Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Even if it's a survey of readers of That's Life magazine, that's really shocking.
    Not really when you look at the content.
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=th...w=1242&bih=585


    I believe I read it's something like 1 in 25 fathers unknowingly raise another man's child.
    So 4 in a 100? Very rare.

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


    Contraception can and does go wrong, and when it does the man has absolutely no say in the outcome.
    And he should have a say over another person's body why exactly?

    We can't expect men who do not want children to be celibate
    You don't have to celibate to have a vasectomy if you are that sure or worried.

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

    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.
    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.




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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    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. :rolleyes:

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

    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.
    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 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? :rolleyes:

    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.[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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Le Nombre)
    Yes, because everything the government mandatorily innoculates and test for is at epidemic levels.
    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.


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


    Yes, my entire career has been predicated around that
    Around women tricking specifically you in to child support? Lol.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    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.
    You seriously are having this debate and you don't know what ss. 26 and 27 are? Christ.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ion/26/enacted

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ion/27/enacted

    No, around knowing the law.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)

    A) So 4 in a 100? Very rare.

    B) And he should have a say over another person's body why exactly?
    A) No 4% is not very rare, and I believe if it is this high testing should be available to everyone who wants it unconditionally.

    B) He shouldn't have a say over her body, but he should be able to have a "legal abortion". If the woman chooses to keep the baby in light of the partner's legal abortion, then she must finance the child, with appropriate government assistance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)

    So 4 in a 100? Very rare.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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.
    Well said, +1 if I could.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    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? :rolleyes:
    Or having an STD for that matter!


    This is some scary stuff here.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    Not really when you look at the content.
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=th...w=1242&bih=585
    Not sure what this means. Are you implying that That's Life appeals to an immoral subset of women?

    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    So 4 in a 100? Very rare.
    That's not rare at all! If it's true, most people would know someone affected by it.

    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    And he should have a say over another person's body why exactly?
    He shouldn't. I think you're making assumptions about my beliefs.

    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    You don't have to celibate to have a vasectomy if you are that sure or worried.
    A man should have to undergo an expensive operation? That seems unreasonable and a waste of resources.

    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    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 believe that is unfair when the child was intended or a result of negligent behaviour - what I believe is unfair is requiring it of people who behaved responsibly and for whom the baby was outside their domain of reasonable control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I don’t consider myself to belong to a camp.
    Well then you lack self awareness in abundance.



    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?
    Yawn, what a dumb straw man. Where did I suggest that anywhere? Involvement doesn't equate to rights over another persons body.

    Of course men should not be able to disavow financial responsibility or force their partner to have an abortion,
    So what the hell are you talking about then? What "right" do you want?

    but it doesn't do to teach women that they have the right to ride roughshod over their partner's wishes.
    But women do have the right to make their own decision with their body until the government says otherwise.


    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.
    Actively force an abortion? You clearly want attention. And what if it turned out the man was lying and you forced a woman through the trauma to terminate her baby that she wanted?



    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.
    And? You're going to mandate someone listen to what you have to say how exactly? We're talking about rights here, you're bringing personal interactions and rarities such as sperm stealing. :rolleyes:


    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, no discussion of rights. Sigh.

    She is taught by feminists that she should be allowed to make decision regarding her own body to an extent, which is the truth.


    I reiterate: women have recourse in abortion
    Not all women, due to location, personal believes or time limit.

    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.
    And "only" more difficult than a "standard abusive relationship" is pretty ****ing difficult.

    A pro-life woman? Plenty of us have to give up our convictions to get by in life.
    And that doesn't change the fact plenty of us won't do such a thing. And having an abortion that you don't agree because your partner tricked you in pregnancy is not a simple conviction people have to give up.



    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.
    Abortion still isn't an option for some people due to their beliefs, dumb comparison won't change that.

    Men have it even worse
    I wouldn't saying be forced to pay for a child, which a mother also would be forced to do it if the father had custody, was on par as having to go through the trauma of caring a baby you were tricked in to convincing to term or having to abort it despite beliefs otherwise.


    there is absolutely no provision by which we can have a baby aborted or disavow it financially.
    You just stated there should be no such provision though. So either you're advocating for this or you're not. Because a minute you were saying a fathers involvement ends at his sperm, now that's what you're suggesting. At least keep this idiocy consistent.

