Man who tricked his gf into taking abortion pill receives 14 years

[longhornfan1234]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-14-years-prison-tricking-girlfriend-abortion-pill-article-1.1593401

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

He should, at max, receive a sentence of 3 months.

Takes cunning to forego coathangers and falcon punches

That cunning could be put to good use in society.

[LJJ]

Also his GF was a stripper.

Lol.

[Dbrog]

This is what happens in a society where fathers literally have no rights. Step it up America!

[KevinNYC]

Also his GF was a stripper.

Lol.
????

[KevinNYC]

He should, at max, receive a sentence of 3 months.

Takes cunning to forego coathangers and falcon punches

That cunning could be put to good use in society.

I'm sure Bernie Madoff's lawyer tried the same thing.

[Draz]

Give this man a trophy and a medal

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

I'm sure Bernie Madoff's lawyer tried the same thing.


:oldlol: I'm stealing that as a comeback whenever I hear someone compliment clever criminals.

[LJJ]

????

Let's face it. Of all the women you could have accidentally gotten pregnant some ho-bag stripper must be one of the worst case scenarios.

[iamgine]

I wonder if this kind of thing needed proof or just testimony.

[embersyc]

Woman gets abortion without mans consent: A-OK

Man gets abortion without woman's consent: 14 years.

[Dresta]

But i thought it was totally ok to abort babies? so why is he getting a murder-like sentence for something that is so not a big deal?

[chosen_one6]

This is what happens in a society where fathers literally have no rights. Step it up America!

Fathers may have more rights if they stopped being dead beats.

[MavsSuperFan]

Fathers may have more rights if they stopped being dead beats.
maybe some women should stop ****ing deadbeat losers.

[chosen_one6]

maybe some women should stop ****ing deadbeat losers.

Oh I suppose they're just supposed to predict the future then huh?

You don't know how someone will react to having a child until the event presents itself. The fa

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=chosen_one6]Oh I suppose they're just supposed to predict the future then huh?

You don't know how someone will react to having a child until the event presents itself. The fa

[Dresta]

[QUOTE=chosen_one6]Oh I suppose they're just supposed to predict the future then huh?

You don't know how someone will react to having a child until the event presents itself. The fa

[chosen_one6]

stats and reality dont bear that out. I dont know the people you associate with, but most men I know look forward to being fathers, once the find the right woman to settle down with.

Most cases of deadbeat dads are predictable. Often the dude already has several kids he is neglecting.



They chose to have the child. They could have aborted or utilized safe haven laws or even planned an adoption.

They actively made the choice to raise the child. Men should be given 1 chance to make the same choice. If they do, obviously they should not be able to renege under any circumstance.

Yea, of course once a guy finds wifey he wants to keep the kid. How many guys you know only f*** wifey? You're telling me the guys you know don't fcuk women for fun?

There are plenty of women that have gotten impregnated by a man with no children and he ends up deserting her. I'm not sure why I need to get a stat to back up what I'm saying, all you need to do is look around you (unless you live in a podunk town.

They both should use protection, not just the male. See, that's where your male chauvinism starts to show. If he fails to do so then any consequences then and thereafter are his responsibility as well as the woman's.

[chosen_one6]

How about you don't have a child with some random dude you don't know then? Not hard.

Even if the guy isn't random, there's still a chance he will bail out. :facepalm

[gts]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-14-years-prison-tricking-girlfriend-abortion-pill-article-1.1593401

I'm actually a bit surprised the guys father wasn't dragged through the mud more...

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=chosen_one6]Oh I suppose they're just supposed to predict the future then huh?

You don't know how someone will react to having a child until the event presents itself. The fa

[MavsSuperFan]

Yea, of course once a guy finds wifey he wants to keep the kid. How many guys you know only f*** wifey? You're telling me the guys you know don't fcuk women for fun?

There are plenty of women that have gotten impregnated by a man with no children and he ends up deserting her. I'm not sure why I need to get a stat to back up what I'm saying, all you need to do is look around you (unless you live in a podunk town.

They both should use protection, not just the male. See, that's where your male chauvinism starts to show. If he fails to do so then any consequences then and thereafter are his responsibility as well as the woman's.

Yea, of course once a guy finds wifey he wants to keep the kid. How many guys you know only f*** wifey? You're telling me the guys you know don't fcuk women for fun?


I dont think I know many guys that dont at least ask a girl if she is on the pill. If I dont trust a girl I will use a condom. Its really not that hard not knocking a girl up.


