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

[TheBat812]

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'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.

The act of sex =/= insemination. They are not one and the same. The answer to how not to get pregnant isn't solely 'don't have sex.' Your idiot friends lied about being sterile to have sex - not to trap those girls into child support. Very very different even if they seem kind of similar.


Hal just answered that second part perfectly (although I answered it in almost in every response.) the difference is substantial in that she can get it aborted, whereas the guy is trapped at the mercy of her decision. Which is the point of the debate were having. There is a correlation in that they were both lied to and face consequences, but the one scenario places the victim with all the choices while the other leaves him with none. Once again, the difference is huge despite it maybe seeming small.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

This is because the woman carries the baby. I don't understand the point here. It is like complaining that a man can't order an abortion. Of course he can't. He can't have one....

The act of sex =/= insemination. They are not one and the same. The answer to how not to get pregnant isn't solely 'don't have sex.' Your idiot friends lied about being sterile to have sex - not to trap those girls into child support. Very very different even if they seem kind of similar.


Hal just answered that second part perfectly (although I answered it in almost in every response.) the difference is substantial in that she can get it aborted, whereas the guy is trapped at the mercy of her decision. Which is the point of the debate were having. There is a correlation in that they were both lied to and face consequences, but the one scenario places the victim with all the choices while the other leaves him with none. Once again, the difference is huge despite it maybe seeming small.

Using your theory, you absolve a man from liability because he can't get pregnant.

Nature is kind of important here.

 

[charl_huntress]

The act of sex =/= insemination. They are not one and the same. The answer to how not to get pregnant isn't solely 'don't have sex.' Your idiot friends lied about being sterile to have sex - not to trap those girls into child support. Very very different even if they seem kind of similar.

It is the same if the act resulted in a child that needs to be supported. Why you refuse to see that is beyond me.

Hal just answered that second part perfectly (although I answered it in almost in every response.) the difference is substantial in that she can get it aborted, whereas the guy is trapped at the mercy of her decision. Which is the point of the debate were having. There is a correlation in that they were both lied to and face consequences, but the one scenario places the victim with all the choices while the other leaves him with none. Once again, the difference is huge despite it maybe seeming small.

Her ability to abort does not negate responsibility if the child is born for either party. Again, why you refuse to see that is beyond me.

 

[Paradoxium]

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.

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.

Yes, I know what a vasectomy is. I am considering it myself. I know guys in their 20s who had one.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It is the same if the act resulted in a child that needs to be supported. Why you refuse to see that is beyond me.


Her ability to abort does not negate responsibility if the child is born for either party. Again, why you refuse to see that is beyond me.

This boils down to wanting the ability to do something and not actually have to take responsibility for it.

 

[charl_huntress]

Yes, I know what a vasectomy is. I am considering it myself. I know guys in their 20s who had one.

I know many guys in the 20s and 30s who have had that procedure done. The Navy will do it for free if you ask and reverse for free too because they want to cut down on their sailors impregnating girls willy-nilly.

This boils down to wanting the ability to do something and not actually have to take responsibility for it.

That's what it sounds like.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Her ability to abort does not negate responsibility if the child is born for either party. Again, why you refuse to see that is beyond me.

But it's not an equal responsibility like you keep trying to say it is when one person gets to make all the decisions. Especially when one of those decisions can greatly benefit the decision maker for the next 18 years.

 

[Paradoxium]

I know many guys in the 20s and 30s who have had that procedure done. The Navy will do it for free if you ask and reverse for free too because they want to cut down on their sailors impregnating girls willy-nilly.

That's what it sounds like.

Like I said, nuclear war against a Male BC pill.

 

[Paradoxium]

BTW these guys don't plan on reversing it either.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But it's not an equal responsibility like you keep trying to say it is when one person gets to make all the decisions. Especially when one of those decisions can greatly benefit the decision maker for the next 18 years.

The disconnect here is the idea that the decision making starts once someone is pregnant. It isn't. That comes with sex. The pregnancy starts the physical responsibility of a mother to the child. That is what starts then. Once the baby is born is when the parental responsibilities of both parents start.

What are you suggesting, that a man be allowed to order an abortion?

 

[charl_huntress]

But it's not an equal responsibility like you keep trying to say it is when one person gets to make all the decisions. Especially when one of those decisions can greatly benefit the decision maker for the next 18 years.

Mother and fathers are supposed to have equal responsibility for a child. I think you are confusing a woman's right to abort with parental responsibility once the child is born. It's not the same.

Like I said, nuclear war against a Male BC pill.

BTW these guys don't plan on reversing it either.

Haha...the funny thing is most guys are afraid of a vasectomy, but I've heard it's a pretty simple procedure. I think more guys should look into it, especially if you don't want any unplanned pregnancies happening.

 

[Feenix]

The disconnect here is the idea that the decision making starts once someone is pregnant. It isn't. The pregnancy starts the physical responsibility of a mother.

What are you suggesting, that a man be allowed to order an abortion?

