court puts all the burden on the married man, destroying his existing family in the process.

      Women like Reille Hunter, who cheated with such famous married man should be punished not be rewarded 18000$ on the name of baby. Such baby should either be aborted(if possible) or given up for adoption where they will be raised by people better than a WHORE. I know abortion may sound harsh, but IT IS BEST FOR THE BABY as otherwise he will be living a miserable life, with so many questions regarding his own identity and a selfish mother who used him as fishing rod to catsh and keep a man.

      As for unmarried man, they shouldn’t be allowed financial abortion. BUT the CS payments should be made lineant. AND they should be lessened when he remarries and has other children and SHOULD BE ENDED when the mother remarries quite a well off man. I see men who do not have money left for rent after CS payment. They shoudn’t suffer like this and nor should women be allowed to draw funds like this.

      HER BODY, HER CHOICE SO WHY IS SHE PUTTING HER RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSEQUENCE OF HER CHOICE ON SOMEONE ELSE. She has equal responsibility of having protected sex and has better contraceptive options than men do.I personally think the stoning punishment should be brought again however not stoning to death but definetely punishing BOTH HUSBAND WHO HAS AN AFFAIR AND THE WHORE GIRLFRIEND.
      Bringing another life in this world is A BIG decision and should think 1000000 times before doing so.

      No teenager should be allowed to become parent. It is not good for both parents and child.
      Minimum income level should be set for anyone who wants to give birth whether they are married couples or single. WE SHOULD GIVE BIRTH ONLY WHEN WE CAN AFFORD IT. applies to all especially those who are sitting with 3 children with less income.
      This will surely reduce poverty.

      WE ALL SHOULD PROTEST AND ENABLE THE FINANCIAL ABORTION AND TEACH A LESSON TO THESE WHORES MISTRESS AND OTHER WOMAN WHO HAS GAINED UNNECESSARY POWER FROM SOME TIME.

      Gone is the past and time when women use to be so innocent. They just want to drain pockets and get someone to pay their bills in name of baby and THEN CLAIM THEY ARE INDEPENDENT.

      • You are horrible. You are seriously advocating killing a fellow living human being because both mommy AND daddy are whores? We now kill kids for the crimes of their parents? WOW. And adoption is no joke–children long for their biological parents. It is natural. In some instances where the mother CANNOT or will not take care of the child then adoption may be the best option but to separate a child from his/her biological mother because daddy was a pervert who couldn’t keep his fly closed and cheated on his wife…wow. Just…stop. STOP.

  3. dotcablogger says:

    Oh my comment was posted twice. Sorry for the duplication :).

  4. If I read this correctly, I think this concept could work as long as the ‘financial abortion’ were timed much like a fetal abortion – before it’s too late. Before the financial burden begins. Once the child is born, however, there is no going back; once the child is born, no ‘financial abortion’ should be possible.

    I think a lot of men out there would support this way of thinking, especially if they make it crystal clear they do not want to be a father. Let’s face it – condoms break and are not 100% effective. Even if one was used, there is no guarantee a child would not be concieved.

    This is an interesting concept, and although I agree with many of your points, we all learned a long time ago if a man lies with a woman, there is a possibility of concieving a child. Ultimately, it is the man’s choice to have sex, therefore agreeing to the consequences of the act.

  5. Rescuing:
    I was trying to find a way to contact you…my post is waiting your approval (Silvia A)
    I was on my WordPress site (Letters to a Mistress)…well I thought I was , so when I hot send to you my name came up. Is there any way you can delete my name??
    Do you know is in any way my name could be ‘googled’ and that post come up? I would prefer it does not (more for the STD thing….you help would be greatly appreciated!

  6. First, I love your blog and thank you for sharing. As a women whose husband just recently had an affair, I have turned to your blog for hope, support and humor.