There are plenty of women that have gotten impregnated by a man with no children and he ends up deserting her. I'm not sure why I need to get a stat to back up what I'm saying, all you need to do is look around you (unless you live in a podunk town.

And I am arguing the majority of those cases are actually quite predictable.

Let me be more clear. If a dude and a woman get together and have a kid. and he helps raise the kid for a few months, or even if he doesn't immediately upon learning about the existence of the kid/fetus inform the woman that he doesn't want to participate in raising the kid. he should be responsible for child support.

I am merely talking about the cases where the man is clear to the woman that he doesn't want to have a kid with her. At that point if the woman still insists on raising the kid, it should be her responsibility.


They both should use protection, not just the male. See, that's where your male chauvinism starts to show. If he fails to do so then any consequences then and thereafter are his responsibility as well as the woman's.

If some man and woman agree to have children and they break up later he should definitely pay child support. There is 0 debate about this from me. Eg. If kobe and vanessa break up, 100% he owes her a percentage of his salary for each of their daughters.

That is very different from What I am arguing.

If a man makes it clear he doesn't want kids to the female, and she chooses to have the kid, the male should have a legal recourse to sever ties to the child, because women do. Eg. Arian foster shouldnt have to pay the chick he knocked up a dime.
Also the guy sentenced to 14 years shouldnt have had to pay his GF a dime, if he told her immediately he didnt want the child.

The female in both these cases unilaterally chose to have the kid. They should be prepared to raise it with their resources.

[chosen_one6]

Why?

Do you not acknowledge it is a decision that they actively make? Should people not be held responsible for decisions they actively make? (and no sex doesnt not equal wanting a child, in most cases sex is purely for pleasure)

Once conception happens a woman has several opportunities to prevent becoming a parent.

1. No state in the union prevents abortion before 20 weeks. Most allow it to go on several weeks later. 20 weeks = 5 months. Not aborting is an active choice.

2. Women can plan to have their child adopted. There are tons of couples out there who struggle with infertility. Many of them are in very good economic situations. With effort a woman can arrange for a happy couple with resource to raise the baby as their won.

3. Safe haven aka baby moses laws. Basically women can leave a child at hospitals, fire stations, police stations, and other such government buildings, and sever the obligations and rights to the child. The child becomes a ward of the state and the state will try to find adoptive parents for the child.

Do you feel these legal options to prevent motherhood are immoral?
Do you disagree with the stats that show why these laws are beneficial to society?
Why do you feel a single option to reject fatherhood should not be presented to men that is similar to safe haven laws? (basically giving up rights and obligations to a child, basically an adoption)


Be honest, you just want to f*** women without consequences. Leave them to deal with the 18 years it takes to raise a child to adulthood.

Having sex is meant to be for procreation. Obviously there are ways to prevent that procreation such as condoms and birth control. If both parties choose to forgo these preventative measures, then they BOTH should be held accountable. Not just the woman because she opened her legs, but also the male for sticking his d*** in a woman and leaving his seed inside her. Whether the intent is for pleasure or not, the ending result of said action is and always will be a child. The decision on whether or not to risk said ending result is made when both parties decide to initiate fornication. How do you not understand this? If you don't want a child with someone, you DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM. Just because someone wanted to get their d*** wet and then wants to forget it ever happened doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to what happens if they do get that woman pregnant.

EDIT: And I understand that you're arguing that if the male doesn't want the child before hand then legally he shouldn't be held liable. However, the only way to govern that in my opinion is to sign a contract with the woman before engaging in sexual acts stating that he is released from any responsibility if he ends up getting her pregnant. Honestly I don't see that kind of law ever flying.

[iamgine]

If a man makes it clear he doesn't want kids to the female, and she chooses to have the kid, the male should have a legal recourse to sever ties to the child.
How does he make it clear tho.

[Dresta]

Even if the guy isn't random, there's still a chance he will bail out. :facepalm
No there isn't: he is required by law to contribute to the upkeep of the child. Men don't plan to have children and then just up and leave, or at least, the vast majority don't.

You evidently have not a clue what you are talking about.

[MavsSuperFan]

How does he make it clear tho.
once he is told by the woman that she is pregnant. He should have to tell her that he doesnt want to participate in raising the child.

If there were ever laws passed that gave men access to safe haven like laws, than I would require men to go down to their county's legal offices and fill out some paperwork indicating and proving their desire not to be fathers. Even make them pay a filing fee if you want. You could also force them to serve these papers on to the mother.

