Man Tricked Pregnant Girlfriend

[LadyLuna]

Alright, reading the story, I have one question:

Did she trick him into getting her pregnant? Did they previously agree that they weren't ready for children?

If so, then I can have some sympathy for this man. He obviously knows that what he did was wrong, it sounds like he felt cornered. There is no such thing as legal surrender for a man, if his girl has the kid, he's liable for child support until the kid turns 18. He was not ready to be a father, and didn't want to have to pay for the next 18 years.

As for the "he made his choice when he fucked her".. really? Seriously? You're saying that any man who doesn't want to have kids needs to remain completely celibate, only ever masturbating, never knowing the pleasures of a real pussy? Keep in mind, you're asking that he remain single too, because very few couples can maintain a good relationship with no sex. So if a man doesn't want any kids, he needs to remain completely single and never fuck a pussy? I call bullshit on that. You don't say that every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant must remain single and can't have a dick in her.

And if there was an agreement in place, I think the sentencing is a little worse than needed. He didn't do it because he's horribly depraved. He did it because he was scared and felt cornered. "Just leave" doesn't cut it for the man, he'll still have to pay child support. If they hadn't discussed what would happen if she got pregnant and agreed that she should get an abortion, then I still feel like he probably shouldn't have gotten more than 10 years. And if she tricked him into getting her pregnant, she should be prosecuted for attempting to control him through his wallet.

 

[ScarletVixen]

Didn't the article say that the womans father was a DOCTOR? .

I thought the guys father was the doctor??
Edit: yea, it was the guy who's father was the dr.
"On the day after Welden ordered the pills by forging his father's signature, he accompanied to R.L. to an appointment at his father's practice to confirm the pregnancy."

Thanks for clearing that up, I knew it was a parent of one of them, just not which one. Still doesn't seem wise. I hope the father wasn't knowingly helping the guy administer unprescribed drugs to his GF.

 

[southsamurai]

I'm happy with the responses, but surprised no one has a different opinion. Does anyone here think a man should have a say in what happens to the unborn fetus? Half his child, half his choice???

This isn't really a "men's rights" issue, though, is it? This is more of a "fuckbag went to great lengths to commit a heinous act" issue.

No, this particular case isn't. But I felt the question was related, indirectly.

zippy is right for sure, this specific case is not one of father's rights because of the way he went about things and the choices he made.

that being said there really does need to be put into place some kind of alternative for these situations. i am 100% behind reproductive rights for women. her body, she should have say in how it is used as regards reproduction. and i also feel that if you are having sex as an adult the ease of contraceptive access here in the states means that neither women nor men can be said to have no control over pregnancy starting. alas, no form of contraception is 100 percent. and dont give me that abstinence bullshit either, sexual drive is one of the 3 big motivators for any biological entity; for humans it may well be stronger than the drive for food in the modern era.

so when a baby is started and both parties who contributed to it dont agree what then? as it stands now the female of the two has all rights, 9 months worth of the physical onus in totality. the financial end of things varies from state to state but the hospital bills and such tend to fall on the person who has the kid, but there are legal ways to shift that burden at least in part as soon as patrimony is proved. post natal it is very difficult for a male to gain full custody, and in most places weight is given to the female regardless of any other factors unless she can be proven to be an unfit parent.

now, some guys are just useless ( some ladies too for that matter, deadbeat parents are POSes regardless of sex IMO) and there is a system for making them provide financially, however flawed that system might be. in the modern era the government has been in its many guises much better about making deadbeat parents toe the line.

it is my opinion that there should be more parity as regards the decision to end a pregnancy. if the female half wishes to terminate there is no option currently for the male parent to have any say in the matter. so far all legal attempts to allow the father to step in and say "once this baby is born i will assume all responsibility" and allow the child to be carried to term. but if the same pair were switched int heir roles there is no way for the same male to say "hey, this wasnt my choice, i want a way to back out or have the pregnancy terminated".

yes, the ultimate truth is that the female's body bears the burdens of gestation and childbirth so weight must be shifted to their side in the final decision. and also the financial end of things is harder for the female as well due to the pregnancy itself as those last few months even in an easy pregnancy make it difficult to gain income.

