It's Called "Family Planning" Not Family Shaming
Irresponsible woman gets pregnant after dating a guy for two and a half months and spews all over her blog in hopes of shaming him into being a father -- and not just the checkbook version of one mandated by the state.
Overview of Alana Joy's story here.
Her blog item here:
I explained that since I had been consulting I did not have insurance through work, and (like an idiot) hadn't gotten any on my own. I told you that the doctors had told me at about 8-10 weeks I'd need to see an OBGYN. Get bloodwork, ultrasound, etc. I let you know that I'd need you to cover that while I figured out how to secure healthcare, and I asked you to come with me to the appointment. You agreed.Two days later, the night before I was meant to leave, you came back from work and had done a complete 180. You informed me that you were "not going to let this baby dictate the rest of your life", that "if I choose not to have an abortion then you are choosing to have this baby, and you should do that knowing that I will not be involved in raising it, I won't be a father to it". You did, however, say that you would uphold any "financial obligations" you know you have.
I cried. I yelled. I begged. How is choosing NOT to have an abortion choosing TO have a child? Neither of us "chose" for this to happen. Just because abortion is available as an option, doesn't mean it's a simple "choice" or something every woman would want to do. Being unwilling to have an abortion doesn't mean that I suddenly am choosing to do this, and choosing to do this on my own. Of course I cried, yelled... should I have thanked you? Of course, your reaction of "See? Look at how we communicate! We can't raise a child together!" only served to infuriate me more. I mean, we had never had a single moment of stress or strain in communication, but when someone is saying the most obscene things, does a total 180 in a life altering situation... NOT breaking down would be crazy. Especially after you say that if I were to discuss this situation publicly, on my Twitter or blog, that you would sue me for "extortion". No, that shouldn't infuriate me at all! Extorting you for what? Prenatal care?? Helping to pay for a crib? Please.
Three letters: I.U.D.
Also, I have not worked for a company since my 20s, but I've done the big girl thing and paid for health insurance independently every month. This is what grownups do.
So many people are in their 40s and have yet to reach adulthood.
And regarding getting knocked up and hoping that the guy will come through the way you want him to, I wrote in the column I linked above:
While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: "Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?" A child shouldn't have to survive on peanut butter sandwiches sans peanut butter because he was conceived by two selfish, irresponsible jerks. Still, there's a lot more to being a father than forking over sperm and child support, yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood.This isn't 1522. If a woman really doesn't want a kid, she can take advantage of modern advances in birth control like Depo-Provera or the IUD, combine them with backup methods (as recommended by her doctor), add an ovulation detection kit, plus insist that doofuses like you latex up. Since it's the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives. It's one thing if two partners in a relationship agree to make moppets, but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when he's, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really "in the child's best interest" to be the product of a broken home before there's even a home to break up?
via Kate Coe
UPDATE, 9:31 am, Pacific Time: Googled other "Fellatricks" comments (see below) and found this video of "Alana Joy" linked on another site:
I think the next to the last sentence says it all.
Somebody, you know, "society" or "government," pays. That would be me, after the government gets done tacking on a whole raft of overhead.
Castration, forced sterilization, and taking the child for adoption are the appropriate remedy here.
MarkD at March 8, 2012 5:45 AM
What a CU Next Tuesday (hate the word, but sometimes it is justified). I can understand her blogging her frustrations, but then she names the guy. She had absolutely no right to do that. Talk about not taking responsibility for her own actions, or rather inaction. Maybe she should have kept her legs closed if she doesn't know how to prevent a pregnancy. As much as I hate frivilous lawsuits, I kinda hope he sues her, or at the very least, sends a cease and desist letter. Wow, just wow.
sara at March 8, 2012 6:19 AM
If they were married, she could enforce his financial responsibility through the court system. Unfortunately, as a single mother, she still has all the choices. She can carry the child to term and sue for support. She can have an abortion or give up the baby for adoption. He has no such choice. He cannot force her abort nor prevent her from doing so. The state will force him to pay child support if she carries the child to term and keeps it. Since she has all the choices, he should have no legal obligation just because he is a sperm doner.
BarSinister at March 8, 2012 6:35 AM
It is the amazing how many people who are dating or going some what steady do not have the HARD TALK. I mean there will have to come at some point in any relationship when mature people will discuss such things as
1) birth control ie who buys, when will I become pill worthy.
2) What if whoops she gets pregnant, what are the options.
3) Feelings about children, marriage, staying over, toilet seat position, remote control control.
4) Religion, Politics, Dogs or Cats, and so on what will make or break a deal.
5) Small secrets and up. There may come that time to explain about the blow up Princess Leia doll under the bed. No dear I am not some weirdo and the doll was not actually used, but was a gift. I promise.
Good God or Darwin we have been gifted with the ability to speak and be understood.
But like most humans would prefer ignorance and getting along to go along. Plus a lot of hopping bad happens. (Hmm I wonder what the correlation of people who do the hard talk with being prepared with things like insurance).
Or these people complain to all or to some one else (sorry Amy) about what to do. Why does the man I am sleeping with do not want to cuddle me? I want more spoon action. What should I do? Umm ask him, pull him closer, say that you want...
Sigh! Humanity.
Hint AMY that can be some good articles for the future. How to grow up. I mean I am in my thirties and feeling that I need a push to be more responsible.
John Paulson at March 8, 2012 7:33 AM
Three more letters: IED.
What?
I R A Darth Aggie at March 8, 2012 7:36 AM
John Paulson write a lovely bunch of prose. But forgets one thing: people change their mind for any reason, or no reason at all.
My last serious relationship went from I want you to be the father of my children to I want to remain friends with you in a matter of 6 weeks.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 8, 2012 7:44 AM
My body, My choice.
Your Money.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 8:08 AM
The only person I feel sorry for in this scenario is the unborn-child.
Meloni at March 8, 2012 8:15 AM
This is just one of those societal problems that we just can't make "fair". Whereas I agree that mothers generally have more control over preventing pregnacy than fathers do (although both the pill and condoms fail), if we let the guy walk because of this, taxpayers usually get the bill.
Yet, forcing unwed women to have abortions will never fly with a good percentage of the population. Certainly not solely because the father doesn't wish to support a child he helped create.
Would this also apply to married men who are upset that their wives are pregnant once again when they're already struggling financially? If not, then where's the fairness in that? Single men get to opt out but not them?
And none of the "fairness" we're hoping to find addresses the true unfairness dealt to the child because, no matter how the child was conceived, these are - and always will be - its biological parents.
They can rail against each other, but the fact remains that they should've gotten married, or at least much better aquainted, before risking this pregnancy. Neither of them is a true victim.
LS at March 8, 2012 8:32 AM
THANK YOU, Amy! Thank you. Situations like these involving self-absorbed entitlists create a formula for child abuse.
ValiantBlue at March 8, 2012 9:00 AM
LS
This is just one of those societal problems that we just can't make "fair". Whereas I agree that mothers generally have more control over preventing pregnacy than fathers do (although both the pill and condoms fail), if we let the guy walk because of this, taxpayers usually get the bill.
If we give men the same reproductive rights as women then women will know that if they get pregnant from a man they are not married to then they will be solely responsible for the care of the child. This will change their behavior.
Yet, forcing unwed women to have abortions will never fly with a good percentage of the population. Certainly not solely because the father doesn't wish to support a child he helped create.
The father did not want to create a child. If he wanted to create a child he would have married her. Besides abortion she has the option of adoption and taking care of the child herself.
Would this also apply to married men who are upset that their wives are pregnant once again when they're already struggling financially? If not, then where's the fairness in that? Single men get to opt out but not them?
Getting married means you make a commitment. The fairness in letting single men not have responsibility is that they have made no commitment. They have no say in whether a woman keeps, aborts, or adopts out the child. No rights = no responsibility. That is fair.
They can rail against each other, but the fact remains that they should've gotten married, or at least much better aquainted, before risking this pregnancy. Neither of them is a true victim.
I agree they should have discussed this possibility. But unless the man said he wanted to be a father then how is he not a victim? She is forcing him to be a father.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 9:26 AM
"If we give men the same reproductive rights as women then women will know that if they get pregnant from a man they are not married to then they will be solely responsible for the care of the child. This will change their behavior."
I hope men are prepared to do with a lot less premarital sex then.
"Getting married means you make a commitment. The fairness in letting single men not have responsibility is that they have made no commitment. They have no say in whether a woman keeps, aborts, or adopts out the child. No rights = no responsibility. That is fair."
In theory perhaps, but in practical terms, we've proven, as a society, not to have a very strong stomach for this, else we'd cut off most most poor welfare mothers, or send their kids to orphanages. But, realistically, we're not going to let some kid go hungry just because his/her biological parents are foolish and financially irresponsible, which means WE TAXPAYERS pay for the costs of raising this child - which isn't fair to US, who weren't even in the bedroom!
Just try this and see how much support there'll be for letting the biological father walk away scott-free.
"I agree they should have discussed this possibility. But unless the man said he wanted to be a father then how is he not a victim? She is forcing him to be a father."
He's not an innocent here. Unless she forced him to have sex with her, he took an equal gamble on the outcome. Premarital sex is ALWAYS a gamble! Both men and women need to get that through their heads and stop treating sex so casually.
He's already made a baby inside her. Yeah, he can whine that he wants her to get rid of it for his convenience, and that if she doesn't believe the same way about abortion, then he shouldn't have any responsibility, but that's a weak argument. He should've been responsible enough to know who he is dating and what her belief system was BEFORE knocking her up.
It's her body; her choice. There are also men who say that if she chooses adoption, and they're against it, then that's unfair too.
So, there's no way to make it totally fair. That's why men need to be extra careful who they sleep with.
LS at March 8, 2012 9:59 AM
> The father did not want to create a child.
> If he wanted to create a child he would
> have married her.
Actually, y'know, squirting goo in a woman is the part that makes babies, not the post-ceremonial collection of beribboned toaster ovens and salad bowl sets from friends and family. The guy did EXACTLY what men do when they want to create a child.
> She is forcing him to be a father.
Oh, that brazen hussy, manipulating him so hatefully with her feminine wiles!!!!!
How could he possibly, possibly have protected himself?!?!
That poor sap...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 10:07 AM
The kid's there. The kid needs to be taken care of. He should be taking care of it without the shaming, but if the shaming makes him step up so be it.
NicoleK at March 8, 2012 10:12 AM
Interesting how the forgone conclusion was that she was pregnant and having the kid...
did the conversation go something like:
"I'm pregnant, what are you going to do about it?"
Based on the tone of everything... it doesn't sound like this was an optional thing, which makes me wonder if having the kid wasn't her intent from the start.
Boyo is divorced father and has been around the block, so he prolly knows what a kid entails, but he forgot something about dealing with people...
Sometimes they say one thing but do another.
Ultimately, he dodged the bullet, rather than marry her, because she certainly has shown what kind of person she is.
I've known other people in similar positions, that aborted, others who couldn't do that based on belief, who took it to term but adopted the child out...
She is acting like there are no options.
OTOH, the guys 180, probably came about with some advice from a lawyer and other guys who had seen similar. Like a lot of things the nicer you are, the more that can be extracted from you, there is no middle ground.
In any event this is a stark reminder that your best bet is never to trust, and to ALWAYS wear a condom, no matter how you feel about the person.
The number of accidental pregnancies in couples is quite high, which means that people are working under the "fate" option... it will happen when it's supposed to.
When you read between the lines with a person who says "children just happen when they are supposed to" you never know how active that person is pursuing it.
And another kid suffers from the machinations of adults... this is very sad.
SwissArmyD at March 8, 2012 10:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3047557">comment from SwissArmyDwhich makes me wonder if having the kid wasn't her intent from the start.
I have to suspect this. It's a form of accepted fraud.
Amy Alkon at March 8, 2012 10:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3047565">comment from NicoleKThe kid's there. The kid needs to be taken care of. He should be taking care of it without the shaming, but if the shaming makes him step up so be it.
The state will force the man to pay if he doesn't volunteer child support. And it seems he said he'd pay.
You don't get a man to be a father to a child by posting a shaming letter on the Internet. I perceive this to be the pissed-off lashing out of a woman who found that her attempt to scam a man didn't work out the way she'd hoped it would.
This behavior screams to any man with working brain cells, "RUN!"
Amy Alkon at March 8, 2012 10:34 AM
> He should be taking care of it without the
> shaming, but if the shaming makes him step
> up so be it.
Exactly.
> she certainly has shown what kind of
> person she is.
That's ugly beyond sexist... That you'd impute unlimited, unspoken wretchedness to a woman who declines to have an abortion... An imputation animated, without apparent shame, by resentment that the woman wouldn't dash off for this wickedly invasive, unpleasant and often emotionally punishing procedure for her partner's (whimsical) convenience.
Boys (and grown men), if you don't want a woman to be pregnant, DON'T FUCK HER.
If you do, handle the sitch like an adult.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 10:40 AM
Let's always blame the woman involved. Unless he had a vasectomy that didn't take, what steps did he take to make sure that a pregnancy did not occur? To put it on her and explain the various forms of contraception and then rail against her having casual sex? Again, she didn't force him to insert penis and ejaculate. Only an idiot thinks any form of contraception is 100%
The fact is she's pregnant. If I was sleeping with someone for 2 months, I'd have had many talks such as the what if talks, you know the ones that start out with getting tested, what kind of protection is best, what happens if protection fails, have you buried any bodies lately?
To always assume it is fraud on the woman's part or assign labels like shrew is truly mind boggling. She may be a shrew but he certainly saw past that enough to make a baby. To say he'd be financially responsible but nothing else tells me he is an asshole of the highest degree. Instead of blogging to get him involved she should be blogging that she dodged a bullet. Life with an asshole doesn't improve.
Kristen at March 8, 2012 10:43 AM
"Boys (and grown men), if you don't want a woman to be pregnant,
DON'T FUCK HER."
How I love Crid!
Kristen at March 8, 2012 10:45 AM
Agree strongly with K
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 10:46 AM
"This behavior screams to any man with working brain cells, "RUN!"
Too bad he didn't catch this before creating a baby.
And, though I can't speak to this woman's motives, having a baby as a scam is pretty lame. Baies cost a hell of a lot, even with support. They rip your body up - stretch marks, sagging skin - not to mention the up-all-night, peircing screams, cholic, poopy diapers, etc. And that's just the first year!
If any woman is using this as scam to make money, she'll likely be sorely disappointed because she's going to pay quite a price herself with 18+ years of caregiving (unless her baby daddy is a multi-millionaire).
I find it more probable that the same irresponsibility that kept this woman from buying health insurance led to her foolishly forgetting about birth control.
LS at March 8, 2012 10:46 AM
Alana Joy asks: "Of course I cried, yelled... should I have thanked you?"
Actually, yes. You should have thanked him. He was honest and told you where he stands from the get go. You have to respect that. He didn't succumb to your emotional blackmail routine and reluctantly agree to be a daddy to your child, only to get fed up after a couple of months or so and skip out on you. Or passive-aggressively put up with this only to make life miserable for you and your child.
You're the one with most of the choices. You get to decide whether to keep this baby or not...his only choice is whether he wants to be daddy or biological sperm donor with a wallet. He made his. Now make yours.
Alana Joy is only angry because getting pregnant wasn't the "force a guy into marrying me" magic bullet she thought it was.
Patrick at March 8, 2012 10:47 AM
Alana Joy asks: "Of course I cried, yelled... should I have thanked you?"
Actually, yes. You should have thanked him. He was honest and told you where he stands from the get go. You have to respect that. He didn't succumb to your emotional blackmail routine and reluctantly agree to be a daddy to your child, only to get fed up after a couple of months or so and skip out on you. Or passive-aggressively put up with this only to make life miserable for you and your child.
You're the one with most of the choices. You get to decide whether to keep this baby or not...his only choice is whether he wants to be daddy or biological sperm donor with a wallet. He made his. Now make yours.
Alana Joy is only angry because getting pregnant wasn't the "force a guy into marrying me" magic bullet she thought it was.
Patrick at March 8, 2012 10:50 AM
First, let me state that I do not condone what this woman has done; either in getting pregnant or posting her story online. However, this bull shit where grown men sit around whining about how unfair it all is are the moral equivalents of 12 year olds crying over a broken XBox. "Its not fair! I am single. I don't want to be a baby daddy!" please insert hair flip and stomped foot here. Sorry jerk! You had sex with a women you knew less than nothing about and she got you. YOU TOOK THE RISK!!! Fair or not, no one made you sleep with her without a condom. You did that all by your little lonesome. Don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime. The kid is here now, or soon will be, you took your chances and you lost. Now you must man up and take responsibility.
Sheepmommy at March 8, 2012 10:56 AM
"This behavior screams to any man with working brain cells, 'RUN!'"
Riffing on the Cridster a little, that sounds like something he should have done long ago, before he unbuckled his belt. But that horse has left the barn.
"... yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood."
Lured? If you don't know the risks already, you probably shouldn't be playing the game. I'm trying to think up an excuse for being lured, but not having much luck.
Old RPM Daddy at March 8, 2012 11:01 AM
Agree with Sheepmommy.
Both are acting SURPRISED!
Stupid does not cover their behavior, thought processing ability, or understanding of THE WAY THINGS WORK.
Bob in Texas at March 8, 2012 11:05 AM
"... yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood."
Again, this makes it sound like the woman walks off winning some lottery or something, completely negating the fact that she'll have at least half of the financial burden (and most of the single moms I know pay a much higher percentage of the child care costs), and, in cases such as this one, she'll be the sole caregiver.
It's hardly a win/win for her. Maybe if you're living in the 'hood, and those paltry child support payments help you afford your crack habit, it's a good "scam", but for anyone that hopes to raise a child in a reasonable amount of comfort and security, with a decent education (which should include saving and paying for college), and decent clothes to wear, and all the other electronic accessories kids now require, this is going to be a huge struggle. And it will primarily be HER struggle, even if he contributes financially.
If he's just a "checkbook daddy", he actually gets to walk away bearing the minimal burden of the poor choice they both made.
LS at March 8, 2012 11:20 AM
You don't get a man to be a father to a child by posting a shaming letter on the Internet.
**
I don't know, I think there's something to be said for public shaming, especially in front of the person's friends. I say don't stop at bringing back the stigma of single motherhood, bring back the stigma of deadbeat fatherhood, too.
NicoleK at March 8, 2012 11:43 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3048269">comment from NicoleKdeadbeat fatherhood, too.
The guy said he'd step up financially. Where do you get "deadbeat fatherhood"?
A woman has no right to do this to a man. Having a child is something you do after serious consideration about whether you can make a family together. They were dating for two-some months.
Amy Alkon at March 8, 2012 11:47 AM
I hope men are prepared to do with a lot less premarital sex then.
Lol.
In theory perhaps, but in practical terms, we've proven, as a society, not to have a very strong stomach for this, else we'd cut off most most poor welfare mothers, or send their kids to orphanages. But, realistically, we're not going to let some kid go hungry just because his/her biological parents are foolish and financially irresponsible, which means WE TAXPAYERS pay for the costs of raising this child - which isn't fair to US, who weren't even in the bedroom!
Just try this and see how much support there'll be for letting the biological father walk away scott-free.
There is another option. Shared parenting. The father could chose to take the child for 50 % of the time and that would be his contribution to support of the child. Again, I imagine this would change behavior and it would also leave society without the responsibility.
He's not an innocent here. Unless she forced him to have sex with her, he took an equal gamble on the outcome. Premarital sex is ALWAYS a gamble! Both men and women need to get that through their heads and stop treating sex so casually.
He's already made a baby inside her. Yeah, he can whine that he wants her to get rid of it for his convenience, and that if she doesn't believe the same way about abortion, then he shouldn't have any responsibility, but that's a weak argument. He should've been responsible enough to know who he is dating and what her belief system was BEFORE knocking her up.
It is not a gamble for the woman. She gets to chose, even within marriage, whether to give birth. Men have no choice. Again, you ignore the fact that women have all of the rights. Men have very few rights but they are given the responsibility of fatherhood if the woman chooses. If a man and woman want to engage in recreational sex then both parties should not be forced to become a parent. Equal rights, feminists are for it as long as it isn't inconvenient.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 11:58 AM
> The father could chose to take the child for
> 50 % of the time
That's not fatherhood, that's condominium investment. Amy is confused on this point as well.
No fair ripping the souls of defenseless children for adult convenience.
> Men have very few rights but they are given
> the responsibility of fatherhood if the
> woman chooses.
They have the right to not come in her cooter, Billy-boy. With a power like that, –enduring, insuperable– what more protection does a man need?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 12:13 PM
This woman's actions are really in poor taste, but seriously, how does a 40-something year old divorced dad not understand the repurcussions of unprotected sex with a fertile woman? And men do have choices. They can choose to wear a condom. They can choose to have a vasectomy. They can choose not to have sex with a woman whose moral compass doesn't align with their own. He made his choice. She made hers. Now the baby and the taxpayers get to foot the bill.
Meloni at March 8, 2012 12:14 PM
A woman has no right to do this to a man. Having a child is something you do after serious consideration about whether you can make a family together. They were dating for two-some months.
Amy,
There is some misandry going on here today.
And, though I can't speak to this woman's motives, having a baby as a scam is pretty lame. Baies cost a hell of a lot, even with support. They rip your body up - stretch marks, sagging skin - not to mention the up-all-night, peircing screams, cholic, poopy diapers, etc. And that's just the first year!
I wouldn't say it was a scam to extract money. She just wants to have a baby and decided this guy would be a good father. I don't know if they discussed this but I doubt it.
Like Amy said, men shouldn't be forced into fatherhood and having sex is not consent to being a parent. No one would say to a woman that she gets whatever she deserves by having sex. What if had an STD or AIDs? Sorry honey, you got what you deserved. No, the double standards that some of the commenters are holding men and women makes me think that they just hate men.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 12:18 PM
> Like Amy said, men shouldn't be forced into fatherhood
…And fortunately, they cannot be.
Situation: Ducky!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 12:33 PM
"The guy said he'd step up financially. Where do you get "deadbeat fatherhood"?"
If you're only classifying deadbeat as someone who doesn't pay then no, he's off that hook. But does paying bills make him a father? A good father? Again, do you know her intent was to lure him into a pregnancy and trap him for 17% of his earnings for the next 18 years? Do you really think this is only her burden or one he should share and I don't just mean financially?
A man's obligation towards his kid is more than financial and its sad that you'd let him off the hook by declaring he was the victim of some well thought out trap.
You are trying to hard to prove you are fair to men and prove that you're not one of the feminazis. This woman may not be his life mate material but guess what, he made a kid with her and he should step up and be the kind of parent that kid deserves. I'd think that would be your position considering how you are against people with kids breaking up or divorcing.
This man is hardly a victim. Show me the used condoms filled with pinholes or the pack of birth control pills she hid away without taking and maybe I'll agree with your bashing this woman. The more I read this the more I think she should take that kid and run.
Kristen at March 8, 2012 12:37 PM
From Alana Joy's blog:
"I mean, politically, I’m pro-choice. I don’t think the government has the right to take choices away from a woman in either direction."
This is where the whole pro-choice argument that many women like to throw out gets sticky for me. Because where's the choice for the man if she ultimately decides to keep the baby, but he decides against it? Yeah, I get it that it takes two to make a baby, but if one partner has the belly progressively swelling for 9 months, it's not really a a two person thing anymore, is it? Damn that persnickety thing called Biology!!!
I get really conservative on this issue. Women, if it's your body that gets pregnant with a child, it's ultimately your responsibility to take care of it if you choose to keep it. As for the men, it's a like a morality lesson for how messy it can get when you don't exercise care with where you spew your sperm.
prawn toe at March 8, 2012 12:41 PM
If it isn't, I don't know what is.
It's the fine print at the bottom of the contract.
Conan the Grammarian at March 8, 2012 12:41 PM
And just to throw this out there, I hate it when couples having babies say, "We're pregnant."
No. She's pregnant. You as a man, are decidedly not. Unless you're part seahorse or something.
I mean, when wives menstruate, it's not like their husbands go around saying, "We're on our period."
I'm just kinda literal that way.
prawn toe at March 8, 2012 12:50 PM
"A woman has no right to do this to a man."
And neither of them have the right to do this to a child, but they made him/her, so well, that just sucks for them, but the mature thing to do is own up to the responsibility. Truly decent people own up all the way, not just by writing a check.
As Crid says, the babymaking part is the point at which he squirted goo inside this woman he only knew for 2 months (I'm paraphrasing his brilliant quote). He wasn't "forced" to do this.
The only part he's being forced into is accepting her choice about what to do with this baby growing inside her body.
But, either way, neither of them are getting off unscathed. Some of the options may seem less impactful to an outsider, but abortion, adoption, or raising a child all come with heavy consequences, both emotional and physical.
It would be nice if these people knew each other well enough, and got along well enough, to weigh the options together, but, fact is, either choice here could bring about disagreement - even if they were married.
If she wanted to abort or adopt, he might be against either of those choices too, so should he have the right to force her to keep the baby? Should a husband have that right?
The potential for a couple to disagree on these matters is great, so it works best when one of them has the weighted vote. Our society has decided that this should be the woman, since the baby is inside her body, and that's not "fair," but those are the rules of the game, and surely every adult male in our country is aware of this.
LS at March 8, 2012 1:23 PM
"Girls (and grown women), if you don't want a woman to be pregnant, DON'T F**K.
If you do, handle the sitch like an adult." Cridster
See, that street seems to go both directions, so why aren't you holding her to the same standard?
As a side issue, Nobody said she was doing this for the money, because THAT would be stupid. OTOH, There are many women who are desperate, DESPERATE to have a child, by any means. Some of them decide to go it alone, and some of them want to have the kid AND the provider too.'
Oh, and what's your name?
We see these stories often, and Amy has linked to several... where fabulous lady wants to share her unique motherly perspective with a child, but she fears she'll never meet Mr. Right to start... so she gets knocked up in some fashion... and laments how hard it is to go it alone.
SwissArmyD at March 8, 2012 1:36 PM
...having sex is not consent to being a parent.
If it isn't, I don't know what is.
It's the fine print at the bottom of the contract.
Having sex is not a consent to be a parent for women, is it?
Bill C at March 8, 2012 1:54 PM
If I were desperate for a baby, I'd adopt one of the many needy children in foster care...or I'd find a nice gay couple who wanted a baby too and was eager to co-parent (or tri-parent) with me...or use artificial insemination, though, ideally, it's best for the child to have a dad.
My choice of last resort would be to get knocked up by some guy I barely know, who would end up being hostile to me and punitive to the child ("I'll send you a check, kid. Hope that's good enough"). At least I'd pick a more decent fellow. There are single guys out there who want kids.
This woman isn't in an ideal situation. Unless he's very well-off, his support payments will barely buy groceries, much less keep a roof over their heads, pay for clothing, education, etc - and that's if she can actually manage to collect, once he skips town or hides his income under the table. If she PLANNED this, she's an idiot. This is more likely an unplanned pregnacy. Women who are desperate for babies and just want sperm have usually thought things through better than this.
LS at March 8, 2012 1:56 PM
And neither of them have the right to do this to a child, but they made him/her, so well, that just sucks for them, but the mature thing to do is own up to the responsibility. Truly decent people own up all the way, not just by writing a check.
The truly decent thing to do would be to put it up for adoption. Single parent families are not as good as two parent families and there are many couples out their who would love to adopt the child. Open adoption is common. If she were really concerned for the child she would consider this option but I think she isn't. I think she just wants a baby.
Also, after reading her tirade the first thing that popped into my head was Borderline personality disorder. Falling in love that fast and those mood swings are classic BPD. If this is the case she really should not be a mother.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 1:58 PM
The potential for a couple to disagree on these matters is great, so it works best when one of them has the weighted vote. Our society has decided that this should be the woman, since the baby is inside her body, and that's not "fair," but those are the rules of the game, and surely every adult male in our country is aware of this.
And how is that working out for society? The children of single mothers are a mess.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 2:02 PM
As an adopted child, I tend to agree, Bill, but I also know what an agonizing choice that was for my birth mother, and I wouldn't presume to judge someone for being unable to make that extremely personal and emotional choice. Carrying a baby to term, then handing it off to others isn't something everybody can do.
LS at March 8, 2012 2:03 PM
"And how is that working out for society? The children of single mothers are a mess."
Yes, and a lot of that is caused by fathers walking away from their kids, feeling no sense of responsibility, just spreading their sperm around, making babies.
LS at March 8, 2012 2:06 PM
God, I want to punch both of these people.
Ok, raise your hand if you're surprised that a sperm and an egg can make a baby. Now raise your hand if you're surprised that women have the final say on whether to have the baby, and that a man is on the hook if she decides to keep it.
If your hand went up at all, save yourself and taxpayers the trouble and stick to masturbation.
A lot of people seem fine with the biological realities of pregnancy when it comes to the choices women have to make in their careers if they want kids before the clock runs out. The response seems to be, "Want a kid and a high-powered career? Too bad so sad. Make a choice."
Same goes for men. Once the zygote sticks, you no longer have any real control over how the pregnancy plays out. Take it up with god regarding the unfairness of it all. We all got the memo about how this works.
This man is a deadbeat no matter how much money he coughs up. Society can give this baby food and diapers, but we can't be this kid's daddy. And this woman is a completely irresponsible twit. Regarding the social shaming, Amy, I was under the impression that you approved of shaming people publically as a means of encouraging good behavior. The consequences of not thinking carefully about who you have sex with are much more serious than those for polishing your nails on a plane.
MonicaP at March 8, 2012 2:07 PM
Another thing to think of, in some areas (like mine) men can't get a vasectomy until 35. Yet GIRLS, yes as in underage, can get all kinds of things... including the pill. I know I can't get one, I tried. Where is my choice in that?
Men have one choice in many cases, do whatever the girlfriend says. I have a 43 year old cousin who only exists because his mother played pop (pin hole) the condom so my uncle would marry her.
NakkiNyan at March 8, 2012 2:16 PM
I hope men are prepared to do with a lot less premarital sex then.
This is why I support the decriminialization of hooking
He's not an innocent here. Unless she forced him to have sex with her,
Not for nothing, but supposing she had forced him to have sex, she wouldnt fae charges and he would still have to pay
It's her body; her choice. There are also men who say that if she chooses adoption, and they're against it, then that's unfair too.
Right cause the guys who WANT to keep their babies are the same ones pressuing them to get abortions
So, there's no way to make it totally fair. That's why men need to be extra careful who they sleep with.
I wonder why that advice isnt given to women as often as it is to men.
My adivce to this guy, get a freind to backdate a fake vacetomy file show it to her and see how she reacts
lujlp at March 8, 2012 2:27 PM
Don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime. The kid is here now, or soon will be, you took your chances and you lost.
Posted by: Sheepmommy
You know, sheepmommy thats the same line of reasoning prolifers take in their push to outlaw abortion
lujlp at March 8, 2012 2:27 PM
Sterilization is harder for both genders than temporary birth control. My friend is 42 and still can't get her tubes tied.
Your choice is in making wise decisions about the person you have sex with, and bringing your own condoms to the party.
Men want this stuff to be perfectly fair. It isn't. It won't ever be completely even, like when the pre k teacher makes sure everyone gets the same number of jelly beans. Part of being an adult is making good choices within your limitations, and recognizing that just because you got a bad outcome doesn't mean there's something fundamentally flawed with the system. Sometimes things go poorly.
MonicaP at March 8, 2012 2:31 PM
> The father could chose to take the child for
> 50 % of the time
That's not fatherhood, that's condominium investment.
No fair ripping the souls of defenseless children for adult convenience.
SO, just want to be clear here crid, you're saying the child doenst need to spend time in the masculine presence of a father? A fathers care and influence is meaningless in this instance?
You know, there is some asshole on this site who pops up disputing your position everytime we discuss children with homosexual parents, perhaps the two of you need to sit down and work out your diametrically opposed ideals
lujlp at March 8, 2012 2:32 PM
"Yes, and a lot of that is caused by fathers walking away from their kids, feeling no sense of responsibility, just spreading their sperm around, making babies."
Men don't just spread sperm around if there aren't willing women having sex with them, yet not planning for birth control.
I'll keep repeating: women, it's your bodies. Take responsibility for what goes in (penis) and comes out (baby) of it.
prawn toe at March 8, 2012 2:35 PM
I'm a little suprised by Amy's view that it's ok for the father to walk away, or be merely a "checkbook daddy." That seems unconsistent with her stance that all kids deserve two parents.
Even if the way the child got here is the most unfair scenario, how can that really justify a man knowingly abandoning his child?
"I didn't want you!" "I wish she'd aborted you!" These are all emotionally abusive things men have said to their own children - even (and often) those who were married to the mothers.
Those may be true statements, but, once the child is here, whether the father agrees with that choice or not, or is happy about that reality, the child is still deserving of a decent, caring parent, who won't emotionally harm them with such cruelties. The child's well-being is the most important.
If a man can't rise up to that level of decency, then that's a moral failure, not excusable by the details of conception or his individual desires at the time. That's over. That's history.
LS at March 8, 2012 2:35 PM
but, once the child is here, whether the father agrees with that choice or not, or is happy about that reality, the child is still deserving of a decent, caring parent,
Maybe he realises he doenst have it in him to be that for a kid.
I know I dont, which is why I'm never having kids. Dont get me wrong, I like kids, I love em when they are in the why stage trying to understand everything around them, but I just dont have the temperment or the emotional capitial to be the type of father a child deserves.
