Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Broomstick]

All those things apply equally to her. I could say biology is a bitch and tell her to suck an egg if she doesn't want to abort.

Back in the old days, when abortion was much harder to obtain, young men got a lot less sex because fewer women were willing to risk getting pregnant.

Again, she has a choice to opt out, he has nothing. What part of this is beyond your simple grasp?

Why is it beyond YOUR grasp that men should perhaps be more selective in who they fuck?

Boo-fucking-hoo, if she didn't want to deal with that she should have planned better. After all she could have had her tubes tied or used other forms of birth control, up to and including refusing sex without a condom. After all this is the standard you apply to men.

Back when I was fucking fertile men for my own amusement that actually WAS the standard I applied - I used birth control for me and if he didn't wear a condom he didn't get sex from me. Funny - it wasn't that big of an issue. Then again, I made some effort to limit my intercourse to people of the same mindset as myself instead of randomly fucking people I barely knew. That might have something to do with my not getting pregnant during those years.

On rape and physical strength, now who's shifting goal posts?

It is an illustration of where biology puts women at a disadvantage.

Life is unfair and isn't ever likely to be. A lot of the reasons women get shit on aren't fair or logical, deal.

Correct. Women have to deal with the situation as it is. As do the men.

You're the one saying that, not me. I suggested something for a single case top put an idea forward. You're just being closed minded and making assumptions about why I think this could be a point worth talking about.

Incorrect. I think you're just flat out wrong on the entire subject. Unlike you, however, I am not telling my opposition to shut up.

So you don't support additional safety nets that are free from gender bias?

I support additional safety nets. I do not, however, support forcing society to pay for accidental children while the parent(s) wander off to continue irresponsible behavior.

...And you have the gall to call me a child.

If you don't want me to call you a child stop acting like a spoiled brat.

Okay crone, go ride that broke ass of your back to the garden you tend.

Come back when you have a better insult than "crone", m'kay? It's pretty pathetic.

Of course, in the bad old days, which I am old enough to remember, unwed mothers were simply stripped of their infants without consent, the children adopted out, and the fathers had absolutely zero choice in any of it. Typically, despite losing custody of the child completely, both parents would be expelled from education at that point for good. I don't want to return to that system.

Life was hard back in old country, ja?

Yes, it was.

Assuming typical lower-middle class income and no family support those 18 years can make or break a person's future earning potential. School is hard enough to afford without child support payments and only one gender can choose to opt out before the kid is born so the cost of raising a kid is moot.

Incorrect. However, for men "opting out" comes BEFORE conception, not after. Hence what I keep repeating about using some goddamned common sense regarding who, when, and how you fuck.

My system doesn't absolve you of those, or did you just gloss over the bit where the state can reclaim it's outlay and the man picks up when properly employed and able?

The kid needs to be cared for NOW, not in 4 or 8 or however many years.

Willing to try a rational talk about these things instead of these irrational attacks?

What I find irrational is the notion that men should be able to walk away from offspring they sire.

Would be less of an issue if the choice of bringing the kid to term wasn't so one sided.

Biology sucks that way, sorry you were born male.

It might also be better if your only answer is saying that he should have bagged it.

It's not his ONLY option, but it's a pretty good and reliable one. Hell, a century ago that was pretty much the ONLY birth control option and the onus was on the men to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

I also fucking despise how certain people here think that A: birth prevention is the sole responsibility of the woman and B: treat abortion as something that's been done lightly. Even if it's just taking the morning after pill, it still takes some serious consideration to undertake this step not to speak of the more intrusive forms of abortion but all I hear is whining about how it's totally unfair that women can just, like, flush the fetus down the toilet like a particularly stubborn turd but males have to pay money should a woman not want to abort.

Many men would take those options if they could. Yet they don't and there lies the rub.

What, you're saying there are a lot of men who somehow can't afford to buy condoms? Holy shit, even in ass-backwards conservative America you can usually get 'em free it you bother to look/ask.

[Jub]

But that's not fair! Waaaaa! I wanna be able to engage in risky behavior with no consequences! I mean if some slut gets knocked up and I want her to get it vacuumed out and she doesn't wanna well fuck her and the kid, I have a life to live!

The issue is that it's an entirely one sided situation for an act they both took part in. She can abort for any reason at all, he's fucked if things don't go his preferred way. I'm advocating for increased options for the guy, not saying he should get away scot free.

Care to point out and quote where that has been said? I've said from the start that both sides should share to load on birth control.

Don't you fucking lie to me, shithead.

Both parties should have an equal share of that burden and men should cover it unless they are 100% sure she's on the pill or has other means of stopping unwanted pregnancy. Still, short of surgery, only one sex has options for contraception that leaves bareback as an option.

Nice way to be a disingenuous jackass. Yeah, condoms are fine, but it's only fun if the female ultimately takes care of the problem. And if that wasn't what you wanted to say, why mention it at all?

I mentioned that one side has the better more developed non-condom options for birth control right after stating that they have an equal responsibility to ensure that some form of control is used. Way to try to cherry pick.

Many men would take those options if they could. Yet they don't and there lies the rub.

Know what? We don't live in a fictional universe where males would have to actually seriously consider this, so spare me this "coulda woulda" BS, I don't care.

Then we're back to square one where some people will do stupid immoral things for lack of options.

[Terralthra]

Oi, Jub, you're not helping the debate's rationality when you resort to insults that don't even have anything to do with the debate in question. It's pointless and makes you look like you can't come up with a rebuttal to the points Broomstick does raise.