as regards a female who wishes to terminate and the male gene contributor objects there should be some recourse. if the male is willing and able to provide not only medical care, but other financial onus, and then take full custody absolving the female of any and all responsibility there really should be some way to arrange for the child in question to be allowed to come to life. it takes two to start a little parasite growing until it turns into a miniature person, the decision to keep it growing, or stop it before it becomes a person should be one that is made by both parties.

and yes, there really should be some way for a male to opt out as well. the current system says : fine, you give up your custodial rights and assume a partial financial responsibility. and since it takes two to tango this isnt completely unreasonable... i believe someone else already mentioned that a condom is a fairly inexpensive prevention for this situation. however there are times when condoms fail, same with birth control medications. even vasectomies occasionally fail. add in that even with a mutual agreement to not reproduce some women choose to make a child of a specific male's sperm anyway. what then?

i would think that there should be a contract of some kind instituted for marriages stating such things clearly ahead of time. you make the decisions before marriage and those decisions rule what happens later on in regards to custody, gestation and financials. if marriage isnt in play then there should be the ability to form a similar contract that is binding. then if some dumb guy, or gal decides to forgo the contract for pleasure they then assume the normal risks involved.
yeah that sounds like a bit of a wet blanket for sex of the random origin. oh freakin well lol.

for myself since such contracts dont exist and would have no legal standing without protracted lawsuits well beyond the period of human gestation anyway i make sure that anyone i bump uglies with is well aware of my opinions on the matter. im close enough to 40 that the transient pleasure of sex is not something that i have gone without. at this stage of things if i help start a baby and provide the baby batter i would rather the lady deny me use of her baby oven for baking than risk the pregnancy being terminated. then again i also do not engage in coitus with people whom i would not trust to raise a child of mine either, so theres that.

anyways, i dont have all the answers here. the subject is a tricky one since it involves 2.5 people (despite being "pro choice" i still stand behind the idea that the child has no choice in being started and should have the chance to become a person, i also realize that the society we live in doesnt allow for that being the major deciding factor). all i can say is that just because the baking is done in someone else's kitchen doesnt mean one of the chef's should be ct out of the decision on how and when the dish is served lol

 

[Rose]

As for the "he made his choice when he fucked her".. really? Seriously? You're saying that any man who doesn't want to have kids needs to remain completely celibate, only ever masturbating, never knowing the pleasures of a real pussy? Keep in mind, you're asking that he remain single too, because very few couples can maintain a good relationship with no sex. So if a man doesn't want any kids, he needs to remain completely single and never fuck a pussy? I call bullshit on that. You don't say that every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant must remain single and can't have a dick in her.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. I see absolutely no reason why any person should have intercourse, as most people understand it in the traditional sense, if they do not want children. They can go without, pick a different hole or have outercourse only.

Sex is NOT something anyone needs to survive. Sure it's nice but it's not like water or oxygen. If you're old enough to copulate, you're old enough to figure out a way to get your jollies without having vaginal intercourse if you don't want children.

Personally, I prefer dick outside of the vag so I'll always argue for no sex or outercourse only.

 

[zippypinhead]

While I do think that there are instances where deadbeat dad laws can be a bit too draconian, I also think that if you're old enough to put a baby into a woman, you're old enough to be responsible for that baby. You take responsibility for your actions, especially if those actions have a life-changing effect on those around you. Abortion shouldn't just be used as a pregnancy reset button for immature assholes whose only defense is that they want to stay immature. I'm with Rose on this; if you don't want to have a baby, then keep your penis outside of vaginas.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

As for the "he made his choice when he fucked her".. really? Seriously? You're saying that any man who doesn't want to have kids needs to remain completely celibate, only ever masturbating, never knowing the pleasures of a real pussy? Keep in mind, you're asking that he remain single too, because very few couples can maintain a good relationship with no sex. So if a man doesn't want any kids, he needs to remain completely single and never fuck a pussy? I call bullshit on that. You don't say that every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant must remain single and can't have a dick in her.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. I see absolutely no reason why any person should have intercourse, as most people understand it in the traditional sense, if they do not want children. They can go without, pick a different hole or have outercourse only.

Sex is NOT something anyone needs to survive. Sure it's nice but it's not like water or oxygen. If you're old enough to copulate, you're old enough to figure out a way to get your jollies without having vaginal intercourse if you don't want children.

Personally, I prefer dick outside of the vag so I'll always argue for no sex or outercourse only.

I'm sorry, but...really? So I should never have sex because I never want to be a mother?