I'll settle for being the uncle who answers any question put to him with out censoring his answers
lujlp at March 8, 2012 2:44 PM
DH got a vasectomy at 30.
nonegiven at March 8, 2012 2:45 PM
"Also, after reading her tirade the first thing that popped into my head was Borderline personality disorder."
I don't know enough about BPD, but I re-read her original post and she goes from this:
"I mean, I spent more on your damn Christmas present. YOU spent more on the last minute flight you booked to get me to you. You’re not living in a mansion on the water but you’re not exactly poor. Aren’t you a lawyer? Aren’t you Senior VP of business relations or some such for one of the top talent agencies in the country? Aren’t you head of digital for them as well, and representing some of the top names in the digital web video space?"
to this:
"Tonight though, you unfollowed me on Twitter and that just struck my last nerve."
to this:
"It also breaks my heart that you’re taking from this baby, OUR baby, an entire family. A set of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins… a brother. Half or not, a sibling for each of them. Building that wall doesn’t make these people any less family. It just makes you the man who prevented the connection."
In a nutshell: "I'm entitled to your money, even though I don't know what you do for a living, I'm pissed that you unfollowed me on Twitter to you broke apart our imaginary future family.
This, from a man she only knew 2 1/2 months.
She's definitely not right in the head.
prawn toe at March 8, 2012 2:48 PM
I know I dont, which is why I'm never having kids. Dont get me wrong, I like kids, I love em when they are in the why stage trying to understand everything around them, but I just dont have the temperment or the emotional capitial to be the type of father a child deserves.
I'm assuming you have not fathered any children. You're an adult who has recognized what you want from your life and has taken steps to shape it in a certain way.
A man who doesn't have it in him to be a father shouldn't create children, which is not a lesson this man learned.
MonicaP at March 8, 2012 2:49 PM
Well, Luj, if you know that then you should have a vasectomy, or at least always use condoms (though there's the still the risk).
If you did end up with a child, a "friendly uncle" kinda dad is still a lot better than no contact at all. Kids are forgiving of their parents' weaknesses, as long as some kind of effort is made. You can say, "I never expected to be a dad, and I'm probably not a great one, but I'll do my best."
I just don't agree that you can say, "I didn't want you and don't agree with your entire existence, so your mother can raise you alone 'cause its not fair to me that you're here."
Even if this guy doesn't say that directly, he'll be saying it with his absence and the monthly check, and that's still a lousy thing to do to a kid, who is innocent in the whole mess.
LS at March 8, 2012 2:54 PM
Well let break it down, the woman was apparently able to spend shitloads of money on cross counrty flights and flying lessons but not insurance, shes living at least on several hour plane ride away, she has no proof its his baby, and should he pay for any prenatal care and it turns out hes not the father she can still sue him for child support.
I'm guessing his tigh tfistedness is on the advice of a lawyer. Its good advice in a day and age when exgirlfriends can sue for maintence and women you divorced over 25yrs ago can still sue you for more money and win.
Unitl he has legal proof the baby is his, any money he gives her can be construed by the court as father like behavior and get him on the hook for child support.
And he is 46yrs old, that means by the time this kid graduates highschool he will be 65, I note whats her name never let slip her age, but I doubt shes older then mid thirtys
lujlp at March 8, 2012 3:09 PM
What I don't understand is why so many people of both sexes are so disinterested in protecting themselves.
And these same people, having acted irresponsibly themselves, somehow expect their partners to act responsibly, and are utterly betrayed when they don't!
Trust is wonderful, but not smart until it's earned. Common sense is even more wonderful, and it's right there. Maybe that's why so many people ignore it. It's too common, and their particular case is so special.
Pricklypear at March 8, 2012 3:10 PM
And once again, as always happens in threads like this, NO ONE has suggested that we push harder to make better male birth control available. Why is this?
There are quite a few ideas being worked on outside the U.S. One is RISUG, which is a non-hormonal barrier method.
I mean, why do so many people still snicker - or wax indignant - at the idea that if the man doesn't want kids, it's HIS job to prevent them? What's so radical about the old saying "if you want a job well done, do it yourself"? No one cares about your future as much as you do, and you never know when you might run into someone who's scheming to get pregnant. Celebrities know this all too well. Besides, people - even spouses - are not robots, and so it's foolish to assume that they always want what you want, or, even if they do, that they'll never change their minds.
Not to mention that, in the last 20 years, child support laws have grown real teeth, which is foolish to ignore.
Also, if we let men off when they say "she lied about her birth control, Your Honor," every man could claim his girlfriend tricked him. Hardly a role model for boys to follow, if we care about the sanctity of fatherhood.
Bottom line:
We Americans do not believe in kicking out-of-wedlock children to the curb, if only because poverty breeds crime - and because 40% of U.S. babies ARE out-of-wedlock. This means, of course, that taxpayers or fathers have to support the children, and understandably, Americans believe taxpayers' rights should come first.
Therefore, it seems obvious that if a man loves his bank account so much, the best thing for him is to do at least three of the following:
1. Use condoms
2. Freeze sperm and get snipped
3. Demand that fathers be tracked down for child support, so HE doesn't have to help support their kids as a taxpayer
4. Campaign for better male birth control (which would also help prevent paternity fraud, a big problem) AND better access to female birth control, since conservatives never stop looking for excuses to take it out of pharmacies - see the long 2006 Russell Shorto article: "Contra-Contraception."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?pagewanted=all
lenona at March 8, 2012 3:24 PM
@LS so, because the insane attention whore is forcing this guy to play dad because she won't abort or put it up for adoption he is automatically a bad person? That is just insane. He said he would support the kid and so now it is up to her to say :
"Daddy didn't want you and he doesn't agree with your entire existence, so your I raised you alone 'cause he says its not fair to him that you're here."
That LS, would be her fault. The kid would see it as normal just like kids adopted by gay parents.
NakkiNyan at March 8, 2012 3:26 PM
@lenona, I agree with male birth control but we are talking about now not in 20 years when it is finally approved by the FDA. As for the snip, some guys just don't want kids yet and more often than not it is irreversible so stuck there and frozen sperm does not last forever so that part fails too.
Guys need something more failproof and not prone to sabotage. And yes, I had it tried on me, I told her to GTFO.
NakkiNyan at March 8, 2012 3:34 PM
> If you're only classifying deadbeat as someone
> who doesn't pay then no, he's off that hook. But
> does paying bills make him a father?
Correct. Kristen, you're growing on me. Did I mention you look good in those clothes? Also, I really like what you've done with your front yard... Those Azaleas really make that north hedgerow sing. Your hair looks great today. New car, or did you just wax it up?
> he made a kid with her and he should
> step up and be the kind of parent
> that kid deserves.
&
> it's a like a morality lesson for how
> messy it can get when you don't exercise
> care with where you spew your sperm.
Correct.
> I hate it when couples having babies
> say, "We're pregnant."
That too.
> But, either way, neither of them are
> getting off unscathed.
Correct, and the child is getting scuffed like 2004 soccer ball in a 2012 Pretorian slum lot.
> it works best when one of them has the
> weighted vote. Our society has decided
> that this should be the woman
Correct as far as it goes... But in these years, it's difficult crediting "our society" with any wisdom in these matters whatsoever. If this decision was made correctly, it's because biology carried us to a position of 99.4% enlightenment... i.e., The child's tissues are forming within her body; So wutcha gonna do?
Now, I'm not one of these people who worries about Santorum or Robertson or any of the other fuckball religious figures who want to take abortion away from us. It's not just that a "decision" has been reached; Indeed, the worst thing about abortion access is that it came to us through rickety SCOTUS reasoning. It will stay available because an important threshold of social awareness has been crossed. Yet as the years roll on, we see plenty of other threats to loving, thoughtful reproduction in motion. IOW: People are shits, and don't you forget it.
> Having sex is not a consent to
> be a parent for women, is it?
It is if she gets pregnant. Dood, there's no tone of "consent" like the Yes! Yes! Yes! of a splooging man in close approach to middle age.
> The truly decent thing to do would
> be to put it up for adoption
No, the "truly decent" thing would be for the parents of this child to raise it in a loving home. You shouldn't throw superlatives around like sticks of stale bubble gum. What's best for a child is a loving mother with a loving father. When you want to describe something as the highest standard, don't fuck around. (Metaphor! Metaphor!)
> why aren't you holding her
> to the same standard?
Mostly because I didn't follow the links or read the blog post that closely. In stories like this, and there are tens of thousands of them every motherfucking day, the details are never remarkable or illuminating.
Yeah, sure; women are nuts that way. They're wormy and deceptive and manipulative. I'm not kidding: They're irrational about it. They pretend to be sane and normal, commanders of their agency in this most fundamental project; but a lot of 'em are just reproduction robots. They'll use whatever reasoning or excuses they need when they want to make babies...
So the fuck what? So the fuck: This is an ancient tale, a preverbal narrative of hazard and betrayal, a story so elemental that it's wired into our DNA and expressed in our feelings about each other even before we're out of diapers. Anthropologists from the University of Blaupunkt in Hildesheim recently achieved a breakthrough in decoding the prehistoric cave drawings in southern France; as it turns out, the montage exposition of seasons turning, forest habitation and bison hunting translates into modern language as "Oh, that fucking bitch."
In other words, naiveté is no excuse for this guy. He should have known the stakes were this high. If they weren't, why would getting laid mean so much to him?
> The children of single mothers
> are a mess.
Then why did he give her one?
> This man is a deadbeat no matter
> how much money he coughs up.
Correct.
> in some areas (like mine) men
> can't get a vasectomy until 35.
Mine was only 2.7 miles from the front door, but it was the investment of a lifetime: Well worth a road trip, or a Southwest ticket, or a trip overseas in the bilge of a cargo ship. We wonder how far the Billys of the world would expect this woman (whom he once claimed to love and admire) to crawl on her hands and knees to reach an abortionist.
> I have a 43 year old cousin who
> only exists because his mother
> played pop (pin hole) the condom
Riiiiight. These stories are like those of the 20-year-old girl who complains that someone put a mickey in her drink at a party. 'Which drink?', we ask. 'The third... Maybe the fourth.'
Oh.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 3:34 PM
"Always should be someone you really looooove."
Ok so I'm dating myself with a blur lyric.
I'm with ya prawn toe, I hate people who claim to have won something on ebay or read an audio book.
smurfy at March 8, 2012 3:37 PM
Crid being a troll again.
Yes it does happen, it was tried on me. In my uncle's case it was because she could get him to marry her if they had a kid.
Welcome to reality Crid, people are assholes sometimes and actually do these things.
NakkiNyan at March 8, 2012 3:40 PM
"Well worth a road trip"
Sounds like a long ride home.
I'm convinced. I'm going home and dumping my 30 year old uninsured girlfriend tonight. Or at least buying something ribbed. Bet that will go over like a vase of flowers after a bachelor party in Vegas. You should have seen the tears flow when I proposed the snip and freeze. This shit aint half as rational as you all pretend. I take it back, it's perfectly rational, chicks don't like being downgraded.
smurfy at March 8, 2012 3:57 PM
> people are assholes sometimes
Almost never so gapingly that thoughtful partners can't assess their character and intentions before playing the Squirty Game. Again, this is not a new wrinkle in human relations. A woman putting pinholes in condoms is usually not much of a dinner conversationalist, even at Arby's on twofer one night.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 4:00 PM
> Sounds like a long ride home.
Not really... When you get there, every day is Christmas.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 4:03 PM
It's implied consent for both parties.
Life comes with consequences and with fine print on the contracts.
The fine print is that the various preventative methods don't always work and have flaws.
The fine print is that if you're trusting the other party's honesty without putting your own preventative methods in place, then there are consequences and you'll have to live with them.
The fine print is that sometimes the great cosmic joke is on you.
Except you don't get to hit up someone to help you with the expenses if you adopt.
And you have to qualify - against some pretty tough standards. Not everyone will qualify. Not everyone is willing to submit to the qualification process - especially when getting one of your own is so simple.
Damned biology!
Conan the Grammarian at March 8, 2012 4:09 PM
"Daddy didn't want you and he doesn't agree with your entire existence, so your I raised you alone 'cause he says its not fair to him that you're here."
It doesn't matter who delivers this shitty news, it's still shitty. And, in 16-18 years, if not earlier, the kid will track dad down on Facebook and demand the accountability that is sorely missing from this scenario.
"I was too lazy to wear a condom, and I blame your mother for everything!" isn't going to fly.
LS at March 8, 2012 4:18 PM
> you're saying the child doenst need to...
You're incapable of taking part without translating.
(See MonicaP at March 8, 2012 2:07 PM)
Sometimes this blog is like going for a cup of punch at the senior prom, and some 8th-grader has snuck in wearing a blazer and sneakers, and won't stop trying to chat you up about motocross.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 4:20 PM
"I hope men are prepared to do with a lot less premarital sex then."
I had to laugh at this one. In the 1960's there was no child support, and we all know how little sex those "free love" hippies had. Hey wait a minute...
Mike Hunter at March 8, 2012 4:34 PM
Yes, and a lot of that is caused by fathers walking away from their kids, feeling no sense of responsibility, just spreading their sperm around, making babies.
Well either we let both sexes engage in recreational sex or we don't. Assuming both parties consent to sex and both agree they are not having sex for the purpose of reproduction then it is extremely selfish and destructive to decide to have a child under those circumstances given the options available to women.
BTW, your birth mother is to be commended. My mother made the same choice at a young age and it worked out well for everyone. Ironically, my sister is pro-choice.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 5:10 PM
> Hey wait a minute...
[1.] It was a time of enormous change. Read any magazine article from that decade discussing almost any topic.... It'll make the internet seem like a new width for neckties.
[2.] It only seems like a fascinating example if the think more fucking is the be-all and end-all of our standards for "love", free or otherwise.
Today's twenty-year-olds may have more erotic awareness than their great-grandparents did, but I'm not sure it counts as sexual wisdom. A lot of women and not a few men and a whole lot of children began learning new ways to feel pain in those times.
Thanks, Hippiez! Now cut your hair and get a job... And that goes double for you fucking Occupiers.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 5:17 PM
"I was too lazy to wear a condom"
Man, you were on a roll. You know full well it's got nothing to do with lazy.
smurfy at March 8, 2012 5:19 PM
> it is extremely selfish and destructive to
> decide to have a child under
> those circumstances
Correct; loving parents are expected to protect their children from that sort of partner, and to greatly mitigate their own misjudgments.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 5:22 PM
More cray-cray irrationality from Miss Alana Joy's original post:
"You should NOT be adding more stress to my life. I did not choose to have a baby just because I couldn’t have an abortion. I didn’t choose this any more than you did."
Yes, you did choose, darling, Yes, you did. You chose NOT to get insurance, you chose NOT to practice safe sex, and now you're choosing to keep your bastard child.
You've made your choices, and those choices have consequences. The only reason your thongs are all in a bunch is because the Disney ending you imagined you'd get went poof. Kinda like your sense of responsibility for your health and for your life.
prawn toe at March 8, 2012 5:31 PM
My dad once told me he would not take a million dollars for any of his kids, but he would not give a nickle for another one. I think this is the point of view of most men. They are reluctant fathers, but steadfast once they are fathers.
BTW, I used to be a teacher. One year I got tapped to teach sex ed in middle school. I taught the boys, that no matter how hot the girl is, if you don't admire and respect her enough to have your babies, don't have sex with her. Whether or not they paid any attention to me, I don't know.
ken in sc at March 8, 2012 5:53 PM
It's implied consent for both parties.
Life comes with consequences and with fine print on the contracts.
Your wrong. Marriage is the contract your think of.
Bill C at March 8, 2012 7:01 PM
> Your wrong. Marriage is the contract
Apparently on Planet Billyboy, men aren't responsible for their behavior... Other people are expected to clean up after them, and to somehow be understanding about it.
I wonder how that works. In your daydreams, I mean. We know how it plays out in real life... And we know what to think of such men.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 7:09 PM
*****The truly decent thing to do would be to put it up for adoption. Single parent families are not as good as two parent families and there are many couples out their who would love to adopt the child. Open adoption is common. If she were really concerned for the child she would consider this option but I think she isn't. I think she just wants a baby.*****
Sums it up nicely. Yes, it would be hard to give up the kid, but come on, I think the rights of the kid to have the best home possible should trump mommy's rights to try and get some guy who's not interested in fatherhood to play house with her.
Daghain at March 8, 2012 8:49 PM
> I think the rights of the kid to have
> the best home possible
Moments ago, I liked where this was going. So I began cutting and pasting this comment in anticipation of conceding only that "the truly decent" outcome is no longer available to us. I was going to be all dejected about it, recognizing our mutual certainty that no one of the surface of this motherfucking globe had done right by this kid. But then I finished the paste-up (including the part where use my signature "greater than" Indent-y™ characters to indicate direct quotation, a device lifted from the BBS postings of a quarter-century ago):
> should trump mommy's rights to try and get
> some guy who's not interested in fatherhood
> to play house with her.
