Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Flagg]

Jub, it's not about the rights of parents to not take care of their kids, it's about the right of the kids to be taken care of.

[Broomstick]

^ what he said. You keep forgetting there is a third party involved. The point of child support payments is not to provide for the baby momma but to support THE CHILD. Nor is it some sort of life sentence. It's 18 years. People routinely take out mortgages for longer terms than that.

[Jub]

[/quote]

It was just as much her fault as his, but he's the only one without a say in that situation. The same thing arises when he wants the kid and she refuses to carry it to term.

Child, I want you to learn one thing from this thread: biology is not fair.

That's wonderful, maybe she should have thought of that before she got knocked up. It's as much on her as it is on him.

It's as much her mistake as his, yet he has no options once things start. Kind of a raw deal for something that can happen with relative ease.

First of all, you are assuming this is a mistake on her part. It might be... it might not.

Second, the “relative ease” part is EXACTLY why men who don't desire children or child support payments need to take responsibility for their sperm deposits. Granted, you have fewer options for birth control than women do (see comment about biology not being fair) but you do have them and if you're serious about not wanting to produce unwanted children you'll use them.

If she's tricking him into knocking her up then she can get fucked. That's not something to force on somebody.

The women tends to have the nicer options for birth control, but I've said all along that both parties are equally responsible for doing what they can for protection. In the case of accidents where precautions failed we end up back at the man having no say and no options again even if he was the one who rubbered up. Seems like a raw deal if you ask me.

If she can force the guy to pay for a kid he might not even know he was part of, he ought to have some say in getting a kid out of he deal if he's willing to care for it.

Given that he used subterfuge to kill the fetus, meanwhile endangering his girlfriend, I don't think this is relevant. He clearly did NOT want a kid out the relationship in any way, shape or form.

I was using the general he there Broomstick.

It's easy to vilify the guy for not wanting to deal with things when he doesn't want to pay, but less easy to pin the same responsibility on the woman.

We're not vilifying him due to custody dispute or child support payments, we're vilifying him for endangering another human being, forcing an abortion on a woman, and being a fucking criminal.

I already said that's wrong in previous posts. I'm more referring to the fact that people have a hate on for guys who don't want to pay child support for a kid they want no part of.

See comment above about biology not being fair.

There are fairer options than what current law allows, yet nobody seems keen to change things.

If the woman decides she's done she can take a morning after pill or have an abortion, but the man has utterly no say in things.

A man has a say in regards to where he puts his penis. Unless she raped him, stole his sperm, or otherwise committed a crime he put his dick in her of his own free will. That's the say a man gets in these things.

So he gets less say than she does just because she has to carry the kid. maybe she should have thought about that before she let him stick it in. The bat swings both ways.

I think it would be fair, if not ideal for obvious reasons, if the man could ask her to terminate the pregnancy and if the woman says no she can keep it but accept that she won't be getting child support.

A man can always ask the woman to terminate a pregnancy. She just doesn't have to fulfill that request. That's really where the heart of the matter comes in, he can't FORCE her to carry a child she doesn't want, and he can't FORCE her to get an abortion. It is the woman's choice. That's the reality you have to deal with.

Again, if a man really doesn't want either kids or a child support payment he needs to exercise responsibility regarding where he unloads his sperm. Yes, that means thinking ahead even when most of your blood supply is other where than your brain, and it might even mean saying “no” to sex on occasion.

It should be his choice to pay then. He doesn't get other options for very obvious reasons, but if he doesn't want the kid the ball is in her court to be a single income mother. It was as much her choice to have the kid as it was his, yet he's the only one who gets no choice if an accident happens. Yeah, biology isn't fair but it doesn't have to exclusively screw the guy.

Incorrect. There is oral sex, anal sex (although you'd still have to exercise care regarding where the load ends up), sex with other men.... Of course, all of those have downsides and risks... just like traditional heterosexual intercourse.