I'm perfectly capable of "getting my jollies" without sex (hello, job!) but it's more than that. People don't have sex just to orgasm. People have sex to feel close to another person, to share an intimate moment. Telling people to just "not have sex" is incredibly naive. It's not like oxygen or water but it's damn close. Animals are programmed to want to fuck, the end.

What we REALLY need to be working on is advancements in birth control, as well as a woman's right to get her tubes tied, which as it currently an incredibly impossible process for those that are young and without children.

And what you personally prefer is completely irrelevant. Why would you argue for what others should do based on what you like? That makes no logical sense.

Sorry if this was harsh, but I will ALWAYS defend people's right to fuck, regardless of their stance on procreation. Both men and women.


More on topic, but I personally think men should be able to opt out of paying for a baby that they never wanted. If a woman doesn't/can't take care of a baby, she should have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The only thing the man should pay for is that process. But child support for a baby you didn't have the choice to abort yourself? I feel like if women want complete and total rights involving their pregnancy (which I think they should) than with that right comes responsibility. If someone makes a decision 100% on their own then the consequences of that decision are also 100% their own.

 

[Rose]

As for the "he made his choice when he fucked her".. really? Seriously? You're saying that any man who doesn't want to have kids needs to remain completely celibate, only ever masturbating, never knowing the pleasures of a real pussy? Keep in mind, you're asking that he remain single too, because very few couples can maintain a good relationship with no sex. So if a man doesn't want any kids, he needs to remain completely single and never fuck a pussy? I call bullshit on that. You don't say that every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant must remain single and can't have a dick in her.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. I see absolutely no reason why any person should have intercourse, as most people understand it in the traditional sense, if they do not want children. They can go without, pick a different hole or have outercourse only.

Sex is NOT something anyone needs to survive. Sure it's nice but it's not like water or oxygen. If you're old enough to copulate, you're old enough to figure out a way to get your jollies without having vaginal intercourse if you don't want children.

Personally, I prefer dick outside of the vag so I'll always argue for no sex or outercourse only.

I'm sorry, but...really? So I should never have sex because I never want to be a mother?

I'm perfectly capable of "getting my jollies" without sex (hello, job!) but it's more than that. People don't have sex just to orgasm. People have sex to feel close to another person, to share an intimate moment. Telling people to just "not have sex" is incredibly naive. It's not like oxygen or water but it's damn close. Animals are programmed to want to fuck, the end.

What we REALLY need to be working on is advancements in birth control, as well as a woman's right to get her tubes tied, which as it currently an incredibly impossible process for those that are young and without children.

And what you personally prefer is completely irrelevant. Why would you argue for what others should do based on what you like? That makes no logical sense.

Sorry if this was harsh, but I will ALWAYS defend people's right to fuck, regardless of their stance on procreation. Both men and women.


More on topic, but I personally think men should be able to opt out of paying for a baby that they never wanted. If a woman doesn't/can't take care of a baby, she should have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The only thing the man should pay for is that process. But child support for a baby you didn't have the choice to abort yourself? I feel like if women want complete and total rights involving their pregnancy (which I think they should) than with that right comes responsibility. If someone makes a decision 100% on their own then the consequences of that decision are also 100% their own.

80% of my sex life is non penetrative and I'd say it's pretty damn awesome so I don't see why there has to be penetration. It's not something I understand or think is necessary. Imo, if you're having sex and don't want to have a baby/don't trust your partner/fill in the blank then non-penetrative sex is a fantastic option.

Sex doesn't have to include penetration. There's nothing wrong with creativity as a means of being careful. We'll just have to agree to disagree because my go to answer will always be don't have vaginal sex if you don't want to get pregnant (speaking of only consensual sex).

Edit: sex for intimacy is a foreign concept to me. I don't understand it and have never done it.

 

[zippypinhead]

Well, now we're just arguing preferences, I think.

More on topic, but I personally think men should be able to opt out of paying for a baby that they never wanted. If a woman doesn't/can't take care of a baby, she should have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The only thing the man should pay for is that process. But child support for a baby you didn't have the choice to abort yourself? I feel like if women want complete and total rights involving their pregnancy (which I think they should) than with that right comes responsibility. If someone makes a decision 100% on their own then the consequences of that decision are also 100% their own.