    As discussed in France we are not even allowed to disavow our paternity despite the fact that procedures are available.
    And women aren't allowed to find out who the father is without a court order either.


    While men fight for basic reproductive rights
    Such as? Name one reproductive right you want. Because paternity testing in pretty much legal everywhere else. There are many places where abortions aren't legal, funny how you omit that though.


    such as a requirement for women to rake their input into account,
    That's not a right, you can't possibly legislate such a thing.


    criminalisation of and disavowal in the wake of female rape
    Something that is beyond rare. Forced penetration is criminal.

    and contraceptive sabotage
    Which also happens to women, and what justice do they get?

    development of a male pill
    Scientific advancements aren't a right.

    and equitable treatment in the family courts
    Such as? Most fathers who ask for custody receive it, this isn't reproduction issue, though is it? :rolleyes:

    feminists are whining that women can't get abortions because of their OWN pro-life beliefs.
    I'm not whining, I'm stating the reality of it since you want to present it as such a simplistic option when it isn't. And you do know abortions are available everywhere right?:rolleyes:

    Beyond paternity tests in france and extremely rare cases of women pricking condoms and saying they should then have forced abortions, you've presented no reproductive rights a man should have.

    So, we've got:
    Paternity tests in france
    Force women to have abortions if the courts deem the guys is telling the truth that she pricked his condom, even though he maybe lying.

    Cool story bro.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Not sure what this means. Are you implying that That's Life appeals to an immoral subset of women?
    It clearly attracts people interested in Jeremy Kyle like stories.

    That's not rare at all! If it's true, most people would know someone affected by it.
    Do you know what the word rare means?
    (of a thing) not found in large numbers and so of interest or value.
    I don't if you failed maths in primary school but 4 is quite a bit less than a 100. Making 4 out of 100 a rarity.



    Because if they are not mandatory then there would be pressure not to have it done,
    Or no genuine to have it done.


    as it is effectively a statement of huge distrust towards one's partner.
    So having the government mandate this mass distrust of women, is the way to go, rather than letting the guy decided if he wants it?

    He shouldn't. I think you're making assumptions about my beliefs.
    No you stated that as if it should be otherwise, so I asked.

    A man should have to undergo an expensive operation? That seems unreasonable and a waste of resources.
    More expensive that having 18 years of child support that you're so worried about? It's a choice, if you are worried and sure enough that you don't want kids, than why not? Women have to undergo abortions if the guy lies about condom use or it breaks, etc.


    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.
    Sex runs the risk of reproduction, unless you choose to get those measure, so yes they are responsible as they took that risk.

    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'm doing no such thing, you said: Though I'm not particularly of the opinion that forcing people to pay child support is a moral policy.

    I assume you wouldn't advocate for something you find immoral, silly me.




    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.
    And how exactly would the government know who did use with it accidentally breaking and didn't use it?


    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.
    You can't be serious.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    ...
    Sorry, not interested in having a discussion with you if you're going to be immature and throw lame insults.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Sorry, not interested in having a discussion with you if you're going to be immature and throw lame insults.

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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    ...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-o...onest-1-565123

    Always wrap it up, fellas, you have everything to lose trusting a woman.
    As far as I'm concerned, if a woman sabotages a man's birth control in order to make him an unwilling parent, she should get the same sentence as a rapist.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)

    I clearly addressed everything you said and provided no immature or irrelevant criticism.
    That's exactly what I'm talking about...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    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.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well this is embarrassing and pretty shocking... :/

    Which women were asked? Obviously these aren't the statistics for the world.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stefl14)
    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.
    Dude, bankers allow the poor to buy stuff they can't afford like renting accommodation while at uni. If the poor can't afford to rent away from home, they shouldn't go to uni. Bankers are the root of all evil and undermine the financial social ranking system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StevieA)
    Very rare? That's countless millions of fathers worldwide
    The study isn't worldwide genius.


    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.
    Because men never cheat right.:rolleyes:

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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Ann Dairy)
    The study isn't worldwide genius.



    Because men never cheat right.:rolleyes:

    4 in 100 is rare. 40 in 1000 is rare. Learn math for god sake.
    Whether or not men cheat is irrelevant. Men shouldn't have to pay for children that are not their own. Also, there is no numerical definition of rare.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.