Way to miss the point. The women tends to have nicer easier options for birth control compared to a mam that might make sex more enjoyable for both of them. This doesn't mean a man shouldn't come prepared, it just means that it's something to talk about if you plan on a relationship.

Given the lengths this man went to in order to kill the fetus I doubt very much he was interested in custody in any form.

But, to dally upon the tangent for a bit: when such an instance does occur, an unwanted pregnancy that will be carried to term, there is this technique called “negotiation” that can go a long way towards resolving disputes. Yes, there are instances where that won't work because one party or another doesn't want to engage in it.

If a man really wants custody it would behoove to first, try to stay on at least civil terms with the mother, and two, go to court early in the process rather than leaving the woman to drag him there. It's not impossible for men to win custody, I've known several who have done exactly that, and even men who have gotten alimony, child support payments, and a government benefit like WIC that usually goes to mothers (It's a support for Women, Infants, and Children – people forget “women” is only one third of that).

If a man doesn't want custody it is possible to legally surrender all parental rights. Yes, he still might have a child support payment – the child doesn't disappear just because daddy doesn't want him or her. Well, boo-hoo, take responsibility for your mistakes. It's no different than having to pay for any other form of negligence or mistake you've made in life, and being limited to 18 years, is less than some types of financial penalties you can incur in life.

I'm not saying the an has no chance at custody, I'm saying he has a markedly worse chance if both partners approach the situation with equal desire, skill, and ability to raise the child. Yet he still has no say in if he pays or not in spite of the odds being against him even if he does try to do everything right.

It's called “legal liability”. You are legally liable for any human life you create, just as you are legally liable for crashing your car into something, or the damage a pet of yours does, or on a more positive note, you're legally liable for any business you create.

Your actions have consequences.

So do hers, yet only one person has an out clause. Biology can be unfair, but it doesn't have to swing wholly towards fucking the guy in these cases.

And no, he doesn't have a “100%” chance to pay for the kid. Not every baby momma pursues support payments. Not everyone gets dragged into court – it IS both possible and legal for two private parties to come to their own arrangement (although if that blows up the legal consequences can get ugly).

Is it unfair the way the courts treat men in this instances? Yes, it often is. I fully support increasing fairness but NOT at the expense of any other parties, and particularly not at the expense of the kid who never asked to be created but is nonetheless enmeshed in the mess.

If she presses for child support he has a very small chance of not paying. Given how rigged the system is against men either the courts need to be made fair, or he needs to have an equal ability to wash his hands of things as the woman does.

Excuse me? Wearing a condom is being “extra careful” somehow, but a woman altering her biochemistry and hormones to render her temporarily sterile with all the associated costs, risks and side effects is not? Why should women be extra careful and men not be careful at all?

When did I say anything about her having to take the pill? I'm just saying that they both have an equal responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy yet the talk here has all been about what a man can do to avoid it with no focus on the fact that a woman should be held equally responsible for such an event.

OK, let's review human reproductive biology 101: if a baby is created there were TWO people fucking, not one.

Obviously, but one has full control of things afterwards and the other will likely fork out cash if he want to or not. Life might not be fair, but these odds seem a bit rigged.

Why are you assuming she DIDN'T use birth control? Please tell me you are aware that ANY birth control has a failure rate. Where in the article does it state she wasn't using such? Please point that out to me. You are making an assumption. Not every unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy to those involved. Without knowing a LOT more about the parties involved it's impossible to say whether this was either an accident or an intentional pregnancy.

I would like to point out, however, that even if she deceived him it in no way justifies drugging a person against her will or forcing her to abort. Just because someone tricked you doesn't give you a right to punch them in the face. Under the law, tricking her into an abortion falls under physical assault. It's just as much a crime as beating her up would be.

I'm talking about general cases because there isn't much to say about this news article. If that was unclear I apologize.