This I can't get behind. In what other realm would you get a free pass for making such a long-range bad decision? Be responsible for what you do with and to others.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

As for the "he made his choice when he fucked her".. really? Seriously? You're saying that any man who doesn't want to have kids needs to remain completely celibate, only ever masturbating, never knowing the pleasures of a real pussy? Keep in mind, you're asking that he remain single too, because very few couples can maintain a good relationship with no sex. So if a man doesn't want any kids, he needs to remain completely single and never fuck a pussy? I call bullshit on that. You don't say that every woman who doesn't want to get pregnant must remain single and can't have a dick in her.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. I see absolutely no reason why any person should have intercourse, as most people understand it in the traditional sense, if they do not want children. They can go without, pick a different hole or have outercourse only.

Sex is NOT something anyone needs to survive. Sure it's nice but it's not like water or oxygen. If you're old enough to copulate, you're old enough to figure out a way to get your jollies without having vaginal intercourse if you don't want children.

Personally, I prefer dick outside of the vag so I'll always argue for no sex or outercourse only.

I'm sorry, but...really? So I should never have sex because I never want to be a mother?

I'm perfectly capable of "getting my jollies" without sex (hello, job!) but it's more than that. People don't have sex just to orgasm. People have sex to feel close to another person, to share an intimate moment. Telling people to just "not have sex" is incredibly naive. It's not like oxygen or water but it's damn close. Animals are programmed to want to fuck, the end.

What we REALLY need to be working on is advancements in birth control, as well as a woman's right to get her tubes tied, which as it currently an incredibly impossible process for those that are young and without children.

And what you personally prefer is completely irrelevant. Why would you argue for what others should do based on what you like? That makes no logical sense.

Sorry if this was harsh, but I will ALWAYS defend people's right to fuck, regardless of their stance on procreation. Both men and women.


More on topic, but I personally think men should be able to opt out of paying for a baby that they never wanted. If a woman doesn't/can't take care of a baby, she should have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The only thing the man should pay for is that process. But child support for a baby you didn't have the choice to abort yourself? I feel like if women want complete and total rights involving their pregnancy (which I think they should) than with that right comes responsibility. If someone makes a decision 100% on their own then the consequences of that decision are also 100% their own.

80% of my sex life is non penetrative and I'd say it's pretty damn awesome so I don't see why there has to be penetration. It's not something I understand or think is necessary. Imo, if you're having sex and don't want to have a baby/don't trust your partner/fill in the blank then non-penetrative sex is a fantastic option.

Sex doesn't have to include penetration. There's nothing wrong with creativity as a means of being careful. We'll just have to agree to disagree because my go to answer will always be don't have vaginal sex if you don't want to get pregnant (speaking of only consensual sex).

Edit: sex for intimacy is a foreign concept to me. I don't understand it and have never done it.

OK, once again, what YOU prefer and understand is irrelevant because everyone is different. Just because YOU don't care for penetration doesn't mean everyone that doesn't want kids agrees with you.

And, just because you don't understand sex for intimacy doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't significant for others.

I don't think anyone should judge others for their sex life, and that sounds like what you're doing, saying people shouldn't have sex if they don't want kids, hence my hostile reaction.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

Well, now we're just arguing preferences, I think.

More on topic, but I personally think men should be able to opt out of paying for a baby that they never wanted. If a woman doesn't/can't take care of a baby, she should have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The only thing the man should pay for is that process. But child support for a baby you didn't have the choice to abort yourself? I feel like if women want complete and total rights involving their pregnancy (which I think they should) than with that right comes responsibility. If someone makes a decision 100% on their own then the consequences of that decision are also 100% their own.

This I can't get behind. In what other realm would you get a free pass for making such a long-range bad decision? Be responsible for what you do with and to others.

My point is that if a guy doesn't get a decision for what happens with the baby than he wasn't given a decision. So only women should be able to fuck if they don't want a kid because we have the option to abort/adopt? Seems like a double standard.

I had an abortion, and by your logic I was given a "free pass" for making a long-range bad decision. So, if women should have that option, so should men.

 

[zippypinhead]

Well, now we're just arguing preferences, I think.

More on topic, but I personally think men should be able to opt out of paying for a baby that they never wanted. If a woman doesn't/can't take care of a baby, she should have an abortion or give it up for adoption. The only thing the man should pay for is that process. But child support for a baby you didn't have the choice to abort yourself? I feel like if women want complete and total rights involving their pregnancy (which I think they should) than with that right comes responsibility. If someone makes a decision 100% on their own then the consequences of that decision are also 100% their own.

