Study shows 50% of women would lie about the paternity of their child...

Even if it's a survey of readers of That's Life magazine, that's really shocking.

I believe I read it's something like 1 in 25 fathers unknowingly raise another man's child.

For any man that has to pay child support, I think paternity tests ought to be mandatory.

Contraception can and does go wrong, and when it does the man has absolutely no say in the outcome.

We can't expect men who do not want children to be celibate

so it seems we are asking people to pay thousands for circumstances which were beyond their control.

It seems better to me that a baby ought to be supported by society as a whole, given that we cannot prevent people who cannot afford babies from having them.

It's not a very nice solution but it seems a little fairer to me than the current situation.

Reproductive rights so as? The only thing I've seen your camp of crazies ever suggest is for the father to completely be able to disown the child and have no financial commitment to it. Those aren't reproductive rights, you've reproduced, that parts done, genius.

The baby itself? Such as? They are protection against late term abortions.

And you should have any control over another persons body why exactly?
Not to mention abortion isn't an option for every woman and her beliefs.

I was clearly talking about the recourse for a woman in that scenario, at least try to keep up. Where's the recourse for a pro life woman who's partner pierces his own condoms, huh? HUH!? Why are your cries about that?

14% of surveyed young mothers reported undergoing birth control sabotage.^[9] A separate study found that 66% of teen mothers on public assistance who had recently experienced intimate partner violence disclosed birth control sabotage by a dating partner. When women did try to negotiate condom use with their abusive partners, 32% said they were verbally threatened, 21% reported physical abuse, and 14% said their partners threatened abandonment.^[10]
Gender and sexual power dynamics and coercion associated with sexual power dynamics are both linked to condom nonuse.^[11] Studies also link condom nonuse to patriarchal attitudes and intimate partner violence.^[12] Even women with high STI knowledge are more likely to use condoms inconsistently than women with low STI knowledge when there is a high level of fear for abuse.^[10]
The most common forms of birth control sabotage are when the partner refused to wear a condom and when the partner ejaculated before withdrawal, although it was the agreed-upon contraceptive method.^[13]
In Canada, a man was convicted of sexual assault for poking holes in his girlfriend's condoms. She expressed that she did not want to become pregnant, and when she did, he confessed to the birth control sabotage.<sup>[14]


You're tired, you're whole men are oppressed feminazi's are coming routine, is beyond boring now. Just take several seats and get a life dude.</sup>

Yes, because everything the government mandatorily innoculates and test for is at epidemic levels.

Like I said ss. 26 and 27 are fine and work,

Yes, my entire career has been predicated around that

They are plenty of things they don't test for that have high levels, so why would they do this for something as rare as 4 in a 100 and have it be mandatory rather than just let people have their free will to get tested if they wish? Taking away free will makes no sense here.


What is ss 26 and 27?

Around women tricking specifically you in to child support? Lol.

A) So 4 in a 100? Very rare.

B) And he should have a say over another person's body why exactly?

So 4 in a 100? Very rare.

I don’t consider myself to belong to a camp. You are really suggesting the father's involvement ends when he ejaculates and that is a healthy view to promote of how families should be set up? Of course men should not be able to disavow financial responsibility or force their partner to have an abortion, but it doesn't do to teach women that they have the right to ride roughshod over their partner's wishes. Women have noblesse oblige.

If it can be proven that the woman pierced the condom, stole sperm from a binned condom or outright raped the man then this is a caveat to the above and he should be allowed to disavow financial responsibility if not actively force an abortion.



Because it contains a baby that is half mine, the woman must have ultimate sovereignty but she should have a damn good reason for not listening to my wishes. She should certainly not be actively taught by feminists that she is "empowered" to do whatever she wants with a child that is half someone else's. Again, she has noblesse oblige.



I reiterate: women have recourse in abortion. If their partner is abusing her by trying to cheat her into conceiving and stopping her aborting that is terrible but it's only more difficult than escaping from a standard abusive relationship because the baby puts a time limit on it.

A pro-life woman? Plenty of us have to give up our convictions to get by in life. I don’t believe in work or any of the political parties but when it comes to the practicalities of getting a job and going to vote unfortunately we have to work within the economic and political framework that exists.

At the end of the day provision exists for women to abort babies, it is their decision to be pro-life or follow a particular religion, we can lead a horse to water but we can't make it drink. Men have it even worse: there is absolutely no provision by which we can have a baby aborted or disavow it financially. As discussed in France we are not even allowed to disavow our paternity despite the fact that procedures are available and it does not infringe on women's rights.

While men fight for basic reproductive rights, such as a requirement for women to rake their input into account, criminalisation of and disavowal in the wake of female rape and contraceptive sabotage, development of a male pill and equitable treatment in the family courts, feminists are whining that women can't get abortions because of their OWN pro-life beliefs.

