English Man Fathers Thai Child

[Scott]

The legality and the morality are indeed different, however, in this case there was no significant relationship between the two. It was a casual liason without much emotional meaning. The fact that there is a child does obligate these two to take responsibility. In this case, the fact that they will probably both be going on in significantly different directions with their life would mean a legal responsibility for support, maintenance and care for the child.

Unless the father is truly interested in the upbringing of this child, he might just do better to make sure it is cared for and be available in case of a problem. If the mother decides she doesn't want the kid or there is some twist of fate that makes her unable to care for the child, then he may have some added burdents.

[GuestHouse]

Unless the father is truly interested in the upbringing of this child,

That is a question we should all ask before having sex, not after pregnancy.

The relationship that matters here is the relationship between the father and the child - If he is indeed the father, then he has a moral duty to take care of his child (not just financially).

Quite rightly the developed world has brought in laws to ensure this happens - to the highest possible degree.

It will be a good day when Thailand follows that example.

The point may wrankle those among us who have trouble with the ideas of 'Moral', 'Duty' and 'Moral Duty'.

And that is precisely why governments have acted to force such people to pay via the law.

[longway]

PC is about not causing offense to anyone. This is about morality. Dont confuse the 2.

There is a child, ergo there's a mother and a father. Both have a responsibility to look after it. (note the full stop)

PC is saying things which you think most people will agree with so they like you more. Mostly practiced by politicians and insecure chickenshits. This is about a wanking sod scheming to extort money from an honorable landmark customer and high end sex tourist. Don't confuse the 2.

describing pc in a different way from me, but essentially saying the same thing doesn't really add anything. oh what a hero; u are 'anti-pc', who give s <deleted>.

its interesting how you know all this from the thread. none of us have any way of knowing the full story. however in a consensual sexual act it is all irrelevant.

the nightmare scenario for the man is that the woman is going to use the money intended for the child for her own purposes, he still has a responsibility to the child and has to figure out a way to support his child despite the mother. sometimes there are just no easy options available, u just have to do ur best.

in reality there is a good chance that the woman have to bring up the child on her own without any support/involement from the father. this is quite sad.

if some of you guys think otherwise, then you truly are confused. good luck.

Edited September 14, 2007 by longway

[mouse]

Hi

One of my Thai female friends had a brief encounter with an English man and this lead to her getting pregnant and having a child, a baby girl. Condom allegedly broke.

Now this woman has the responsibility of bringing up the little girl. She is ok with this, but the little kid had some medical problem and needed an operation which I ended up paying for.

Now I am thinking she should try to track down this guy and to ask him to assist with some of the costs.

I guess this sort of thing is rather common with all the sex that happens in Thailand. I feel sorry for the guy, as it was not planned, but an accident. But the poor woman has to bear the costs of bringing up this girl.

What can we do to try to track down this guy? I have a first and surname, approximate age, and he is supposed to be from London.

If we do track him down, and he refuses to help out, is there anything.

Thanks

Tom

First of all. It is the child that needs help here not a "mere woman" or "lady of the night" as so many of your imply without any basis or fact.

Secondly, the fact that money was exchanged, has no bearing whatsoever on anyhting. Yes there are old experienced hands that disagree. I think those that are the same members that are quick to jump with the defense that this was a work related mishap. Such a statement can only come from old crass cold and uncaring human being or insensitive person that has been here too long. Imagine if the girl was your dearest friend or even your sister. Your tone would certainly be different.

I suggest that every effort be made to find this gentleman and give him an opportunity to disproove paternity through available scientific tests. If prooven to have been involved in the childs conception, he should be given a reasonable opportunity to make it right through financial means aligned with the income levels of Thailand. A monthly fifty pound note (do they have those) would go a long way for this child. If he refused, I would suggest that the law be invoked to right a wrong. Then it would certainly costs substantialy more to the alledged father and even give the child rights that could make a difference to her for the rest of her life.

If you think that I am too much of a softy on this matter then I would like to say in my defense; I have been here 11 years. It is true I have seen so many scams and stories here, so many in fact, that I could write a book about them and sell it vey sucessfully. Yet, I still have the decency to give every person the benefit of the doubt and the dignity no matter what they do or have done.

Edited September 15, 2007 by mouse

[Prakanong]

PC is about not causing offense to anyone. This is about morality. Dont confuse the 2.