I'm just saying that if she can choose to end things, he should have an option that leaves him just as free to walk away.

So you think that one party should be allowed to run away from the responsibilities of their actions if the other chooses to accept them?

I think that both parties should have equal say in that choice because they were equal parts of making it happen.

Jub, it's not about the rights of parents to not take care of their kids, it's about the right of the kids to be taken care of.

^ what he said. You keep forgetting there is a third party involved. The point of child support payments is not to provide for the baby momma but to support THE CHILD. Nor is it some sort of life sentence. It's 18 years. People routinely take out mortgages for longer terms than that.

How about a social safety net that actually works? I was raised by a single mother that wasn't getting child support and I'm here and doing fine thanks in part to the fact that Canada does a fair bit to help single mothers. I'm sorry that other nations haven't figure these basic things out yet.

[Alyeska]

How about a social safety net that actually works? I was raised by a single mother that wasn't getting child support and I'm here and doing fine thanks in part to the fact that Canada does a fair bit to help single mothers. I'm sorry that other nations haven't figure these basic things out yet.

Guess what. That money is coming from the father. Its damned near universal in most countries. The government will seek child support from the father. Thats what the social services do. Even in countries like the UK with their social safety nets, child support is still paid by the parents, not the government.

[Jub]

How about a social safety net that actually works? I was raised by a single mother that wasn't getting child support and I'm here and doing fine thanks in part to the fact that Canada does a fair bit to help single mothers. I'm sorry that other nations haven't figure these basic things out yet.

Guess what. That money is coming from the father. Its damned near universal in most countries. The government will seek child support from the father. Thats what the social services do. Even in countries like the UK with their social safety nets, child support is still paid by the parents, not the government.

That isn't always be the case though. The funding my mother got wasn't from my father because he either had nothing to give or simply dodged collections. Nor should it always be the case, such as a case where the father demonstrates that he tried to prevent the pregnancy, tried to convince the mother not to carry the child to term, and demonstrates that he can't financially support the child.

[Alyeska]

That isn't always be the case though. The funding my mother got wasn't from my father because he either had nothing to give or simply dodged collections. Nor should it always be the case, such as a case where the father demonstrates that he tried to prevent the pregnancy, tried to convince the mother not to carry the child to term, and demonstrates that he can't financially support the child.

Of course the money comes from the state if they can't find the father. But they will damned well try. And they will hit him with back child support too. You don't dodge child support just by skipping 18 years. It follows you the rest of your life.

Being unable to pay now does not mean they are unable to pay forever. Get a job, your ability to pay goes up.

And Canada seriously lets fathers get out of child support by saying "I tried to convince her to get an abortion!"? I seriously fucking doubt that.

[Broomstick]

Even if, hypothetically, nations didn't pursue men for child support, outside of independently wealthy women (who generally don't qualify and don't want government benefits anyway) the costs of raising such children are borne by society as a whole, which means we ALL collectively pay for such children. You want the the man to have the option of walking away... which means YOU are then paying in part for his child. Are you OK with paying to support children that you had nothing to do with so the man who DID participate in creating those children can walk away from them with no obligation?

If a man was truly destitute that would be one thing - you can't get blood out of a turnip, after all - but if a man is able to pay then he should own up to his responsibilities. Whether he then opts to be an involved father or merely a sperm donor is up to him, but since the child exists that human being needs to be provided for until he or she is independent.

[Jub]

That isn't always be the case though. The funding my mother got wasn't from my father because he either had nothing to give or simply dodged collections. Nor should it always be the case, such as a case where the father demonstrates that he tried to prevent the pregnancy, tried to convince the mother not to carry the child to term, and demonstrates that he can't financially support the child.

Of course the money comes from the state if they can't find the father. But they will damned well try. And they will hit him with back child support too. You don't dodge child support just by skipping 18 years. It follows you the rest of your life.

Being unable to pay now does not mean they are unable to pay forever. Get a job, your ability to pay goes up.