And then I realized that, like, no, people are not done being total fuckwads about this. There are grown men who are going to march through their entire response to the crisis, and then to their own graves, without putting needs of the child first. They will always think of it as a battle-of-the-sexes thing in which their own broken-teacup sensitivities deserve to be soothed. They seriously believe the woman's existence and character function only to be a burden to this man... That her sincere desire is to manipulate this dorkweed of a human being into "playing house".
And that belief is all fucked up, whatever this woman's errors.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 8, 2012 9:13 PM
What gets me is how so many men believe they should NEVER have consequences for making a baby. "Women get to opt out with abortion or adoption so why can't we too? It's not fairrrr!" Um. Killing your unborn child is not a walk in the park. Neither is carrying a child nine months then handing it over for adoption. Yes, women have these choices, but they're still choosing between a bad situation and a worse situation. For women there are ALWAYS going to be consequences for pregnancy, period. And if the women chooses adoption or abortion, then the consequences for the father are zero. None. Congratulations, you just made a baby and got out of it with less effort than it takes to pay a parking ticket.
And this is what happens 90% of the time, at least within certain socioeconomic classes. It's why you almost never see girls getting pregnant and dropping out of college--not that unwanted pregnancies don't happen, but when push comes to shove they're getting the abortion. Guys know this, they count on this, and assume that if something does go wrong the girl will just "take care of it" and it won't ever be their problem. And most of the time they're right. But that one time in a hundred when someone is actually asked to take responsibility for the baby that HE made? Suddenly it's a major human rights violation. And everyone loves to jump on the pin-in-the-condom theory and ignore the fact that daddy-to-be has most likely been playing baby-roulette for years--eventually luck is going to run out. And it's not that men don't know the basic biological facts of how babies are made, it's that they don't think there's ever going to be consequences--for them.
And yes, of course I think it's unfair that men don't have any choices or control over the results of an unwanted pregnancy. That's why men need to be extra careful to make sure they don't get anyone pregnant. I also think it's unfair that women face greater consequences of unwanted pregnancy. That's why women need to be extra careful to make sure they don't get pregnant. See how it works? It takes two stupid/careless/irresponsible people to make a baby, only responsible one to make sure they don't. And if you're dumb enough to pass that responsibility off to someone you barely know, then you probably deserve whatever consequences you have coming to you.
Shannon at March 8, 2012 10:12 PM
Damn Crid, you're such a harsh taskmaster. :D
Look, the bottom line is this: if you're a woman, you'd better figure out really early on what you are and are not willing to do when it comes to having and/or raising a kid, because, let's face it, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM. How anyone (meaning any WOMAN) doesn't get this is quite beyond me. It's not that hard to figure out, people. Honestly.
Somehow I managed to make it to the ripe old age of 45 with no kids, and I don't particularly think I'm brighter than the average person. It can't possibly be that hard.
Yes, accidents happen. But, quite honestly, the sheer number of people who say "birth control failed", if true, would reduce the effectiveness of birth control to about 50%.
There are a fair number of liars out there. And, quite frankly, my personal life experience (I'm a girl, BTW) says it's my gender that seems to be the worst offenders. YMMV.
Daghain at March 8, 2012 10:45 PM
> I'm a girl, BTW
Oh.
Er....
Well, I agree with you about the "birth control failure" business. People who complain about "pinprick condom ventilators" never seem ready to recite the published failure rates for rubbers, anyway. And as I remember from the earliest mentions of these things in school, those rates are unaccountably high. And when you'd ask the teacher for an explanation, or carefully study the literature, you'd get a looping but vapid series of replies: Essentially, a you-figure-it-out silence. Eventually you'd get the picture: The problem isn't the methods, the problem is the people using them, and their subterranean motivations. Science will not help you.
"Pinholes!"
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2012 3:46 AM
"What gets me is how so many men believe they should NEVER have consequences for making a baby. "Women get to opt out with abortion or adoption so why can't we too? It's not fairrrr!" Um. Killing your unborn child is not a walk in the park."
Exactly. I have a 22 yr old son, who has been well-advised to use protection and choose wisely. If he comes to me and says his girlfriend is pregnant, and she's decided to keep it, there's no way I'm letting him use that lame excuse to walk out on my grandchild!
He doesn't have to marry her, but he's not going to whine about how unfairrrr it is because the child's needs come first, and he is, and always will be, that child's biological father, and I would expect him to make his best effort to be involved.
As Monica says, the taxpayers can buy diapers and formula, but we can't be that child's daddy.
I was put up for adoption because my biological father walked away. Bill, that may be the case for you too. It is for a lot of adopted kids. The fact this turned out alright for many of us doesn't make what they did noble. It was shitty and selfish.
Shitty and selfish people can come up with all kinds of excuses why they're shitty and selfish, but that doesn't make them valid.
LS at March 9, 2012 4:37 AM
Apparently on Planet Billyboy, men aren't responsible for their behavior... Other people are expected to clean up after them, and to somehow be understanding about it.
I wonder how that works. In your daydreams, I mean. We know how it plays out in real life... And we know what to think of such men.
Crid, you really are a horrendous troll. You don't add anything to the conversation, your responses are personal attacks, and when you attempt to say something intelligent you fail. Take your hatred of men and go away.
Bill C at March 9, 2012 8:40 AM
I was put up for adoption because my biological father walked away. Bill, that may be the case for you too. It is for a lot of adopted kids. The fact this turned out alright for many of us doesn't make what they did noble. It was shitty and selfish.
Shitty and selfish people can come up with all kinds of excuses why they're shitty and selfish, but that doesn't make them valid.
I wasn't put up for adoption. My sister was.
I take it you are against people having sex for any other reason than procreating?
Bill C at March 9, 2012 9:07 AM
> Take your hatred of men and go…
No need to make special arrangements for portage. This hatred shines only for venal men; and for them, it's ALWAYS close to my heart.
Y'know, Billster, you coulda prevented a lot of the "personal attacks" by just responding to the first comment— March 8, 2012 10:07 AM: "How could he possibly, possibly have protected himself?"
(Maybe I should apologize for the sarcastic inquiry, but even then you had the vibe of someone doing a monologue.)
Because ever since then, and you've made eight comments since then, you've dodged the central topic in the most oblivious way possible, like a two-year-old who throws peas off the high chair so he won't have to eat them. You've been talking about this bad outcome as if the guy didn't have at least half the responsibility... In fact, you've never conceded that he played any role in this at all. This is not a 'rhetorical stance' on your part. It's not a clever ploy, not a thoughtful way to focus the approbation of this crowd towards that half of the human race which you apparently find so threatening.
Two to tango, dude. Everyone understands this, whether or not you address the implications. Your disregard of this principle comes off as theatrical, and feminine, woundedness... As if some gum-snapping ponytail on roller skates broke your heart in fifth grade and you never got over it.
Thing is, I'd like to complain about feminine nature! There's a huge dark side to feminine nature. Even on a ladies' blog like this one, with a purple and chartreuse banner, most of the women who visit would be stunned to hear that said out loud: 'What does he MEAN by saying that feminine nature isn't 100% loving & wonderful????' It would be fun to discuss.... Certain topics which roll around every few days could benefit from frank chatter about it.
But about once a month or so, Amy rings in another bitter, isolated, conspiracy-minded 'men's rights' zombie such as yourself. (Maybe they see that she criticizes women sometimes, and hope she might secretly be on the team. This strikes me as unlikely.) And everytime one of you guys blows through here –with your monomaniacal resentments and insensibility to exchange– I'm reminded that haven't yet put feminism into the sturdy posture it deserves.
You delay the inevitable. You piss me off.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2012 10:37 AM
You piss me off.
Ho, you are in for it now, you've pissed off crid; now he'll stalk you, keep links to all your commenst so one day 6 to 8 months from now he'll pounce and bring up how you killed discusion on a topic he loves with a sinlge off color joke.
He's relentless, he's methodical, he kinda crazy and has nothing better to do with his time then fruitlessly persue mindless vendettas
So am I come to think of it, but its ever so much fun
Join us
lujlp at March 9, 2012 3:10 PM
"I take it you are against people having sex for any other reason than procreating?"
Uh, no. Otherwise my husband and I wouldn't be having sex since he's had a vasectomy. That's an absurd conclusion. And, before you say it, I'm not against premarital sex either.
I'm against exactly what I said. I wouldn't allow my own son to walk out on a biological child once the child was HERE...even if he didn't love the mother...even if the pregnancy was inconvenient...even if he would've preferred she made the choice of abortion or adoption.
I'm at the age now where I'm seeing this very scenario play out in some of my friend's lives. One friend's son, who is one of top students in the country, got a girl pregnant when he was an 18 yr old freshman.
They could've washed their hands of it, basically. They could've taken the attitude that this wasn't their son's mistake to deal with, since the girl chose to keep the baby.
But that's not the kind of people they are.
They immediately moved to establish their son's parental rights, setting up visitations. Then, when it became apparent that this baby was being neglected by a drug-addicted mother, they helped him go to court and get full custody.
This adorable little girl is now 3 years old, and the light of their lives. More importantly, she is living the kind of stable, loving existence with her daddy and grandparents that she wouldn't possibly have had if they'd turned their backs on her.
Their son is still pursuing his dreams, and will be heading off to grad school, so, though it's been a struggle, the pregnancy hasn't derailed his life. It's been a big lesson for him, and I doubt he'll make that mistake again.
So, THAT is what I'm for - people behaving in a responsible manner towards an unplanned pregnancy and an innocent child. Running away from your child, emotionally or financially, isn't an option in my book.
LS at March 10, 2012 4:30 AM
Who the hell is "Alana Joy"?
I spent my days on the internet, and I've never heard of her before this. Some celebrity.
I researched how much it would cost ... looking at about $1200. You stated that you would send me $300, not even half. I told you that I did not have savings to draw on to pay the difference ... You refused to budge, and to this day I don’t understand why. I mean, I spent more on your damn Christmas present.
$900 and she's trying to shame him? She doesn't have $900? Obviously, she's _very successful at being a celebrity_.
(But she had it 3 months ago, just not now when it counts.)
$300 is about what it costs for a abortion. That's why he's willing to send that to you.
Ok. Aside from her complete amount of suck and fail at life, not having $900, not being able to find any of the free/subsidized prenatal care plans that endemic - trust me, I know a fair bit about the S.C. one, and _they_ manage to get damn near 87% of the "poor" in prenatal programs (The problem isn't the programs, or the funding, but keeping the mothers to actually go to the doctor when they're supposed to.)
OK, aside from how stupid she is so she can't even manage what middle-school dropouts can, (and with a side of snark about how she's "pro-choice", so we know she thinks correctly, unlike that idiot Palin or other people who provide for their kids, but don't think correctly, so they're horrible people) she's trying to shame a guy into riding in on a white horse after she's embarassed him.
I'm just shocked she's breathing without a respirator.
So after all of that, after the guy blows her off, after she's so stupid she can't stumble her way into the free care, (or she doesn't qualify, like having too much money, and wanting to save it for christmas presents and "important" things, after all all all of that...
She thinks this will bring him back?
Somebody call whoever protects kids there and tell them to go ahead and start a casefile, cause that kid's in danger already.
Unix-Jedi at March 10, 2012 8:28 AM
Tensions are obviously high right now, but hopefully, things will calm down, and if she keeps the baby, he'll do the right thing by that child, which is a lot more important than their petty he-said/she-said drama. Especially if the child's mother is a dim bulb, its going to need a dad more than ever (though there's nothing to suggest he's the brightest person either).
LS at March 10, 2012 8:50 AM
LS:
Given the babymama's nature, it's unlikely.
This is the sort of stunt that will put a wall of lawyers between the father and the kid. If he does have money, he'd be an idiot not to.
The _good_ news is he _should_ be the last guy who can claim "I didn't know she was nuts!"
Unix-Jedi at March 10, 2012 10:02 AM
Let's hope not, for the kid's sake, Unix-Jedi. I think many women don't understand how detached guys can be about this during the pregnancy stage - even when they're married to the mothers. That baby just isn't REAL to them until it's actually, well, a real live kicking baby, whereas the mother has already started bonding, nesting, and visualizing the whole parent/child relationship.
Most guys simply don't work that way. There's no sense in getting mad about it, which is probably what's at the heart of her anger. She's already feeling protective of this unborn child, and it's upsetting her that he doesn't yet acknowledge this little person.
But he probably will develop a parental bond once the reality sets in, at least if he has a shred of decency. She needs to calm down until after the birth, then send him some photos, and invite him for a visit. Let him see and hold his baby. She can't force him to parent, but she can do everything possible to facilitate him having a positive relationship with his child.
LS at March 10, 2012 10:37 AM
Sorry, LS, but you're projecting.
She's already feeling protective of this unborn child, and it's upsetting her that he doesn't yet acknowledge this little person.
No. She's angry with him for how he's treating her. Not the potential baby.
He didn't follow the script she'd written for him, and he made his opinion clear from the start, even according to her account.
But she's not being protective of the child, she's using it as a weapon to bludgeon him.
I did not receive any prenatal care in my first trimester, which is sadly, very risky.
That. So she's had the time to berate, IM, email, text - but not go to a doctor even though she knew it was important to the baby.
That right there tells you how important the child is to her right now - only as a weapon.
We can hope she grows up - but I'd bet against it happening.
Last week I was finally able to make it to a doctor, because I was able to get state insurance.
So when she finally got off her ass, she found out hey, it's free. Wow.
Luckily, I’ve been told the baby is healthy. I sent you a picture of the sonogram. You ignored that too.
Yes, because "Alana" is a nutcase, and he's old enough, smart enough, and doggone it, she's not good enough for him anymore.
He's behaving rationally given that she's threatening and extorting him, using this kid - and that's all the kid is to her right now.
Unix-Jedi at March 10, 2012 1:45 PM
Maybe. I didn't read her blog. She certainly isn't helping her cause, or that of her child, trying to shame him.
But, none of this is the child's fault. He may hate her guts or think she's nuts, but if he is the father, he needs to put the child's needs ahead of those feelings - just as my friend's son did.
A lot of guys here feel just as negatively towards their exs, but they don't let that keep them from being involved in their children's lives.
I have sympathy for his aversion to HER, but not enough to give him a free pass to completely abandon his kid.
LS at March 10, 2012 2:07 PM
Unfortunately, this kid is an IDEAL candidate for adoption, but its mother is too batshit crazy to realize it, meaning yet another genreration of "I should get what I want when I want and screw everyone else" is going to exist.
Sad.
*****Thing is, I'd like to complain about feminine nature! There's a huge dark side to feminine nature. Even on a ladies' blog like this one, with a purple and chartreuse banner, most of the women who visit would be stunned to hear that said out loud: 'What does he MEAN by saying that feminine nature isn't 100% loving & wonderful????' It would be fun to discuss.... Certain topics which roll around every few days could benefit from frank chatter about it.*****
You and me both, buddy. There are some members of my gender that make the rest of us look like evil crazy bitches, and I'm getting more than a little tired of it.
Daghain at March 10, 2012 7:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3054653">comment from Daghaina purple and chartreuse banner,
Um, you need to clear your cache. That hasn't been my banner for about a year. It's red.
Also, this isn't a "ladies' blog," which sounds like a website where they serve you tea and crumpets in white gloves. In case you hadn't noticed, I say "fuck" and a bunch of other unladylike words. With some frequency.
Amy Alkon at March 10, 2012 7:24 PM
Defensive, are we???!?? Well, Melbourne is next weekend, and you haven't even mentioned it.
Not enough "thriving" Inuit.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 10, 2012 7:51 PM
LS:
Maybe. I didn't read her blog.
You know, I really don't know how to say this where it might come off insulting.
But, what the hell are you talking about, if you have no idea what everybody else is talking about?
She certainly isn't helping her cause, or that of her child, trying to shame him.
But, none of this is the child's fault.
As a friend of mine said reading this: "Never mind those pesky facts, let's talk about my emotional response"
If you haven't read her post - nor the quotes that have been pulled out - how can you opine on the truth of the situation and the facts?
Unix-Jedi at March 11, 2012 8:52 AM
Because it's irrelevant to me how she feels or how he feels. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing grown ups whine about how it's the other person's fault, or how inconvenient the consequences of their actions are, while their children are in the crossfire...while their children are being destroyed.
I DON'T CARE if he likes her or she likes him. Or if he thinks she's a nutcase, and she thinks he's a cheap bastard. After years spent in family court as a child advocate, I've heard this crap a million times. I don't need to read her blog or care about how inconvenient this pregnancy is for him.
Frankly, it's such a mess - how irresponsible people already are toward their children that we really do not need to introduce new reasons for fathers to abandon their children ("You asked her to have an abortion? Oh well, alrighty then, go on your merry way..."). Please!