There is a child, ergo there's a mother and a father. Both have a responsibility to look after it. (note the full stop)

PC is saying things which you think most people will agree with so they like you more. Mostly practiced by politicians and insecure chickenshits. This is about a wanking sod scheming to extort money from an honorable landmark customer and high end sex tourist. Don't confuse the 2.

describing pc in a different way from me, but essentially saying the same thing doesn't really add anything. oh what a hero; u are 'anti-pc', who give s <deleted>.

its interesting how you know all this from the thread. none of us have any way of knowing the full story. however in a consensual sexual act it is all irrelevant.

the nightmare scenario for the man is that the woman is going to use the money intended for the child for her own purposes, he still has a responsibility to the child and has to figure out a way to support his child despite the mother. sometimes there are just no easy options available, u just have to do ur best.

in reality there is a good chance that the woman have to bring up the child on her own without any support/involement from the father. this is quite sad.

if some of you guys think otherwise, then you truly are confused. good luck.

Jimmy is a confused individual!

Think of him and realise you are in a better world than he is and relax

[jts-khorat]

Such a statement can only come from old crass cold and uncaring human being or insensitive person that has been here too long. Imagine if the girl was your dearest friend or even your sister. Your tone would certainly be different.

Ever heard the little word self-responsibility. A very un-PC word (though not yet forbidden on Thai Visa, from which weird angle did this come?) and -- gasp -- a word that shoud even have relevance to women as well. Ever heard the phrase 'same rights, same responsibilities'?

And if it would be my sister trying to kill a baby I at least would be severely upset (I am not talking about abortion, perfectly within the right of the mother; buyt about drinking whatever to 'make the child go away').

The woman has so far done everything to harm the child, from careless sex to trying to kill it.

Still have not heard anything asking her to be jailed for her unsucessful murder and the child taken care of by social services in the UK, where the father lives (the inevitable outcome if he neither has the means or the will to take care of it properly). This would be the only #legal# option serving the best interests of the child.

GuestHouse, where is your feeling of care for the kid who will have a horrible life with such a person as mother. Sending money will make the situation worse for the kid, not better, if she is really as portraied.

Babykillers are seemingly ok here, fathers who are too stingy to send 50 Pounds however should be stoned to death!

[TAWP]

The difference between drinking a potion, using a cloth hangar or letting a doctor scrape isn't any real difference, it's still murder to the same degree.

So your babykiller-attack - but at the same time trying to be PC by saying abortions is fine - isn't a logical one. If she has the right to do an abortion she has the right to do it either way she wants too...

Or you could see that all life has equal value.

Edited September 15, 2007 by TAWP

[Prakanong]

Such a statement can only come from old crass cold and uncaring human being or insensitive person that has been here too long. Imagine if the girl was your dearest friend or even your sister. Your tone would certainly be different.

Ever heard the little word self-responsibility. A very un-PC word (though not yet forbidden on Thai Visa, from which weird angle did this come?) and -- gasp -- a word that shoud even have relevance to women as well. Ever heard the phrase 'same rights, same responsibilities'?

And if it would be my sister trying to kill a baby I at least would be severely upset (I am not talking about abortion, perfectly within the right of the mother; buyt about drinking whatever to 'make the child go away').

The woman has so far done everything to harm the child, from careless sex to trying to kill it.

Still have not heard anything asking her to be jailed for her unsucessful murder and the child taken care of by social services in the UK, where the father lives (the inevitable outcome if he neither has the means or the will to take care of it properly). This would be the only #legal# option serving the best interests of the child.

GuestHouse, where is your feeling of care for the kid who will have a horrible life with such a person as mother. Sending money will make the situation worse for the kid, not better, if she is really as portraied.

Babykillers are seemingly ok here, fathers who are too stingy to send 50 Pounds however should be stoned to death!

Careless sex harms children physically - you will be up for the Nobel Prize for Medecine wuth that new discovery

Listen to yourself!

[gburns57au]

Perhaps people need to know the method she probably used to abort the fetus....

It is a herbal concoction that strips the uterus, the professional girls use it to alter their periods for business purposes.

It cannot be used after a certain time in the term....which means the attempt was done early in the pregnancy when the fetus by legal definition was not a child.

It is not always successful and can have side effects for the woman. A girl I know has used this method of abortion successfully.

You can all argue all you like about the legal definition of a fetus but most western countries have a set time where the fetus becomes a legal human being.

