Glenn Quagmire Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 First of all, let me say that my wife and waited until we were married for year (after dating for 7), were both secure in our careers and had a stable environment before we had a kid. After trying for a few months, finding out she was pregnant was one of the happiest moments of my life. So i can't for the life of my understand these scumbags that want nothing to do with their children. It pisses me off to no end. After the 3rd failed pregnancy test I remember thinking ... "How come the lowest scumbag *******s on the planet can spit out kids on an assembly line yet I, someone who wants it soooo bad, can't have one?" So I'm hardly a supported of deadbeat dads. However ... a buddy of mine (in his younger years) got his girlfriend pregnant and wasn't ready to be a daddy. He tried to discuss options with her (abortion or adoption) but she scoffed at the idea, saying she's catholic and can't abort and she's not emotionally prepared to give up a baby. Here's where the discussion get's interesting: She dropped the usual "you should have thought of that before you put your thing inside me!" line. But he turned around and said ... Well, you have your own religious and personal beliefs so YOU should have thought of THAT before you let me put my thing inside you". I thought that was a fair point. The guy always gets the bad wrap like the woman is always some sort of victim, even in consensual sex. But that got me thinking ... if the guy has absolutely no say in the pregnancy ... should he be financially liable? If the woman is choosing to keep the baby because of her own personal beliefs, despite those beliefs not lining up with the fathers and the fact that other options exist ... why should he have to pay for it, over the next 18 years? In my eyes ... the girl is essentially saying "Neither you nor your input matter". So to that I say ... "Well, then my paycheck shouldn't matter either." Thoughts?
Hi.P.O'Crit Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 You take a gamble every time you have sex. If you're not prepared to deal with the repercussions of that gamble stay out of the game.
Lucky_One Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 My first thought goes back to the original premise that led you to make this thread. COC or POG (combined oestrogen contraceptives or progesterone only contraceptives) do NOT increase the chance of miscarriage if taken before or during conception. http://www.sidscenter.org/JournalAlerts/2008/JournalAlert0704.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18578746?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Using "WikiAnswers" for factual research isn't really a good idea.
amaysngrace Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 He chose to sleep with her. That was his choice. And I think that choice obligates him regarding the choices she makes. If it was concensual unprotected sex that just obligates him more.
Lucky_One Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 First of all, let me say that my wife and waited until we were married for year (after dating for 7), were both secure in our careers and had a stable environment before we had a kid. After trying for a few months, finding out she was pregnant was one of the happiest moments of my life. So i can't for the life of my understand these scumbags that want nothing to do with their children. It pisses me off to no end. After the 3rd failed pregnancy test I remember thinking ... "How come the lowest scumbag *******s on the planet can spit out kids on an assembly line yet I, someone who wants it soooo bad, can't have one?" So I'm hardly a supported of deadbeat dads. However ... a buddy of mine (in his younger years) got his girlfriend pregnant and wasn't ready to be a daddy. He tried to discuss options with her (abortion or adoption) but she scoffed at the idea, saying she's catholic and can't abort and she's not emotionally prepared to give up a baby. Here's where the discussion get's interesting: She dropped the usual "you should have thought of that before you put your thing inside me!" line. But he turned around and said ... Well, you have your own religious and personal beliefs so YOU should have thought of THAT before you let me put my thing inside you". I thought that was a fair point. The guy always gets the bad wrap like the woman is always some sort of victim, even in consensual sex. But that got me thinking ... if the guy has absolutely no say in the pregnancy ... should he be financially liable? If the woman is choosing to keep the baby because of her own personal beliefs, despite those beliefs not lining up with the fathers and the fact that other options exist ... why should he have to pay for it, over the next 18 years? In my eyes ... the girl is essentially saying "Neither you nor your input matter". So to that I say ... "Well, then my paycheck shouldn't matter either." Thoughts? Your friend can use a condom, he can abstain, or he can get a vasectomy. He HAS a choice in the chance of pregnancy. He plays, he pays. If he'd rather ride bareback and trust his paternal future to the judgement of a woman, then that is his choice.
