Man Tricks Woman with Abortion Smoothie - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47352230]Maybe if there wasn't the concept of child support payments which effectively remove the ability for the father to walk away if the mother wants to have the child, this wouldn't have ever been an issue. Of course this isn't a rational solution; but when individuals perceive they are backed into a corner, they don't always go with the rational solution. I guess I never did understand the point of government mandated child support payments; if it's considered completely the choice of the mother to have the baby or not--which it should be--then why should the mother's decision have a lasting impact on an unwilling party?[/QUOTE] Because regardless of what he wants, he still made the concious decision to have sex with her, and babies cost a lot of money to raise, more then one person can typically afford. It's his offspring and therefore part of his parental responsibility to help raise and care for it.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352150]I've discussed this topic before, and it always comes back to: "But the woman might deceive you!" Why? If it's a fling, condoms should be used regardless. If they're your girlfriend or spouse, you should be aware of their desires and personality type. But in the end, it's paranoia to pretend women want to trick you into becoming a father. If your girlfriend tells you she will never consider abortion, be honest that you can't handle the possibility of fatherhood and break-up. Or at the very least, understand what is possible. Be an adult.[/QUOTE] The question is the legal complications to the spouse who did not want a child, who is now forced legally support one. You claim its a issue of sinister women when you blame the topic on men being incompetent.

As horrible as this is the title still got me laughing really hard, so fuck you OP.

[QUOTE=Vasili;47352287]The question is the legal complications to the spouse who did not want a child, who is now forced legally support one. You claim its a issue of sinister women when you blame the topic on men being incompetent.[/QUOTE] Both parties made a mistake, both are "incompetent." But a man can't back out just because, "she obviously tricked me."

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352301]Both parties made a mistake, both are "incompetent." But a man can't back out just because, "she obviously tricked me."[/QUOTE] Deception is a valid legal reason if its proven to be the case. But put it this way; both sides are incompetent but one side is forced to pay out and support a child by law which many - [I]such as myself [/I]- find to be wrong. Court of law is there to determine the scenario of the pregnancy, but it if was found to be dubious in conception without a partners consent then they should be legally able to withdraw from responsibility.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352301]Both parties made a mistake, both are "incompetent." But a man can't back out just because, "she obviously tricked me."[/QUOTE] Let me ask you this then: If the father has no choice in weather or not the child is born, why should he be forced to be responsible for it?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47352351]Let me ask you this then: If the father has no choice in weather or not the child is born, why should he be forced to be responsible for it?[/QUOTE] He had a choice when he conceived the child.

[QUOTE=Explosions;47352362]He had a choice when he conceived the child.[/QUOTE] So did she. You're blaming the man for something that both parties actively consented to. Both parties are equally responsible for the conception.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47352351]Let me ask you this then: If the father has no choice in weather or not the child is born, why should he be forced to be responsible for it?[/QUOTE] Because it's about the needs of the child. If you truly want this as a possibility, lobby for a better welfare system.

[QUOTE=Vasili;47352344]Deception is a valid legal reason if its proven to be the case. But put it this way; both sides are incompetent but one side is forced to pay out and support a child by law which many - [I]such as myself [/I]- find to be wrong. Court of law is there to determine the scenario of the pregnancy, but it if was found to be dubious in conception without a partners consent then they should be legally able to withdraw from responsibility.[/QUOTE] My problem comes when someone states that the man should always have the option to back out regardless of circumstance. I explain my position, and the retort is always "women can deceive men." If you wish for an actual court process for those individual cases, I'll respect your view. If you think an exceedingly rare event is a blanket for all men to deny responsibility, you either just want to fuck recklessly or you're a misogynist (given you believe women are out to trick you).

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47352374]Because it's about the needs of the child. If you truly want this as a possibility, lobby for a better welfare system.[/QUOTE] Let me break this down farther, because I think I may not be clearly illustrating my point here. 2 consenting adults have sex and a pregnancy results. If the woman doesn't want the child, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of what the man wants. If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman does, he can neither terminate the pregnancy, nor absolve himself of any responsibility. Do you see the problem in this yet?

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352382]My problem comes when someone states that the man should always have the option to back out regardless of circumstance. I explain my position, and the retort is always "women can deceive men." If you wish for an actual court process for those individual cases, I'll respect your view. If you think an exceedingly rare event is a blanket for all men to deny responsibility, you either just want to fuck with zero consequences or you're a misogynist (given you believe women are out to trick you).[/QUOTE] The legal responsibilities often put upon a male regarding divorce/child care is self inflicted sexism. Such as the belief women are better mothers, a male must support a mother and child over a father and child, men in motherly positions are weak/unmanly etc. The scenario you would give though would be a incredibly rare scenario in itself which really just paints men in a very negative light to being stupid, naive, sluts etc. We are all aware of the horror stories about men being ruined for life with divorce or childcare and the difficulty for these people to move on in life with new careers, families, financial and more. In the UK this has started to become addressed after such famous examples like this: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11429864/Divorced-wife-told-to-get-a-job-and-stop-living-off-her-ex.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Vasili;47352416]The legal responsibilities often put upon a male regarding divorce/child care is self inflicted sexism. Such as the belief women are better mothers, a male must support a mother and child over a father and child, men in motherly positions are weak/unmanly etc. The scenario you would give though would be a incredibly rare scenario in itself which really just paints men in a very negative light to being stupid, naive, sluts etc. We are all aware of the horror stories about men being ruined for life with divorce or childcare and the difficulty for these people to move on in life with new careers, families, financial and more. In the UK this has started to become addressed after such famous examples like this: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11429864/Divorced-wife-told-to-get-a-job-and-stop-living-off-her-ex.html[/url][/QUOTE] I don't deny divorce is difficult, and I don't deny that fathers and mothers are equally-capable parents. But this is about the welfare of the child. If you want to back-out just because, "I don't want a child," then you really do just want reckless sex. There are precautions that can be taken. Take them. Don't punish the child because you didn't bother.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352150]I've discussed this topic before, and it always comes back to: "But the woman might deceive you!" Why? If it's a fling, condoms should be used regardless. If they're your girlfriend or spouse, you should be aware of their desires and personality type. But in the end, it's paranoia to pretend women want to trick you into becoming a father. If your girlfriend tells you she will never consider abortion, be honest that you can't handle the possibility of fatherhood and break-up. Or at the very least, understand what is possible. Be an adult.[/QUOTE] You're also not considering the whole thing - both parties were fairly young in this case. The guy 25, the chick 20. Until it happened neither of them probably talked about the notion of having children. Eitherway, you have to be realistic and consider the fact that a lot of children are unplanned. Some happen to long term couples, others to new couples. And often both parties might be at odds with what they want to do. The problem is, that in many cases, if the parties can't reach agreement the male is pretty much always in a loose loose situation. Wants the kid, but mother doesn't - it would be unfair to impose an unwanted pregnancy on her - there's really nothing to discuss here imho Doesn't want the kid - but mother does - either has to become a fulltime parent or has to expect to pay alimony As such the male doesn't have a lot of recourse in similar situations and it seems to be immoral to not grant them some.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47352411]Let me break this down farther, because I think I may not be clearly illustrating my point here. 2 consenting adults have sex and a pregnancy results. If the woman doesn't want the child, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy, regardless of what the man wants. If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman does, he can neither terminate the pregnancy, nor absolve himself of any responsibility. Do you see the problem in this yet?[/QUOTE] So, what, we start allowing men to force abortions upon women or allow them to abandon their child? Neither of these sound like very good ideas. In the end it's the woman who has to bear the burden of either carrying the baby or aborting it. Her right to her own body is what trumps everything else, and you can't just treat both parties as completely equal when the situations are both vastly different.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47352446]You're also not considering the whole thing - both parties were fairly young in this case. The guy 25, the chick 20. Until it happened neither of them probably talked about the notion of having children.[/QUOTE] Which is why I support better sex education. If you're sexually active you need to consider the what-ifs. I admit that the issue of a father wanting the child when the mother doesn't is a very complex issue. I would hope discussion beforehand can predict and prevent this, but life is a lot messier than that. I agree with the above post in that it's ultimately the woman who is carrying the child, and so has greater say. But if a child is born, he or she shouldn't be punished for his parents' mistake.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352469]Which is why I support better sex education. If you're sexually active you need to consider the what-ifs. I admit that the issue of a father wanting the child when the mother doesn't is a very complex issue. I would hope discussion beforehand can predict and prevent this, but life is a lot messier than that. I agree with the above post in that it's ultimately the woman who is carrying the child, and so has greater say. But if a child is born, he or she shouldn't be punished for his parents' mistake.[/QUOTE] Better sex education won't get rid of similar situations. Sweden for instance has a very good one.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47352496]Better sex education won't get rid of similar situations. Sweden for instance has a very good one.[/QUOTE] It will lessen them. Having not talked or used protection still doesn't grant a man the right to not support the child. Keep in mind that the mother will be paying her share too, likely more so with doing the actual housing and parenting. Both parties made the kid, both need to provide. And I'm strictly taking about men who want to reject their child. Men can absolutely be wonderful fathers. My father was a great parent. I'm not in anyway trying to paint men as dead-beats.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47352457]So, what, we start allowing men to force abortions upon women or allow them to abandon their child? Neither of these sound like very good ideas. In the end it's the woman who has to bear the burden of either carrying the baby or aborting it. Her right to her own body is what trumps everything else, and you can't just treat both parties as completely equal when the situations are both vastly different.[/QUOTE] You can't treat both parties as equal. The man doesn't have equal choice in the matter, so he shouldn't have equal responsibility of supporting the child. If the woman can't support the child on her own, she could always have an abortion.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352430]"I don't want a child," then you really do just want reckless sex. There are precautions that can be taken. Take them. Don't punish the child because you didn't bother.[/QUOTE] This thought process would be a very small minority regarding children, pregnancy is a very serious issue and is very often unplanned. In fact you find that both parties in surprise pregnancies are often cooperating, but is often the male who is punished more with financial responsibility and blame when one side wishes to separate. The paranoia you raise while not always the case can and does happen [I](such as the link I gave in example)[/I], this is down to the law being biased towards women in the case of children or divorce - men also believe males are incompetent and unworthy of responsibility of their children. There is another argument on the same coin but reflected at women: the thought process - [I]but very much unaccepted viewpoint[/I] - in saying young women want to get pregnant to live on welfare and leech off their previous partners. A equally narrow minded statement to make, but the idea that men are stupid and must be punished for unplanned pregnancies is accepted; why? If the law was equal in forcing financial and parenting responsibility to both men and women I would be more lenient; but it is not the case. Of course once again, you find that men are often willing to pay in raising their children: but only their children and not the life-style of their mothers, this is very hard to regulate. Then to branch off that you have the psychological and domestic hardship of single mothers bringing up children on their own - a often pro argument to have abortions. This is one of the reasons males in society are getting married less and having not risking having children.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47352523]You can't treat both parties as equal. The man doesn't have equal choice in the matter, so he shouldn't have equal responsibility of supporting the child. If the woman can't support the child on her own, she could always have an abortion.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to understand that abortion is an extremely psychologically-complex endeavor. When a person is considering abortion, it's not just politics. That's why you should never pressure someone into it. Don't force them to do something that will permanently scar them. Adoption is a better possibility.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352533]You don't seem to understand that abortion is an extremely psychologically-complex endeavor. When a person is considering abortion, it's not just politics. That's why you should never pressure someone into it. Don't force them to do something that will permanently scar them. Adoption is a better possibility.[/QUOTE] I will 100% agree with you on that. I just don't think one party should be able to completely decide the responsibilities of both parties involved. I don't think men should be able to force a woman to deliver a child she doesn't want, and I don't think women should be allowed to force a man to support a child he doesn't want. That's a fair and balanced system.

[QUOTE=Vasili;47352530]This thought process would be a very small minority regarding children, pregnancy is a very serious issue and is very often unplanned. In fact you find that both parties in surprise pregnancies are often cooperating, but is often the male who is punished more with financial responsibility and blame when one side wishes to separate. The paranoia you raise while not always the case can and does happen [I](such as the link I gave in example)[/I], this is down to the law being biased towards women in the case of children or divorce - men also believe males are incompetent and unworthy of responsibility of their children. There is another argument on the same coin but reflected at women: the thought process - [I]but very much unaccepted viewpoint[/I] - in saying young women want to get pregnant to live on welfare and leech off their previous partners. A equally narrow minded statement to make, but the idea that men are stupid and must be punished for unplanned pregnancies is accepted; why? If the law was equal in forcing financial and parenting responsibility to both men and women I would be more lenient; but it is not the case. Of course once again, you find that men are often willing to pay in raising their children: but only their children and not the life-style of their mothers, this is very hard to regulate. Then to branch off that you have the psychological and domestic hardship of single mothers bringing up children on their own - a often pro argument to have abortions. This is one of the reasons males in society are getting married less and having not risking having children.[/QUOTE] I think the sexism involved in divorce cases should be remedied too. If both parents want the kid, both should be considered equally. My point still stands. Two wrongs don't make a right. I also already said court rulings for individual cases of deception is fine.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47352564]Two wrongs don't make a right. I also already said court rulings for individual cases of deception is fine.[/QUOTE] Can you remind me in what scenario this was again?

[QUOTE=Vasili;47352572]Can you remind me in what scenario this was again?[/QUOTE] Last post on the last page.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;47352065]Accidents happen and condoms nor contraceptives work 100% of the time and if that happens, and the potential parents can't reach an agreement. Or imagine a different scenario. Man asks if the woman is on the pill. She claims that yes, while she isn't. There's a lot of different reasons why a similar institute would actually make sense. But it would have to be timelimited.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's not fair that a woman has all the decision making power when it comes to deciding if they have a child while the father does not. Can she get an abortion against the fathers will? Yes. Can the father force her to get one? No. Why do women have the power to decide these things or not, imo there should be a way for men to legally have no responsibility to care for the child since they don't have the option of getting an abortion and are legally bound to support the child once it's born, it's unfair.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;47351787]yeah man, if you go to america you only run the risk of getting shot, but if you go to norway... hoo boy... they'll go all out and have you [I]aborted[/I][/QUOTE] What's the difference? Over here getting shot is kind of like a late term abortion :v:

[QUOTE=Subzero MP3Z;47352149]It's pretty unfair of a mother to bring a child into this world where the father doesn't want the child; but if its an abortions are wrong thing from the females point of view, then well; the father should have taken that into consideration before having sex with her.[/QUOTE] Just because she wanted to keep the child doesn't mean he had to keep with them, he could've waived his parental rights.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47352584]Yeah, it's not fair that a woman has all the decision making power when it comes to deciding if they have a child while the father does not. Can she get an abortion against the fathers will? Yes. Can the father force her to get one? No. Why do women have the power to decide these things or not, imo there should be a way for men to legally have no responsibility to care for the child since they don't have the option of getting an abortion and are legally bound to support the child once it's born, it's unfair.[/QUOTE] because there's such a thing as bodily autonomy wherein it's morally indefensible to force someone to use their body to support another person if they don't want to you don't see doctors or courts forcing people to donate kidneys or livers, why should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want?

[QUOTE=Levithan;47352603]because there's such a thing as bodily autonomy wherein it's morally indefensible to force someone to use their body to support another person if they don't want to you don't see doctors or courts forcing people to donate kidneys or livers, why should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want?[/QUOTE] That logic also works in reverse, why should men be forced to support a child while women can get an abortion since the father can't set the kid up for adoption to a foster family if the woman decides to keep it? There should be some kind of legal abortion/adoption recourse for the man if he doesn't want to care for the child during the pregnancy since he can't get an abortion done.