Man pleads guilty to killing his unborn child after tricking his girlfriend into taking abortion pil
161 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Crabpeoples;42148820]Good for him on being a smart guy. Sucks that he got caught.[/QUOTE]
being smart doesn't mean shit if you're also a sociopathic piece of shit that would drug someone to induce an abortion so you can avoid the responsibilities of being a father
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42148831]being smart doesn't mean shit if you're also a sociopathic piece of shit that would drug someone to induce an abortion so you can avoid the responsibilities of being a father[/QUOTE]
but... misandry...
Wow, there are probably like a million ways to go about saying "hey we/I might not be ready to be parents" to your loved one and he chose the worst one possible
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42147039][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-his-unborn-child-after-tricking-his-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-pill-8806853.html[/url]
I know it's not quite the same but if this was the other way round, the woman had aborted without the permission of the husband, she would have faced no charges.[/QUOTE]
i remember following this a while ago before it went to trial, they wanted to get an abortion, then she decided to go ahead and have the child. as evil as it sounds, he shouldn't be charged with manslaughter, he should be charged with whatever crime poisoning someone is, but not manslaughter
Couldn't he have just legally given up any sort of responsibilities to care for the child?
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;42149307]Couldn't he have just legally given up any sort of responsibilities to care for the child?[/QUOTE]
he'd still has to pay child support.
[QUOTE=Morgen;42147065]It's the woman's body so ultimately the decision is hers and she doesn't really need to include the father in the decision however morally wrong it maybe to not.[/QUOTE]
There is something very,very wrong with both what you quoted and what you said.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;42149453]There is something very,very wrong with both what you quoted and what you said.[/QUOTE]
no he's right, when you get right down to it it's the woman's body, so her decision is final. i think it's definitely something that she should talk about with the father, especially if she's in and hopes to stay in a relationship with him and his thoughts and feelings should be considered. but ultimately it's the woman's decision.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42149437]he'd still has to pay child support.[/QUOTE]
idk if i agree with the idea that someone should be financially responsible for another living person based on genetics alone.
[editline]11th September 2013[/editline]
i mean if anyone is going to pick up the slack it should be the state's role.
this thread is a strange place
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42149437]he'd still has to pay child support.[/QUOTE]
I never really got why this is a thing. If the father didn't want a child in the first place and never intended to have one, he should have no legal responsibility to care for the child.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42149580]I never really got why this is a thing. If the father didn't want a child in the first place and never intended to have one, he should have no legal responsibility to care for the child.[/QUOTE]
In most cases of this, the father probably didn't wear a condom. If he really didn't want a child than he probably should of used one, that is his responsibility to do so.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42148367]Yeah I suppose it happens, though I haven't actually heard of it happening beyond anecdotes[/QUOTE]
Most seriously bad things seem to only occur in anecdotes, that's why it's always good to be ready ahead of time.
[QUOTE=katbug;42149638]Most seriously bad things seem to only occur in anecdotes, that's why it's always good to be ready ahead of time.[/QUOTE]
You lost me katbug. What do you mean always be ready? Like wear condoms all the time or something else? I can kinda guess, but I don't want to jump the gun here.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42149523]idk if i agree with the idea that someone should be financially responsible for another living person based on genetics alone.
[editline]11th September 2013[/editline]
i mean if anyone is going to pick up the slack it should be the state's role.[/QUOTE]
i'd get behind that
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42149655]You lost me katbug. What do you mean always be ready? Like wear condoms all the time or something else? I can kinda guess, but I don't want to jump the gun here.[/QUOTE]
Wear a condom, spermicide, other male contraceptives
In an ideal world we could have a system where the guy could do something to opt-out of being the child's father, especially if exploitation was used to get pregnant in the first place, but this is probably not going to happen.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42149630]In most cases of this, the father probably didn't wear a condom. If he really didn't want a child than he probably should of used one, that is his responsibility to do so.[/QUOTE]
Even then, I'm not too sure how this translates into responsibility for the child. The woman might want to keep it, but if the man doesn't, he should be able to drop out, whilst the baby is either cared for by the woman (who is given financial support by the state) or the pregnancy is otherwise terminated.
[QUOTE=katbug;42149681]Wear a condom, spermicide, other male contraceptives[/quote]
Oh good I was worried you'd go another way with that
[QUOTE=katbug;42149681]In an ideal world we could have a system where the guy could do something to opt-out of being the child's father, especially if exploitation was used to get pregnant in the first place, but this is probably not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
Opt-out? I assume it would only work during the pregnancy, right? I couldn't decide six years later that I can't be arsed to raise and just leave with no repercussions, right?
As I understand it doesn't sound terrible, but as yawmwen said I would hope the state would be there to pick up the child sized slack.