Haven't we got enough fatherless children? Do we really need to invent NEW reasons for fathers to avoid taking responsibility and dump their progeny on the state? I don't think so.
These people are having a child, and since it's clear the mother is keeping it, they BOTH need to put their big people pants on and put the needs of that child ahead of their own selfish, dramatic bullshit. And a child needs more than a "checkbook daddy".
LS at March 11, 2012 9:56 AM
And before you ask, "Why does she get to choose?" She just does. It's always been that way, and every boy knows this as soon as he's old enough to play spin the bottle, and certainly by the time they're as old as this guy.
Of all 3 options - abortion, adoption, or raising the child - she bears the greatest physical and emotional burden for each of them. There's absolutely no argument that the consequences for any of these choices is more impactful to him than her. So, she gets to decide.
LS at March 11, 2012 10:15 AM
Because it's irrelevant to me how she feels or how he feels.
No, it's entirely germane to the facts of this case.
Once you say "I don't care about the facts, blah blah blah, but I'm going to decide anyway", you're not acting as an grown up.
Frankly, I'm sick of hearing grown ups whine about how it's the other person's fault, or how inconvenient the consequences of their actions are, while their children are in the crossfire...while their children are being destroyed.
Then you should act as a grown up and examine the facts of the case. In this case, he has no ability to influence anything at this time, and she - she is using her pregnancy as a weapon against him.
GIVEN THAT FACT, he is behaving rationally, correctly, and yes, as a grown-up. Throwing money at her wouldn't fix it - her complaints would just change to (as it already is) "not enough", and the goalposts would move. You can see - if you'd read the post in question she's already moved the goalposts.
He's old enough and smart enough to realize that this is a Charlie Brown/Lucy football situation, and he's not trying to kick the football.
It doesn't matter how much you want to assure him that she's going to hold the football this time, he's smart enough (and correct) that it's bullshit.
If you'd read what she said, you'd see that what your projecting isn't in any way a possibility given the facts in this case.
I keep harping on that, because, well, the facts of the case are what's important
Yes, it would be great if she didn't ambush him with a pregnancy. It would be great had he gotten snipped, used a condom, not flown her across he country, or any of the things that he did wrong. Nobody here is arguing otherwise.
But you're saying that she should "calm down" (She won't, she's nuts), and he'll "come around" and be a father. Well, he might but the reason he's looking more and more like a monthly check is her current unhinged behavior.
Wishing won't change that. Blaming him (or her) won't change that.
Sure, it's sad, Sure it's too bad that this kid is going to be like so many others, and used as a pawn and a tool and a weapon.
But you know, that's what's happening now, it's what's going to happen, it's not new, it's quite common, and given the facts in this case he's behaving completely rationally (at this point). She's bugfuck nuts, she's extorting him, and he can't do anything until the baby is born.
Given the realities of the situation involved and the facts of this case, this is the expected, normal way things are going to work out. It's going to backfire on her, it's going to do the opposite than bringing him riding in on a white jet plane, and anybody with foresight and sanity could see that.
But if you're going to name specifics, it helps to actually, find out what they are. Yes, I agree, in general, this is a bad outcome.
But in the specific, this is the outcome to be expected. And it's getting worse from her behavior. His is over and done with, unless she gets some major help, gets over the emotion and failed ambush, and treats the kid with love and respect.
I don't see that happening. Because I read her post. (That, and currently living with a pregnant woman who's normally mostly sane, I know that rationality isn't a side-effect of pregnancy.)
Unix-Jedi at March 11, 2012 12:44 PM
Unix-Jedi, it doesn't matter how bat-shit crazy she is, he has rights as a father. It isn't solely up to her whims, and support will be decided by the court, not her. The facts of this case are no different than a zillion other cases.
My friend's son was pretty much targeted like this too. The girl he got pregnant was trailer trash, and the fact he's a top chemistry student and has a bright future must've made him seem like a real catch as a baby daddy. Plus, she lived with a bat shit crazy mother and they both had drug problems.
So, by your logic, he should've just thrown up his hands, and said to hell with them and that baby because it's going to be HARD.
Well, life is hard sometimes. Doing the right thing by your child is hard sometimes.
Instead, he went to court and established his parental rights - to see his daughter, NOT the mother. This father has those exact same rights. You're just more interested in making excuses for him not even trying to be involved.
Yet, especially if the mother is batshit crazy, it's all the more reason he needs to do this! He needs to be involved in his child's life because that child only has one daddy, and, like it or not, it's him.
Maybe he'll even gain full custody, as my friend's son did, once he discovered how poorly the girl and mom were caring for the baby. But he would never have known about that if he'd turned his back on her and simply wrote the checks.
The FACT is: Every child deserves more than a checkbook daddy.
LS at March 11, 2012 1:31 PM
I shouldn't be too surprised that you didn't read what I wrote.
So, OK, I'll just suggest you read the source(s) before opining in the future - and you might want to go read her 2 after this post, too.
Unix-Jedi at March 11, 2012 2:41 PM
I'm not trying to dissect this particular case, Unix-Jedi. My arguments were focused on whether or not men have the right to walk away just because women "have all the options" in an unplanned pregnancy. Others have made that assertion here. That's what I was addressing.
We can talk generally or we can spend our time focusing on this one particular couple and their unique baby drama. That really doesn't interest me, nor would it likely change my view that men, in general, have more than a monetary obligation towards their children under these circumstances.
What is your argument then? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be suggesting that because he's behaving rationally by avoiding her - and that she appears crazy and vindictive - that he has no obligation to the baby once it's born other than to pay child support.
I would agree it's understandable that he's avoiding her when she's apparently trashing him online, and the baby isn't even born yet, and it may not even be his. I simply disagree that her behavior absolves him of the responsibility to be a proper father to the child if he is, in fact, proven to be the father.
LS at March 11, 2012 5:34 PM
> Because it's irrelevant to me how she feels
> or how he feels.
I've been waiting ten years for someone to say that on this blog... And it turns out to be LS.
Snowballs in Hell, hens grow teeth.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 11, 2012 6:58 PM
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be suggesting that because he's behaving rationally by avoiding her - and that she appears crazy and vindictive - that he has no obligation to the baby once it's born other than to pay child support.
Yes, you're misunderstanding.
He's obligated, morally, ethically, and legally to provide child support, and morally to provide more than that, in my opinion.
But that's tempered by the reality that she's using the child as a weapon against him, and that will color his opportunity, his willingness and his ability.
I simply disagree that her behavior absolves him of the responsibility to be a proper father to the child if he is, in fact, proven to be the father.
Her behavior prevents him from being a "proper father".
As you said, it's her choice.
Unix-Jedi at March 11, 2012 7:50 PM
Whether you agree with the blog post or not is for you to decide but assuming she scammed him, trapped him, etc is crazy in itself and says more about those stating this than her. She is crazy for posting this? She is having an unplanned pregnancy, got dumped by the guy a week after she finds out, and though he said he would handle his financial obligations he has not contributed anything to any prenatal care or expense so far. Does one need a court order to be a deadbeat? Not in my opinion. To let your baby, whether you are the mother or the father, go without prenatal care in the first trimester when you have the money is in my opinion, abuse and neglect from day one. If he wondered about his paternity she offered an amnio. She also asked for his lawyers info. Why has he denied any of this? Because he's an ass hole. Going through this alone and enduring the behavior he is showing would drive most any hormonal woman to extremes. Before the internet, women would show up at your place of work or house etc. Now, they take it to their blog. Crazy? Not any crazier than what he is doing.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 4:17 AM
Fellatricks:
She is crazy for posting this?
Among other things, yes.
To let your baby, whether you are the mother or the father, go without prenatal care in the first trimester when you have the money is in my opinion, abuse and neglect from day one.
"When you have the money" appears to be your out for letting Ms. Joy off the hook, for the one responsible for such, and for not finding a way, in over 3 months, of getting such care (Despite it being rather easy to get, set up payment plans for, and/or get free.) Also note that he did send some money, just not enough, in her opinion.
So you agree Ms. Joy is abusing and neglecting the child. Good, that's step one.
Going through this alone and enduring the behavior he is showing would drive most any hormonal woman to extremes.
Good, you agree that she's not behaving rationally, and "extremely". Step two.
Before the internet, women would show up at your place of work or house etc. Now, they take it to their blog. Crazy? Not any crazier than what he is doing.
Step three! Arrive at the same conclusion we did!
Yes, even you agree she's crazy, and neglecting her child.
Now, given that even you agree with that, why would any sane man do anything other than wait for (proper) court papers to arrive?
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 5:16 AM
"Her behavior prevents him from being a "proper father".
That's debatable, certainly as the child gets past infancy, but I'm glad you agree that he has a moral obligation to try.
It doesn't, however, sound like he's making much of an effort so far, like Fallatricks says. And since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and, although this mother is definitely hormonal, and may, indeed, be unstable, she has some basis to presume he's going to continue to shun this child once it's born.
She's jumping ahead, based on this presumption, to imagining how painful this will be for her child - being denied a place in his life and with his/her own blood relatives. It's normal for pregnant women to make this imaginative leap, and actually, quite healthy, because she needs to imagine the future in order to decide how to proceed.
But, as a guy, he's probably not thinking like that at all. He's living in the moment, because right now, there is no baby and that's the way he'd like it to stay. If he could freeze time and prevent the inevitable birth, he would, so the next best thing is to ignore that it's happening...until it does.
He's likely telling himself that:
a) it's not his baby (though he doesn't want to test this yet, because it's such a comforting thought)
b) Anything could still happen to end the pregnancy - miscarriage, her changing her mind about abortion, her getting hit by bus, etc
c) If A and B turn out to not be true, he can still ignore the whole thing until a judge actually demands support payments.
So, he's in kind of a state of denial right now. It's understandable...to everyone but her. But I wouldn't say that's particularly odd. Nobody likes to be ignored or shunned - it makes us all angry - especially when you're carrying the shunner's baby in your belly.
The main difference here is that she has a blog, which is a new way to get his attention. In the old days, girls would just send their daddys over with shotguns, or show up at your place of work.
But it's still the same thing. She wants his attention because this is a lifechanging event for both of them.
And it wouldn't matter if she was super sweet to him right now. He's not interested in ending his state of denial because of A, B, and C.
My guess is that we can't guage how either of these people will behave after the birth. All that's clear is that neither of them are showing their best characteristics right now.
LS at March 12, 2012 5:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063048">comment from LSWhat would his "best characteristics" be?
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 6:06 AM
Did you even read her post Unix?
He has not sent her ANYTHING to date. Not that he has not sent enough. She also stated she obtained state insurance but was unable to until out of her first trimester. The reason she got none in her first tri is because he did not pay for the one appointment she requested he help with AT ALL. And he DOES have the money. And she provided him with numbers to call to confirm every number she gave him. You seem to twist words to suit your argument but that doesn't make them more factual.
So she is abusing the baby by getting state insurance as soon as she could? No he is by having the means to help, saying he would, and then not doing so with anything, money or otherwise to date.
She is the ONLY ONE in this pair taking ANY responsibility yet you bash her and not him?
You have issues of your own then.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:09 AM
"What would his "best characteristics" be?"
Having more of sense of ownership for the problem. A little more accountability. She didn't make this baby by herself.
If he has the money, it would be nice to extend some more so that she doesn't have to go to the free clinic. I went to a doctor who took medicaid patients when I was pregnant with my daughter because it was cheaper, but it was also like an assembly line. Long waits, in a dinghy waiting room, filled to capacity with other pregnant women and their screaming children, and very little individual attention. So, I changed to a regular OB/GYN. Much better prenatal care there.
Some are judging her for not seeking the free care first, but if she thought he was going to help her more financially, I can see why she didn't. And it's not neglectful - a lot of women don't even know they're pregnant in the first trimester, or at least the first couple of months, so she didn't miss much.
He doesn't have to do this, of course, but the ideal guy in this situation would. If you're asking what the best characteristics would be, they would involve a potential father who would already begin acting and planning as a father. A man who would talk to her and assure her he's going to be there for the child, not just financially, but in all the ways a child needs a father.
That's almost a fantasy response to this situation, though I've known a few good men who've risen to that level of decency and responsibility, even before the birth. It's unlikely here for obvious reasons, but I would hope that he would begin to show these traits after the baby is born.
LS at March 12, 2012 7:11 AM
She isn't assuming he will not be involved, he has stated if you don't have an abortion I will not be involved. That is not an assumption it is what he told her over and again.
Also why has he not provided her with his attorneys information? She seems to have tried to converse about this topic, one he should want to discuss privately yet he dumps her, ignores her with a baby and doesn't even follow through with the "help" he said he'd provide?
She should panic that is healthy in this situation. It would be "unstable" for her not to.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:12 AM
To the author of this post, it's quite snide that you brag of how you have managed to consult and pay for independent insurance. How do you know she has the means? Private independent insurance for a freelancer can range from 4-600 per month. Not everyone is as apparently successful as you.
You have taken a very one sighted angle to the way you've presented this girls personal blog post on her own blog. It's one thing to share with your own following but people like you exploiting her post for page views are sicker than a panicked pregnant lady venting on her own blog.
She also never said she didn't want the child, so why would she give it up for adoption? She wants to keep it and she wants the father to help. Neither asked for this situation and both could have prevented it.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:16 AM
LS, why do people repeatedly say she waited to get insurance when her post clearly states she got insurance as soon as she was able to?
People just are making things up as they go and replying to whoever came before them and don't seem to have even read the post.
But I get that you are defending her. Just pointing out the pattern of lies, mistakes, and agenda in this thread.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:19 AM
I also find it incredibly offensive that the author of this post states in the comments that she is inclined to believe she trapped him into this pregnancy and accuses her of fraud.
Based on what exactly?
Two adults have sex, two adults could have prevented the situation. One wants abortion, one does not. That is not planned or fraud. He is an adult man and if he didn't want children he could have worn a condom or had surgery. She could have taken a pill or other means. They are equally responsible here. I doubt this is what she dreamed of for her life, but you have no grounds to throw around such accusations not knowing this person to base this on her character or context other than this post.
How nice it must be to be so perfect as you and your entire family, to sit in judgement based on pretty much nothing. Your "advice" is ridiculous.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:24 AM
"She isn't assuming he will not be involved, he has stated if you don't have an abortion I will not be involved. That is not an assumption it is what he told her over and again."
Then he's a dick if he sticks to that, plain and simple. But, sometimes, that's just bluster and denial, with a bit of manipulation thrown in. He wants her to panic in hopes it'll drive her towards that abortion.
LS at March 12, 2012 7:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063483">comment from FellatricksInsurance has value. I paid for it even in my 20s when I couldn't afford insurance, rent, and a bed (I went without the bed), because my parents paid for my college education and I didn't think it fair that either they would be asked to mortgage their house or the public would have to pay for me if I got injured. I pay for it now -- as papers that run my column are going out of business and I haven't bought clothes for years, except at the salvation army. This chickie, on the other hand, is buying $900 Xmas presents and taking flying lessons. We spell this PRIORITIES. Frankly, it's an adult responsibility to pay for one's health care -- to plan for the need to pay for it and not piss away your money on the fun stuff.
Part of the problem is the way stupid Obamacare didn't fix one of the major problems here -- in an economy in which pretty much nobody stays in the same job very long, health care is STILL tied to the workplace.
As for this hilarity "Exploiting her post for page views," I've been blogging since 2003 -- about sexual issues, libertarian issues, small government, science findings, psychology, and other topics. If getting page views was my main event, I'd be celeb-blogging. But, nice try (probably as some friend of the unhinged chick's -- if not as the unhinged chick herself) since you've never posted here beyond this entry.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 7:27 AM
To those who bash single parents in general, you are all disgusting. You also probably hate gay marriage and think Obamas birth certificate is fake.
Families today come in a lot of different shapes and sizes. Even couples who do things the "conventional way" experience unexpected things. Fathers are soldiers and die. Divorce happens to the best of us. So if a woman isn't married she shouldn't get to keep her child, love her child, raise her child? She should give it away to strangers just because they are two. Two who could then eventually divorce or one dies or leaves the other or has an affair?
What utopia do you live in? Not Reality.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:30 AM
Amy where do you get your number of $900 on Christmas presents? Can you say for a fact that is what it costs? A simple Google (click first search result, can you handle that much?: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=teb&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=flight%20lesson%20catalina&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=6b8f6c2ef22f8dde&ix=teb&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1241&bih=713) found me rates that range from $180 - $300 for the flight lesson trip in her post. More blatant assumptions and propaganda.
Again, you don't know she can insurance or not. Being able to pay a one time gift is not the same as being able to month after month afford that expense. It is unrealistic for you to make that assumption and unfair as well, like all of your assumptions. State fact or opinion but do not assume and/or lie.
Who cares if this is my first time commenting here? I've read this thread, and her posts, and am sickened at the unfair, untrue, out of control vitriol and assumptions being thrown her way. Drove me to speak up.