And Canada seriously lets fathers get out of child support by saying "I tried to convince her to get an abortion!"? I seriously fucking doubt that.

Where did I say that Canada did that? I'm saying that the law should allow for an out in the case where a man demonstrates that he did what he could to prevent things, tried to convince her to terminate, and demonstrates that paying now would ruin him financially. Is it better for the state to have some 20 year old pay for his kid now at the expense of an education, or does it serve the greater good more to let him off the hook?

Even if, hypothetically, nations didn't pursue men for child support, outside of independently wealthy women (who generally don't qualify and don't want government benefits anyway) the costs of raising such children are borne by society as a whole, which means we ALL collectively pay for such children. You want the the man to have the option of walking away... which means YOU are then paying in part for his child. Are you OK with paying to support children that you had nothing to do with so the man who DID participate in creating those children can walk away from them with no obligation?

If a man was truly destitute that would be one thing - you can't get blood out of a turnip, after all - but if a man is able to pay then he should own up to his responsibilities. Whether he then opts to be an involved father or merely a sperm donor is up to him, but since the child exists that human being needs to be provided for until he or she is independent.

I already pay for a bunch of shit I don't want, need, or get any use from. At least this helps to make something entirely one sided into something a bit more equal.

Or maybe I should go the other way and use your line. Biology isn't fair, if he wants the kid and she doesn't she can suck it up, after all she could have gone without sex, the same goes for the other option. I mean, if you can use the biology card one way it's equally fair to use it the other way right?

EDIT: In case it's not clear I don't actually support that last bit. I'm just sick of hearing the whole biology isn't fair line in this debate.

[General Zod]

I'm saying that the law should allow for an out in the case where a man demonstrates that he did what he could to prevent things

Except he didn't really, did he? He still had sex.

[Jub]

I'm saying that the law should allow for an out in the case where a man demonstrates that he did what he could to prevent things

Except he didn't really, did he? He still had sex.

So did she, yet she gets a choice in the matter?

[Alyeska]

Where did I say that Canada did that? I'm saying that the law should allow for an out in the case where a man demonstrates that he did what he could to prevent things, tried to convince her to terminate, and demonstrates that paying now would ruin him financially. Is it better for the state to have some 20 year old pay for his kid now at the expense of an education, or does it serve the greater good more to let him off the hook?

No, the law shouldn't provide an out. If the father didn't want to deal with child support, don't have sex. Guys have an out. Its called keeping it in your pants.

[Flagg]

I'm saying that the law should allow for an out in the case where a man demonstrates that he did what he could to prevent things

Except he didn't really, did he? He still had sex.

So did she, yet she gets a choice in the matter?

Life isn't fair. Cry me a river.

[Jub]

Where did I say that Canada did that? I'm saying that the law should allow for an out in the case where a man demonstrates that he did what he could to prevent things, tried to convince her to terminate, and demonstrates that paying now would ruin him financially. Is it better for the state to have some 20 year old pay for his kid now at the expense of an education, or does it serve the greater good more to let him off the hook?

No, the law shouldn't provide an out. If the father didn't want to deal with child support, don't have sex. Guys have an out. Its called keeping it in your pants.

That's one less out than a woman has. Why are were forcing this added responsibility onto a man? Is it because she has to carry a kid? Well she knew that when she consented to the sex so that shouldn't be an issue.

Life isn't fair. Cry me a river.

Wonderful, why not make it unfair in the other direction? It makes just as much sense if you're going to play the life's unfair card anyway.

[Alyeska]

That's one less out than a woman has. Why are were forcing this added responsibility onto a man? Is it because she has to carry a kid? Well she knew that when she consented to the sex so that shouldn't be an issue.

Are you a moron? Or do you just play one on TV?

Wonderful, why not make it unfair in the other direction? It makes just as much sense if you're going to play the life's unfair card anyway.