    With that said, the child did not choose to have a father who had an affair, as a married man, with its mother. Your husband is as much to blame as the WHORE for the conception of this child. Even though I understand your bitterness towards this WHORE and her overbearing need to take money from your family, your husband is still partly to blame; you, him and your chidlren are still paying the price for his affair.

    This poor child does not know his father and has a mother who is labeled as whore in society. If I feel sympathy for anyone, it is this child. As least you still have your husbands love (and hopefully, commitment) and your children have their father. You have your health and stronger marriage becasue of this whole situation. All she has is money and loneliness – she knows she will never have your husbands heart the way you do. At the end of the day, this child support is a constant reminder to you and your husband of HIS wrong doing but money comes and goes – love, trust, and commitment doesn’t.

    • Amber, I completely agree with you that the true victim in this situation is the child. As I have expressed previously on the blog, I wish this child was not born to this mother. To be born of an affair, and to also be born to a mother with borderline personality disorder, this child is fucked for life.

      And while I completely agree, and do not excuse my husband, nor hold him free of blame, my post wasn’t about who is responsible for the inception of the child. Yes, they both are equally guilty of their actions, and they both equally conceited child together. My point was simply that what’s conception has occurred, the playing field is no longer level. Women have the opportunity to abort a child if they are not ready to shoulder the burden of parenting, and the financial consequences. The woman and her baby on the doorstep, no questions asked. What woman, equally responsible child, ultimate ability to walk away, and never have any responsibility toward the child whatsoever. Society will never hold her accountable. Man, the other hand are not given a choice. They were equally involved in the conception, that’s with a level playing field ends. From that point on, his fate is determined by a woman’s lust and greed.

      • dotcablogger says:

        Perhaps the women in question should have her income audited more. If or when she makes more money, then her child support payments are adjusted (or terminated). But this auditing is already done, right?

        Well, your theory of financial abortion would be supported by MANY men. But again it wouldn’t be a pragmatic good for women and children throughout our society. Because I might as well be a cynic here about men “stepping up” when a child is born, and believe that many men would be scrooges and not pay for their conceived kids. I’m not crazy in saying this.

        I have to really bring up history here and say men have — whenever not required by law — not paid a cent, a nickle nor a dime for their forsaken child. This happened when they did exactly what your husband had done: Bore a child by a mistress, or illegitimately.

        Now your husband is a good guy and you two have struggled through and resolved your issues. What I saying here is that if all men in our society had this civil right of financial abortion, we women and children would again experience “illegitimacy” and no financial maintenance because illegitimate children would again not have the law to get them child support payments.

        Now I only bring up illegitimacy because it happened before as a class and category. It will socially be done again when men would again have the right to support their “illegitimate” children they conceived through their marriage, and forsake their “illegitimate” children they conceived through their use of either paid whores, or mistresses (skanks).

        I also did earlier field the idea that perhaps a married man could exercise financial abortion. But as I think about it, I realize that this would mean classing children as “illegitimate” when conceived by his philandering. And we really can’t go back to having a 2nd class of children.

        Well this is what I’ve been wondering about.

      • I should reiterate that this is not “my” theory. It is a theory proposed by a sociologist at brown university.

        The woman’s income is taken into consideration, as is the man’s. They would each, depending on the balance of time spent with the child, pay to each other a proportionate amount. If equal earners, he pays her, let’s say $1500 a month and she pays him $1500 a month netting zero. But if a man makes more, she might owe him $1500, but he owes her $2000 so they call it $500 from him and nothing from her. In our case, the whore was purposefully unemployed, earning nothing, so proportionately my husband was earning much much more and so she paid him nothing and he pays her everything. He also never sees the child which means he offsets her parenting burden with money.

        There is no system in place to track how a mother spends the money. When we asked why, we were told: “if a man trusts a woman enough to grant her sole custody and decision making, then he trusts that she is making the decisions in the best interest of the child where money allocation is concerned”. My husband doesn’t trust
        The whore one iota. He has no contact with the child in order to avoid the mentally ill maniac. As a result, he has no choice but to “assume” she spends for the child, but we all know that isn’t true, and it has NOTHING to do with trusting her. She’s already proven she can’t be trusted.

