Man pleads guilty to killing his unborn child after tricking his girlfriend into taking abortion pil
161 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150112]So the man should have the right to hold no responsibility for a consequence that included his actions?[/QUOTE]
A consequence which is easy to mitigate and stop?
Yes.
[QUOTE=katbug;42150121]A consequence which is easy to mitigate and stop?
Yes.[/QUOTE]
In a good majority of cases a condom would be all that would have been needed.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150147]In a good majority of cases a condom would be all that would have been needed.[/QUOTE]
The same could be said about the pill or diaphragms.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;42150167]The same could be said about the pill or diaphragms.[/QUOTE]
But we were talking specifically about the man not wanting the child.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150184]But we were talking specifically about the man not wanting the child.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is the argument that he "could have done X to prevent the pregnancy" is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;42150202]What I'm saying is the argument that he "could have done X to prevent the pregnancy" is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
It isn't irrelevant.
If the father doesn't want a child then part of his responsibility is to wear a condom.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42149881]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]
in my state the state will actually support the child. if the mother does not know who the father is, then the state will pick up the slack. this has lead to many fathers either persuading or coercing the mother into not putting the father's name on the birth certificate and feigning ignorance(i've been witness to this more then once).
also if the father is known, he has to pay the state the child support and the state will pay the normal allowance for welfare for the mother. idk if it goes up if the father is able to pay more, or if it goes down if the father is able to pay less.
sorta a strange system imho. it would just make sense to stop incentivizing coercion and just having the state pay the fucking welfare.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150223]It isn't irrelevant.
If the father doesn't want a child then part of his responsibility is to wear a condom.[/QUOTE]
Sort of crap reasoning, especially considering how much condoms take away from the experience.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150223]It isn't irrelevant.
If the father doesn't want a child then part of his responsibility is to wear a condom.[/QUOTE]
if a mother doesn't want a child she should have taken the pill, therefore abortion should be illegal.
what ties the father to the child besides some shared genetic code? should sperm donors feel any responsibility towards the children they have potentially conceived?
[QUOTE=katbug;42150234]Sort of crap reasoning, especially considering how much condoms take away from the experience.[/QUOTE]
So there should be no responsibility put onto the man in the situation because it takes away from the experience?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42150240]if a mother doesn't want a child she should have taken the pill, therefore abortion should be illegal.
what ties the father to the child besides some shared genetic code? should sperm donors feel any responsibility towards the children they have potentially conceived?[/QUOTE]
Mostly its the practical effects of what would happen.
For example, with a "financial abortion" there is likely to be a significant amount more single mothers who have rough times caring for their child because of financial issues.
It would be really good if the state does pick up the slack like you say, but it doesn't right now.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150223]It isn't irrelevant.
If the father doesn't want a child then part of his responsibility is to wear a condom.[/QUOTE]
Possibility of condom failure, intoxication, and many other circumstances.
If a woman doesn't want a child she has time to decide after the act, while a guy only has before, kinda disproportionate there.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150246]So there should be no responsibility put onto the man in the situation because it takes away from the experience?[/QUOTE]
he should have equa responsibility, but have equal choice over voiding both control and responsibility at once.(abortion for women, maybe call it disassociation for men?)
[QUOTE=deadoon;42150265]Possibility of condom failure, intoxication, and many other circumstances.
If a woman doesn't want a child she has time to decide after the act, while a guy only has before, kinda disproportionate there.[/QUOTE]
The point I was making is that most of these unwanted (at least by the man) pregnancies likely didn't even include a condom in the equation, which greatly reduces the risk of a pregnancy.
Also intoxication rarely absolves responsibility, especially when it affects another person.
[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]
There's a problem with the concept of "financial abortions". With an actual abortion, that child will never exist. With a financial one, the child still exists. Now if the father signed something saying he'll [i]never[/i] interact with the child in any way, shape, or form for the rest of his life, we'd have an equal outcome. But until that happens, and the state actually supports single parents adequately, there's really no fairness in financial abortions.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42150397]There's a problem with the concept of "financial abortions". With an actual abortion, that child will never exist. With a financial one, the child still exists. Now if the father signed something saying he'll [i]never[/i] interact with the child in any way, shape, or form for the rest of his life, we'd have an equal outcome. But until that happens, and the state actually supports single parents adequately, there's really no fairness in financial abortions.[/QUOTE]
is a woman forced to take care of her child either. this might sound crude, but i don't think the man or woman should be forced to raise a child they don't want. if a woman wants to raise a child knowing fully that the genetic father is not going to play a role, then that should be her choice.
idk maybe i'm too idealistic about the whole thing.
[editline]11th September 2013[/editline]
that said, i do think a genetic father should have some financial responsibility if he just ups and leaves in a way that destabilizes the household financially.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42150414]is a woman forced to take care of her child either. this might sound crude, but i don't think the man or woman should be forced to raise a child they don't want. if a woman wants to raise a child knowing fully that the genetic father is not going to play a role, then that should be her choice.
idk maybe i'm too idealistic about the whole thing.
[/QUOTE]
Even in a system where the state could financially support the child without you'd still have to consider the psychological effects of both parents not being a part of the child's life.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150378]The point I was making is that most of these unwanted (at least by the man) pregnancies likely didn't even include a condom in the equation, which greatly reduces the risk of a pregnancy.
Also intoxication rarely absolves responsibility, especially when it affects another person.[/QUOTE]
Birth control pills greatly decrease the chance of pregnancy, but they are still able to abort afterwards at their own discretion, while guys have no say in the matter post impregnation legally, and no ability to get rid of the child from their lives in some way.
Guy only has control over the pregnancy until it actually occurs then he has none currently.
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150457]Even in a system where the state could financially support the child without you'd still have to consider the psychological effects of both parents not being a part of the child's life.[/QUOTE]
so then both parents should be forced to raise their child 50-50?
[QUOTE=Valnar;42150457]Even in a system where the state could financially support the child without you'd still have to consider the psychological effects of both parents not being a part of the child's life.[/QUOTE]
They'd have those problems regardless, as if the father would go through with this, what is to say he would be there for the child at all?
Damn automerge.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42150414]is a woman forced to take care of her child either.[/QUOTE]
I can't tell if that's a question but yeah she is, unless the child is put up for adoption, which I'm pretty sure requires the consent of both guardians
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42150487]I can't tell if that's a question but yeah she is, unless the child is put up for adoption, which I'm pretty sure requires the consent of both guardians[/QUOTE]
i think ideally putting a kid up for adoption should be easier, then.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42150493]i think ideally putting a kid up for adoption should be easier, then.[/QUOTE]
Ideally there is a lot about our society that should change.
But we can't always deal in the ideals, it has to be about the reality of it.
The reality about it is that the actions of both the man and women can lead to the consequence of having a child. Also, if there either party wants to reduce the risk of having a child both parties have options.
But what usually happens is that even if a person doesn't want a child, they don't ensure that the reduce the risk of that happening, and then it happens.
Generally at that point dropping responsibility isn't a good thing.
Man consents to creation of baby the moment he puts his shlong into a woman and basically gives up his rights to decide about the pregnancy and eventual birth, in her favor, as it all happens within her body.
Don't want to deal with unwanted babies? Don't have unprotected sex with people you don't trust to honor your wish. Don't want your baby aborted as the father? Don't conceive children with somebody you can't trust to carry it till birth.
Only odd cases are accidents, where somebody always gets fucked over, that's how accidents work. The other odd case is woman tricking man into making her pregnant one way or another is insanely rare, and if it happens and you can't deal with it, you should take it to court - it's likely the court would strip you of the responsibility over the child after its birth.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42150701]Man consents to creation of baby the moment he puts his shlong into a woman and basically gives up his rights to decide about the pregnancy and eventual birth, in her favor, as it all happens within her body.
Don't want to deal with unwanted babies? Don't have unprotected sex with people you don't trust to honor your wish. Don't want your baby aborted as the father? Don't conceive children with somebody you can't trust to carry it till birth.
Only odd cases are accidents, where somebody always gets fucked over, that's how accidents work. The other odd case is woman tricking man into making her pregnant one way or another is insanely rare, and if it happens and you can't deal with it, you should take it to court - it's likely the court would strip you of the responsibility over the child after its birth.[/QUOTE]
So only women are allowed to decide after conception because a guy must have thought everything through and cannot take back a decision, even he is able to be affected by it?
The problem with this argument comes down to the fact you cannot remove the double standard here, as each gender will have to have different problems with it and will always believe it unfair in some manner.
Men; "Why should we be forced to pay for something we didn't want?"
Women; " It's our bodies, so it should be our choice alone."
Is what it boils down to really from every time I've seen it
[QUOTE=deadoon;42150803]So only women are allowed to decide after conception because a guy must have thought everything through and cannot take back a decision, even he is able to be affected by it?
The problem with this argument comes down to the fact you cannot remove the double standard here, as each gender will have to have different problems with it and will always believe it unfair in some manner.
Men; "Why should we be forced to pay for something we didn't want?"
Women; " It's our bodies, so it should be our choice alone."
Is what it boils down to really from every time I've seen it[/QUOTE]
If you [I]don't[/I] want a baby as a father, then don't have sex that leads to conception. It ends there. There's no other choice because all the choices to be done have to do with the female's body and only she can decide about that. Yes, men are fucked over, but they are fucked over by evolution. It's like complaining about how unfair it is that women can't suffer from nutshots.
Any attempt to give a man the choice to decide over the course of pregnancy either strips woman of her rights to decide about her body, and any attempt to make an official option to "opt out" of unwanted fatherhood means men would get out of these scott free and wouldn't hold the responsibility over their absolutely voluntary actions, which they definitely should. That's all there is to it. It's simple as that.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42150897]If you [I]don't[/I] want a baby as a father, then don't have sex that leads to conception. It ends there. There's no other choice because all the choices to be done have to do with the female's body and only she can decide about that. Yes, men are fucked over, but they are fucked over by evolution. It's like complaining about how unfair it is that women can't suffer from nutshots.
Any attempt to give a man the choice to decide over the course of pregnancy either strips woman of her rights to decide about her body, and any attempt to make an official option to "opt out" of unwanted fatherhood means men would get out of these scott free and wouldn't hold the responsibility over their absolutely voluntary actions, which they definitely should. That's all there is to it. It's simple as that.[/QUOTE]
You're basically giving the exact argument that people give against abortion. Both men and women voluntarily have sex but what you're saying is that only women have the right to disavow the consequences of their actions. That's just ridiculous. Either both parties can withdraw from the responsibility of parenting or neither can.
You're right, it's absolutely the woman's choice whether or not she actually has the baby. It shouldn't be her right nor choice to try and force the man to participate in the child's life(either financially or actively) against his will.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42150897]If you [I]don't[/I] want a baby as a father, then don't have sex that leads to conception. It ends there. There's no other choice because all the choices to be done have to do with the female's body and only she can decide about that. Yes, men are fucked over, but they are fucked over by evolution. It's like complaining about how unfair it is that women can't suffer from nutshots.
Any attempt to give a man the choice to decide over the course of pregnancy either strips woman of her rights to decide about her body, and any attempt to make an official option to "opt out" of unwanted fatherhood means men would get out of these scott free and wouldn't hold the responsibility over their absolutely voluntary actions, which they definitely should. That's all there is to it. It's simple as that.[/QUOTE]
I would argue that technically being kicked in the cunt would be around the same amount of pain due to the nerve density from what I remember, but that is really beside the point you know.
The statements you are treating as the end all of the argument fails to take into account that there are two perspectives, simply.
From a woman's perspecive, all of what you said can technically be considered true, but for a guy to argue against it it would be considered misogynistic.
We are arguing post pregnancy, which the guy has no control over at all. Do something to prevent it; stuff like this news article occurs, beg her to get an abortion; they can ignore you(Before you say anything stupid about statistics and such, I'm purposefully going for worst case scenarios.),let it go despite not wanting it; you have to pay child support, or skip town.
Seriously, failure to accept both sides is as much a problem as the fact that no matter what any legislation says there will be no perfect solution due to the dichotomy of the problem.
Women are able to "opt out" of motherhood, why aren't guys to the same restrictions? Put a time limit and require notification.
So the answer is abstinence? Funny that's the answer in this case, when in school-related cases people blast abstinence because "it doesn't work".
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42151391]So the answer is abstinence? Funny that's the answer in this case, when in school-related cases people blast abstinence because "it doesn't work".[/QUOTE]
It doesn't, because it's not going to happen.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42147994]you're a freak what the hell you'd murder someone rather than have to pay child support? someone should kill you you sociopath[/QUOTE]
You're a freak, you'd wish death upon someone for something they said on the internet? Someone should kill you, you sociopath
Threads like these are one of the reasons why I sometimes envy homosexual men.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.