Right, so you make things worse by righting a wrong with another wrong. Fucking brilliant.

[General Zod]

Wonderful, why not make it unfair in the other direction? It makes just as much sense if you're going to play the life's unfair card anyway.

Guess which parent can die from pregnancy complications? I'll give you a hint: it's not the male. If you think men really have it unfair you're an idiot.

[Jub]

I'm actually just playing devils advocate at this point. My point has always been that men should have better fairer options that don't impede on a woman's body. End point. The rest is all to see if anybody is willing to accept the other extreme of the life's not fair argument. If you can't accept the other extreme then you should find a better argument.

Wonderful, why not make it unfair in the other direction? It makes just as much sense if you're going to play the life's unfair card anyway.

Guess which parent can die from pregnancy complications? I'll give you a hint: it's not the male. If you think men really have it unfair you're an idiot.

See above.

[General Zod]

I'm actually just playing devils advocate at this point.

That's awfully convenient.

[Jub]

I'm actually just playing devils advocate at this point.

That's awfully convenient.

I've said that at several points along the way as well actually. Take that as you will.

[Serafina]

So let me get this straight Jub:

Because of a biological difference (women being the sex that gets pregnant) that is neither parties fault, but which both parties are well aware off, a man who gets a woman pregnant has the right to control her body and endanger her physical and mental health without even informing her - all because he wants "equal options" (despite having several birth control options available to him already)?

A couple of questions:
- Why is he allowed to do this without even informing her?
- Why is his wish not to pay child support more important than her right to her own body?
- Why do you ignore that all of this could have been avoided by him preemptively?
- Why are you utterly ignorant of the concept of consent?

Oh, and in case you think you're really furthering gender equality here or something: You aren't.
Here's why:
You're laboring under the premise that both parties should have equal rights to decide whether to have a child or not (nothing wrong with that).
But you are utterly ignoring the actual impact of the options on each party.
Using a condom comes with a small financial expense, slight loss of sensation and takes little planning. Using hormonal birth control comes with a constant financial expense, notable impact on ones body and requires keeping a schedule. Other options for female birth control are also significantly more difficult than male options.
Yet i don't see you arguing for rectification of that imbalance, nor taking into account its impact on ones accountability for the results.



Or, in much shorter terms:
Jub, you're a horrible sexist asshole who doesn't give a fuck about a womans consent or rights when they collide with a mans interest. Don't even try to argue with "devils advocate", because that's about asking uncomfortable questions - if you actually gave a damn about consent, there would be no questions to ask!

[Jub]

So let me get this straight Jub:

Because of a biological difference (women being the sex that gets pregnant) that is neither parties fault, but which both parties are well aware off, a man who gets a woman pregnant has the right to control her body and endanger her physical and mental health without even informing her - all because he wants "equal options" (despite having several birth control options available to him already)?

A couple of questions:
- Why is he allowed to do this without even informing her?
- Why is his wish not to pay child support more important than her right to her own body?
- Why do you ignore that all of this could have been avoided by him preemptively?
- Why are you utterly ignorant of the concept of consent?

Oh, and in case you think you're really furthering gender equality here or something: You aren't.
Here's why:
You're laboring under the premise that both parties should have equal rights to decide whether to have a child or not (nothing wrong with that).
But you are utterly ignoring the actual impact of the options on each party.
Using a condom comes with a small financial expense, slight loss of sensation and takes little planning. Using hormonal birth control comes with a constant financial expense, notable impact on ones body and requires keeping a schedule. Other options for female birth control are also significantly more difficult than male options.
Yet i don't see you arguing for rectification of that imbalance, nor taking into account its impact on ones accountability for the results.

Serafina, please try reading what I've written already. I've stated that both parties should have equal responsibility for birth control. What I want is a fair way for a man if, in spite of attempts to prevent pregnancy, things go the other way. He has no control over the child being born or not, for obvious reasons, but shouldn't he be allowed some say in things given that both parties had equal responsibility before they had sex? Especially given the fact that the rest of the process (ie: custody, visitation, funding) is already stacked against him due to his gender.