This I can't get behind. In what other realm would you get a free pass for making such a long-range bad decision? Be responsible for what you do with and to others.

My point is that if a guy doesn't get a decision for what happens with the baby than he wasn't given a decision. So only women should be able to fuck if they don't want a kid because we have the option to abort/adopt? Seems like a double standard.

I had an abortion, and by your logic I was given a "free pass" for making a long-range bad decision. So, if women should have that option, so should men.

Clearly, I've stumbled into a deep issue for you, so I'll just recuse myself from anymore forum hyperbole.

But, yes, even if it comes off as a double standard, I do think that in this instance, women's reproductive rights as a whole trump a man's right to behave without forethought and avoid consequences. It's one of those slippery slope issues. You start letting guys dictate whether or not abortions should be conducted, and then where does it go from there?

 

[Remykins]

re: should men be legally allowed to "opt out" of parenthood

NO. I get that women get that option, and I understand why the argument for men to get that same option may be popular...but we're forgetting about the third party in this argument and thats the child. It shouldn't be about what the woman or man gets to decide...if a woman conceives and wishes to carry that baby to term, then at that point the most important voice in this scenario should be the child. That child will need to be provided for, or its quality of life will be sub par, and the chances of them growing up impoverished, uneducated etc is incredibly high. Thats the last thing our society needs - our children need parents, BOTH parents. So I think men SHOULD be held financially responsible for providing for their offspring. If fatherhood becomes a free for all and no one is held accountable, what would our society look like in ten, twenty years? Think about it. If you are mature enough to be sexually active, then you need to be able to handle the consequences. With every single other decision in life there are consequences that must be dealt with....giving a free pass when it comes to children who NEED to be raised is just ludicrous.

And in the case of this dick drugging his gf....wtf man. Seriously fucked up.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Dudes a scumbag. Would like a little longer of a sentence.

18years would have been a little ironic, considering that's how long a child is in your care for.
Yea, maybe a little longer would have been better.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I read it. He didn't want to raise a child for the next 18 years.... so he should spend it in prison instead...

What a fucktard. Also abortion pills can be extremely painful for the woman taking them if you don't take them really early on. My friend had an abortion that way and she said it was horrific. It's just so bloody messed up.

I think he deserves to go to prison, he shouldn't be allowed to be free to date women and do this to them again, and he should be punished for the crime, but she's fortunate she didn't have that child, otherwise she'd be stuck with him. A man like that shouldn't ever be a father.

Poor woman I just don't know what goes through peoples mind's when they think these things are good ideas! I mean for fucks sake, if he were so against having a child he either should have got himself a vasectomy, should have been more careful with condoms and birth control, or really just shouldn't have had sex full stop.

Regardless of the fact that abortion is available and most of us aren't ready to have children even when we want to fuck like rabbits, people who are having sex should also be aware that a child could come out of it, and if that time comes they should take responsibility for it. Men should also realise that as unfair as it may seem, the woman has the say on whether she wants to keep the child or not. It is the price men pay for not having to carry children and getting to pee standing up. Men who can't accept this need to then be really careful and take their own precautions to not getting a woman pregnant.

 

[bawksy]

Think about it. If you are mature enough to be sexually active, then you need to be able to handle the consequences.

So you agree that abortion should be outlawed (except in the case of rape) because the woman made the decision to have a baby as soon as she agreed to have sex?

No?

I didn't think so.

 

[GemmaMarie]

bawsky- Id' just like to point out that your last image for "women vs mens rights" while it has some points, is quite over dramatic and honestly- wrong. "invasive surgery" for a man- would refer to getting snipped right? Is a MUCh less invasive, much cheaper, and quicker surgery than the female counterpart of being snipped. Plus half of the ones on the womens side are illegal, infantcide? auctioning a child? Just, what?? that graphic is just over top the insane, IMO and holds no real water for an educated response. Although I do realize WHAT the point is, I just disagree with using that graphic as an educated way to make it.

