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

[Quasimod0]

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

No I don't think it is. I also don't believe she should be able to abort the baby. She could put it up for adoption if she really doesn't want to keep it.

 

[charl_huntress]

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).

Not all states have "safe surrender". If you do that in a state without that statute it's called child abandonment. Also, I added the disclaimer she cannot have an abortion for whatever reason. The child is in existence. Is the mother free from responsibility for said child because the father lied about his reproductive capabilities?

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.

The point was to say lying about your ability to reproduce doesn't absolve the parties involved in the reproduction process of responsibility. It's a valid comparison if you're saying when a woman lies then then the man is hence freed from responsibility if you're are not going to apply that criteria to the man as well.

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

Again I added a disclaimer about the abortion. The point is your not freed from responsibility for a child because someone (male or female) lied about their ability to reproduce.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

First, I am a man.

Secondly, what is more risky for your health, more life altering. Carrying a life in you for 9 months, or... not.

 

[charl_huntress]

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."

Not all states have safe surrender. Many don't.

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.

You keep calling it fraud and that is inaccurate. There is no fraud involved. It's reproductive coercion or it's not. It's as simple as that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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

No, a man is the mercy of his own decisions. Again the sex part is quite important in this whole dance.

 

[Endeavor]

Not all states have safe surrender. Many don't.

Fair enough, but in the ones that do, the law isn't fair because it provides women with options that are denied to men.

Bottom line, this is something that needs looking into and the laws need to be revised. As they are they are leaving loopholes for criminals to exploit and are certainly not protecting infants the way they should.

 

[charl_huntress]

Fair enough, but in the ones that do, the law isn't fair because it provides women with options that are denied to men.

Bottom line, this is something that needs looking into and the laws need to be revised. As they are they are leaving loopholes for criminals to exploit and are certainly not protecting infants the way they should.

The reason I think the law is somewhat biased toward the woman is the man is the seeder and woman is the carrier. Generally speaking...you cannot rape a man like you can a woman. I know this is not true for all cases, but... ya know what I mean.

Also let's be clear here. We aren't talking criminality. We are talking civil matters. Lying about your ability to reproduce is not a crime or a lot of people would be in jail.

 

[TheBat812]

Not all states have "safe surrender". If you do that in a state without that statute it's called child abandonment. Also, I added the disclaimer she cannot have an abortion for whatever reason. The child is in existence. Is the mother free from responsibility for said child because the father lied about his reproductive capabilities?

The point was to say lying about your ability to reproduce doesn't absolve the parties involved in the reproduction process of responsibility. It's a valid comparison if you're saying when a woman lies then then the man is hence freed from responsibility if you're are not going to apply that criteria to the man as well.

I would agree if I could, but it's just not the same because the woman is physically forced to be responsible because she is pregnant! They both SHOULD be absolved of responsibility because they had unprotected sex under false pretenses, but they are simply not comparable because the woman is physically forced to take responsibility. So a man cannot entrap a woman in the same way. Physically impossible. So it's a bad example and comparison.

 

[TheBat812]

No, a man is the mercy of his own decisions. Again the sex part is quite important in this whole dance.

But it's not important to our conversation because it's NOT the part where fraud occurred. Let's say I buy a product from a vendor that he specifically says will not damage your computer. You say awesome, buy it, but it fries the whole thing. The sale is not what's in question, but the misrepresentation of the product. I don't really understand what's confusing about this. Blaming the misrepresentation of the product on the means of exchange is no argument at all.

 

[charl_huntress]

I would agree if I could, but it's just not the same because the woman is physically forced to be responsible because she is pregnant! They both SHOULD be absolved of responsibility because they had unprotected sex under false pretenses, but they are simply not comparable because the woman is physically forced to take responsibility. So a man cannot entrap a woman in the same way. Physically impossible. So it's a bad example and comparison.

It's not a bad comparison. It is a fair comparison considering what we are talking about. And I have known men who have lied about their ability to reproduce just so they can "get it wet"....

Yet, the bolded in your statement is why I think the law is somewhat biased toward women.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's important but it's NOT the part where fraud occurred. Let's say I buy a product from a vendor that he specifically says will not damage your computer. You say awesome, buy it, but it fries the whole thing. The sale is not what's in question, but the misrepresentation of the product. I don't really understand what's confusing about this. Blaming the misrepresentation of the product on the means of exchange is no argument at all.

This is not a computer, this is sex. If you take someone else word that they can't have kids or are using contraception, that is you taking the risk.

It is really simple. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

 

[redhawk23]

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.......

You ever see the studies of the quality of life and economics for women in the wake of divorce? There's a reason those laws have been constructed that way. I agree that they need fine tuning but they exist in wider social contexts.

 

[charl_huntress]

This is not a computer, this is sex. If you take someone else word that they can't have kids or are using contraception, that is you taking the risk.

It is really simple. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

I'll add to this that if you have sex with someone and a child occurs from that encounter you're not absolved from responsibility because your partner lied to you.

 

[Feenix]

This is not a computer, this is sex. If you take someone else word that they can't have kids or are using contraception, that is you taking the risk.

It is really simple. If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

That is archaic and ridiculous. People should be allowed to have sex without the possibility of a kid hanging over their heads. This is a reality for women, as they can choose to abort. Men can't. It's not at all as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

It's not the act itself that's the problem. It's the reasons why someone chooses to engage in it. A lie can influence someone's decision to act or not. If a woman tells a man she can't have kids and he trusts her and it turns out she was lying, it's not his responsibility to care for the byproduct of fraud. He had sex with the understanding that it was NOT for procreation. People can use the non disclosure of an STD as grounds for a lawsuit, this is no different.