Author Glenn Quagmire Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 You take a gamble every time you have sex. If you're not prepared to deal with the repercussions of that gamble stay out of the game. But isn't abortion or adoption sort of your flush out card? Ya know ... you're sitting on ten, jack suited in clubs with a 4 and a 6 in the flop. On the river you're looking to pick up another club because dude across from you has pocket 4's. Now imagine if the dealer took the remaining clubs out of the deck but never told you. Should you have to pay for that hand?
2sure Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 The risk of disease and/or pregnancy lies with both partners in a consensual sexual encounter. The risk of pregnancy is there, whether birth control is used, whether you trust your partner, etc. By consenting to sex, both partners assume the risk and responsibility of pregnancy. One partner cannot make another abort a pregnancy, period. If the sex produces offspring, you're at the very least, financially responsible. More often than not, unplanned births are the result of 2 people deciding to not make a decision. Essentially, they have both "HAD THEIR SAY". If thats unfair to anyone, its the child.
Lucky_One Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 But isn't abortion or adoption sort of your flush out card? Ya know ... you're sitting on ten, jack suited in clubs with a 4 and a 6 in the flop. On the river you're looking to pick up another club because dude across from you has pocket 4's. Now imagine if the dealer took the remaining clubs out of the deck but never told you. Should you have to pay for that hand? Rule #1 of Gambling. The house usually wins.
Author Glenn Quagmire Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 He chose to sleep with her. That was his choice. So she has no choice in the matter? That is ****ing ridiculous. Again, there is this "the female is always a victim" mentality. This chick had no problem spreading her legs for a bare penis, even though she never intended to get pregnant. The fault is still all his?
2sure Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I wanted to add: If the guy has sex which produces a child, and it is HIS decision to not financially support the child - because he didnt want to start a family.... The end result is that I PAY FOR HIS KID via taxes. If thats the case, then I want my say: I would prefer he not have had the sex. And I feel the exact same way about BOTH parents.
Author Glenn Quagmire Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 One partner cannot make another abort a pregnancy, period. But one party CAN make the decision not to. And there is nothing the other party can do about it.
Author Glenn Quagmire Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 I wanted to add: If the guy has sex which produces a child, and it is HIS decision to not financially support the child - because he didnt want to start a family.... The end result is that I PAY FOR HIS KID via taxes. If thats the case, then I want my say: I would prefer he not have had the sex. And I feel the exact same way about BOTH parents. You say that ... but I'm yet to see the words "her" or "she" in any of your posts.
amaysngrace Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 So she has no choice in the matter? That is ****ing ridiculous. Again, there is this "the female is always a victim" mentality. This chick had no problem spreading her legs for a bare penis, even though she never intended to get pregnant. The fault is still all his? Where are the other things I posted about unprotected sex?
2sure Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 No, I really do. In fact, I hesitate to admit it but: I cant help but feel that the risks of getting pregnant are much more severe for women. Think having that child every day for the rest of your life, having that responsibility and priority every moment, ALL of your income, etc. That being said, when a woman gets pregnant, accidentally, I cant help but feel she was being 10times stupider than the guy.
Hi.P.O'Crit Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 So she has no choice in the matter? That is ****ing ridiculous. Again, there is this "the female is always a victim" mentality. This chick had no problem spreading her legs for a bare penis, even though she never intended to get pregnant. The fault is still all his? They both played, they both pay. Simple.
Author Glenn Quagmire Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 Rule #1 of Gambling. The house usually wins. There is no "house" in Hold Em'. The dealer doesn't play a hand.