      • dotcablogger says:

        I earlier made a typo right here:

        >>Now I only bring up illegitimacy because it happened before as a class and category. It will >>socially be done again when men would again have the right to support their Legitimate children >>they conceived through their marriage, and forsake their “illegitimate” children they conceived >>through their use of either paid whores, or mistresses (skanks).

        But, anyway, I’m thinking now that if no money should go to the Other Woman, then the child will have to be separated from her? But we all know that the kid must have a legal parent. We and our governments don’t want to have state children (forever an orphan paid for by the state).

        So again, well, the money for the child will still go to the ex-mistress because she is the legal guardian. What else can be done? The kid is unfortunately not an adult to be in charge of the bank accounts.

        But I have heard of Trustees. And there is a Public Trustee. Perhaps in the future (or even in some places right now) a child could have a bank account that is a Trust where the child support is paid into, and it’s the one account that’s only for expenditures for the kid’s child-specific needs. This will disallow hair cuts, purchasing of clothing for the mom, etc., because it will easily show up as purchases for an adult and not for the kid’s needs. Also no transfers into another bank account would be allowed (such as the mom trying to transfer out money into her personal account).

      • dotcablogger says:

        That’s true:

        …There is no system in place to track how a mother spends the money. When we asked why, we were told: “if a man trusts a woman enough to grant her sole custody and decision making, then he trusts that she is making the decisions in the best interest of the child where money allocation is concerned”.

        So, the real leverage is for the man to actually get shared custody. I guess that’s the one and only way to go to get control of how the child support is spent. Ah well.

        And you two decided that your husband would not have shared custody? (Sorry, I’m not sure, which is why I asked).

      • Having shared custody would accomplish nothing in terms of knowing how she spends the money. It would just mean that my husband pays less because he would be contributing to the parenting, but how she spends his support would still be unknown…he’d just be paying less of it.

        No, he does not have custody in any way. He has never seen the child. To see the child would mean to give the mistress what she wanted – an avenue into our lives, a front row seat to our existence and a place in our system. She is fucking crazy and there is no way he would expose our kids to that madness. He also doesn’t want me hurt any further. The child receives a large amount of money to buy the best clothes, ample food and a comfortable home with someone who “cares” for her. That money isn’t being used for the child, but we can’t control how the whore spends and how often she gets her hair done. We do know that she buys clothes and toys second-hand when she has more than enough. Guess mama wanted a new handbag.

  7. You make a valid point. Yes in theory it makes perfect sense for equal laws, but it will absolutely increase govermently funded children, and men would be using this law to get out of their responsibility. If this law would cause women to think twice before bedding another woman’s husband, then wouldn’t the current law prevent our husbands from having affairs and unprotected sex as well? But as you and I both know, the law didn’t stop them.

    When people are engaging in sexual affairs, logic and laws are not what they are thinking of. If they had their logical caps on they wouldn’t be involved at all. The sheer destruction of their impending behavior would flood their brains and over power their sexual desires. And as a betrayed spouse who now has a “step son” from my husbands selfish behavior, I don’t think any law would have changed his or her behavior.

    I do like your point even if it is idealistic and under the assumption that somehow there was or is any real brain power functioning during the affair or prospective affair. Simply “discussing” the child issue and assuming that there is this trust bond between two lying cheating people is not realistic.