[Dresta]

Be honest, you just want to f*** women without consequences. Leave them to deal with the 18 years it takes to raise a child to adulthood.

Having sex is meant to be for procreation. Obviously there are ways to prevent that procreation such as condoms and birth control. If both parties choose to forgo these preventative measures, then they BOTH should be held accountable. Not just the woman because she opened her legs, but also the male for sticking his d*** in a woman and leaving his seed inside her. Whether the intent is for pleasure or not, the ending result of said action is and always will be a child. The decision on whether or not to risk said ending result is made when both parties decide to initiate fornication. How do you not understand this? If you don't want a child with someone, you DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM. Just because someone wanted to get their d*** wet and then wants to forget it ever happened doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to what happens if they do get that woman pregnant.

EDIT: And I understand that you're arguing that if the male doesn't want the child before hand then legally he shouldn't be held liable. However, the only way to govern that in my opinion is to sign a contract with the woman before engaging in sexual acts stating that he is released from any responsibility if he ends up getting her pregnant. Honestly I don't see that kind of law ever flying.Wrong. The woman has absolute control over the fate of the child, ergo it is her responsibility, and her responsibility alone. Moreover, the woman can lie (or forget) about her taking birth control, and trick her way into insemination.

If it is a 'woman's body' as we so often hear, then it is also a woman's responsibility to take the precautions necessary to prevent pregnancy. It is not hard.

[MavsSuperFan]

Be honest, you just want to f*** women without consequences. Leave them to deal with the 18 years it takes to raise a child to adulthood.

Having sex is meant to be for procreation. Obviously there are ways to prevent that procreation such as condoms and birth control. If both parties choose to forgo these preventative measures, then they BOTH should be held accountable. Not just the woman because she opened her legs, but also the male for sticking his d*** in a woman and leaving his seed inside her. Whether the intent is for pleasure or not, the ending result of said action is and always will be a child. The decision on whether or not to risk said ending result is made when both parties decide to initiate fornication. How do you not understand this? If you don't want a child with someone, you DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM. Just because someone wanted to get their d*** wet and then wants to forget it ever happened doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to what happens if they do get that woman pregnant.

EDIT: And I understand that you're arguing that if the male doesn't want the child before hand then legally he shouldn't be held liable. However, the only way to govern that in my opinion is to sign a contract with the woman before engaging in sexual acts stating that he is released from any responsibility if he ends up getting her pregnant. Honestly I don't see that kind of law ever flying.


Be honest, you just want to f*** women without consequences. Leave them to deal with the 18 years it takes to raise a child to adulthood.

If I had impregnated a one night stand, and I had been clear to her that I didnt want to raise a child with her, than I think morally and legally I should have the freedom (as woman do) to decide when I become a parent. Although once again its not that hard not to impregnate a woman, if you have a triple digit IQ.

If I was with a girl and we had a child (whether we were married or not is irrelevant) and later we broke up. I would and should be forced by our laws to pay child support. In fact in this scenario I would feel ashamed if I didnt, and would gladly pay child support.


Not just the woman because she opened her legs, but also the male for sticking his d*** in a woman and leaving his seed inside her. Whether the intent is for pleasure or not, the ending result of said action is and always will be a child. The decision on whether or not to risk said ending result is made when both parties decide to initiate fornication. How do you not understand this?

Because its not. The decision to bring the child to term is made once the woman chooses to let the time an abortions is allowed to lapse.

The decision to raise the child is made when the woman allows the time safe haven laws apply to lapse. Or when she chooses not to arrange an adoption.

Conception doesnt equal motherhood.

If you don't want a child with someone, you DON'T HAVE SEX WITH THEM. Just because someone wanted to get their d*** wet and then wants to forget it ever happened doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to what happens if they do get that woman pregnant.

Having a child is a separate decision from having sex
raising a child is a separate decision from having a child and having sex.


And I understand that you're arguing that if the male doesn't want the child before hand then legally he shouldn't be held liable. However, the only way to govern that in my opinion is to sign a contract with the woman before engaging in sexual acts stating that he is released from any responsibility if he ends up getting her pregnant. Honestly I don't see that kind of law ever flying.

You could set the law that within a 1 week period from when the male is informed that the female is pregnant or has his child, he should have to file paperwork establishing his opposition to raising the child and should have to pay process servers to serve the paper on the woman.