Honestly, in this case- I can see both what you were saying Bawsky and Ashleigh. IMO, I think men do deserve more rights for opting out of children they don't want, it is only fair. A mother doesn't have to consent from the father to have an abortion, nor does she have to have consent to keep it. And that's the way it should be. But I also see the argument for giving the father similar options. What this whole argument really boils down to (for me) is don't have irresponsible sex if you don't want babies. Not DON'T have sex or simply USE PROTECTION but for fuck sakes, people need to really learn to be more responsible with sex. These problems and issues more often than not (and I am NOT saying all the time, people are tricked and duped or whatever all the time) because people just don't give two fucks about sex. They think it feels good and that's all that matters. but it's not. It can have repercussions and I don't believe "I'll just get a free pass anyways" should be the train of thought to justify irresponsibility. This goes for men and women. I hate to see women who are on their 3rd, 4th, or like 5th abortion because they just don't give a fuck, and I'd hate to see men using a free pass when they have like 5 babies out there. (& I'm not saying abortions are wrong or that the opt-out for men would be wrong. Shit HAPPENS but if you don't learn from it by like 4th or 5th time, c'mon now, time to grow up and learn some lessons.)

As for this case, he drugged her. Regardless of what she did or didn't do- that's illegal. He deserves the time he got and I don't have sympathy for him. Even if she duped him, that was an immature and irresponsible way to deal with it.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

I love this topic because I'm torn on it. Both sides have given me a lot to think about and I appreciate that.

 

[AmberCutie]

I think the real issue this whole scenario brings up is why the boyfriend was driven to do such a thing in the first place. I think it comes down to men not having a choice whatsoever once a girl is pregnant.

I don't think men should be able to force women to get abortions. Her body, her choice. I get it. But I do think we need to seriously reconsider how child support works in the 21st century. I'm not sure child support should be completely thrown out the window, as it does have its purpose. If a man tells his girlfriend that he is going to be a supportive father, and she decides to keep the baby based on this information, then he should rightfully be forced to contribute to the baby's care even if he changes his mind later. But if the father indicates right up front that he has absolutely no interest in providing for the child, and the mother chooses to have the baby anyways, then the mother alone should be financially responsible for the child. Her body, her choice? His wallet, his choice.

I completely agree.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

If guys could opt out of child support, I believe abortions would increase. Therefore, right now, I believe a man should have to pay.

 

[Anonymous]

If guys could opt out of child support, I believe abortions would increase. Therefore, right now, I believe a man should have to pay.

I kind of agree that the man should have to pay. Sorta.

A little backstory: I have an almost-two-year-old daughter, and her dad has met her once. He has never given us a cent of child support, and he has denied vehemently that he is her father, but only started denying AFTER she was born.
When I got pregnant we had a long talk about what to do, and we decided on keeping it. He promised to be the best father he possibly could be, that we would work this out, that we would be amazing parents together.

Three months later he left me for his female "best friend, we're totally just friends babe, you don't have to be worried! Just friends!!!".

At this point it was too late for me to get an abortion, and quite honestly, I didn't want one. I'd spent the past three months dreaming about having a perfect little baby with my husband-to-be! I was going to be a working mom, he was going to work part-time and be the main baby-care-taker. Because we both wanted it that way, or so I thought.

After she was born, he refused to come see her, he only met her the one time because I brought her over at his mom's request. He wouldn't touch her. That's when he started the whole "SHE'S NOT MY BABY" thing. Dude, quit it, there's no one else that could possibly have been her dad. Also she looks just fuckin' like you. Also we have had a DNA test done by DHS, she's YOUR FUCKIN' KID.



She's almost 2, we have not had any child support from him. We've gotten along without it just fine, but I will admit, it would be very very nice to have the extra money, knock out some bills a lot easier.

We have hired an attorney to keep the whole child support case going, I mean DHS didn't touch it for a year and a half, so we had to kick-start it ourselves. That's the only reason we've even HAD the DNA test. Now we're just waiting on when we can get a court date or SOMETHING so we can fiiiiiiiiinally get child support.

(We're also wanting to have his parental rights terminated just because if anything were to happen to me, he could swoop in and take her + any money that would go to her in the event of my death and we REALLY DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN)

 

[CallMeWilliam]

I think the real issue this whole scenario brings up is why the boyfriend was driven to do such a thing in the first place. I think it comes down to men not having a choice whatsoever once a girl is pregnant.