[QUOTE=katbug;42149681]Wear a condom, spermicide, other male contraceptives
In an ideal world we could have a system where the guy could do something to opt-out of being the child's father, especially if exploitation was used to get pregnant in the first place, but this is probably not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
None of those are 100% effective.
[editline]10th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42149467]no he's right, when you get right down to it it's the woman's body, so her decision is final. i think it's definitely something that she should talk about with the father, especially if she's in and hopes to stay in a relationship with him and his thoughts and feelings should be considered. but ultimately it's the woman's decision.[/QUOTE]
It's not the woman's decision, it's 50/50 they both played equal parts in creating the baby, and they would both have equal responsibility after it's born, therefore they both have equal weight in deciding whether or not they want to continue to have the baby.
Wasn't there some guy who was infertile but didn't tell his girlfriend, and when she got pregnant there was a whole roller-coaster of madness after?
[QUOTE=Riutet;42148475]They are two separate issues.
Not wanting your genes to be spread is an issue of liberty and also of mysticism. I personally think it's silly to split hairs over having your genes spread because your genes are just a series of sequences of nucleic bases that code for your body's structure and how it functions. You share most of your genes with the rest of humanity anyway and because of chiasmata and random assortment during meiosis the genes you pass on are as much yours as 8 is yours if your number is 4 and is multiplied by 2.
As for the issue of child support, DNA profiling is the means by which you are indicated to be liable to pay child support, but not the cause. You could still spread your genes and not have to pay child support if legislation was different.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it also an intense issue of privacy?
I know we're talking about someone who was in a somewhat willing relationship here, but it is conceivable that someone could steal your DNA and decide to have a baby without your consent (i.e. I know couples where the woman got sick of waiting and poked some holes in the condom so that she would become pregnant). Its a complicated situation, but surely you would expect some rights over the usage of your genes and DNA?
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;42149731]None of those are 100% effective.
[editline]10th September 2013[/editline]
It's not the woman's decision, it's 50/50 they both played equal parts in creating the baby, and they would both have equal responsibility after it's born, therefore they both have equal weight in deciding whether or not they want to continue to have the baby.[/QUOTE]
it's the womans decision because it's her body and the man doesn't have the right to tell her what to do with it.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42149780]it's the womans decision because it's her body and the man doesn't have the right to tell her what to do with it.[/QUOTE]
but if we're going to use this argument, then child support hardly sounds fair, does it.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42149780]it's the womans decision because it's her body and the man doesn't have the right to tell her what to do with it.[/QUOTE]
To be clear, I'm not supporting what this guy did, what I'm saying is that if a father chooses to not have a child while the baby is still able to be aborted, he should be allowed to do so without consequence (child support, etc.) and the mother would still have the chance to either accept raising the child without it's father, or still get an abortion.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42149703]
Opt-out? I assume it would only work during the pregnancy, right? I couldn't decide six years later that I can't be arsed to raise and just leave with no repercussions, right?
[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah during pregnancy, and (assuming he is aware she is pregnant) he would have to do it within a certain time-frame.
I think that a man shouldn't have the right to decide if a woman can keep a baby or abort it, but I don't think he should be required to be responsible for looking after/supporting the baby in the instance of the former if he doesn't want a child.
[QUOTE=katbug;42149792]but if we're going to use this argument, then child support hardly sounds fair, does it.[/QUOTE]
well, as yawmen and sobotnik said, i agree it should be supported by the state if the father won't support it. but as long as the state doesn't then someone has to if the mother can't support the child alone so despite any fairness the father should have to pay up (only if he is able)
[QUOTE=Riutet;42148678]I would refuse to pay for a child I did not consent to having.
Do not act like the only punishment for doing so is being labeled a deadbeat dad. You can face jail time in the UK for this, and having a criminal record puts you on a shitlist where you may as well just get good at being a criminal.
If I am to face having my life in society ruined, I would rather choose option where I might get away with it as opposed to the option where I will not, as grim as the option I choose may be. If the laws of society do not uphold my liberty, it is my duty to do so myself.
If a woman can choose whether or not she becomes a parent, so too should a man. If a woman chooses to be a parent when a man does not, that should solely be her right, and solely be her responsibility.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't simply leaving the country sound like a much better alternative to murder? I've never heard of a country enforcing child support claims from another country.
This thread makes me sick. I don't see how you can defend someone killing what the mother considered her child. This guy deserves what he gets.
That being said, I will agree with Sobotnuts up there in that financial abortion should be an option in at least some cases.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42149821]I think that a man shouldn't have the right to decide if a woman can keep a baby or abort it, but I don't think he should be required to be responsible for looking after/supporting the baby in the instance of the former if he doesn't want a child.[/QUOTE]
So the man should have the right to hold no responsibility for a consequence that included his actions?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.