[chosen_one6]

No there isn't: he is required by law to contribute to the upkeep of the child. Men don't plan to have children and then just up and leave, or at least, the vast majority don't.

You evidently have not a clue what you are talking about.

No one plans to leave a child. However, not many people also plan to have one. Just because a child is unplanned does not mean the male should be let off the hook. :facepalm

[chosen_one6]

If I had impregnated a one night stand, and I had been clear to her that I didnt want to raise a child with her, than I think morally and legally I should have the freedom (as woman do) to decide when I become a parent. Although once again its not that hard not to impregnate a woman, if you have a triple digit IQ.

If I was with a girl and we had a child (whether we were married or not is irrelevant) and later we broke up. I would and should be forced by our laws to pay child support. In fact in this scenario I would feel ashamed if I didnt, and would gladly pay child support.



Because its not. The decision to bring the child to term is made once the woman chooses to let the time an abortions is allowed to lapse.

The decision to raise the child is made when the woman allows the time safe haven laws apply to lapse. Or when she chooses not to arrange an adoption.

Conception doesnt equal motherhood.


Having a child is a separate decision from having sex
raising a child is a separate decision from having a child and having sex.



You could set the law that within a 1 week period from when the male is informed that the female is pregnant or has his child, he should have to file paperwork establishing his opposition to raising the child and should have to pay process servers to serve the paper on the woman.

You have to understand that a law like that will never be made and if it was, there would be so much public outcry that it would not be passed. You can't back out of pregnancy a week after you find out. :facepalm

This is an argument that's just going to go in circles. In short, both parties should be held liable once fornication has been done. I don't see why that's such a problem.

[chosen_one6]

Wrong. The woman has absolute control over the fate of the child, ergo it is her responsibility, and her responsibility alone. Moreover, the woman can lie (or forget) about her taking birth control, and trick her way into insemination.

If it is a 'woman's body' as we so often hear, then it is also a woman's responsibility to take the precautions necessary to prevent pregnancy. It is not hard.

It's also not hard for the male to take precautions to prevent the pregnancy as well.

It seems like you're trying to play devil's advocate with what you're saying. You don't honestly believe the responsibility of having a child is solely on the woman do you?

I bet you also believe that women should be solely responsible for raising the child too, since it only came out of her body right?

[MavsSuperFan]

You have to understand that a law like that will never be made and if it was, there would be so much public outcry that it would not be passed. You can't back out of pregnancy a week after you find out. :facepalm

This is an argument that's just going to go in circles. In short, both parties should be held liable once fornication has been done. I don't see why that's such a problem.

This is an argument that's just going to go in circles. In short, both parties should be held liable once fornication has been done. I don't see why that's such a problem

So do you oppose adoption?
Do you oppose safe haven laws? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law


Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as "Baby Moses laws", in reference to the religious scripture) are statutes in the United States that decriminalize the leaving of unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe-haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court, often using a numbered bracelet system as the only means of linking the baby to the parent. Some states treat safe-haven surrenders as child dependency or abandonment, with a complaint being filed for such in juvenile court. The parent either defaults or answers the complaint. Others treat safe-haven surrenders as adoption surrenders, hence a waiver of parental rights (see parental responsibility). Police stations, hospitals, rescue squads, and fire houses are all typical locations to which the safe-haven law applies.

Do you oppose abortions that are not medically necessary?

[nightprowler10]

I feel like there are a lot of salty dudes on ISH paying a fvkload in child supoort cause they got some skeezer pregnant
Most definitely. This is appalling.

People really don't get that it's about the woman's body? If she chooses to abort for whatever reason or decides to keep it for whatever reason, it's her right, regardless of what the father wants. It's really black and white in that sense.

However, if that does happen and she does decide to abort, then the would-be father has every right to leave the bitch (this actually happened to my friend) if he doesn't feel she gives a **** about him or their relationship if she went ahead and aborted without his consent. On the flip side, if she decides to keep it and he doesn't want it, then I still don't feel it's unfair to have the father support the kid as it's a life that needs support. I don't think that's hypocritical, if you think it is then you don't understand well enough the emotional and physical trauma a woman goes through in either case.

[MavsSuperFan]

It's also not hard for the male to take precautions to prevent the pregnancy as well.

It seems like you're trying to play devil's advocate with what you're saying. You don't honestly believe the responsibility of having a child is solely on the woman do you?

I bet you also believe that women should be solely responsible for raising the child too, since it only came out of her body right?
No, If a couple agree to have a child and later they break up. The male should be forced to pay child support. And he is an immoral bum imo if he doesnt want to.