It is upto the woman what she does with her body, should she have to live with the results of what was an accidental pregnancy. When the attempt failed she then took the baby to term and is by all accounts trying to raise the child.....kudos to her for that.

By the same token, the guy used protection that failed....should he have to pay for an accident as well.

Would some of you guys want your sister bringing up a child that came from a one night stand accident.....probably not !!

Edited September 15, 2007 by gburns57au

[jts-khorat]

The difference between drinking a potion, using a cloth hangar or letting a doctor scrape isn't any real difference, it's still murder to the same degree.

So your babykiller-attack - but at the same time trying to be PC by saying abortions is fine - isn't a logical one. If she has the right to do an abortion she has the right to do it either way she wants too...

Quite wrong there, TAWP; utilizing a doctor, a medical professional, is definitely not the same than drinking weird concoctions down in the hope that a fetus spontaneously aborts -- and if he then doesn't obviously not caring about the potential side effects for the fetus to then seek the necessary professional, medical supervision.

A woman has every right to do with her body, including an abortion. But after she tried to abort the fetus, potentially harming it severley in the process, and then bringing the baby to birth, she has crossed a critical line. It is really not that difficult to understand where her rights end and the rights of the baby begin; and as it is a very critical step, professional help is a must.

She has the right to abort a fetus, but she has not the right to damage it.

Question in this: as the father seemingly is aware that he is in the 'lucky club', was he informed of her decision to abort, or in any way consulted about the bringing to term and the process of upbringing the child? As others here have observed rightly, helping financially would at least give him the right to being informed about what is happening and maybe even a right to help make decisions.

[gburns57au]

From what I have read in the posts there is nothing to say the baby was harmed by any attempt to abort....it merely stated that the baby needed medical treatment...a lot of babies need medical treatment at an early age....

The lady had the right to an abortion, we dont have the right to lambast her for her decision. Look at it from her perspective....she went out one night for a meal with friends, took a shine to a guy and made a drink affected decision to sleep with him, through no fault of her own or the mans, she ends up pregnant. The guy then leaves her holding the baby, literally. What is she to do? What would a lot of girls do in that situation?

The English guy has made it clear he doesnt want to know about this child, so why would he pay money to be informed of the childs progress. He has washed his hands of the whole affair so why should he be informed of anything to do with the child. He has foregone any rights he may have been entitled to. Probably has a family in the UK already, doesnt need a second one.

And how do you have an abortion without damaging the fetus?

People here should get off their moral high horses and stop judging someone that they know nothing about.

[JimmyCA]

Jimmy is a confused individual!

Think of him and realise you are in a better world than he is and relax

Jimmy is the purveyor of all NOWLEDGE and evvy of all posters!

[GuestHouse]

Or a legend in his own mind.

And so easy to be a big fish in such a small pond.

[GuestHouse]

GuestHouse, where is your feeling of care for the kid who will have a horrible life with such a person as mother. Sending money will make the situation worse for the kid, not better, if she is really as portraied.

JS - Can you tell me where I have stated that the only responsibility of the father is to send money to the mother of this child?

I have explicitly stated that the father has a moral duty.... look I'll make it easy for you... this is what I said::

The relationship that matters here is the relationship between the father and the child - If he is indeed the father, then he has a moral duty to take care of his child (not just financially).

There is no ambiguity in that - if there is let me know.

---

If you want to discuss 'Personal Responsibility' I'd be more than happy to do so.

Let's go back to what I said about morals in post No48 (noone here has challenged what I said there) - have a look and get back to me on where you think your 'Personal Responsibility' lies with regard to behaviour outside your own culture/nation.

And the quesiton was.....

As for your arguments on conforming to what (you believe) to be local standards.

Should we then take it that there is no immoral or even heinous act, by standards back home that you would find totally unacceptable to take part in if you found yourself in a country where such an act was not so much as frowned upon?

I take it there is (and that there are things you would find morally abhorrent anywhere regardless of the local custom).

If there is, then your argument that we should go along with (what you perceive to be) Thai morality when we are in Thailand amounts to an argument of convenience and I would add one of no substance.

Now it may not have been explained to you in the past, but arguments of convenience are not a good guide to correct, moral or even legal behavior.

If we can get an answer to 'what morallity' applies we can then move forward to discuss how it applies.