And yes, I do think you exploited her personal blog post. Brag all you want about your syndication. I've never heard of you before. You are no household name, dear.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063558">comment from FellatricksTo those who bash single parents in general, you are all disgusting.
I used to think it was okay to be a single parent until I read all the research that shows how poorly the outcomes for children of single parents are.
Families do come in all shapes and sizes -- some of them more damaging for the kids than others.
And I hate to just make mincemeat of all the stuff you're pulling out of your ass, but children of widowed parents do better than children of divorced or single parents.
In short, yes, she should give this baby up to stable, loving parents who can provide a FAMILY for this child. That's not utopia -- or rather, it wasn't when I was growing up...back before entitled bratty women like this had the idea that they'd do whatever they please, and never mind what children need.
Pregnancy as life-funding...you go, girl!
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 7:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063576">comment from FellatricksAmy where do you get your number of $900 on Christmas presents?
I'm on deadline, so I shouldn't really be commenting -- it was from memory.
But the thing is, if you can't afford health insurance -- your responsibility as an adult -- what the hell are you doing taking flight lessons?! Or giving a gift that is more than a card or homemade cookies.
"Brag all you want about your syndication. I've never heard of you before. You are no household name, dear."
No, I'm not. But, I pay my health insurance every month, unlike this Internet celebrity. I think that's something to brag about. And I don't run where you are, up there in Portland. (Every time you post, I get the sense, more and more, that you're the unhinged chickie.)
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 7:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063581">comment from Amy AlkonShockingly, yes, just traced your IP -- and it's from Portland.
No, I don't run in your alt weekly up there, but I did do a reading at Powell's. So sorry I missed your psycho ass when I was there.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 7:43 AM
> I used to think it was okay to be a single
parent
Why?
Why would you have presumed so? What interior bias, or experience in childhood, or social whisper had lead you to think it was "okay"?
Why, for the love of God, did you have to wait for "research" to show you the light?
Would all opinions be equally unreliable, and thus equally worthwhile, without access to your "research"?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2012 7:45 AM
Because I live in Portland and disagree with you I must be her or crazy? You just keep getting better and better and also love to exploit peoples privacy! Great gal.
Based off memory? Nowhere in any of her posts does it say $900 so what memory? You made it up. To defend why she can afford insurance that she probably couldn't or she wouldn't have been approved for state insurance.
Who says she is an internet celebrity? She posts on her own blog about her own life and you parse it here and claim she's a celebrity now? But I thought you don't blog about celebrities because your blog is OH SO SERIOUS?
I know, many (self) important profesional syndicated "writers" on deadlines name call commenters who disagree with them.
You're getting comical at this point. Keep going, it invalidates your everything else.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 7:52 AM
"People just are making things up as they go and replying to whoever came before them and don't seem to have even read the post."
I admittedly didn't read the post. Crid and I don't care about these people's feelings or blog posts. But thanks for clearing up the insurance part.
I'm not against single parenthood, but I do agree with Amy about the outcome for kids, particularly those raised by poor parents. If this woman can't afford health insurance, she's going to have a very hard time affording a child. Even if she gets a few dollars a month from Mr Absentee Dad, it's not going to be enough. She'll still shoulder probably 2/3 of the day-to-day expenses, if not more, and she needs to realize that.
Maybe it's just how my mind works, but, with these threads, I always jump to the solution first, then check it for practicality.
A society that forces women to have abortions when the men involved don't want to be fathers sounds very patriarchal. We might as well go back to stonings.
Plus, it's no more equitable! If the woman wants the baby, then her rights are taken away. So, this doesn't resolve the "fairness" issue.
The other solution is "No rights - no responsibility". That we just let men opt out of child support if they can't choose abortion or adoption.
As someone who has been involved in the family court system, I can tell you that almost EVERY single man will use this as an excuse to avoid child support! And the rates of people living together without being married, while still procreating, are increasing.
From a societal perspective, it would be disastrous on so many levels - for the children, the taxpayers, and the mothers.
So, neither of those solutions work. I'm all for finding solutions that could work - like better male birth control, for instance, but until that is widespread, the current system is about the only way to handle this mess.
LS at March 12, 2012 7:57 AM
At least you, LS, are being honest as opposed to the writer of this blog post, about your lack of knowledge. You really should probably read what the context of the situation is before commenting and opining on the persons life and stating what you think they should do.
Freelancing means sometimes you have money and sometimes you don't. Unless you are Miss Syndicated Household Name here who has a "radio show" on a free platform where anyone can make a radio show. I freelance on top of my full time job. If I had to live off of just my freelance income, some months would be hard. If I had an unexpected major expense at that time I don't know what I would do but that doesn't mean I will always be broke. People figure it out. Some people. Admittedly some don't, but it isn't right to assume she will not be a good mother or able to handle things just because within a few months of unexpectedly being pregnant, with no help, she needed state insurance or something.
I'm defending her because it seems like no one else here really is or has reading comprehension. There's a twisted bias due to the way it was presented here by Miss Professional Deadline Who Is Rich.
But since I live in Portland and so does the girl in question, I am apparently her and/or crazy. Assumptions about a strangers life and her potential as a mother, that's not nuts at all.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 8:03 AM
"Pregnancy as life funding"
Okay, yes asking the father to help pay for prenatal is asking him to fund her life? An internet celebrity freelancer I'm sure had to put a lot of work into that. Doesn't sound to me like she's looking to have her life funded, sicko. I don't understand you attacking people.
Who are you to say what someone should do with their own child? You are a snark humorist, not an actual social worker, psychologist or anything of the sort.
Read some articles, add some commentary, and decide for other people what is best for their children because you are qualified and perfect.
Pathetisad. Something really tragic must have happened to you to make you such a horrid person.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 8:06 AM
According to Quantcast you get an average of 570 visitors per month. Not impressive for someone with all your syndication, accolades, and blogging since 2003. Yes, exploiting a vulnerable situation for page views.
We are done here. You are pathetic and I am not providing you with another blip of traffic or pageviews, enabling you.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 8:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063628">comment from FellatricksAccording to Quantcast you get an average of 570 visitors per month.
Quantcast is wrong, but it's cute that you care.
If I did only get that many visitors (and thanks, Google ad stats and my server stats work fine for me), what would I get by "exploiting" this whackjob's behavior, two more people to my site?
Gotta work that logic, dearie. Maybe it's pregnancy brain.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 8:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063631">comment from Amy AlkonMiss Professional Deadline Who Is Rich.
Sorry, but are you contending that I'm rich and fabulous or poor and unkonwn and maintaining a website that gets no traffic? Gotta get that clear.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 8:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3063640">comment from Amy AlkonIf I had to live off of just my freelance income, some months would be hard. If I had an unexpected major expense at that time I don't know what I would do but that doesn't mean I will always be broke. People figure it out.
Yes, it's called living as frugally as possible and putting money away for a rainy day instead of taking flight lessons and giving store-bought Christmas presents.
Now, I love clothes, and this year, I bought a pair of "premium denim" jeans that retail for maybe $200. I got them for $8.68 at the Santa Monica Salvation Army. I also bought a fleece jacket for $2 and I splurged and bought a red rooster cookie jar for $5 to use as my symbol of productivity.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 8:30 AM
It doesn't, however, sound like he's making much of an effort so far, like Fallatricks says.
But this is where reading what she said is important and knowing the facts.
What more could he do? Well, he could send money, which is her object and point, but that's also giving into her terrorism - Do this or I Hurt The Baby.
That's why I say she's the decider her. He's across the country, in no position legally or morally to do anything at the moment to stop her from threatening his kid, and the best option he has is to wait it out until the courts can give him his shot.
You're right. He might not stand up then. But you're totally ignoring the fact that barring magic (ie, removing the baby from her uterus and putting it somewhere it will be properly cared for.), he has no reasonably alternative.
And since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and, although this mother is definitely hormonal, and may, indeed, be unstable, she has some basis to presume he's going to continue to shun this child once it's born.
Probably! The mother is unstable! Of course its going to limit his interaction.
Look at the evidence. Go read her posts. That tells you what you need to know, LS. She used every method at her disposal (save actually getting a lawyer involved, which would be proper).
Until you do that, you're arguing from your feelings, and your feelings and wishes for unicorn meadows aren't what's in play here. The kid's a toy to _her_ right now. Maybe she'll mature - it's unlikely from what she's doing now - but possible.
The best thing for the kid is for him to not be involved.. As bad as that is, as good as it would be to have 2 parents, given her -admitted- instability - that's best case for the kid at the moment..
And that's why you need to read what she's saying and not just project how great it would be if people didn't do dumb things and put kids between their adult selves.
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 8:33 AM
"At least you, LS, are being honest as opposed to the writer of this blog post, about your lack of knowledge. You really should probably read what the context of the situation is before commenting and opining on the persons life and stating what you think they should do."
Have I told her what to do? I don't think so. It wouldn't do any good anwyay. She's obviously made her choice.
But do I need to read her every word to understand the odds stacked against her and that child? No.
I already know she's on state assistance now because she couldn't afford health insurance. I already know the father says he isn't going to be involved, except maybe to send a monthly check (if she can legally enforce this and actually collect). So, I already know this child will be virtually fatherless and of limited financial means.
This doesn't have much to do with whether she has the makings of a good mother. Setting and environment also apply, and this child is starting out in a terrible position - poor and fatherless. Read the stats on that.
It's not insurmountable, but it's going to be tough. I know many great single parents, who work their asses off, and their kids thrive, but...
There's a vast difference between becoming a single parent through circumstances and setting out to be one.
For example, there won't be any paternal bonding with this child, as there would be if the father was involved from the beginning. Even when couples split up, if that bonding has occured, the father tends to stick around to provide and nurture. This kid won't get the benefit of that.
LS at March 12, 2012 8:36 AM
I actually do understand why she's pissed off and why shaming him in social media is her tactic, but I don't think it's going to work out the way she plans. And if she's a "digital strategist", she's screwing her chances for more work.
But he's a shit, frankly. Even if he doesn't want anything to do with her or the kid, write a fucking check and get on with it. He's at ICM--he can afford it, I guarantee. Make a settlement with her now, make a plan for child support and man up.
KateC at March 12, 2012 8:40 AM
"The best thing for the kid is for him to not be involved.. As bad as that is, as good as it would be to have 2 parents, given her -admitted- instability - that's best case for the kid at the moment."
Really? What the fuck could she possibly say to make this untruth true? Is she speaking in tongues? Then, he better try even harder to gte his kid out of there.
No child deserves to be abandoned by their father. I don't care how unstable the mother is or what his excuses are.
LS at March 12, 2012 8:41 AM
Fellatricks:
Amy where do you get your number of $900 on Christmas presents? ... More blatant assumptions and propaganda.
I'm not Amy, but I can do simple math.
From her post:
You stated that you would send me $300, not even half. I told you that I did not have savings to draw on to pay the difference and that $300 wouldn’t get you the appropriate tests *anywhere*.... You refused to budge, and to this day I don’t understand why. I mean, I spent more on your damn Christmas present. YOU spent more on the last minute flight you booked to get me to you.
She quoted $1200. $1200 - $300 = $900.
Perhaps she meant $300 more. Or $600. If you're telling us she didn't mean $900, then it's a good thing she doesn't "live" off of her writing, because it's not good if it's so ambiguous.
Basic math isn't "propaganda" but it is "blatant assumptions". Ought to learn to do more blatant assuming your own self.
Like this one:
And he DOES have the money.
That implies a certain level of knowledge. (See the blatant assumption there?
She isn't assuming he will not be involved, he has stated if you don't have an abortion I will not be involved. That is not an assumption it is what he told her over and again.
Then his path is clear. There's no need for the drama, and the drama is merely meant to hurt the kid to get what "Alana Joy" wants.
That's not responsibility, by the way.
Also why has he not provided her with his attorneys information?
Why should he, so she can publically denounce them for doing their job?
Her lawyer will know how to find them. The best thing she can do right now is to get her lawyer to talk to his lawyer and get the ball rolling. (And there's plenty of free/low-cost services at her disposal for this.)
Not dramallama all over the internets.
She is the ONLY ONE in this pair taking ANY responsibility yet you bash her and not him?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I'm bashing her because she's using this pregnancy as a tool. She's hurting her kid. Dumbass bigshot has said his place, and she wants to argue and threaten the kid to get him to come back and argue some more.
He's not playing the game she wants for him to play, nor does it make sense for him to. So she's going to hurt her kid.
That's sad, and why I'm "bashing" her. If she was as smart as she apparently thinks she is, she'd have gotten into a free clinic or other ways to get the initial prenatal checks, she'd have had insurance, and she'd have already talked to a lawyer, and done what needs to be done, and could be talking about her impending single-parenthood.
You seem to be taking this awfully personally.
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 8:53 AM
LS:
Really? What the fuck could she possibly say to make this untruth true?
More than she already has?
She doesn't need to.
No child deserves to be abandoned by their father.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it" - William Munney, "Unforgiven"
No, the kid doesn't deserve that. But sometimes it's the best choice. I was lucky. My parents were and are together. But I saw many of my contemporaries fucked over mentally mercilessly by the fighting of their parents. I've had friends who "abandoned" their kids - at great emotional pain - because their exes were using the kids as weapons, and it was better to leave than keep letting the kids get used like that.
Life is pain, Princess. Anybody who says differently is selling something. (Need I quote that for you?)
It's difficult, it's nasty, it's hard. But you know what? It's reality. People are stupid, dumb, bigoted, spiteful, hurtful.
And if you're stupid enough to stick your dick in Crazee, sometimes the best thing to do is walk away until later.
Then, he better try even harder to gte his kid out of there.
His odds are poor, at best. That's the reality. Fathers don't get custody.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's not in the "best interest of the child". But it's the world as we live in it.
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 9:00 AM
"No child deserves to be abandoned by their father."
And no child deserves a mother so deluded and congenitally selfish as to bring it into a world knowing its father has no interest in it.
Any thinking or feeling pregnant woman who knows that the man isn't interested in being a father would either abort or surrender the child to adoption.
prawn toe at March 12, 2012 9:19 AM
"I've had friends who "abandoned" their kids - at great emotional pain - because their exes were using the kids as weapons, and it was better to leave than keep letting the kids get used like that."
As a GAL, I saw quite a few parents who used that as an excuse, but absolutely none who truly had to abandon their children for this reason. It's a cop out. Maybe they tell themselves that it's "for the greater good", but ask their kids how that feels. Ask their kids whether they'd rather have 2 parents in an imperfect situation over 1 parent totally disappearing from their lives.
Decent men figure out ways to work through it. If they have to have someone else pick up/drop the kids off, so they don't confront an angry (or crazy) ex, then that's what they do. If they must go to court to fight to enforce their visitation, then that's what they do. They don't walk out on their kids!
And men do gain custody. My friend's son is a perfect example. Was it easy? No. But he didn't just give up and quit fighting for his little girl. He fought for her and got her into a stable, loving home, rather than discarding her like a used condom.
You're so invested in excusing this guy's abandonment. I guess with the pessimistic world view that you seem to have this is the only option you can see, but there are others.
This woman may or may not be crazy, but we can't really know because it seems she actually has cause to be quite angry with him at this point. He said he would help, at least financially, and hasn't. Perhaps if he would be more responsive, and more accountable for the fact that this is a situation of his making as well, she wouldn't be so upset.
Frankly, I don't think her demeanor makes a damn bit of difference. She could be as sweet as pie to him, and he's still going to shut her out, not because she's "unstable" but because he's hoping this mistake will just go away if he ignores it. Her mental state has no bearing on what he's already decided to do - abandon his kid.
LS at March 12, 2012 10:09 AM
Unix you're an idiot who can't read. Amy said she spent $900 on Christmas presents. The $1200 figure was for a prenatal appointment of which he paid nothing. You are subtracting the $300 he said he would give but did not from the $1200 cost of the prenatal visit and saying that is where Amy's assertion that the girl spent $900 on a Christmas present came from.
"He DOES have the money" is not an assumption. He is SVP of Business Affairs of ICM. He can afford prenatal care.
She has done nothing to "use the pregnancy as a tool" for anything other than he should help with it. She has done nothing to abuse this baby in fact going out of her way to get insurance when he did not, take care of it daily when he is not, sacrifice god knows what when he is not to have and love this baby despite him. Some people can't just "have an abortion" like its nothing and I respect that choice.
He can't say anything she's done to try to get him to help with this is hurting his kid. The kid he wanted her to kill and swears he'll have nothing to do with? The kid he hurt by not helping pay for prenatal care? Sure.
Venting on ones own blog about their own circumstance does not make her crazy just because it's not what you would do. And not having an abortion just because the father wont stick around isn't crazy either just because it's not what you would do. She can't take him to court until the baby is born, and she's pregnant and alone and getting entirely ignored by this deadbeat. So she took to her blog. So crazy? Not more crazy than him happily dating and screwing her until it came time to face his own responsibilities just like she has to.