So you think it is ok for women to lie about paternity or contraception? I mean if you didn't you wouldn't have come in and insulted everyone for saying that is a bad thing right?

Not really when you look at the content.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=that%27s+life&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=5NjMU8LzH8v07AbJwICYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&biw=1242&bih=585

So 4 in a 100? Very rare.

They're available if the man wants them, so why would they need to be mandatory, for instance what if a guy would rather not know?

And he should have a say over another person's body why exactly?

You don't have to celibate to have a vasectomy if you are that sure or worried.

It not that beyond your control. But even if they use no condom and the baby is born you're still not going advocate for the man supporting him, so your attempts to add these little caveats as if to seem more reasonable are ultimately irrelevant.

Single parents already get a lot of help, how is the government going to step up for half of the childs income? That's a utopian premise, it would be great if society could take care of everyone but it's not practical to just let fathers or mothers chose if they're going to financially support their kids.

Paying for your child that lives in society and taking at least some form of responsibility for it isn't unfair, having the brunt of the burden fall completely on all of society rather than having men support what's theirs is unfair.

I don’t consider myself to belong to a camp.

You are really suggesting the father's involvement ends when he ejaculates and that is a healthy view to promote of how families should be set up?

Of course men should not be able to disavow financial responsibility or force their partner to have an abortion,

but it doesn't do to teach women that they have the right to ride roughshod over their partner's wishes.

If it can be proven that the woman pierced the condom, stole sperm from a binned condom or outright raped the man then this is a caveat to the above and he should be allowed to disavow financial responsibility if not actively force an abortion.

Because it contains a baby that is half mine, the woman must have ultimate sovereignty but she should have a damn good reason for not listening to my wishes.

She should certainly not be actively taught by feminists that she is "empowered" to do whatever she wants with a child that is half someone else's..

I reiterate: women have recourse in abortion

If their partner is abusing her by trying to cheat her into conceiving and stopping her aborting that is terrible but it's only more difficult than escaping from a standard abusive relationship because the baby puts a time limit on it.

A pro-life woman? Plenty of us have to give up our convictions to get by in life.

I don’t believe in work or any of the political parties but when it comes to the practicalities of getting a job and going to vote unfortunately we have to work within the economic and political framework that exists.

Men have it even worse

there is absolutely no provision by which we can have a baby aborted or disavow it financially.

As discussed in France we are not even allowed to disavow our paternity despite the fact that procedures are available.

While men fight for basic reproductive rights

such as a requirement for women to rake their input into account,

criminalisation of and disavowal in the wake of female rape

and contraceptive sabotage

development of a male pill

and equitable treatment in the family courts

feminists are whining that women can't get abortions because of their OWN pro-life beliefs.

Not sure what this means. Are you implying that That's Life appeals to an immoral subset of women?

That's not rare at all! If it's true, most people would know someone affected by it.

Because if they are not mandatory then there would be pressure not to have it done,

as it is effectively a statement of huge distrust towards one's partner.

He shouldn't. I think you're making assumptions about my beliefs.

A man should have to undergo an expensive operation? That seems unreasonable and a waste of resources.

Contraception works most of the time, but when it doesn't that's not the user's fault. I think it would be absurd to require someone to pay so much for contraceptive limitations for which they are not responsible.

As for your assertion that I would still advocate for the man not paying child support if the man didn't wear a condom, that's not correct and you're making more assumptions.

I believe not using contraception when a couple is unprepared to have a child is grossly negligent and the man and woman should be equally liable for child support if it comes to that.

It would be paid for through taxes. It's far from an ideal scenario though as although it might be fairer, it might also remove disincentives for having children that cannot be afforded.

...

Sorry, not interested in having a discussion with you if you're going to be immature and throw lame insults.

...and a further 42% would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner. 65% of single women said they would not tell a partner about a sexual disease.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/96-of-women-are-liars-honest-1-565123

Always wrap it up, fellas, you have everything to lose trusting a woman.

I clearly addressed everything you said and provided no immature or irrelevant criticism.

You can't be serious. Women must always be the victims, mustn't they?

They may be scum, but so are bankers, it doesn't mean they aren't winning and getting off scot-free. Scum should be skimmed off periodically and put down the sink in accordance with equitable legal process.

Idiotic generalisation. Just thought I'd point it out. Basically everyone who says this has no idea what banking entails and has just been indoctrinated by the media.

Very rare? That's countless millions of fathers worldwide

or hundreds of thousands in the UK alone who have been deceived and robbed of their time and money for many years raising another man's kid and living with a monster of a woman.

The study isn't worldwide genius.



Because men never cheat right.

4 in 100 is rare. 40 in 1000 is rare. Learn math for god sake.