 

[TheBat812]

It's not a bad comparison. It is a fair comparison considering what we are talking about. And I have known men who have lied about their ability to reproduce just so they can "get it wet"....

Yet, the bolded in your statement is why I think the law is somewhat biased toward women.

You and darth are still confusing the act of sex with getting pregnant for whatever reason. A guy trying to get his dick wet does not equal lying to get pregnant to force them to pay child support. No matter how much you try, your example is not a good one because the circumstances don't match up.

And darth, my example is more than valid because the goal of the lie is what we're talking about, which you're confusing for the means to get there. Sure, abstinence is a solution to the problem of not ever having kids, but that in no way addresses the problem were discussing about a girl lying blatantly and knowingly in order to secure funds for years to come.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is archaic and ridiculous. People should be allowed to have sex without the possibility of a kid hanging over their heads. This is a reality for women, as they can choose to abort. Men can't. It's not at all as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

You can do this if you are a man. It is called a vasectomy.

Abortions are specifically tied to the carrier of the child. Hence the argument going on Texas right now and the violation of women's rights. It has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about.

It's not the act itself that's the problem. It's the reasons why someone chooses to engage in it. A lie can influence someone's decision to act or not. If a woman tells a man she can't have kids and he trusts her and it turns out she was lying, it's not his responsibility to care for the byproduct of fraud. He had sex with the understanding that it was NOT for procreation. People can use the non disclosure of an STD as grounds for a lawsuit, this is no different.

It is very different, because a child is a foreseeable result of sexual intercourse. The transfer of an STD can do harm to someone's health, so prior knowledge is very important in such legal proceedings.

 

[TheBat812]

Just curious, are charls and darth religious?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I'll add to this that if you have sex with someone and a child occurs from that encounter you're not absolved from responsibility because your partner lied to you.

Unless you're a woman.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

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.

That's almost as ridiculous as when Todd Akin said that women can't get pregnant from rape because, " If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down."

 

[charl_huntress]

You and darth are still confusing the act of sex with getting pregnant for whatever reason.

Times have changed and medicine has advanced, but sex is what usually leads to a conception. Any male and female who complete a sex act run the risk of conception...this includes couples using birth control since no form of contraception is 100% effective.

A guy trying to get his dick wet does not equal lying to get pregnant to force them to pay child support. No matter how much you try, your example is not a good one because the circumstances don't match up

How does that not equate if a woman decided to forgo birth control because the man said he's sterile? She's now forced to care for and support a child she did not want or plan for. It is a valid comparison, but you don't want to see that because it does not prove your point. While I understand what you are saying about child support and what not, what we are talking about is the responsibility for the sex act itself (the child) lies with both parties male and female. Neither of them is absolved from that responsibility.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Times have changed and medicine has advanced, but sex is what usually leads to a conception. Any male and female who complete a sex act run the risk of conception...this includes couples using birth control since no form of contraception is 100% effective.

How does that not equate if a woman decided to forgo birth control because the man said he's sterile? She now forced to care for and support a child she did not want or plan for. It is a valid comparison, but you don't want to see that because it does not prove your point. While I understand what you are saying about child support and what not, what we are talking about is the responsibility for the sex act itself (the child) lies with both parties male and female. Neither of them is absolved from that responsibility.

In all scenarios, the woman has the ultimate control over what happens. They even get the added incentive that if she keeps the baby, she's getting a paycheck for the next 18 years if she wants it.

 

[charl_huntress]

Just curious, are charls and darth religious?

lol...Considering my thoughts on intruders, do you really think I'm religious?

Unless you're a woman.

The fact that a woman can end a pregnancy before birth is a choice a woman has. Yet, once a child is born the mother and father bear responsibility. I don't like to get into abortion debates and this is not the debate here. Yes, a woman does have that right, but if she does not exercise it and a child is born then both the mother and father are responsible for the child. It's as simple as that...

That's almost as ridiculous as when Todd Akin said that women can't get pregnant from rape because, " If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down."

You have obviously never heard of reproductive coercion. It is a real thing. Read up on it.

 

[Paradoxium]

The day an male birth control pill comes into fruition, is the day Feminists will wage nuclear war against it. They will use every possible method to prevent the spread of it. I ****ing guarantee this.

 

[charl_huntress]

In all scenarios, the woman has the ultimate control over what happens. They even get the added incentive that if she keeps the baby, she's getting a paycheck for the next 18 years if she wants it.

That may not always be the case. I expect that to change eventually. Nevertheless, as the judge told the poor old sailor in my scenario. Regardless of what the woman told you, there is now a baby and you are the father....therefore you are responsible.

The day an male birth control pill comes into fruition, is the day Feminists will wage nuclear war against it. They will use every possible method to prevent the spread of it. I ****ing guarantee this.

Why do you think that?

F.Y.I. There is such a thing as male contraception. It's called a vasectomy. Today's procedures are reversible, so a man does have control over who he impregnates if he want to control it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just curious, are charls and darth religious?

My mother and grandmother being quite religious built up a resistance in me. Only so many times you can here the contradictions or have religious rhetoric thrown at you as a excuse before you just can't take it.