Sounds like they were getting along just fine before the baby happened. There is no sign of crazy about this girl other that the post, an obvious desperate and confused act but not a testament as to her abilities in life. A lot of people are between jobs right now, that doesn't mean she is "poor". She is in a temporary bad situation and he should help pay for prenatal and baby expenses because he helped create this situation.
Tired of the shaming of the woman in this situation just because she blogged. Or because she is one of millions who couldn't afford health insurance. Or because she doesn't have enough in her savings at this stage in her life to be set up for an unexpected child.
The comments here are like it's 1955.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 10:42 AM
Maybe they tell themselves that it's "for the greater good", but ask their kids how that feels. Ask their kids whether they'd rather have 2 parents in an imperfect situation over 1 parent totally disappearing from their lives.
LS in my experience, in that situation, the kid wishes the grownups would act like grownups.
But kids are, well, kids, and they're selfish and they're easily used as weapons and played against the other people.
And I've seen more than a few times where the best thing for the kid was for one parent to stop playing the game, going to court over and over and over and putting the kid in the situation, forcing them to be there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure many cop out as well.
But when you're faced with a array of bad choices, sometimes you have to try and pick the least-bad-one.
It's all you can do. Hindsight isn't 20/20, either. And there will always be people willing to tell you you're wrong, and you should magically do something else, wish for unicorns and fluffy cotton candy clouds and ...
In the real world, sometimes you got no choices but shitty ones going forward. Sometimes you don't find out til later that gee, that night of fun means this now. Sometimes bad things happen no matter how many good choices you've made.
Being a parent has been an education in what my parents went through.
And sometimes, you've just got to let your kids do something stupid, and get hurt, to learn from it. You've got to tell them "don't do that" and then watch them make a bad decision. Sometimes you've got to do what you hope is the best decision that will lead to the best outcome, and you won't know for years if you were right.
Her mental state has no bearing on what he's already decided to do - abandon his kid.
There we disagree totally, LS. I don't know what he would have done before, but after she went batshit? I'd be willing to bet you (presuming she's telling us the total unvarnished truth) that it cemented his decision, and it's got a lot of bearing on it.
This woman may or may not be crazy, but we can't really know because it seems she actually has cause to be quite angry with him at this point.
Yes, we can. We can see what she did. We can see that she took to the internetz and dramallammaed when he unfollowed her on Twitter, meaning she couldn't DM him anymore - and reading between the lines, she was doing that. A lot.
She's crazee. She has some cause, but he also told her his take-it-or-leave-it-point. She's refusing to accept that, and trying to force him to negotiate again.
Was it easy? No. But he didn't just give up and quit fighting for his little girl.
I've seen it go both ways, LS. I've seen people bankrupt themselves monetarily, emotionally, and socially and end up with nothing, and at the end, their kid(s) hated them because they had nothing materially to offer them anymore and the other adult had been "poisoning the well".
Here, there's almost no chance the father could possibly gain custody - how much should he risk, on the off-chance he wins? What's the downside if he loses?
I don't have to agree with him to potentially understand his mindset. Even with her account, he didn't get that divorced from it for some time. You may presume nothing happened in that time to change his mind. I'd presume otherwise.
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 10:57 AM
> She has done nothing to abuse this baby
Women who select incompetent fathers for their children, or who neglect to select one at all, are abusive.
Thanks for stoppin' by, though.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2012 10:57 AM
Fellatricks :
Unix you're an idiot who can't read.
Don't forget that I explained the math to you and you still don't understand it.
She has done nothing to abuse this baby in fact going out of her way to get insurance
Two things.
1) It's not insurance now. (Nit picky, but..)
2) Other than, by her own admission, failing to go to a single needed medical visit during the all-important first trimester.
But, yannow, I can't read, so I must not know about that.
'55? Hot damn, these are some Happy Days.
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 11:03 AM
Unix, Amy was referring to a $900 Christmas gift. She made this number up. You justify Amy's admittedly made up $900 Christmas calculation that the girl allegedly spent on him by presenting math that has nothing to do with Christmas presents.
I'm not the one who doesn't understand. Idiot. And she did too get insurance as soon as she was able to. State insurance doesn't happen overnight. Had you read the post you would see that she asked him to only pay for the one visit she would need to attend before the state insurance kicked in because she could not afford it not because she was abusing the baby. Psycho. He on the other hand had the money, said he would pay, and did not. He then would be the abuser if anyone. You really are disturbed. I won't reply to you anymore.
And Crid, since when is a 47 year old man who is already an active father to one kid a bad choice like anyone can know that person would screw them over? And she is the one who abuses the baby for choosing something she couldn't have known? Idiot.
I hope to god neither of you procreate. Done arguing in the slums here on this shit site giving the wanna be who posted this more page views.
You people are crazier than any blog post this girl wrote.
Fellatricks at March 12, 2012 11:17 AM
Fellatricks :
Unix, Amy was referring to a $900 Christmas gift. She made this number up.
No, she didn't. She arrived at that value based on what "Alana" wrote.
You justify Amy's admittedly made up $900 Christmas calculation that the girl allegedly spent on him by presenting math that has nothing to do with Christmas presents.
I justify nothing, I explained where I got the same idea that I presume Amy did.
Amy being not dumb, I figure that she got there the same way I did, and even quoted you where I got that idea.
Now, it's possible that's not what she meant, and you know that. You could correct me, if you had the facts, and do so by explaining.
But that would require being able to explain and not just throw insults.
She wasn't very clear, it's possible that we couldn't understand her and she was blathering.
Sure, I'll easily agree that I could have misinterpreted her, or that she misspoke, or didn't mean what we read her to mean.
But until you present evidence to demonstrate what the correct figure is, I'm sticking with the math that I did.
And she did too get insurance as soon as she was able to. State insurance doesn't happen overnight.
State insurance isn't the issue. It's whether she got the care that she admits she should have gotten. Now, I can't speak, categorically for Portland, No, wait, give me 10 seconds.
http://www.coalitionclinics.org/ohsu-community-health-centers.html
HOLY HELL HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS GOOGLE THING?
You really are disturbed. I won't reply to you anymore.
That relieves my mind no end, let me tell you.
I hope to god neither of you procreate.
TOO LATE!
And we made all our needed OB appointments.
But I'm the "crazy, idiot psycho". What does it say that "Alana" needs to take some notes from me?
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 11:31 AM
Unix-Jedi, you're talking about people who've had acrimonious divorces, which played out over a long period of time, usually years, and then, maybe, one of them decides to give up and walk away from their kids.
I still don't agree with it, but that's a lot different from someone making that decision over a couple of weeks (at best).
As I understand it (because I've now been forced to read some of her blog), he initially agreed to help out and even accompany her to a prenatal visit, then, the night before, he inexplicably did a 180 and told her he wasn't going to let this child disrupt his life and wasn't going to be a father to it.
Nothing about her being crazy, or that there was any issues between them at this point. That says to me that he made up his mind about walking out on the kid FIRST. Her angry response came AFTER he announced this decision. To which he responds by trying to twist things around to make it HER fault that he chose the way he did.
I agree with Fallatricks. She can't sue him for child support until after the birth, so he's left her high and dry to deal with the costs of all of this, even though he makes more money than she does, and he is equally responsible for this pregnancy.
I'd be pretty upset myself. It was a mistake to air things puplicly, but when the guy won't talk to her, and won't live up to his commitment to help financially, and he shuts down all communication, and even stops following her twitter feed, as if he can just forget she and the baby even exist (adding insult to injury), I can see why she'd be royally pissed off.
And one thing I've learned in life is that angry people may sound irrational or even crazy, but that doesn't mean they are. They're simply ANGRY.
Crazy people, on the other hand, get angry for no justifiable reason. That's not the case here.
You may think she should just go quietly away to sulk in a corner, like a doormat, and not stick up for herself - not call him out on his selfish, deplorable behavior towards her and his unborn child - but I disagree. She has very valid reasons for being upset, and she has every right to speak her mind.
Frankly, it's kind of sexist the way men always label women "crazy" whenever they dare to stand up for themselves. As if we should only act demure and be a doormat and get screwed over...quietly.
This guy screwed her over. She may have taken it lying down the first time, but she doesn't have to keep taking it.
LS at March 12, 2012 12:01 PM
We're gonna miss Fella! There aren't enough representatives of interpersonally-incompetent, socially-dependent, decades-embittered single motherhood on this blog.
But just like that, she's walked out of our lives.
And we'll have to move forward. Without her.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2012 5:12 PM
Hey, I missed the part about how Amy is exploiting a "private situation".
A blog post is private? Damn!
Radwaste at March 12, 2012 6:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3064739">comment from RadwasteHey, I missed the part about how Amy is exploiting a "private situation". A blog post is private? Damn!
Hah - great point, Rad.
I now have a strong feeling that this Fellatricks person is Alana Joy herself.
Oh, and it's a private situation expect as used to try to get her way with the guy. If you aren't interested in her cause, it becomes "private," and you become "exploitative." I think that video of her is rather telling.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 6:13 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3064743">comment from FellatricksFrom "Fellatricks" (who is surely this Alana Joy chickie): Done arguing in the slums here on this shit site giving the wanna be who posted this more page views.
As we all know here, people who aren't interested in this blog just leave; they don't announce it. We eagerly await your return, Fell. We love crazee here.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 6:15 PM
"I now have a strong feeling that this Fellatricks person is Alana Joy herself."
"Fellatricks" is undoubtedly Alana Joy.
There are too many phrases that she repeats in written form - both on her original post, as well on this blog - and in verbal fashion. (I use the word "fashion" because her video ramble is pretty incoherent.) While listening, my ear caught certain phrases she'd repeat over and over. Reading over these posts, I see the same phrases sprinkled in her writing. Not a coincidence.
prawn toe at March 12, 2012 6:24 PM
Can we talk about her name some more?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2012 6:28 PM
This one is winding up, right?
So here are the fundamental truths that I think have been established* in this comment stream:
[1.] Amy was wrong, and shame has an enduring, cross-cultural power to encourage weak and foolish people behave at their absolute best, even when their own weak hearts and a pandering commercial culture demand decadence and indulgence.
[2.] This is probably the best photo of a whitepeople family ever taken. (Seriously: It's almost as much fun as Las Meninas.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2012 6:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3064862">comment from prawn toe"Fellatricks" is undoubtedly Alana Joy. There are too many phrases that she repeats in written form - both on her original post, as well on this blog - and in verbal fashion. (I use the word "fashion" because her video ramble is pretty incoherent.) While listening, my ear caught certain phrases she'd repeat over and over. Reading over these posts, I see the same phrases sprinkled in her writing. Not a coincidence.
Pathetic.
The worst people reproduce.
Amy Alkon at March 12, 2012 7:39 PM
I believe a significant portion of first trimester care is taking folic acid, calcium and vitamin D. Avoid alcohol and smoking.
And somehow for about the previous 9950 years, women have been healthy, happy, well-adjusted children without benefit of prenatal care. For that matter, many would go and squat at the edge of the farm field to have a baby.
So how is that "abuse and neglect from day one"?
Jim P. at March 12, 2012 9:22 PM
> And somehow for about the previous 9950 years,
> women have been healthy, happy, well-adjusted
> children without benefit of prenatal care.
Preposterous. Why do people do that? Why do people feel compelled to pretend (Amy) that in some primitive condition of life, everyone was "healthy, happy, well-adjusted" when in fact, life was incredibly shitty?
What IS that?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 12, 2012 10:23 PM
LS:
Unix-Jedi, you're talking about people who've had acrimonious divorces, which played out over a long period of time, usually years, and then, maybe, one of them decides to give up and walk away from their kids.
No, really, I'm not. You're projecting. Yes, in some cases, that was the case, but not all by any means. It might be what you've seen - and our life experience might be enough different that you've never ever seen what I have.
This guy screwed her over. She may have taken it lying down the first time, but she doesn't have to keep taking it.
Based on what she's said she's done, and my reading of it, (Although, Fellatricks apparently says she doesn't say what she means to say, and as the others, I have reason to believe she might know a fair bit about that.), I'd say she went the full bunny-boiler on him, and he's going for the most rational course of action for him.
My objection to her stalking and hounding him to the exclusion of getting all that damn healthcare that I'm paying for for all these people to claim that they don't have "insurance" so they can't get "access to health care" is that she's neglecting the baby in this, and quite frankly, given my experiences, that wouldn't change with anything he would be able or likely to do. We'll have to just agree on the difference in life experiences and our outlooks.
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 11:12 PM
JimP:
So how is that "abuse and neglect from day one"?
He didn't call her back.
Crid:
. Why do people do that? Why do people feel compelled to pretend that in some primitive condition of life, everyone was "healthy, happy, well-adjusted" when in fact, life was incredibly shitty?
Don't make me sing "Colors of the Wind" to you. Don't make me do it. I'll do it. I swear I will. And "Circle of Life", just cause you won't believe in the Noble, Hard Working Savage.
Unix-Jedi at March 12, 2012 11:18 PM
Ok -- let me rephrase that:
And somehow for about the previous 9950 years, women have been children, substantially without defect, without benefit of prenatal care.
Jim P. at March 12, 2012 11:26 PM
They survived without dentistry, too. And call me elistist, but I like my honeys toothy, in a post-modern kinda way.
Listen, throughout human prehistory, giving birth was just about the best way for a woman (and her child) to die or be maimed. Didn't matter all that much, since life expectancy was so low even if they survived....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 13, 2012 5:17 AM
And somehow for about the previous 9950 years, women have been children, substantially without defect, without benefit of prenatal care.
Are you running whatever you're saying through Google Translate
Unix-Jedi at March 13, 2012 7:34 AM
I've had 2 children and, as Jim P said, prenatal care in the first trimester is basically about taking vitamins, avoiding alcohol and tobacco. It's isn't "abusive" to the baby not to rush to the doctor right away. If there's something wrong with the baby, they can't fix it at that stage anyway - they can't operate or check the baby out beyond an ultrasound (and in the first trimester all they can see is a baby sack, hardly informative except to tell you that you're pregnant, which you already know - duh! - and some people believe early ultrasounds are dangerous to the fetus).
Prenatal care is really more about mitigating health problems for the mother, not the baby. There are some rare risk factors for the mother in the early stages, but if the baby's health isn't good, it will likely just miscarry.
LS at March 13, 2012 7:49 AM
I'd like to make a few observations
1.All the ladiesw upset at a few of the guys 'makeing assumptions' about this woman are all guilty of assumeing he didnt use a condom
2.Everyone making the assumotion that he can afford to pay her bills are assuming she would acctually use the money to pay said bills rather than spend it on things she wants - she hads already proven her self to be bad at money management and impulse control
2a.You all also seem to be forgetting the fact that he is in Cali, divorced and paying alimony and child support to his first wife, plus what ever is costs to pay to maintian his reisdence. Depending on how long they were married his wife got upto if not more than half of all assests + spousal support + child support. Could it be he is just as bad with cash and impulse control as she and blew most of his reserves on last minute plane tickets for a quick roll in the hay?
3.THERE IS NO PROOF TO DATE THAT THE CHILD IS ACCTAULLY HIS!!
3a. Which means LS that he has no rights in the eyes of the court, he can not compel a DNA test until after the birth, and only if the mother consents or names him as the father when applying for welfare
lujlp at March 13, 2012 8:40 AM
And somehow for about the previous 9950 years, women have been healthy, happy, well-adjusted children without benefit of prenatal care. For that matter, many would go and squat at the edge of the farm field to have a baby.
Posted by: Jim P. at March 12, 2012 9:22 PM
Preposterous. Why do people do that? Why do people feel compelled to pretend (Amy) that in some primitive condition of life, everyone was "healthy, happy, well-adjusted" when in fact, life was incredibly shitty?
What IS that?
Posted by: Crid
Ummm, 150 of anthorpological study of ancient to middle ages human remains and their writtings?
lujlp at March 13, 2012 8:40 AM
I said that myself earlier, Luj. He doesn't have proof that the baby is his, which is why it's understandable that he's not rushing in to pick up the tab for prenatal care. I really don't have a problem with that.
But totally ignoring her isn't the right way to handle this either. It's just igniting tensions, and escalating her upsetness because she feels totally alone.
Again, he doesn't HAVE to do anything right now, but extending a little compassion for her - maybe offering to take her to a doctor's visit or buy a crib - would probably be all it would take to calm this situation down. The more he ignores her, the more upset she's going to get.
After the birth, they'll test for paternity, and if he is the father, he should take responsibility and give that child a real dad. No excuses.
I don't expect this, however, because he sounds like a douchebag.
LS at March 13, 2012 9:08 AM
"But totally ignoring her isn't the right way to handle this either."
LS, did you read any of Alana Joy's posts? The guy she claims is the baby daddy is a lawyer.
And if he's even the slightest bit aware of family law, he'll know that he needs to proceed with caution when dealing with her claims that the baby is his.