So come on JS - I'd really enjoy a discussion on morality that goes a bit beyond 'I'll behave as I want without regard for the consequences of my actions'.

And please please please can we have a better answer than blaming 'Political Correctness' or at least if you are going to blame 'Political Correctness' go find out exactly what it is so that you too can understand the obsurdity of the argument that PC has anything to do with the choices you make in life. (or have failed to make)

Edited September 15, 2007 by GuestHouse

[geriatrickid]

An unwanted child.

And so the cycle of abuse begins once again. Nice legacy.

[Kf6vci]

There is 192.com and I would try to get the immigration records at that time. I would try to make this official, e.g. get the authorities involved. Whatever the circumstances, that little girl deserves some child support and a father, even if he is absent. ** I read here of a tourist who was tracked down and deported for stealing a hotel towel...

[Tommurphy]

Thanks for all the replies, however some people are making unfounded assumptions.

The child is not unwanted and will not be abused. The pregnancy was unwanted and she did try to make it go away early on - very early on - in the pregnancy. But after that she took care of herself trying to eat healthy etc for the baby. The baby is very healthy. The operation was not related to any attempted abortion side effects or the like.

The mother is not a bar girl or a prostitute. (not that this matters one bit). She did receive some money for the transaction, but she did not request this.

Contraception was used, but it failed. It was an accident. She probably should have went and got a morning after pill and the man probably should have insisted she do this too. She didn't and he didn't.

It is still his DNA.

The mother is taking good care of the baby, she is not abusing her in anyway. Why would someone assume a mother is abusing her baby? She loves her baby very much.

[gburns57au]

Thanks for all the replies, however some people are making unfounded assumptions.

The child is not unwanted and will not be abused. The pregnancy was unwanted and she did try to make it go away early on - very early on - in the pregnancy. But after that she took care of herself trying to eat healthy etc for the baby. The baby is very healthy. The operation was not related to any attempted abortion side effects or the like.

The mother is not a bar girl or a prostitute. (not that this matters one bit). She did receive some money for the transaction, but she did not request this.

Contraception was used, but it failed. It was an accident. She probably should have went and got a morning after pill and the man probably should have insisted she do this too. She didn't and he didn't.

It is still his DNA.

The mother is taking good care of the baby, she is not abusing her in anyway. Why would someone assume a mother is abusing her baby? She loves her baby very much.

However as she lives in Thailand and he lives in the UK and has, by asking people not to give her his contact details, shown that he wants nothing to do with the child....

Thats where the situation stays....you nor anyone else can do SFA about it....

Just one question....has he submitted samples for DNA testing....probably not. Unless he has then it cant be proven to be "his" DNA.

And as I said before....Kudos to her for taking the child to full term and looking after the child now.

[jts-khorat]

Thanks for all the replies, however some people are making unfounded assumptions.

Thanks for clearing this up; it really seems as if some assumptions went a little bit over the top there...

As things are somewhat clearer now, maybe I should rephrase my statements:

- in a P4P environment the man is being absolved from future commitments. The woman takes this (really small) risk for a financial contribution that benefits her immediately; I would venture that this beign free of any commitments (emotionally, morally, etc) is the actual service provided in P4P.

- if it was a romantic involvement obviously emotional and moral obligations exist.

Maybe I sound here a little bit harsher than I personally really feel; it would be unimaginable for me personally to know I have a little daughter somewhere and not knowing about her life. So even though in the first case I would have no moral obligation, I obviously just for reasons of curiosity, wish to interact with her. Chances are pretty much that with this interaction would come emotional involvement and with this a new set of moral obligatiosn would develop pretty quickly.

In this case -- as we have heard not P4P, hence the first case does not apply anyway -- it rather sounds like a romantic encounter being either misinterpreted by one side or just having gone wrong completely.

This would mean that the man has moral obligations and he is not cleared automatically from future commitments.

Sneaking himself out of it by giving money afterwards if it was not requested is surely no safe haven from that and a gesture that is quite insulting to the girl. Not nice in any way!

But nobody here knows the exact circumstances so I would not wish to hazard a guess how (renumeration-)large his moral obligation should really be. Some here suggested to the tune of what a local Thai man would have to pay. Seems like not an unfair proposition and a financially very easy to carry burden for any westerner.

Still in the end my advise to the OP would be: do not fix what is not broken (the girl does not seem that unhappy about not getting hold of the guy), as long as you have no direct involvement in it.

[longway]

As things are somewhat clearer now, maybe I should rephrase my statements:

- in a P4P environment the man is being absolved from future commitments. The woman takes this (really small) risk for a financial contribution that benefits her immediately; I would venture that this beign free of any commitments (emotionally, morally, etc) is the actual service provided in P4P.

im probably wasting my time, but you are not right.

you used the analogy of using a taxi and the taxi having an accident. ignoring the bad taste of the analogy, it does not work. here the customer is not a passive observer, he is one of the direct contributing causes of the 'accident'. your taxi analogy is more applicable to a case when a man pays 2 people to have sex while he watches and then the woman becomes pregnant.

keeping with your analogy its more like a man hiring a car which he drives himself, he knew the risks of what he was doing just as much as this woman. he has a moral obligation to get involved.

the only thing i can suggest to the op is to get in touch with the csa, if he hasnt tried already. dont keep it quiet send emails to as many people as you know who are connected with this guy. you dont want to create ill feeling but you should do whatever you can so this guy will meet his obligations as a father.

Edited September 16, 2007 by longway

[GuestHouse]

- in a P4P environment the man is being absolved from future commitments.

Keep on kidding yourself sunshine - Several court cases in the west have found fathers of children concieived with Prostitutes to be legally the father and legally responsible.

You may get away with this in Thailand, but what you get away with and what is your responsibility are not the same thing.

The woman takes this (really small) risk for a financial contribution that benefits her immediately; I would venture that this beign free of any commitments (emotionally, morally, etc) is the actual service provided in P4P.

- if it was a romantic involvement obviously emotional and moral obligations exist.

The father's duty moral and legal commences with the birth of his child. ( a transaction between the mother and the father has no bearing since the child cannot be held to a contract for which it was not a part and at the commencement of was not born. Again, courts have ruled on this and found fathers legally responsible for their children no matter under what circumstances they are conceived.

Maybe I sound here a little bit harsher than I personally really feel; it would be unimaginable for me personally to know I have a little daughter somewhere and not knowing about her life. So even though in the first case I would have no moral obligation, I obviously just for reasons of curiosity, wish to interact with her. Chances are pretty much that with this interaction would come emotional involvement and with this a new set of moral obligatiosn would develop pretty quickly.

Ah so there is a spark of morallity in there.

I

n this case -- as we have heard not P4P, hence the first case does not apply anyway --

Moral obligations would apply regardless - see above.

[jts-khorat]

Ah so there is a spark of morality in there.

Just a tiny spark of light at then end of the tunnel I guess

[longway]

Ah so there is a spark of morality in there.

Just a tiny spark of light at then end of the tunnel I guess

youre welcome.

Edited September 17, 2007 by longway

[TAWP]

A woman has every right to do with her body, including an abortion. But after she tried to abort the fetus, potentially harming it severley in the process, and then bringing the baby to birth, she has crossed a critical line.

She has the right to abort a fetus, but she has not the right to damage it.

So her crime was that she didn't kill it successfully?

I see...

[jts-khorat]

A woman has every right to do with her body, including an abortion. But after she tried to abort the fetus, potentially harming it severley in the process, and then bringing the baby to birth, she has crossed a critical line.

She has the right to abort a fetus, but she has not the right to damage it.

So her crime was that she didn't kill it successfully?

I see...

Now you got it

- An abortion is within the right of the woman to protect her body (fill in any other pro-abortion reason you wish).

- Damaging a fetus and then (potentially, likely, whatever adjective fits this argument better) having a baby with birth defects obviously is against the rights of the (future) baby -- and have we not heard in this thread multiple times that it is about protecting the Innocent Children here foremost?

In this case at least the baby seems to have been lucky enough to have been healthy, whatever initially assumptions were made. But luck and morality do not really seem right in the same sentence, following the argumentation of most here that I have read.

[JimmyCA]

Morality has nothing to do with this. There are many people who do not know who their biological parents are. The OP is in search of funds.

At the end of the day, the guy is not interrested. He has no obligation to ge interrested in some child which may or may not be his with someone he knew for a few hours. She was nothing more than a fling. The OP has not indicated the man was consulted about the abortion attempt. As it is the womans choice to abort, it is also the womans choice to have the child. With choice comes the responsibility for making the choice. The man is as clean as a saint!