If on the other hand the male makes it clear that he isnt ready to be a parent, and the woman chooses unilaterally to raise the child on her own. She should make that decision knowing that she has to provide for the child by herself.

The fact that the child comes out of the woman's body is irrelevant to me, with the exception that she should have total and unilateral decision making on whether an abortion occurs or not.

My problem with the current laws is illustrated with the Arian Foster situation.

-Foster impregnated a 20 year old woman.
-Foster made it clear to her he didnt want to raise a child with her. (this is the key point to me)
-Woman is now going to bring the child to term and raise it.

The problem:
-woman is demanding money from foster. The supposed reason for these payments is to raise the child, however the courts will usually allow the mother 100% leeway on how to spend the money. Eg. she can buy heels with that money if she wants.

[MavsSuperFan]

Most definitely. This is appalling.

People really don't get that it's about the woman's body? If she chooses to abort for whatever reason or decides to keep it for whatever reason, it's her right, regardless of what the father wants. It's really black and white in that sense.

However, if that does happen and she does decide to abort, then the would-be father has every right to leave the bitch (this actually happened to my friend) if he doesn't feel she gives a **** about him or their relationship if she went ahead and aborted without his consent. On the flip side, if she decides to keep it and he doesn't want it, then I still don't feel it's unfair to have the father support the kid as it's a life that needs support. I don't think that's hypocritical, if you think it is then you don't understand well enough the emotional and physical trauma a woman goes through in either case.


People really don't get that it's about the woman's body? If she chooses to abort for whatever reason or decides to keep it for whatever reason, it's her right, regardless of what the father wants. It's really black and white in that sense.

Absolutely, Who is arguing against this? If a woman wants to abort, she should abort. I am even slightly conflicted about late term abortion.



if that does happen and she does decide to abort, then the would-be father has every right to leave the bitch (this actually happened to my friend) if he doesn't feel she gives a **** about him or their relationship if she went ahead and aborted without his consent.

Completely agree, **** the males opinion on abortion. Whether a woman wants to abort or not is 100% her providence. If the male is upset, break up with her.


On the flip side, if she decides to keep it and he doesn't want it, then I still don't feel it's unfair to have the father support the kid as it's a life that needs support. I don't think that's hypocritical, if you think it is then you don't understand well enough the emotional and physical trauma a woman goes through in either case.

Wrong, No one should be able to unilaterally make a decision to take another person's money against their will. If a person makes a decision to take on a responsibility they should have zero right to force an ex to help them pay for it.

Eg. If tomorrow I decided to adopt a kid, I shouldn't be able to call my ex girlfriend and ask her to pay me child support.

2nd eg. If my girlfriend decides to abandon our child under safe haven laws, and I decide to adopt the child, I should not be able to force her to pay me money.

3rd eg. adoptive parents should not be able to force biological parents to pay child support.

Having the freedom to make a decision ( the freedom to choose to keep a child) does not entitle you to the resource to cover your decision. You have to provide the resources yourself and be responsible for your decision.

Eg. Everyone should have the right to buy a condo on the upper west side of manhattan. No one should be give the right to extort money out of others to buy a condo on the upper west side.

[MavsSuperFan]

I feel like there are a lot of salty dudes on ISH paying a fvkload in child supoort cause they got some skeezer pregnant
:facepalm
Or people see clear inequalities of our current laws.

Some people have the ability to feel empathy and can articulate and advocate for something that doesnt benefit them in anyway.

Eg. a white person against jim crow back in the pre 1960s US
an atheist who is against muslim bashing
A white us citizen that supports the dream act.
A male who believes women should be paid the same as a man for the same job.

[nightprowler10]

Wrong, No one should be able to unilaterally make a decision to take another person's money against their will. If a person makes a decision to take on a responsibility they should have zero right to force an ex to help them pay for it.

Eg. If tomorrow I decided to adopt a kid, I shouldn't be able to call my ex girlfriend and ask her to pay me child support.

2nd eg. If my girlfriend decides to abandon our child under safe haven laws, and I decide to adopt the child, I should not be able to force her to pay me money.

3rd eg. adoptive parents should not be able to force biological parents to pay child support.

Having the freedom to make a decision ( the freedom to choose to keep a child) does not entitle you to the resource to cover your decision. You have to provide the resources yourself and be responsible for your decision.