I wouldn't have cause to complain if the rest of the system even pretended to give men and women equal say in things. Instead the man gets no choice, has the odds against him custody wise, and has more hoops to jump through to get funding because his situation is less usual. When that gets fixed I'll have far less of an issue with a man not getting a say in child support payments.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But that isn't what happens. We let men get back into children's lives even if they're felony rapists in prisons. Men have enormous power in the current system, far more than women do. The system has continuously and absurdly supported the absolute right of the sire to intrude on the lives of the children he incidentally created and then vanished on. This is how systematically the current law is stacked against women, not men. That's right, it's stacked against women, not against men. Women are still not allowed control over the fate of their own children even when the sire is a rapist and the system essentially regards the father as having a right to come back years, decades later and intrude themselves on a normal home and family situation. You've got the problems all reversed.

The only way that child support would start to become unfair was if women had an absolute right to refuse custody and visitation and parentage to men. In short: If only the mother was recorded on the birth certificate and she had the right to determine what men were involved in the life of her children and to what degree. If women had that right, THEN child support should be removed. But until then, child support is a necessary weregild on deadbeats who nonetheless retain enormous rights to change their mind and intrude upon a home situation and destroy it by the exercise of those rights years or decades after abandonment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Note, women have no choice in this matter. You're required to put a man on the birth certificate and he, unless parentage can then be assigned to another male (to whom all the rights would then transfer), has the right to intervene in the lives of the children essentially indefinitely. This is the way the world works against women, forcing them to indefinitely associate with sires of children. You have no choice in the matter, no matter how bad that man is for your child and no matter how little you want him around. So the fact that he has no choice about paying child support is, for the moment, a system in balance after countless centuries of male dominance. Termination is irrelevant to fairness because to men and women both have burdens that cannot be avoided from pregnancy. One would argue that the woman's burden remains much, much greater than some trivial weregild, indeed, I can demonstrate that child support rarely even begins to cover the cost of raising a child on a woman, so that her share of the burden remains larger.

If you want to get out of child support, then a woman should, likewise, be able to exclude you from any kind of right of contact, association, acknowledged parentage, or anything whatsoever, with a child. As it is right now, men are buying those rates for a very cheap rate indeed when it comes to child support and that isn't particularly pretty.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I fully agree, I just wish men had more say in what happens after their short part is done. The man is almost always less likely to win custody cases as well which just makes matters even worse in my mind.

I don't have the numbers handy, but going off the feminism thread at SA that's not entirely true. Women usually get custody, yes, but that's because they're stereotyped as the primary caregivers by all concerned. When the man actually does push for custody the chances of him getting it go way up.

Obviously a man's chances of getting custody go up when they actually push for it. That doesn't mean they still have even a 50/50 shot of winning that case precisely because women are seen as caregivers.

No. You're not getting it.

When men push to get custody, odds are they will get custody. If they push, between 2/3 and 70% of the time they will get it.

So you're right, it isn't 50/50, but in the opposite way than MRAs would try to have you believe.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This argument is going in circles; what I find most disturbing in this case is the guy being charged with fucking murder. Seriously? The woman was six weeks gone, I'm pretty sure the threshold for abortion is a lot later than that. Yes he committed crimes, but seriously, does that justify a murder charge?

[Broomstick]

I'm actually just playing devils advocate at this point. My point has always been that men should have better fairer options that don't impede on a woman's body. End point.

You'll have to take it up with god evolution. Our current biological system is the one that enabled our ancestors to leave descendants. There's nothing that gives a fuck whether it's fair or not, whether it's painless or not, or anything of the sort. It just is. It's like arguing against gravity. Sure, you can, but if you fall the planet will still smack you upside the head.