  8. Personally, I do not have one iota of sympathy for these women. When you do something that is WRONG, you shouldn’t bitch and balk when you experience consequences. I can’t go out and rob a bank and then be enraged because I thought I’d get off scot free or with community service instead of being sent to jail for years. I chose a wrong action and the consequences would be mine to live with. I DO think that any child support money should require some accountability, ie: receipts to show where the money is going. That it IS in fact going to support the child, who is the biggest victim, along with the legitimate children of the marriage.
    If a woman conceives a child, she has MANY options available to her. If she continues the pregnancy, and the father doesn’t want to involved he shouldn’t be forced to do so. She is free to place the child for adoption if she feels that she cannot financially support a child. Responsibility and accountability for her actions would probably make most women think twice about forcing someone into parenthood.

    • Well said.

    • great posts ladies. thanks, I am so passioniant about this subject, has anyone ever thought of how to start fighting for it for real within our states? where do you start.

      • There is a lawyer in my city to actually got me thinking on this topic originally. I had been googling about the ice fairness towards men with respect to child support and his website came up. He advocates on behalf of men and was involved in Something which was supposed to make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would be interested to simply pick his brain, and find out exactly that. It is so grossly unfair, especially here in Canada where our child support payments are not. In Australia, for example, their child support payments are based on the child needs, not the income of the parents, it is capped Beyond a certain amount. In addition, child-support there is only payable in till the age of 18, when a child becomes a legal adult. Here, in Canada, we are required to pay for a child’s education through their first undergraduate degree, even though they may have their own job, be supporting themselves, and are considered a legal adult.

  9. Dear Rescuing:
    The opposite is also true…I have had the experience of counseling a few men
    that found their partner (no they were not married) pregnant. They desperately
    wanted to be fathers. They even offered to sign anything offering to accept full
    responsibility and custody of the child. They did not want their child aborted.
    The women chose to abort and these young men deal with the guilt. They were left
    to wonder what their child would have been like (that was their words to
    me).They realized they have no rights , but in a different way . There are
    support groups for women dealing with guilt from abortions , well now there are
    groups for men that have started as well. Before you pass judgement, birth
    control was used. In my own experience, 3 out of 4 of my children were conceived
    while I was on birth control. Again ,before judgement comes , I am a college
    educated woman who is married for 25 years .
    My own brother also had a sad experience of fathering a child, taking
    responsibility , only to find out the child was not his. He begged to be
    involved in the young child’s life but the mother disappeared.
    Yes, there are women who are opportunistic. Sadly , that happens more than we
    like.
    My husband was involved with a woman that was trying to become legal in this
    country as well as hoping to land a sugar-daddy ( she was in her late 20s and he
    was in his 40s). She found it in my husband until he finally saw who she was. It
    took almost 4 years until that happened, but I hung on. We are together now and
    in love and he regrets everything he did ( a lot of money was spent keeping a
    European mistress happy in a Manhattan apartment).
    In any event, I contracted a lovely STD during that time. I will have it for the
    rest of my life…do I blame her? A teeny bit, I blame my husband more. He was
    the idiot , he did not wear a condom because she ‘looked’ clean. He had a
    vasectomy years ago so pregnancy was not something he had to think about. It was
    HIS fault , he should have NEVER had his affair. The STD is a consequence of
    that and he should have thought of all the consequences before indulging in that
    illicit affair that ended up costing him plenty. However, they do not think past
    themselves when they are in affair , just because they were not thinking does
    not remove responsibility , and does not remove the law. So whose fault is it
    when they don’t think? I feel it lies on them (the men).
    Sadly , a child has come out of this mess..a child who did not have a choice in
    the matter. That child is innocent.
    I do not have the daily reminder of a child ( but I do have the reminder when my
    STD flares up) so I do not have personal knowledge on what I would do in your
    situation. I have been to the affair recovery workshop with Ann and Brian as
    well as BAN support groups in my area. There were 2 couples dealing with
    children of affairs there. I have also experienced watching a woman take in her
    husband’s child in (from an affair) and raised that child as her own. I hope
    there will be a time when all the ugliness is resolved for you, because I truly
    feel very sad for that child.