No, just that he be allowed to absolve himself completely of any responsibility if she lied to him to get pregnant.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If the woman lied to him to get pregnant, absolutely.

In which case, I think that is insane and completely ridiculous. You want to inflict such a thing on someone else body? Nope.

 

[Feenix]

In which case, I think that is insane and completely ridiculous. You want to inflict such a thing on someone else body? Nope.

I edited my response. So not that "severe", but if the woman chooses to keep a child she lied to get in the first place, the guy should be free of any responsibility if he chooses.

 

[TheBat812]

No, just that he be allowed to absolve himself completely of any responsibility if she lied to him to get pregnant.

Or at the very least not be held financially responsible by law. A good man would hopefully stay involved in the child's life, but that would be his own decision, not the laws.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I edited my response. So not that "severe", but if the woman chooses to keep a child she lied to get in the first place, the guy should be free of any responsibility if he chooses.

You wrote it and it was pretty clear.

If a guy doesn't want the responsibility of a child, then they shouldn't put themselves in the position to have a child.

Or at the very least not be held financially responsible by law. A good man would hopefully stay involved in the child's life, but that would be his own decision, not the laws.

So lets be a father, without any of the actual responsibilities...

 

[Paradoxium]

Mother and fathers are supposed to have equal responsibility for a child. I think you are confusing a woman's right to abort with parental responsibility once the child is born. It's not the same.

Haha...the funny thing is most guys are afraid of a vasectomy, but I've heard it's a pretty simple procedure. I think more guys should look into it, especially if you don't want any unplanned pregnancies happening.

You don't shoot blanks immediately.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

The disconnect here is the idea that the decision making starts once someone is pregnant. It isn't. That comes with sex. The pregnancy starts the physical responsibility of a mother to the child. That is what starts then. Once the baby is born is when the parental responsibilities of both parents start.

What are you suggesting, that a man be allowed to order an abortion?

No. As I stated earlier, if the man asks for an abortion and the woman refuses, it is now her responsibility if she wants to keep it. No child support from the man. The woman can abort the child regardless of the man's wishes. He should have the same option. And in this case, that option is not being tied to this woman for the next 18 years.

If she chooses to have the child and not abort when presented with that option, she should be on her own.

 

[Paradoxium]

https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html

Anyone read this story? Evil genius.

 

[Feenix]

You wrote it and it was pretty clear.

If a guy doesn't want the responsibility of a child, then they shouldn't put themselves in the position to have a child.


So lets be a father, without any of the actual responsibilities...

I know I did and now I edited it.

The whole don't have sex if you don't want kids is ridiculous. Do you know how well abstinence sex education works? It doesn't. People will have sex anyways.

You're allowed to have sex without wanting kids. How is this so hard to comprehend? If a woman (or man) lies to have a child, they should be the ones solely responsible for it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No. As I stated earlier, if the man asks for an abortion and the woman refuses, it is now her responsibility if she wants to keep it. No child support from the man. The woman can abort the child regardless of the man's wishes. He should have the same option. And in this case, it's not being tied to this woman for the next 18 years.

If she chooses to have the child and not abort when presented with that option, she should be on her own.

Using this logic, a man could tell his wife he wants to have a child with her, decide after she is pregnant he has changed his mind, and have no responsibility.

Again, if a man doesn't want a child, don't have sex. Why is this complicated? Self-control is not a thing anymore?

 

[charl_huntress]

if the woman chooses to keep a child she lied to get in the first place, the guy should be free of any responsibility if he chooses.

Not if he laid down and willingly participated in the sex act that created said baby in the first place.

You don't shoot blanks immediately.

Very true...and I'll give you one another really strange scenario. In the Navy I knew a husband and wife who had three kids. The man opted to have a vasectomy so the woman didn't have to have her tubes tied. They decided as a couple not to have anymore children. So one day they were both super surprised when she got pregnant and the man was SURE the baby wasn't his. The couple divorced...and guess what??? The baby was his because even vasectomies aren't 100% fool proof....LOLOLOL.

 

[Feenix]

This is ridiculous. Don't had sex if you don't want kids. This is the 21st century. People can have sex for pleasure and pleasure alone.

As for your other statement, no. These would be case by case. If a golddigger's intentions are clear, she can care for the child herself.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html

Anyone read this story? Evil genius.

See. Responsibility.

It is in your hands gentlemen. t:

 

[Feenix]

Not if he laid down and willingly participated in the sex act that created said baby in the first place.

Very true...and I'll give you one really strange scenario. In the Navy I know a husband and wife who had three kids. The man opted to have a vasectomy so the woman didn't have to have her tubes tied. They decided as a couple not to have anymore children. So one day they were both super surprised when she got pregnant and the man was SURE the baby wasn't his. The couple divorced...and guess what??? The baby was his because even vasectomies aren't 100% fool proof.

No, again, a con artist lies to get money. The person willingly gave them their money. They participated in the "transaction." That doesn't make what the con artist did less illegal. It's the same in this situation.