I don't think men should be able to force women to get abortions. Her body, her choice. I get it. But I do think we need to seriously reconsider how child support works in the 21st century. I'm not sure child support should be completely thrown out the window, as it does have its purpose. If a man tells his girlfriend that he is going to be a supportive father, and she decides to keep the baby based on this information, then he should rightfully be forced to contribute to the baby's care even if he changes his mind later. But if the father indicates right up front that he has absolutely no interest in providing for the child, and the mother chooses to have the baby anyways, then the mother alone should be financially responsible for the child. Her body, her choice? His wallet, his choice.

I completely agree.

As do I

 

[LacieLaPlante]

What we REALLY need to be working on is advancements in birth control, as well as a woman's right to get her tubes tied, which as it currently an incredibly impossible process for those that are young.

A bit of a tangent, but I think this is changing. I was looking through my insurance policy and they offered to pay for a full sterilization services BEFORE you meet the deductable, and that was pretty much the only thing I didn't have to meet my deductable for, other than a checkup.

Perhaps the doctors are the ones who make it more difficult? but it seems like insurance might be willing to let this happen.

 

[yossarian]

What we REALLY need to be working on is advancements in birth control, as well as a woman's right to get her tubes tied, which as it currently an incredibly impossible process for those that are young.

A bit of a tangent, but I think this is changing. I was looking through my insurance policy and they offered to pay for a full sterilization services BEFORE you meet the deductable, and that was pretty much the only thing I didn't have to meet my deductable for, other than a checkup.

Perhaps the doctors are the ones who make it more difficult? but it seems like insurance might be willing to let this happen.

Yes, I think you're right. I had a friend who tried to get sterilized when she was 25 because she absolutely did not want kids, and I think she went through five doctors before she found one who would do it. Their attitude was "oh, you poor stupid girl. You'll regret it, so no."

 

[Mott_]

I think the real issue this whole scenario brings up is why the boyfriend was driven to do such a thing in the first place. I think it comes down to men not having a choice whatsoever once a girl is pregnant.

I don't think men should be able to force women to get abortions. Her body, her choice. I get it. But I do think we need to seriously reconsider how child support works in the 21st century. I'm not sure child support should be completely thrown out the window, as it does have its purpose. If a man tells his girlfriend that he is going to be a supportive father, and she decides to keep the baby based on this information, then he should rightfully be forced to contribute to the baby's care even if he changes his mind later. But if the father indicates right up front that he has absolutely no interest in providing for the child, and the mother chooses to have the baby anyways, then the mother alone should be financially responsible for the child. Her body, her choice? His wallet, his choice.

I completely agree.

I too agree with Bawksy.

I'm going to share with you a story that happened to a friend of mine.

After Uni, my mate starting working at the local pub we all used to go to. Whilst working there he met a girl a few years younger than him (he was 22 and she was 18 / 19 I think). They started having a casual fling, nothing serious, that went on for about a couple of months or so. One night when we were all out, he told us the girl he was having a fling with was pregnant, and he was going to be a Dad. We asked how did it happen? He said they used condoms and she was on the pill, but one night they'd ran out of condoms and thought it was okay because of said pill. Turns out she lied to him; she was never on the pill and all she wanted was a baby. She refused to have an abortion and my friend was forced to become a dad. Besides the huge finical burden, he now has a tie to for the rest of his life to the mother of his child, whom he despises. I can't begin to imagine how that feels.

 

[Remykins]

Think about it. If you are mature enough to be sexually active, then you need to be able to handle the consequences.

So you agree that abortion should be outlawed (except in the case of rape) because the woman made the decision to have a baby as soon as she agreed to have sex?

No?

I didn't think so.

I think that choosing to have an embryo aborted and a man choosing to ignore his living, breathing child are two totally different things. Women should have the right to their own body when it comes to pregnancy. But once that child is in the world, its a totally different issue - that child becomes, or should become, the most important party involved. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I just think that women should have the right to decide whether pregnancy goes full term or not, and fathers should step up and do right by their children. Not fair? Life isn't fair. Its not fair that the burden of pregnancy falls upon womens shoulders, but we have to suck it up and make hard choices sometimes. Might not be fair to a man that he doesn't want the burden of fatherhood, but honestly none of that should matter if the mother of that child decides to bring that baby into the world. Children are our future, and we owe it to society to do the right thing.

 

[Crumb]

coming late to thread, and haven't read all the posts...