    ~~S
    PS…Thank you for re-sending the post so I could delete my real name. People know about the affair but not everyone knows about the STD and I would prefer it stays that way…I am ‘known’ in my community as well as in business and it is easier if the whole mess is not out there anymore…again, thanks 🙂

    • dotcablogger says:

      It’s true what you say.

      The kid that is conceived and born from the affair is innocent. So, well, if there is a way to only filter the child support to the child (and the mom doesn’t get money for her bar wear and the like), then I would be happy with just that.

      I know these skanks are horrible. But, well, how can we avoid harming the kid when cutting off the ex-mistress from any money? How do you get your justice and not pay the mom the child support, but are able to not financially hurt the child? I’m now seeing that this is hard to separate.

      • We had asked about placing the money in trust for the child, but then you would need a third-party to manage the funds, and no such person exists. We thought about it almost like the way surviving children are allocated resources from their parents if they should pass away, I dictated through a will. unfortunately, there is no such system in place to allow child support to be allocated to the child as needed, and documented in the way that it would be if it were the same as a will. If there was a person in charge of the funds, as there is what a child survives their parents, and all funds are always accounted for, permission must be sought for additional funds as needed from the one who is executor. It would be great if something like this existed, because I know for a fact that our funds are being misappropriated. I also know that she lies on her tax return, claiming only 20% of what she actually earns in any given year.

      • dotcablogger says:
      • dotcablogger says:

        It would be great if law came about for child support to be ONLY be allocated to a trust bank account that is in the executive control of a family lawyer, public trustee, or other official as the representative of the child. That way everyone will for sure know that the mom wouldn’t be spending the child’s money on her bar clothing for her weekly “ladies night”!

        [Anyway, hopefully this system will only apply to those abusive women who had their baby from their affair with a married man. Which is those who use money from their child support for their cosmetics and the like.]

  10. Let’s see, if I as a woman contracted with a man to be a sperm donor and a doctor did the insemination with fresh sperm… The child is not entitled to child support. the child is merely the property of the woman who conceives the child. THIS IS THE LAW in most States. These women can afford the cost of skewing the “method of conception” that determines parental legalities….
    This creates an economic barrier that lower income women can’t afford. Which gives a different outcome when no doctors are used to create a child. THIS IS UNEQUAL protection of law.
    No matter the method of conception a child is created. If one child is entitled to support and a father and another is not… This is patently unfair to the child’s ” best interests”. IMO
    As we have crossed the slippery slope in reproductive ART laws of intent…
    One must argue that the system is now unfair and flawed.

    I want to fight for support for a child only if the man is married to the mother. optional if not married to the mother. After all it is solely the woman’s choice to risk unprotected sex. SHE says yes or no, otherwise it is called RAPE ! HER BODY, HER CHOICE to have sex… And if the consequences of having unprotected sex is on her only… Then she chooses to have a child or not. And a man financially has no financial obligation unless he is married. Now I am willing to compromise and say okay support is a minimum amount if not married , but significantly more percentage wise if married and then if he divorces the mother. After all children whose parents are married are not entitled to mandated child support. they get what their parents choose to provide for them. VS the STATE intruding.
    I think women will think twice about getting pregnant and secondly maybe they will demand the man marry them if they or the man what’s to have children.

    BOTTOM LINE , stop rewarding dangerous behavior. SHIT happens, but planning for shit to happen is a horse of a different color. We have to minimize the entitlement mentality.

  11. To All:
    Just saw this article today…interesting in light of this discussion. It is from the perspective of the child…..hope it helps.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/e-oneill/love-child_b_1943755.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl6%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D217736

    ~~S

    • What a fantastic article, thank you so much for sharing that. My heart goes out to these children who are deprived of the knowledge of their origins. It is my wish that my husband whore share completely and unabashedly the details surrounding her conception and birth. I am, however, also a realist, and I know that this will likely not be the case. While this woman will probably tell the child that she was born at an affair, the details surrounding the relationship, and the reasons why her father is not present, will be concocted to favour herself, make my husband the bad guy and her the victim. More likely, so probably tell her daughter that the reason she doesn’t have a father is because of me.