Eg. Everyone should have the right to buy a condo on the upper west side of manhattan. No one should be give the right to extort money out of others to buy a condo on the upper west side.
You're comparing property with life. If my ex goes out and buys a property I am not obligated to pay anything because my DNA is not involved... I have no personal responsibility towards that property. A child is different. If my ex decides to keep a child, even if it is to **** me over, I still have personal responsibility to that child because I decided to get my dick wet and didn't care that I was ****ing a total bitch. Maybe I am just biased because I was smart enough to **** sensible women that I properly knew and had formed a relationship with before ****ing them, but if women are suffering physical and emotional consequences for spreading their legs then it's completely fair for men to be expected to suffer some financial consequences for their bad decisions. Anyway, to address your examples:

1 - no personal responsibility because her actions did not cause you to adopt a child

2 - it's a tricky one because she already suffered through physical/emotional trauma, but again she has personal responsibility to the child with her DNA in it

3 - on the fence here, what if the child has physical issues because the biological mother was an alcoholic during pregnancy and the adoptive parents had to pay for medical bills later in life? Again, personal responsibility for your bad choices

Also, one thing to keep in mind in many of these scenarios, if we don't have these laws in place that ensure there are enough finances to support the children by way of personal responsibility, in many cases the people who don't do these things to take advantage of someone will suffer and in all likelihood more of these unwanted children will end up in orphanages or in foster care with people who want to scam the system. The most important thing to us as a society in every scenario should be the quality of life of the child who had nothing to do with anybody's bad decisions.

[Bandito]

That guy is going to get so raped in prison....

[Dresta]

Most definitely. This is appalling.

People really don't get that it's about the woman's body? If she chooses to abort for whatever reason or decides to keep it for whatever reason, it's her right, regardless of what the father wants. It's really black and white in that sense.

However, if that does happen and she does decide to abort, then the would-be father has every right to leave the bitch (this actually happened to my friend) if he doesn't feel she gives a **** about him or their relationship if she went ahead and aborted without his consent. On the flip side, if she decides to keep it and he doesn't want it, then I still don't feel it's unfair to have the father support the kid as it's a life that needs support. I don't think that's hypocritical, if you think it is then you don't understand well enough the emotional and physical trauma a woman goes through in either case.
This is a double standard, and if you can't see it, then you are blind. Whether you think it is fair or not is irrelevant.

The 'woman's body' argument is invalid anyway because there is another body inside her which is the combination of the father and the mother. Hosting a child in your body does not grant you sole ownership rights, nor the power of life over death by any consistent ethical standard.

[iamgine]

once he is told by the woman that she is pregnant. He should have to tell her that he doesnt want to participate in raising the child.

Well then the woman could just deny ever hearing this statement. Or she just doesn't tell until it's too late to abort. :confusedshrug:

[gts]

once he is told by the woman that she is pregnant. He should have to tell her that he doesnt want to participate in raising the child.



You signed way those rights when you decided to have sex. Just like the mother, once you decided a little pleasure is worth the risks of fatherhood/motherhood you're in it for the next 18 years whether you like it or not...

It's so simple I'm surprised so many seemingly smart people have problems with it...

If the woman is not a woman you'd want to be the mother of your child, don't screw her.

If you're not ready to be a father, don't screw anyone

accidents happen, condoms and whatever are not fool proof, every time you have sex you're saying I'm ready to be a daddy.. You don't get to bail out after the fact, the time for making responsible decisions about your life has already passed

[BrownEye007]

You signed way those rights when you decided to have sex. Just like the mother, once you decided a little pleasure is worth the risks of fatherhood/motherhood you're in it for the next 18 years whether you like it or not...

It's so simple I'm surprised so many seemingly smart people have problems with it...

If the woman is not a woman you'd want to be the mother of your child, don't screw her.

If you're not ready to be a father, don't screw anyone

accidents happen, condoms and whatever are not fool proof, every time you have sex you're saying I'm ready to be a daddy.. You don't get to bail out after the fact, the time for making responsible decisions about your life has already passed
Actually they have these things called abortions have you ever heard of them?

[russwest0]

Feminism :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Stempel, HERB]

garbage

http://www.rottenecards.com/ecards/Rottenecards_1905265_btbjh5z33p.png

[cuad]

Good deal. 14 < 18.

[Meticode]

He deserved more time than that.

[oarabbus]

He deserved more time than that.


