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

[charl_huntress]

Yes. She can have an abortion whether the father likes it or not.

Let's say it's impossible for her to have an abortion for whatever reason. She must now have the child. Does she have the right to abandon her responsibility for said child because the man lied about his reproductive capabilities?

Yes. She can make him pay for an abortion, or for child support if she chooses to keep it. Or she can put the baby into foster care and abandon her responsibility. She has all the power to make decisions here, which is exactly the point were making.

Let's say she has the child. Is she absolved from any responsibility for the child because she thought it couldn't be conceived?

You mean that you have nowhere to go but accept that lying someone else to manipulate them into doing what you want (in this case, obtain money from him forever) is wrong.

I still have no idea what you are talking about.

You're forgetting the bias that courts show in favor of women. Besides, the guy didn't want the child to begin with, why would he fight for custody? If a woman is not using child support for the benefit of the child, she forfeits any right to receive child suppot.

The child though is still entitled to support.

And, it's not as simple as that. Some people don't want kids. Should they be denied the right to have sex for pleasure because they don't want to procreate? No. And that's why we have birth control and abortion (or adoption if you wanted to go that route). You place your trust in another person that what they are telling you is the truth and you go ahead with something, thinking that what you are presented with are the facts. If it turns out that those "facts" were actually lies and had you been presented with the real truth, you wouldn't have gone ahead with the action, you have been coerced and defrauded. Whatever is the result of the fraud is not your responsibility.

That would be like saying if you donate to a cancer victim who turns out to be a con artist it's your own fault because you should have known that sometimes it can be a scam.

Regardless of how the child is conceived, mothers or fathers are not absolved from their responsibility to support and care for said child.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This. Only men have to live with the responsibility of a child. Women get to choose if they want to be responsible or not. That's not fair.

When us men have to risk our health and lives to carry a baby to terms, maybe this will be a valid point.

 

[Teelie]

I wonder if/when that were to happen, how many stances here would suddenly be that the woman has no requirement to support the child if she decided she did not want it.

 

[Feenix]

When us men have to risk our health and lives to carry a baby to terms, maybe this will be a valid point.

First of all, I'm a woman.

Secondly, pregnancy is not as dangerous as it used to be (if it ever was). Besides, some women see children as a way to get a massive payout and for the most part, they're right. To them, it's worth the "risk" of pregnancy. I've seen a lot of these cases. It's disgusting.


For what charl said:

Let's say it's impossible for her to have an abortion for whatever reason. She must now have the child. Does she have the right to abandon her responsibility for said child because the man lied about his reproductive capabilities?

She should. I'm arguing that coercion and fraud from any party (be it male or female) should absolve the victim of responsibility.

 

[Feenix]

Edit.

 

[charl_huntress]

She should. I'm arguing that coercion and fraud from any party (be it male or female) should absolve the victim of responsibility.

I find that to be a ridiculous premise tbh.

Also since some people are not aware, giving your child to the state still does not absolve you from financial responsibility if you have the means to support them. The state will come after you for contribution to their care and maintenance.

 

[NickNitro]

When us men have to risk our health and lives to carry a baby to terms, maybe this will be a valid point.

I didn't want to comment in this thread seriously...but come on man...this isn't the 1400's....child bearing is no where near as fatal as it was......

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Let's say it's impossible for her to have an abortion for whatever reason. She must now have the child. Does she have the right to abandon her responsibility for said child because the man lied about his reproductive capabilities?

Yes. She was lied to, so in that case if she wanted/had to have the baby, the father should be forced to be held responsible because he lied.

She still has more options than the father in the reverse scenario. She could also put it up for adoption, or just give it to the father.

 

[charl_huntress]

I wonder if/when that were to happen, how many stances here would suddenly be that the woman has no requirement to support the child if she decided she did not want it.

If the woman is responsible for impregnating the man then I hope everyone's argument would still be the same. I know mine would.

 

[TheBat812]

Yes. She was lied to, so in that case if she wanted/had to have the baby, the father should be forced to be held responsible because he lied.

She still has more options than the father in the reverse scenario. She could also put it up for adoption, or just give it to the father.

The fact that he lied would be pretty much unimportant - he's still the man who got her pregnant, so he's paying either way, lol.

 

[Quasimod0]

If you are a man and don't want a baby, don't have sex.

You have to be responsible and ready for that possibility.

 

[Feenix]

I find that to be a ridiculous premise tbh.

Also since some people are not aware, giving your child to the state still does not absolve you from financial responsibility if you have the means to support them. The state will come after you for contribution to their care and maintenance.

It's not ridiculous. Victims of fraud are still victims. To hold them accountable for what the con artist does or what arises from the fraud is ridiculous.

 

[charl_huntress]

Yes. She was lied to, so in that case if she wanted/had to have the baby, the father should be forced to be held responsible because he lied.