LucreziaBorgia Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 There should be a legal and binding contract drawn up before each sexual encounter where each party agrees to protect themselves with birth control and agree to the administering of the morning after pill, and an abortion in the event of a pregnancy. If there is a pregnancy, the man would be obligated to pay his share of abortion costs, and if the woman decided against abortion, then the man would be absolved of any and all responsibilities since the woman chose to give birth. That is the only way I can see men having a choice in the matter really.
Author Glenn Quagmire Posted May 26, 2009 Author Posted May 26, 2009 There should be a legal and binding contract drawn up before each sexual encounter where each party agrees to protect themselves with birth control and agree to the administering of the morning after pill, and an abortion in the event of a pregnancy. If there is a pregnancy, the man would be obligated to pay his share of abortion costs, and if the woman decided against abortion, then the man would be absolved of any and all responsibilities since the woman chose to give birth. That is the only way I can see men having a choice in the matter really. I think that contract already exists in the "Laws of Common Sense and Consensual Sex Act of 1969".
OverThinker Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Being in somewhat the same boat I can see your point but I also agree with the others if you play you pay. However there are legal things that can be done in some states that alow the father to give up all rights and obligations if he wants nothing to do with this child of course the mother has to agree. But and its a big one if he ever changes his mind and enters the childs life (with the mothers agreeance) the state will hold him responsible for all the time. I only know of these things because a past GF got pregnant and that is all she wanted from me. After she was sure it was gonna stick she was gone and the first thing she did was try to get me to sign away my rights so I looked into it and told her to goto hell. Timeing might be bad but she is still my daughter. With that said it is a tricky path because your friend may not be ready for it now but time changes things.
Hi.P.O'Crit Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 It's actually interesting that you bring this up. I saw an article recently about a guy that has 21 kids, maybe more, by 11 women. I think the article originated in Florida. The guy works a minimum wage job.
prettybaby Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Well it's not like she raped him and ran off with his sperm to make a baby behind his back. It was consensual. You take a risk every time you have sex; whether it's protected or not.
redfathom Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I think you have to be pretty stupid to get pregnant now a days if you don't want to. Birth control, condoms, morning after pill, are all available, not to mention the amount of education people get on the matter. If you have sex and don't take appropriate actions to protect yourself, then you have no one to blame but yourself. This goes for the ladies and the gent's...
OverThinker Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Like 15 post got added in the time it took me to type mine LOL
redfathom Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I have an ex friend who was dating a family member of mine. About three months into the relationship she came crying to me talking about how she couldn't have kids. I asked her how she could possibly know that and she told me she had stopped taking her BC a month ago and still wasn't pregnant so it must be true. I told my family member about this. A few months later she calls me saying she broke out with a rash around her private area and accussed my family member of giving her an STD. She ended up calling him for "emotional support" and they had sex. Turns out she didn't have an STD. Maybe she was trying to get pregnant again, who knows. What I do know is that they're both idiots!
mr.dream merchant Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 I kind of agree with Glen. Both people are responsible but the mother has like the ultimate decision and it can be life ruining. I knew a guy who was an All-American wrestler and he had mad **** lined up for him in his future. His GF, who by the way was on BC, got pregnant and decided she wanted to keep the baby despite his protests. He was 20 years old with a very very bright future ahead of him. He's 27 now. And he repairs Air Conditioners. He loves his daughter to death but he said that the timing really ruined his life. What kills me about this story is that its like the perfect example of the female party having the winning hand in all of this. Its so messed up in this case because the female was on BC, so she was already trying NOT to have a baby, they both were convinced they didn't want a child. Then when she got pregnant, she decided she wanted to give motherhood a go. She willingly ruined dude's life. Its so crazy and scary that you pretty much are putting your life in (whatever chick you're hitting raw)'s hands. It blows my mind thinking about it because its like the truest form of selfishness to me. She pretty much said "**** his life, I want to have this baby" and she did. Worst part is she divorced not even two years later, and got his home, half of his dough, and child support all to support the child that he didn't even want, and neither did she since she was on BC.
Recommended Posts