Why? Rapists and murderers get lighter sentences than this sometimes. And please, I am not talking about certain basketball players. I am talking about actual found guilty convicted murderers and rapists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/babysitter-sentenced-to-5-years-in-virginia-toddlers-death/2014/01/13/d1ffc554-7c8f-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110317/news/110319687#gsc.tab=0 (charged with murder, pled guilty to manslaughter, but essentially shot a dude and killed him after an argument)

[MavsSuperFan]

Well then the woman could just deny ever hearing this statement. Or she just doesn't tell until it's too late to abort. :confusedshrug:

sigh I already said:

If there were ever laws passed that gave men access to safe haven like laws, than I would require men to go down to their county's clerks legal offices and fill out some paperwork indicating and proving their desire not to be fathers. Even make them pay a filing fee and then after the local judge/commissioner approved the paperwork the male would pay process servers to serve these papers on to the mother.

The 1 week period occurs from when the male is informed of the existence of the child.

my key point is to equalize the laws between the genders when it comes to reproductive rights.

Women can abort up (at the very earliest) the 20th week, or 5 months.
Woman can set up an adoption.
Woman can abandon an unwanted child via safe haven laws, at approved government institutions.

Women are given 3 chances after conception to choose to not become a mother. Men should be given 1 opportunity after conception to choose to not become a father.

If a woman chooses to inform the father after 20-26 weeks or after the child is born the same principle applies. The man should still be given a choice.

People who choose to become parents (and in the united states for a female it is always a choice) and who know or should know that there is a high percentage chance their partner wont want to raise the child with them should be prepared to provide for the child financially by themselves.

Women can choose to give a child up for adoption. Woman can choose to abandon a child at a hospital.

Man should have a similar legal recourse, because women have the option.

[MavsSuperFan]

You signed way those rights when you decided to have sex. Just like the mother, once you decided a little pleasure is worth the risks of fatherhood/motherhood you're in it for the next 18 years whether you like it or not...

It's so simple I'm surprised so many seemingly smart people have problems with it...

If the woman is not a woman you'd want to be the mother of your child, don't screw her.

If you're not ready to be a father, don't screw anyone

accidents happen, condoms and whatever are not fool proof, every time you have sex you're saying I'm ready to be a daddy.. You don't get to bail out after the fact, the time for making responsible decisions about your life has already passed


You signed way those rights when you decided to have sex. Just like the mother, once you decided a little pleasure is worth the risks of fatherhood/motherhood you're in it for the next 18 years whether you like it or not...

that is my thesis. sigh. has my ability to communicate deteriorated to the point I can no longer express my views?

My thesis:
It is not just like the mother.

Remove abortion from this debate as that should be 100% the female's decision.

1. When a female has an unwanted pregnancy she is free to start looking for adoptive parents for the child.

2. There are safe haven laws in this country which allow females to abandon unwanted children at designated government institutions. Eg. fire stations, hospitals, police stations, orphanages, etc.

Do you feel that giving a woman the option to sever ties with a child and give up all rights and obligations to an unwanted child through safe haven laws or to adoptive parents is unjust or immoral?

and if you think those are ok, why is it not ok to extend it to males?
Why do males deserve less rights (remember we have removed abortions from the debate)? Why are women given the chance to choose when they become a mother?

[Meticode]

Why? Rapists and murderers get lighter sentences than this sometimes. And please, I am not talking about certain basketball players. I am talking about actual found guilty convicted murderers and rapists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/babysitter-sentenced-to-5-years-in-virginia-toddlers-death/2014/01/13/d1ffc554-7c8f-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110317/news/110319687#gsc.tab=0 (charged with murder, pled guilty to manslaughter, but essentially shot a dude and killed him after an argument)
They deserve more time too.

[Meticode]

Directly connected to part of female's body. Not part of man's body directly. You'll never win this argument.

[oarabbus]

They deserve more time too.


Fair enough, but not understanding why what this guy did warrants a longer than 14 year sentence. Or even 14 years itself.

[bdreason]

If you don't want to have a kid, don't have unprotected sex. Once you get a woman pregnant, she has all the power... and that's never going to change. Every man should know this, and act accordingly. I have no sympathy for a guy who 'accidentally' gets a woman pregnant.

[iamgine]

sigh I already said:

If there were ever laws passed that gave men access to safe haven like laws, than I would require men to go down to their county's clerks legal offices and fill out some paperwork indicating and proving their desire not to be fathers. Even make them pay a filing fee and then after the local judge/commissioner approved the paperwork the male would pay process servers to serve these papers on to the mother.