She still has more options than the father in the reverse scenario. She could also put it up for adoption, or just give it to the father.

The point is she is not freed from responsibility for the child because she was lied to. She is responsible for the child still. If she chooses to give up for adoption or whatever that's a choice she has, but she is not absolved from responsibility. The mother and the father are still responsible for the child no matter how it's conception came to be.

 

[Endeavor]

How about this for a twist... Woman gets pregnant by man who said he is sterile. Does she have the right to abandon her responsibility for the child because he lied?

She can actually, and she has several options:
1- she can have an abortion and nobody is going to put her in jail because of it.
2- she can have the baby and turn the kid in to the government, no questions asked (Safely Surrendered Baby Law).

 

[Feenix]

You have to be responsible and ready for that possibility.

Yeah, ready with Plan B in hand or an appointment at the abortion clinic.

If a woman can have an abortion without the guy's consent, then the guy should be allowed to absolve himself from responsibility if the woman chooses not to have an abortion. Women can lock men in, and that's not right or fair.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

The point is she is not freed from responsibility for the child because she was lied to. She is responsible for the child still. If she chooses to give up for adoption or whatever that's a choice she has, but she is not absolved from responsibility. The mother and the father are still responsible for the child no matter how it's conception came to be.

She can have an abortion whether the father wants her to or not, so the responsibility is not equal.

 

[TheBat812]

The point is she is not freed from responsibility for the child because she was lied to. She is responsible for the child still. If she chooses to give up for adoption or whatever that's a choice she has, but she is not absolved from responsibility. The mother and the father are still responsible for the child no matter how it's conception came to be.

It's just not a very good comparison because she still has the choice. In either case the man has no say. The man cannot entrap a woman into paying for child support because it is the woman having the child. Your argument holds no water.

 

[Quasimod0]

Yeah, ready with Plan B in hand or an appointment at the abortion clinic.

If a woman can have an abortion without the guy's consent, then the guy should be allowed to absolve himself from responsibility if the woman chooses not to have an abortion. Women can lock men in, and that's not right or fair.

Ultimately it was the man's choice to sleep with the woman. If she gets pregnant then that child should be his responsibility, along with the mother's.

 

[Quasimod0]

A huge problem with our society is that people want to be able to do whatever they want with whomever they want with no consequences.

 

[charl_huntress]

It's not ridiculous. Victims of fraud are still victims. To hold them accountable for what the con artist does or what arises from the fraud is ridiculous.

The reason I find it ridiculous is unless the sperm was coerced, or the man raped, it's not fraud. Maybe they lied to them, but they didn't coerce the sperm inside their body. They didn't fraudulently trick body fluids into the vaginal opening. The male willing gave it up. He is not absolved from a conception that occurs from willing and consensual sex.

 

[Endeavor]

I find that to be a ridiculous premise tbh.

Also since some people are not aware, giving your child to the state still does not absolve you from financial responsibility if you have the means to support them. The state will come after you for contribution to their care and maintenance.

No they wont. Look up the law I mentioned. They don't even have to provide their name when surrendering the baby. Here's a portion of the guidelines:
"Although a person surrendering a baby under the Safely Surrendered Baby Law will be asked to complete a medical questionnaire, the form is optional and is intended solely for the purpose of collecting medical information critical to the health and survival of the child. Any information that may identify the person surrendering the baby will be removed in order to maintain that person's confidentiality."

 

[TheBat812]

Yeah, ready with Plan B in hand or an appointment at the abortion clinic.

If a woman can have an abortion without the guy's consent, then the guy should be allowed to absolve himself from responsibility if the woman chooses not to have an abortion. Women can lock men in, and that's not right or fair.

Exactly. And if we're going by what charls said earlier, it should be equally the woman's responsibility to use birth control so a man can't just have sex with her, get her pregnant, then bounce. Isn't it more important for her to be careful than him in terms of consequences? Every bit of responsibility and blame is unfairly put on the man.

 

[Feenix]

The reason I find it ridiculous is unless the sperm was coerced, or the woman raped, it's not fraud. Maybe they lied to them, but they didn't coerce the sperm inside their body. They didn't fraudulently trick body fluids into the vaginal opening. The male willing gave it up. He is not absolved from a conception that occurs from willing and consensual sex.

You tried that argument already. It doesn't hold up. A person willingly gives a con artist their money, that doesn't make what the con artist did any less illegal.

 

[Feenix]

Ultimately it was the man's choice to sleep with the woman. If she gets pregnant then that child should be his responsibility, along with the mother's.

But she can absolve herself of any responsibility by aborting. He is at the mercy of her decisions. That is not fair.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

If the woman is responsible for impregnating the man then I hope everyone's argument would still be the same. I know mine would.

Mine too. A lie is a lie, no matter who uses it for their own purposes, and its consequences should be faced for whoever said it.