Any sort of gesture in monetary, verbal, or written form could implicitly suggest in court that he acknowledges the baby to be his - EVEN IF IT ISN'T. This is the most probable reason why he WON'T have anything to do with her. He's cutting all ties in the event that it isn't his child.
Until the kid is born and a paternity test taken, all you have are one woman's CLAIMS that a certain man is the baby daddy of her kid. THERE IS NO PROOF, as lujlp pointed out.
Most people sympathetic to her claims have just assumed what she says to be true without any proof. Why is that? Is it because AJ is pretty and white? If she were obese and homely, I wonder if many of the women on this blog would have the same reaction. I wonder if they would then accuse her of pussy trapping a guy.
If I were a lawyer and I were him, I would do the exact same thing. Distance myself from this woman until a paternity test confirms her claims. Because right now, that's all they are - CLAIMS. There is no proof.
prawn toe at March 13, 2012 10:06 AM
"Any sort of gesture in monetary, verbal, or written form could implicitly suggest in court that he acknowledges the baby to be his - EVEN IF IT ISN'T."
If you can provide case law that proves just taking a pregnant friend to a doctor's visit would make a man the baby's legal father and subject him to child support payments, I'd be interested. I wasn't aware of this.
"Most people sympathetic to her claims have just assumed what she says to be true without any proof. Why is that? Is it because AJ is pretty and white? If she were obese and homely, I wonder if many of the women on this blog would have the same reaction. I wonder if they would then accuse her of pussy trapping a guy."
That's absurd. I'd feel the same way about this no matter what she looks like. I didn't know what she looked like until I saw the video late yesterday.
I'm not so much sympathetic to her as unsympathetic to him because he's already said he "won't be a father to it" even if he's proven to be.
That's a total douchebag in my view, and I don't know why anybody would go out of their way to make excuses for this morally bankrupt jerk.
No matter what you think of her - crazy, stupid, whatever - he has already proven to be a selfish asshole. The fact he's a lawyer, just tops it off.
LS at March 13, 2012 10:34 AM
"If you can provide case law that proves just taking a pregnant friend to a doctor's visit would make a man the baby's legal father and subject him to child support payments, I'd be interested."
Please don't change the goal posts. She's not just a "pregnant friend." She's a woman he's been sleeping with (if, indeed, that's true) who CLAIMS he is the father. If he has indeed been fucking her, then prior sexual history between the two has been established and that is enough in many courts to land him with child support.
Do a Google search on "child support not my kid" and you will see countless cases of men who have been saddled with child support, even when DNA tests have eventually proven otherwise. Family law is heavily stacked against men.
All Alana Joy has to do is name him as baby daddy on the birth certificate and he's immediately on the hook when the kid is born.
And if it's not his, the legal channels he will have to go through to prevent her from extorting money from him is above and beyond what any man should have to go through. He will have had to waste his time and his resources to prevent further fraud from taking place. He's a smart man and he's taking strategic measures in event of a worst-case scenario. Worst case being it's NOT his kid.
prawn toe at March 13, 2012 11:14 AM
"Do a Google search on "child support not my kid" and you will see countless cases of men who have been saddled with child support, even when DNA tests have eventually proven otherwise. Family law is heavily stacked against men."
Most of those cases have involved men who were married to the mothers, and/or raised these children, or somehow got falsely named and never got noticed, not anything close to this kind of scenario.
They aren't married or living together, and if he's an atty, he's surely smart enough to demand a paternity test. Plus, he already knows she will name him regardless, so I don't agree with your assertion that it's a big risk for him to be kind to her while she's pregnant. The paternity test will be the deciding factor in this case.
LS at March 13, 2012 11:27 AM
"I don't agree with your assertion that it's a big risk for him to be kind to her while she's pregnant."
I disagree with you here.
What you call "kindness" has a huge potential to be interpreted as "acknowledgement of paternity" in court. He's being cautious and I think he's doing the smart thing, given his circumstances. There's no certainty that it's his kid. They aren't living together; how does he know she's wasn't fucking other guys and trying to pussy trap him? He doesn't. He won't know until the kid is born and a paternity test ordered proving that he's the BD, or not the BD.
prawn toe at March 13, 2012 11:55 AM
LS:
Most of those cases have involved men ... and/or raised these children, or somehow got falsely named and never got noticed, not anything close to this kind of scenario.
"Falsely named" is exactly the (possible) scenario we're discussing.
he's surely smart enough to demand a paternity test.
Not enough by itself.
I don't agree with your assertion that it's a big risk for him to be kind to her while she's pregnant.
LS: prawn toe sent you to Google for a reason, and not just to drive up ad revenues.
How you feel is not important, and that's all your working this whole case about. Which is what you and I have been going back and forth about. You feel this, you feel that, you've had a psychic reading, doesn't matter.
The important issues are the facts
And prawn toe is completely correct. If at any point he takes any supporting step, he has raised the risk that he will be on the hook for child support.
That's how the courts work, and that's why prawn toe sent you to some examples of people who got tagged with having to pay child support for kids that aren't theirs.
The paternity test will be the deciding factor in this case.
It may be a deciding factor. But plenty of court cases say otherwise as it being canonical. There are plenty who protested from the start, and yet lost in court. "For the good of the child" is a oft-repeated canard in those settings.
Now, I don't think prawn toe is saying it's certain, even though I can bet you're about to say that's what we're saying.
No. But it raises the risk. Dramatically. Which is why I've been telling you that he's not just being a "douchebag", he's behaving in a rational manner under the circumstances. (And he might still be a douchebag - just that from what we know, we cannot tell.)
No matter what you think of her - crazy, stupid, whatever - he has already proven to be a selfish asshole. The fact he's a lawyer, just tops it off.
Oh, she's Bunny Boiler Crazee, for sure. He might be a douchebag. He was certainly good enough for her until she popped this surprise on him, though.
And your feelings don't mean magic beans in the world that is the court system. Who's someone who is supposed to know how that works, and how to minimize risk and liability? Oh, yeah. A Lawyer. Hmmm. Almost like there's a connection...
Unix-Jedi at March 13, 2012 11:56 AM
I'm not basing this on "feelings". I'm a trained family court advocate. I know how this works. The paternity test will be the deciding factor in this particular case.
There are some men who are on the hook for support because they were already acting as that child's parent, often for years, before discovering that they weren't the biological father.
A few men have been falsely named and were never notified, or didn't defend themselves "in time", which I agree is a travesty of justice.
But none of those cases relate to this one, and you're just reaching to further excuse this guy for being a total jerk.
He doesn't have to offer financial support at this point because he doesn't know if it's his kid yet or not, but he doesn't need to be completely non-communicative either.
It's quite likely that this woman is carrying his child, and, as a child advocate, my focus is on what's in the best interest of that child, which that would ideally involve these people being able to effectively co-parent.
So, it would be nice if he considered that aspect - that he may indeed have a child with this woman in a few months - so it would be better for them to have a civil relationship, rather than having the conflict and animosity between them escalate, and, as someone experienced in conflict resolution, I've laid out some ways that he could likely accomplish that.
Will he? Probably not because he's a selfish douchebag, who only cares about his life not being disrupted. But it would be nice if one or both of these people would at least attempt to do the mature, decent thing, and see if that would work out a little better.
LS at March 13, 2012 12:34 PM
LS:
I'm not basing this on "feelings".
Yes, you are. Hell, you wouldn't even read the original source material until you'd already made your stand.
You're basing EVERYTHING on your response on feelings. He's a douchebag, he should, he should he should.
There are some men who are on the hook for support because they were already acting ..
And there are many who paid for prenatal care and got so dinged. I'd google that for you, but I don't think you'd read the cases. It's not a sure thing - either way - but I'm quite open that it's a probabilities issue. You're the one being totally certain about how it is, based on how you feel. And you've even said that several times!
you're just reaching to further excuse this guy for being a total jerk.
"Total jerk" - but you're not based feelings. I'm not excusing him, but I am going to look at it as dispassionately as possible, and hell, even say "What *is* the best solution?" And that can be for the kid - which we've already established that your feelings tell you that the facts don't matter - and for the "father" and for everybody.
Part of why I keep replying is you keep misstating what I'm saying.
but he doesn't need to be completely non-communicative either.
Look up above at who we're pretty sure is "Alana" here, and tell me that's somebody you can talk rationally to? He's said his piece. You're mad at him that he's got his opinion, and by god, you're going to punish him until he sees it your way. (Which is also "Alana's" view.)
OK, trained Family Court Advocate, is that how you facilitate communication? By haranguing and pestering and through-every-means necessary trying to get attention?
Really? Because in my book, that's the exact opposite of how you need to communicate in this situation.
She flipped out -according to her- when he kept her from continually messaging him on Twitter, apparently. Her "last method" of contacting him, and she implied she was sending a pretty steady stream of DM's to him. (Of course, Fellatricks tells us "Alana" doesn't say what she means and means what she says unless she means to say what she said and said what she meant, and it's our fault we can't tell the difference.)
Ok. HOW does he communicate with her, then? He said, basically, fine, sue me.
You and she are saying, "No, come back here, GET YOUR ASS BACK HERE! We have more to yell at you about!"
That's the thing, he might have been a douchebag when he did it, LS. But he's communicated clearly and effectively. "Alana's" and your inability to deal with someone who tells you exactly what they want isn't his problem, and it might piss you off more, but that's it, he's cut off communications (for what seem to be not-inconsiderably reasons), and the screaming and hissy-fit-throwing are not, in any way, shape, or form, going to make the situation better, bring him back to discuss, or "man up" or have a relationship with the kid.
Since this is what you're supposedly wanting, why would you not, instead of being upset for us "excusing him", why would you not tell her to grow up, act as an adult, treat him as one, and get her lawyer, or family court advocate involved, so that he might be able to have a dispassionate discussion, he might be able to proffer support safely, and that he might have a opening to co-parent?
Please explain that to me, because you've confused me greatly if you're not just running on feelings and emotions there.
Unix-Jedi at March 13, 2012 1:09 PM
Look, I've seen people behave far more irrationally than this and tensions heve been calmed by at least one of them extending some kind of olive branch. So, unlike you, I don't view this as hopeless.
You believe she's so irrational and unstable that they just can't get along no matter what and he is doing the only sane thing by completely avoiding her.
But these people dated for apparently a few months, so she must've been reasonable enough for him to keep seeing her. I also watched her video. She doesn't seem like a total loon. A little cutesy and shallow, but not a nutjob.
I mean, I get tired of people who have relationships with someone - a person that they CHOSE TO BE WITH, sometimes for many years - but the moment it doesn't turn out as they planned, they're labeling the other crazy and impossible to deal with.
So many divorce scenarios get to that point, but it's rarely true that either party has a true personality disorder or is entirely unreasonable They're just ANGRY, and angry people do and say spiteful, hurtful things.
Alana can't do anything to "treat" him any particular way because she can't even reach him, which is what is making her so angry. It's incumbant on him to give her some way to contact him. She can't get lawyers or the court involved until after the birth, so going through lawyers isn't an option. Plus, involving lawyers is expensive and it would be much better if they can communicate without them.
In my view, that would immediately diffuse the situation. Though he may have been "clear and effecive" about what he wants but what he wants is to be a douchebag towards an innocent child.
I don't have to like that, for some general sense of fairness. His comments, as expressed, are those of a selfish jerk. You yourself even agree that he has a moral obligation to be a father to his child. Not a legal one. He's right about that - he can walk away and just be a checkbook daddy - but that would be wrong.
It's not just my feeling that this is wrong. Right and wrong are not relative terms, or they shouldn't be.
LS at March 13, 2012 2:10 PM
"If you can provide case law that proves just taking a pregnant friend to a doctor's visit would make a man the baby's legal father and subject him to child support payments, I'd be interested."
There are some men who are on the hook for support because they were already acting as that child's parent,
You answered yur own challange LS
But while were on the subject, did you know that if a man paying child support get married his ex can sue for an increase in support based on his new wifes income?
Now, does it seem cruel that his cut her off? Yes, but given her behavior and the law he doesnt have much choice.
But suppose for a moment he pays all her pre natal care bills and hospital stay and all that - I'm given to understand that with the cost of the hospital stya and delviery and all associated costs it can be several thousand dollars.
What if it isnt his kid? This woman doent have private insurnace, she cant affor to pay a few hunndered dollars a month for it.
So if the baby isnt his, how is she going to pay him back with no money and a new mouth to feed?
Is he just supposed to write off all that money which could have gone to support the kids that are his?
lujlp at March 13, 2012 5:31 PM
Luj, why did you not get that I agreed with you that he shouldn't offer financial support until the paternity test is done? I said that was understandable. Yet, that's very different from communicating and being decent to her.
"There are some men who are on the hook for support because they were already acting as that child's parent..."
You conveniently cut off the rest of my statement which was about the length of time, often years. I'm sorry if a guy didn't know he wasn't little Johnny's biological dad until Johnny was 8 yrs old, but I'm EVEN SORRIER for little Johnny because that guy is now the only dad he's known. That's his dad! In those cases, I agree the rights of the child trump those of the guy.
LS at March 13, 2012 6:52 PM
"But while were on the subject, did you know that if a man paying child support get married his ex can sue for an increase in support based on his new wifes income?"
No, I didn't know that, but is this because his taxes woud be "married filing jointly" or would it still be the same if he filed separately? My assumption would be that this is due to the increase in reportable income.
LS at March 13, 2012 6:57 PM
Pretty much just chiming in to agree with others. He doesn't *know* he's the father - all he has is her claim. Let's stop overlooking the fact that she *did* spread 'em wide for the spooge of a dude she'd only known via the internet for a couple of months. If
I were him (btw, I think he's gross too) - my first assumption would certainly not be that I'm her one and only. I'm sure most would feel the same way.
That's not shaming - that's stating facts. If she's feeling shamed by the facts of the situation she chose to be in, that's because she knows she *should* be ashamed. They both should.
I can 100% understand his not wanting to shell out any cash and establish any sort of financial obligation until he conclusively knows it's his kid. And since he doesn't care about her or the kid, of *course* he's not going to give his lawyer's contact info
and jump at the chance to get the results of an amniocentesis that will prove him to be the father so he'll have to start handing out money. In his situation, I'd probably delay that as long as possible too!
Do you really think he cares if the kid doesn't get the best prenatal care? That just means there's a higher chance that it'll die in the womb and this nightmare inconvenience will end for him.
This dude is seemingly happily divorced, living it up with disposable income. He doesn't want to part with his cash, as he's likely making plane trips to irresponsibly shoot his spooge into other stupid, lonely easy lays he picked up on the internet with
minimal effort. Why would he want to give that up? Would you? To be stuck with her and an unwanted kid?! You can say it's for the kid's best interest and all that - but that idealistic way of thinking is only meaningful in situations where the father gives a
shit about the kid and/or its mother. He. Does. Not. Really, for all we know, he could have a vasectomy and be certain it's not his.
She needs to abort. Quick, fast and in a hurry. This kid is only going to bring ruin to her already bad emotional and financial state - as well as her looks and chance of finding a halfway decent mate later on. Not to mention that the lady is damaged - and
shouldn't be inflicting that on a kid anyway. She clearly needs a daddy of her own, if she's so desperate to be loved that she'll fall for the oldest and lamest lines ever, in record time. A baby don't cure that kind of crazy, or fill those kinds of emotional holes.
Chick needs help.
Just Me at March 14, 2012 6:22 AM
Maybe next time she'll think about making the man wrap it, instead of letting him ride her bareback while she has dollar signs in her eyes.
Stupid whore deserves every bit of this. She is an adult, she knows sex results in pregnancy, she needs to grow up.
Randi at March 14, 2012 3:57 PM
> Stupid whore deserves every bit of this. She
> is an adult, she knows sex results in pregnancy,
> she needs to grow up.
Don't judge. Never judge. We cannot judge.
It is impossible to judge.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 14, 2012 10:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/08/its_called_fami.html#comment-3071478">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Judge Judy.
Amy Alkon at March 14, 2012 10:55 PM
Heavy Duty Judy
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 14, 2012 11:40 PM
I saw a cartoon today where the woman said, "Let me get this straight. If I don't have sex with you, I'm a prudish bitch. If I use the pill, I'm a slut. If I get pregnant, I'm an idiot, and if I choose abortion, I'm Satan."
People who throw around terms like "whore" and "slut", just to describe a woman having the same premarital sex that men are having seem disturbed.
LS at March 15, 2012 8:02 AM
"I saw a cartoon today where the woman said, 'Let me get this straight. If I don't have sex with you, I'm a prudish bitch. If I use the pill, I'm a slut. If I get pregnant, I'm an idiot, and if I choose abortion, I'm Satan.'"
Good point there, LS.
But it's too much fun to shame the ones who are stupid enough to get knocked up after sex in this modern age of available contraceptives.
prawn toe at March 15, 2012 8:47 AM
Leave a comment