The 1 week period occurs from when the male is informed of the existence of the child.

my key point is to equalize the laws between the genders when it comes to reproductive rights.

Women can abort up (at the very earliest) the 20th week, or 5 months.
Woman can set up an adoption.
Woman can abandon an unwanted child via safe haven laws, at approved government institutions.

Women are given 3 chances after conception to choose to not become a mother. Men should be given 1 opportunity after conception to choose to not become a father.

If a woman chooses to inform the father after 20-26 weeks or after the child is born the same principle applies. The man should still be given a choice.

People who choose to become parents (and in the united states for a female it is always a choice) and who know or should know that there is a high percentage chance their partner wont want to raise the child with them should be prepared to provide for the child financially by themselves.

Women can choose to give a child up for adoption. Woman can choose to abandon a child at a hospital.

Man should have a similar legal recourse, because women have the option.
I really don't think that will work. If men has that option, then maybe women just cry rape anytime men try to weasel out. "Don't you dare file for it or I'll claim that you forced me into sex without condom." kind of thing.

In the end the law is there not for the men and women. It's for the kids. If men has that option, the here will be more kids and those kids will suffer. It's not about fairness between men and women, it's about creating a law that is suitable for the condition and culture that we live in.

[gts]

that is my thesis. sigh. has my ability to communicate deteriorated to the point I can no longer express my views?

My thesis:
It is not just like the mother.

Remove abortion from this debate as that should be 100% the female's decision.

1. When a female has an unwanted pregnancy she is free to start looking for adoptive parents for the child.

2. There are safe haven laws in this country which allow females to abandon unwanted children at designated government institutions. Eg. fire stations, hospitals, police stations, orphanages, etc.

Do you feel that giving a woman the option to sever ties with a child and give up all rights and obligations to an unwanted child through safe haven laws or to adoptive parents is unjust or immoral?

and if you think those are ok, why is it not ok to extend it to males?
Why do males deserve less rights (remember we have removed abortions from the debate)? Why are women given the chance to choose when they become a mother?

In Cali, if the father wants the child both 1 and 2 are off the table... The father would take custody of the child and the mother would be on the hook for child support...

If the mother were to turn the child over without notifying the father she'd be facing some criminal charges

So at least in California she doesn't have the options you're thinking she does.. it's not that simple

[gts]

In the end the law is there not for the men and women. It's for the kids.

Yep. people tend to lose sight of why the laws are in place in these discussions

[Dbrog]

No, If a couple agree to have a child and later they break up. The male should be forced to pay child support. And he is an immoral bum imo if he doesnt want to.

If on the other hand the male makes it clear that he isnt ready to be a parent, and the woman chooses unilaterally to raise the child on her own. She should make that decision knowing that she has to provide for the child by herself.

The fact that the child comes out of the woman's body is irrelevant to me, with the exception that she should have total and unilateral decision making on whether an abortion occurs or not.

My problem with the current laws is illustrated with the Arian Foster situation.

-Foster impregnated a 20 year old woman.
-Foster made it clear to her he didnt want to raise a child with her. (this is the key point to me)
-Woman is now going to bring the child to term and raise it.

The problem:
-woman is demanding money from foster. The supposed reason for these payments is to raise the child, however the courts will usually allow the mother 100% leeway on how to spend the money. Eg. she can buy heels with that money if she wants.

This is exactly what I was thinking of when I made my original post here. It is 100% double standard that a woman can have the decision but not the man. Say she got a secret abortion and the male wanted her to keep the baby. Judging by the logic from this case, SHE should get 14 years in prison...and yet this would NEVER happen. The courts would just tell the dude to f@ck off or the cops placing the report would just laugh and leave. It's a joke how society treats men on certain issues. I see literally no problem whatsoever with a man having the right to sign some legal papers in early pregnancy stating that he has no intent to be a father and thus be exempt from child support.

Also lol @ ppl saying zomggggg men have to take responsibility and not get their dick wet! ...and yet no one says even 1 word about women taking responsibility for their actions. It's the same as all the sham rape cases where a girl gets drunk by her own free will, makes stupid decisions and then throws some dude (who may have also been drunk) in prison to waste away. It makes me sick how skewed the judicial system is.

Just another FYI to your no-brained feminist followers, the unequal pay argument is 100% BS and has been AT LEAST since 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

If you want to learn more about how the numbers don't show the whole story, look at these resources posted in a reddit article:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11lsrw/feminist_myth_of_women_earning_072_to_a_mans_1/c6nmfiv