I'm happy with the responses, but surprised no one has a different opinion. Does anyone here think a man should have a say in what happens to the unborn fetus? Half his child, half his choice???

while I think that the dude should, ideally, have a say, at the end of the day, it's her body and her choice to carry to term. I don't believe a anyone should be able to force a woman to terminate a pregnacy against her will.
if they had some sort of discussion and she overruled him saying "i'm keeping the baby no matter what you say" it's end of discussion.... and at which point, he should have persued legal action, end result being he wouldn't be legally responsible for the child, and then maybe ended their relationship.

 

[bawksy]

I've suggested some ideas on how we could create a more fair and balanced approach to child support, but some of you feel strongly that the existing system where men have no choice is absolutely fine. I would ask those people, what do you propose we do to prevent obvious abuses of the child support system?

By abuses, I mean when a woman:

• Pokes a hole in a condom
• Lies about being on contraception
• Takes a condom out of the trash
• Spits out a blowjob and rubs it into her crotch
• Rapes
• etc.

 

[Anonymous]

I've suggested some ideas on how we could create a more fair and balanced approach to child support, but some of you feel strongly that the existing system where men have no choice is absolutely fine. I would ask those people, what do you propose we do to prevent obvious abuses of the child support system?

By abuses, I mean when a woman:

• Pokes a hole in a condom
• Lies about being on contraception
• Takes a condom out of the trash
• Spits out a blowjob and rubs it into her crotch
• Rapes
• etc.

I think there should be consequences for these things, but they would be very difficult to prove, which is unfortunate.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

A woman can abort whether the man wants her to or not. So shouldn't she be able to get pregnant whether he wants her to or not?
Or is getting pregnant against a mans want worse than aborting when the man doesn't want her to?

 

[southsamurai]

A woman can abort whether the man wants her to or not. So shouldn't she be able to get pregnant whether he wants her to or not?
Or is getting pregnant against a mans want worse than aborting when the man doesn't want her to?

you rock miss megan... have i said that lately?

to question a: yes, though in a fair society (which does not nor can exist with humans) he should then be absolved of, or have the chance to be, any and all responsibilities.

to question b: im torn on this one. you see with rampant over population combined with the stupidity inherent to the human species im all for not expanding the population further. that means that yes it is worse to make a baby without consent and proper support from the big picture. it places additional burden on the rest of society at some point......
however. i would be devastated if someone i cared for enough to have sex with unprotected (over 30 years since i started up and nearly as many partners and its happened all of 3 times) got pregnant and then terminated.
her right? sure, fine, whatever, i wont rant about the inequity of that. but really? with the decades that went by with me being so damned careful, putting off possible parenthood until i could provide a proper home and security for children only to find that my body and finances collapsed long before i achieved it, and well after i should have started anyway?

as insane as it sounds, if i was on the jury i would call that justifiable homicide. i have long been pro choice, and i stand by the right of women in general and specific to have final control over their bodies. but my gut response would be that someone just killed my child. my emotional reaction would be so severe that i can not accurately predict what my actions would be. for all that i pride my self on logic and intellect this is one subject on which i am not rational at all.

i have no right as an outsider to say yay or nay to someone else's decisions about reproduction. but an insider does. what should a father's rights be in these cases? i have my opinion about it for sure (which i've droned on about before here). what i know for certain is that with a society as large as the one we live in there must be some sort of code in place to cover the situation. and currently there isnt one, hence my lifelong policy of contraception. society at large already places restrictions on when and how abortions may occur. ( im not talking about morning after pills and such, that is not the same thing at all) so why can we not extend the restrictions and rules to include a world where men have evolved enough to be capable of wanting to be a single parent? we arent the macho idiots we used to be. we can nurture and teach and love. we arent all like the moron who was referenced in the OP. i would go so far as to say MOST of us arent.

there has to be some kind of compromise that would allow for both reproductive freedom and father's rights. doesnt there? please?

 

[Crumb]

A woman can abort whether the man wants her to or not. So shouldn't she be able to get pregnant whether he wants her to or not?
Or is getting pregnant against a mans want worse than aborting when the man doesn't want her to?

sure she can, use one of those clinics that specialize in that sort of thing. artificial insemenation yo. use it. but don't force it on a man. but in the context of being in a relationship and a less than scrupulous woman, there has to be something in the law about access to seman without consent.
if your man doesn't want to be a father, find someone else who does.


I don't quite understand what you're asking wtih your 2nd question.