      Some of the reasons she has given so far to authorities include:

      1. “I know he loves me, and I love him. The only reason we are not together is because that bitch wife of his won’t let us speak to each other”
      (taken from a court transcript)

      2. He raped me repeatedly, and told me that if I didn’t have sex with him, I would lose my job. I was forced into having sex with him, and feared for my safety. (there was no rape)

      3. He has never paid one red cent for his daughter, and I am going to have to put her into therapy because she’s growing up without a father. (he’s paid her from day 1).

      4. His wife is a lunatic, and has stalked me repeatedly since she found out about our affair. He warned me that she’s crazy. I fear for the safety of my child, and therefore I would prefer that my child not be exposed to their family. I am doing this solely for her safety, and my own.

      Funny how contradictory she is in all of her statements. She loves my husband, get claimed she was raped repeatedly and that sex was not her choice. She also worries that her child will grow up damage from having no father figure in her life, but then also claims that she is holding her child away from her father because she fears for her safety.

      These women should just be honest with their children and tell them exactly how they came to be. “Mommy was worried that in her advancing age she would never find a man legitimately, nor did she have the self-esteem to think that she could actually snag a man who values her for who she is, and was a good provider. You that she was going to grow up alone, and never have the opportunity to have a child, Mommy sought out a married man who had financial benefits, and tried to steal him from his wife. Mommy knew that he was married with three small children, but Mommy’s needs took precedence. Mommy lied, mommy schemed, and mommy manipulated in order to try to capture a man that had no interest in her. Mommy threaten to scream rape if he did not continue a relationship with her. Then mommy decided that she would stop her birth control so that she would conceive a child. She begged and pleaded with your daddy to have sex with her on a particular day, and knowing that she was ovulating. He had no idea, and thought she was just desperate for sex. Little did he know he was fathering a child. Mommy never wanted you from the beginning, and held the possibility of aborting you over your father’s head, so that he would leave his family and be with mommy. When your father decided to do the right thing, and stick by his wife, mommy went crazy, and decided to keep you as a pawn, ammunition against his family, ensuring he would forever pay for his decision. mommy loves her little girl…she brings so much joy…ahem money her way.”

      All resentment aside, I do feel a great deal of sorrow for these children. They are the innocent victims also in this twisted triangle. They didn’t have to be born, they didn’t ask for the circumstances. Unfortunately, this child is destined for a difficult life, being born of a mentally unstable mother, who is the child’s only parent, and who cannot be buffered with the presence of another more normal parenting figure.

      • anonymous3631 says:

        These women should be burnt alive I am devastated at the poor child. He will do much better at an orphanage than with this woman(shame)
        However such men should also be punished who are still willing to sleep with these desperate whores and risking their family’s future FOR HIS MEER SEX JOY AND PLEASURE.HE IS AS GUILTY.

  12. First, mistresses are people. Just like your husband, just like your children. To say anyone should be burnt alive is sick. If she has issues, the woman you keep calling a whore, and you are aware of said issues, I would think you would want to display what a “catch” you are by showing compassion. She isn’t having sex with your husband anymore, so let it go. Assuming what’s in someone’s mind is foolish behavior. Your husband should pay child support, because he fathered a child. All of us learned about the birds and the bees and you’re just making excuses. Spending time continually blaming a woman who built no intimacy with you is fruitless behavior. Better yourself. I spent my time trying to determine how someone who could look me in my face and profess to love me could go and be intimate with someone else. There are men who make sure they have messages to show their wives that they spoke to their mistress a certain way, but face to face their words were very different. Plausible deniability. Smarten up dear. This just sounds to me like a triangle of dysfunction. You refuse to see the truth just as she did. You believe what you need to in order to keep what you’re convinced is reality. Good luck with that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: