Man tricks girlfriend into taking abortion drug, gets 14 years.

[TheBat812]

Prove it first, for one thing.

Let's assume they did. I honestly don't know the law here, if there is proof, is a man no longer forced to provide care for the child?

My point was if a person feels that strongly about the responsibility of birth control, why is it not fair to note the skewed nature of the bearing of responsibility. Wouldn't the woman's lack of birth control mean she should have to keep it if the man desired? I mean, she's equally responsible for her pregnancy, right? And if not, then shouldn't a man be allowed to either pay for the abortion, or if she wants to keep it, skedaddle?

I should note that I'm speaking purely theoretically, I agree with the laws at hand, it's very understandable since it's the woman's body taking the toll in the long run, but as teelie pointed out, there are factors and situations where the man is completely at the whim of the woman's decision, and it's not unfair to point them out.

 

[charl_huntress]

You're missing the point. By saying that the man shouldn't have had sex with the woman and is therefore responsible is like saying that someone shouldn't donate to a person with cancer because that person could be a con artist and defraud them out of that money. People trust other people. That's not illegal. What is illegal is fraud and pregnancy through deception is fraud and should be illegal. Everyone has a responsibility to do their research before donating to a cause, but that doesn't mean the con artist is off the hook because what they did is still illegal.

This stems from what I saw at the law firm where women would purposely get pregnant to get the money from the guy and use it towards themselves. One woman bought herself a $2000 jacket while her child went hungry. That is illegal.

Your point is not really valid. She told him she could not get pregnant. He believed her and they had unprotected sex. A baby was conceived. Therefore he is responsible for the child because he is the father. The only way your point would really be valid is if the woman somehow obtained the man's seed through duress, rape, or some other sort of criminal coercion, and he did not voluntarily give it to her in a consensual sexual act. If she somehow defrauded him into having sex then I would agree with you, but that was not the case.

 

[redhawk23]

'Let's assume they did' is constructing a fantasy to argue against the need of laws that are written to address a reality.

I'm not saying that men have no concerns in the matter, but that it is a false equivalence.

 

[Feenix]

Your point is not really valid. She told him she could not get pregnant. He believed her and they had unprotected sex. A baby was conceived. Therefore he is responsible for the child because he is the father. The only way your point would really be valid is if the woman somehow obtained the man's seed through duress, rape, or some other sort of criminal coercion, and he did not voluntarily give it to her in a consensual sexual act. If she somehow defrauded him into having sex then I would agree with you, but that was not the case.

Not necessarily. Like I've been pointing out, a con artist does not force anyone to give them money, but their actions are still illegal. I see it the same way with a man and his "seed."

 

[TheBat812]

'Let's assume they did' is constructing a fantasy to argue against the need of laws that are written to address a reality .

Yes, I was constructing a realistic scenario to prove a point as well as learn. Not some fantastical out of his world possibility. Read the rest of my post. I completely understand the needs of the law, but that doesn't negate our observations, nor does it make the law 100% correct, fair, or ideal.

Btw, red hawk, are you a man or woman? Just curious to see how each of our perspectives/biases is leading to our analyses. I'm a man, so I might be more aware/sensitive of the negative effects this can have I men, while women would obviously come more from the opposite point of view.

 

[charl_huntress]

Not necessarily. Like I've been pointing out, a con artist does not force anyone to give them money, but their actions are still illegal. I see it the same way with a man and his "seed."

The con artist is running a con. Unless she somehow "conned" him into bed and into having sex then it's not a con.

 

[Feenix]

'Let's assume they did' is constructing a fantasy to argue against the need of laws that are written to address a reality.

I'm not saying that men have no concerns in the matter, but that it is a false equivalence.

What about the reality of women who are golddiggers? There needs to be a change in the laws with regards to money and children. I've seen too many men getting screwed over because judges are too old school in their thinking. It came out fairly recently that a child does not have to be with their mothers for the first years of their life, which opened up the doors for men who are good fathers to take the children away from incompetent mothers. Unfortunately, many judges are unwilling to see this side of an argument. I saw a case where a woman kidnapped her daughter from the father and ran off to another province. There, she left her infant daughter in a hotel room while she partied. Once the police caught up to her, the father filed for sole custody and didn't get it. The woman committed a criminal act (kidnapping) and was still allowed joint custody of the child AND the child support that went along with it. How is that fair?

No, the laws need to be updated and changed to reflect a new reality. The reality of women who prey on men for money and for children.

 

[Endeavor]

Your point is not really valid. She told him she could not get pregnant. He believed her and they had unprotected sex. A baby was conceived. Therefore he is responsible for the child because he is the father. The only way your point would really be valid is if the woman somehow obtained the man's seed through duress, rape, or some other sort of criminal coercion, and he did not voluntarily give it to her in a consensual sexual act. If she somehow defrauded him into having sex then I would agree with you, but that was not the case.

The discussion is not only about this case. It's about how the laws concerning these situations are flawed and don't take all the possible scenarios into account.
Is a man responsible for the child he helped bring into this world? yes
Is a woman responsible for the deceit she's perpetrated having imposed a financial burden on another? No? Why not? Why is it any different than any other scam? A lie is told with the goal of obtaining money from an unsuspecting party. Is it because the child is concerned? If the laws are supposedly written with the ultimate goal of having the child's welfare in mind then it should include looking at the mother and the circumstances that led to her getting pregnant. If you have a case like the ones being described, in which the woman got pregnant (by lying, sabotaging the man's condom, etc) with the sole purpose of using that child as a means of income, then in those cases that woman should be prosecuted for fraud and that child should be placed in a foster home. They'd be better off there than with such a woman.

 

[TheBat812]

The con artist is running a con. Unless she somehow "conned" him into bed and into having sex then it's not a con.

She purposely conned him into thinking he didn't need protection. It's like lending your car saying it is perfectly fine (knowing it's broken), then they get to driving it and it falls apart and then you put them on the hook for the repairs. It's fraud.

 

[Feenix]

The con artist is running a con. Unless she somehow "conned" him into bed and into having sex then it's not a con.

It is a con. These women are lying. Your Navy case is the perfect example of a con. She lied about not being able to get pregnant and thus the guy felt it was safe to have sex with her. Her goal was to use him for money, correct? She did con him into bed. Hence, con artist.

 

[Feenix]

The discussion is not only about this case. It's about how the laws concerning these situations are flawed and don't take all the possible scenarios into account.
Is a man responsible for the child he helped bring into this world? yes
Is a woman responsible for the deceit she's perpetrated having imposed a financial burden on another? No? Why not? Why is it any different than any other scam? A lie is told with the goal of obtaining money from an unsuspecting party. Is it because the child is concerned? If the laws are supposedly written with the ultimate goal of having the child's welfare in mind then it should include looking at the mother and the circumstances that led to her getting pregnant. If you have a case like the ones being described, in which the woman got pregnant (by lying, sabotaging the man's condom, etc) with the sole purpose of using that child as a means of income, then in those cases that woman should be prosecuted for fraud and that child should be placed in a foster home. They'd be better off there than with such a woman.

This You said it much better than I could have, thank you.

 

[charl_huntress]

Let's assume they did. I honestly don't know the law here, if there is proof, is a man no longer forced to provide care for the child?

Doubtful since you probably couldn't sue a condom company for a defective condom due to the disclaimer on the packaging.

My point was if a person feels that strongly about the responsibility of birth control, why is it not fair to note the skewed nature of the bearing of responsibility. Wouldn't the woman's lack of birth control mean she should have to keep it if the man desired? I mean, she's equally responsible for her pregnancy, right? And if not, then shouldn't a man be allowed to either pay for the abortion, or if she wants to keep it, skedaddle?

Hasn't this pretty much always been the case. It's the whole don't lie down and open your legs if you don't want to pay the consequence. This is drilled into most women once they start their menstruum.

 

[TheBat812]

Doubtful since you probably couldn't sue a condom company for a defective condom due to the disclaimer on the packaging.

Hasn't this pretty much always been the case. It's the whole don't lie down and open your legs if you don't want to pay the consequence. This is drilled into most women once they start their menstruum.

To what exactly are you referring to with your first sentence?

A woman can do whatever she wants with her pregnancy and a man has no say whatsoever.

 

[charl_huntress]

She purposely conned him into thinking he didn't need protection. It's like lending your car saying it is perfectly fine (knowing it's broken), then they get to driving it and it falls apart and then you put them on the hook for the repairs. It's fraud.

It is a con. These women are lying. Your Navy case is the perfect example of a con. She lied about not being able to get pregnant and thus the guy felt it was safe to have sex with her. Her goal was to use him for money, correct? She did con him into bed. Hence, con artist.

She did not con him into the sex act though, and she did not steal his sperm. The act was consensual and pregnancy resulted. He is not absolved from that responsibility because she lied.

 

[charl_huntress]

To what exactly are you referring to with your first sentence?

I was referring to the tampering since condoms aren't 100% effective

A woman can do whatever she wants with her pregnancy and a man has no say whatsoever.

This is because of the fact the burden for getting pregnant has usually always fallen on the woman. She's at fault when she doesn't take precautions and that's the way society has always acted. Men essentially robbed themselves of their rights... t:

 

[Teelie]

It's interesting that some people see a woman who is lying, tricking or decieving a man into having a baby will defend it but fail to see it is also a criminal act of fraud to engage the man into having a child.

In an abstract way, that's contract fraud.

There are two main types of contract fraud:

Fraud in the Inducement: This is where the fraud exists with regards to the entire contract; the person is deceived into signing due to the fraudulent circumstances (for instance, they sign because they though the person was a real estate agent, when in fact they weren’t).

Fraud in the Factum: This is where the fraud exists as to a certain fact or description contained within the contract. For instance, if one party signs because they thought they would be purchasing 50 items, when in fact the person intends to sell them 100 items.

In order to prove fraud, it must be shown that: 1) one party knowingly misrepresented a material fact 2) with the intent to deceive or defraud the other party. Also, the other party must have relied upon the misrepresentation, and the misrepresentation must cause them actual loss.

LegalMatch

In this instance, a woman claiming to be on birth control or willfully sabotaging birth control is lying to her partner is fraud in the factum. He was told there would be prevention in place when in fact there was none.

She misrepresented the truth to him.

And now he is on the hook for child support if she wants it.

However, if he wants to keep a child and the woman does not, he has no rights to prevent an abortion.

But this is supposed to be a fair and just law? If you were to alter it slightly, it would be denounced as unfair and sexist.

 

[charl_huntress]

Is a woman responsible for the deceit she's perpetrated having imposed a financial burden on another? No? Why not?

Why is it any different than any other scam? A lie is told with the goal of obtaining money from an unsuspecting party. Is it because the child is concerned?

Because she did not coerce or fraudulently put his sperm inside her. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Endeavor]

Because she did not coerce or fraudulently put his sperm inside her. Therein lies the difference.

By that logic, if someone cons me out of money, it's only fraud if they forge my signature on a check. But if I signed the check myself, because their deception was convincing enough, then it's not fraud?

 

[charl_huntress]

By that logic, if someone cons me out of money, it's only fraud if they forge my signature on a check. But if I signed the check myself, because their deception was convincing enough, then it's not fraud?

I realize some would like to equate this to contract fraud, but it is not the same. It either is reproductive coercion or it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion

The Center for Disease Control 2010 NIPSVS found that men were more likely than women to experience reproductive abuse, with 10.4% of men and 8.6% of women reporting pregnancy coercion or attempted birth control sabotage.[3] Contraceptive fraud is the conversion of a man's semen for a purpose that he does not consent to; in this case, pregnancy.[25] Conversion is seen as the civil equivalent of theft, but because the crime was committed by the mother and not a third party, such as the resulting child, the father is obligated to pay child support. If he attempts to avoid or lessen the child support, it is seen as seeking a remedy from the wrong person.[25] Controversy arises because the civil doctrine of conversion does not apply to discarded items. In some instances, the semen may be viewed as discarded. Nevertheless, a man who is forced to endure unwanted touching during the course of ejaculation may have a civil claim and criminal battery complaint.[26]

 

[NickNitro]

Spoiler

It's interesting that some people see a woman who is lying, tricking or decieving a man into having a baby will defend it but fail to see it is also a criminal act of fraud to engage the man into having a child.

In an abstract way, that's contract fraud.

LegalMatch

In this instance, a woman claiming to be on birth control or willfully sabotaging birth control is lying to her partner is fraud in the factum. He was told there would be prevention in place when in fact there was none.

She misrepresented the truth to him.

And now he is on the hook for child support if she wants it.

However, if he wants to keep a child and the woman does not, he has no rights to prevent an abortion.

But this is supposed to be a fair and just law? If you were to alter it slightly, it would be denounced as unfair and sexist.

I agree 100% with this. Ever see divorce laws? My lord.....if that's not sexist in favor of female I don't know what is.

If only there was a support group for men.......

 

[TheBat812]

Contraceptive fraud is the conversion of a man's semen for a purpose that he does not consent to; in this case, pregnancy.

If she tells him, go ahead, blow your load into me, I can't conceive, then the man clearly is not consenting to his semen being used for pregnancy. Thus, fraud.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Your point is not really valid. She told him she could not get pregnant. He believed her and they had unprotected sex. A baby was conceived. Therefore he is responsible for the child because he is the father. The only way your point would really be valid is if the woman somehow obtained the man's seed through duress, rape, or some other sort of criminal coercion, and he did not voluntarily give it to her in a consensual sexual act. If she somehow defrauded him into having sex then I would agree with you, but that was not the case.

Your mechanic tells you your car's breaks are fine. You believe him and drive and crash your car. Therefore you're responsible because you were the one driving.

 

[charl_huntress]

If she tells him, go ahead, blow your load into me, I can't conceive, then the man clearly is not consenting to his semen being used for pregnancy. Thus, fraud.

The only way he could clearly object is by using birth control, which would be a clear statement of intent on his part.

Your mechanic tells you your car's breaks are fine. You believe him and drive and crash your car. Therefore you're responsible because you were the one driving.

It is not the same sort of fraud. Though I know you guys want it to be.

 

[TheBat812]

Ah but so you admit it's fraud!!




But the analogies are identical (assuming the mechanic actually knew the brakes were blown but still said they were fine). Whether the law regarding conception and fraud allow for that is a different story, but if this wouldn't be considered fraud you're just proving that the laws are whack to begin with.

I also sorely disagree with your assessment that he still should've used condoms in order for it not to be fraud. Sure he could have to very safe but that doesn't negate her blatant fraudulent lie to entrap him. She still lied to get him to do something he didn't want to do (and I'm not talking about the act of having sex...)

 

[Feenix]

The only way he could clearly object is by using birth control, which would be a clear statement of intent on his part.

It is not the same sort of fraud. Though I know you guys want it to be.

You're completely ignoring that it's still deception. Deception and fraud.