Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scenario:
1. Condom breaks. After the insident, man tells woman to take a pill or do something about a possible pregnancy. She refuses. Man insists and tells her he can't or dont want to provide for the child. She refuses. She is pregnant and later sues for child support.
2. Couple decides to have unprotected sex. After the "insident", man tells woman to take a pill or do something about a possible pregnancy. She refuses. Man insists and tells her he can't or dont want to provide for the child. She refuses. She is pregnant and later sues for child support.
In both cases, there is mutual agreement for the sexual intercourse. In both cases the man asks the woman to prevent pregnancy. This is not even a case of abortion, since she is not pregnant at the moment of the request.
My question is why should the woman be the only one with the legal right to decide whether or not to become pregnant when both of them had the same responsability and/or fault for being in that situation?
Is it fair?
Fair or not, it is the way it is. Pregnancy takes place in a woman's body and it is up to her to decide what to do about it.
I would suggest that if you are overly concerned about a pregnancy over which you will have no control, that you refrain from sexual intercourse until you are ready to become a father.
Scenario:
1. Condom breaks. After the insident, man tells woman to take a pill or do something about a possible pregnancy. She refuses. Man insists and tells her he can't or dont want to provide for the child. She refuses. She is pregnant and later sues for child support.
2. Couple decides to have unprotected sex. After the "insident", man tells woman to take a pill or do something about a possible pregnancy. She refuses. Man insists and tells her he can't or dont want to provide for the child. She refuses. She is pregnant and later sues for child support.
In both cases, there is mutual agreement for the sexual intercourse. In both cases the man asks the woman to prevent pregnancy. This is not even a case of abortion, since she is not pregnant at the moment of the request.
My question is why should the woman be the only one with the legal right to decide whether or not to become pregnant when both of them had the same responsability and/or fault for being in that situation?
Is it fair?
I think the only way for a guy to really control whether or not he has kids is to get a vasectomy or only have sex with sterile/infertile women (kind of limits the choices, eh?)
I however do think it's unfair for women to sue for child support when they knew full and well children cost $$. If they didn't want one that bad, they should have had an IUD, been on birth control, had a plan B handy, etc.
The woman should have autonomy over her body though. Men shouldn't force a woman to take a plan B, have an abortion, etc.
Maybe people should start drawing up contracts before sex. If the woman gets pregnant, she can't sue the guy for child support.
Scenario:
1. Condom breaks. After the insident, man tells woman to take a pill or do something about a possible pregnancy. She refuses. Man insists and tells her he can't or dont want to provide for the child. She refuses. She is pregnant and later sues for child support.
2. Couple decides to have unprotected sex. After the "insident", man tells woman to take a pill or do something about a possible pregnancy. She refuses. Man insists and tells her he can't or dont want to provide for the child. She refuses. She is pregnant and later sues for child support.
In both cases, there is mutual agreement for the sexual intercourse. In both cases the man asks the woman to prevent pregnancy. This is not even a case of abortion, since she is not pregnant at the moment of the request.
My question is why should the woman be the only one with the legal right to decide whether or not to become pregnant when both of them had the same responsability and/or fault for being in that situation?
Is it fair?
How about this scenario: woman gets pregnant, absolutely does not want a child & wants to get an abortion. Man refuses to "allow" her to get abortion. How do you like that scenario? I don't like it one bit.
I think the only way for a guy to really control whether or not he has kids is to get a vasectomy or only have sex with sterile/infertile women (kind of limits the choices, eh?)
I however do think it's unfair for women to sue for child support when they knew full and well children cost $$. If they didn't want one that bad, they should have had an IUD, been on birth control, had a plan B handy, etc.
....cannot sue because they knew.......well the men knew too. If THEY didn't want one that bad, THEY should've used a condom, pulled out, had a plan B handy, etc...
The woman should have autonomy over her body though. Men shouldn't force a woman to take a plan B, have an abortion, etc.
Well of course....but once that baby is born, it's yours too.
Maybe people should start drawing up contracts before sex. If the woman gets pregnant, she can't sue the guy for child support.
That might be a great idea.....try it. See how that works for ya.
lol contracts before sex...who says we are loosing our passion? That's right up there with prenups. No we should not be having sex outside of marriage anyways and there is a chemical that is released during sex that makes us want to bond with our lover, kind of sweet, I think that's a good example of nature supporting marriage in away, all this talk over whether marriage goes against our biology or not I think that's good evidence that it supports it. If you don't want to bond with them to the possible extent of raising a child then don't sleep with them I guess.
A good one would be that for a woman to be able to sue for child support she must first have a contract signed by both (man and woman) stating that they both agreed on having the child. If the contract did not exist then by law she should be responsible for what happens to her body after intercourse. To be fair, she can sue the man for half the cost of the "contraceptive" measure.
A good one would be that for a woman to be able to sue for child support she must first have a contract signed by both (man and woman) stating that they both agreed on having the child. If the contract did not exist then by law she should be responsible for what happens to her body after intercourse. To be fair, she can sue the man for half the cost of the "contraceptive" measure.
The logic never ceases to amaze me.....
So, what you're saying is, if neither the man nor the woman signs a 'contract' then the default, by law, is to release the man from all responsibilities. Funny, that's the purpose of the contract too. So either way, you want a legal out....forget her and your unborn child. Nice.
The child is half the father, half the mother, basic biology...by your case 'she should be responsible for what happens to her body after intercourse', the same thing can be said, you have to be responsible for where your sperm goes after intercourse
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