Just because she insults you doesn't mean you have to reply to the insult.

Metahive - I don't think anyone here is actually saying men don't share in the responsibility to have sex responsibly and share in the safer sex costs. The point is more that no method is 100%, and if a pregnancy occurs despite precautions taken - on either person's part - the pregnant person has the option to choose to abort or carry through, and we don't tend to make the choice dependant on the health risk of pregnancy.

As people have pointed out, "If I have a kid right now, I won't be able to go to college" is considered an acceptable reason to abort by most reasonable people (even if, as Broomstick points out, people have gone to college while raising a child), but "If I have to get a full-time job to pay child support, I won't be able to go to college" is somehow execrable, as "you should have thought of that before you had sex!" is now somehow a logical response. "If <xyz>, then don't have sex!" has never worked. We all agree that abstinence-only as a sex education pedagogy is a miserable failure, so why is the same logic being used here?

Indeed, courts have supported the interpretation of reproductive choice being an economic right as well as a health right, with multiple courts holding that freedom of choice isn't just about health, but also about deciding when to have children as suits the mother economically.

If you prefer, think of this as a thought experiment: if pregnancies could be tubed risk-free, and thus pregnancy did not pose a health risk to the mother, how would your feelings regarding men "skipping out on the consequences of sex" change? If they don't change, and you still feel that the current system would be totally fair, then maybe you can try to acknowledge that this isn't coming from a place of health impact, but from patriarchal notions of "man as provider," and think critically about what that means for male/female equality and agency.

[Metahive]

As people have pointed out, "If I have a kid right now, I won't be able to go to college" is considered an acceptable reason to abort by most reasonable people (even if, as Broomstick points out, people have gone to college while raising a child), but "If I have to get a full-time job to pay child support, I won't be able to go to college" is somehow execrable, as "you should have thought of that before you had sex!" is now somehow a logical response. "If <xyz>, then don't have sex!" has never worked. We all agree that abstinence-only as a sex education pedagogy is a miserable failure, so why is the same logic being used here?

I have a counter question, why only focus on this narrow a demographic? Is it OK for every other male to pay child support despite there, you know, not being any difference in the alleged fundamental "unfairness" of the situation and the "lack of say by the male"?
This indeed reminds me of the abortion debate, the "only rape-abortions are OK" part specifically.

[Scrib]

As people have pointed out, "If I have a kid right now, I won't be able to go to college" is considered an acceptable reason to abort by most reasonable people (even if, as Broomstick points out, people have gone to college while raising a child), but "If I have to get a full-time job to pay child support, I won't be able to go to college" is somehow execrable, as "you should have thought of that before you had sex!" is now somehow a logical response. "If <xyz>, then don't have sex!" has never worked. We all agree that abstinence-only as a sex education pedagogy is a miserable failure, so why is the same logic being used here?

Different dynamic. In one situation no one is being harmed except a ball of cells. In the second the child is actually alive. It needs to be cared for. So the needs of the child trump the needs of the parent. And yes, a certain amount of guilt will be utilized to get "deadbeat dads" to do the "right thing", part of the game.

And the lack of sympathy is just because there are no solutions. So ultimately, complaining that people will have sex and that blaming them for it has never worked will not work as an argument because people don't give a shit. There is no solution-that they want to consider anyway- and the argument allows them to distance themselves from the person because it's all his fault. And since there is no actual solution personal responsibility, no matter how unreliable, will have to suffice.

The issue is that it's an entirely one sided situation for an act they both took part in. She can abort for any reason at all, he's fucked if things don't go his preferred way. I'm advocating for increased options for the guy, not saying he should get away scot free.

What are these increased options? Seriously, how is the situation going to change the issue of the child needing support? The money the man could keep is going to come at the expense of the child in most "solutions".

[Terralthra]

As people have pointed out, "If I have a kid right now, I won't be able to go to college" is considered an acceptable reason to abort by most reasonable people (even if, as Broomstick points out, people have gone to college while raising a child), but "If I have to get a full-time job to pay child support, I won't be able to go to college" is somehow execrable, as "you should have thought of that before you had sex!" is now somehow a logical response. "If <xyz>, then don't have sex!" has never worked. We all agree that abstinence-only as a sex education pedagogy is a miserable failure, so why is the same logic being used here?

Different dynamic. In one situation no one is being harmed except a ball of cells. In the second the child is actually alive. It needs to be cared for. So the needs of the child trump the needs of the parent. And yes, a certain amount of guilt will be utilized to get "deadbeat dads" to do the "right thing", part of the game.

And the lack of sympathy is just because there are no solutions. So ultimately, complaining that people will have sex and that blaming them for it has never worked will not work as an argument because people don't give a shit. There is no solution-that they want to consider anyway- and the argument allows them to distance themselves from the person because it's all his fault. And since there is no actual solution personal responsibility, no matter how unreliable, will have to suffice.

Actually, several people (including myself, obliquely) have given possibilities for making the system better in this thread. Some of the proposed possibilities are clearly worse, others are more debateable. Ignoring them and saying "nope, what we've got is as good as it's going to get" is the attitude of someone uninterested in the issue. And if you're not interested in the issue, why post at all?

Edit: Metahive: I saw your post, I just haven't formulated a coherent response yet. I promise I'll get to it when I can.

[Scrib]

As people have pointed out, "If I have a kid right now, I won't be able to go to college" is considered an acceptable reason to abort by most reasonable people (even if, as Broomstick points out, people have gone to college while raising a child), but "If I have to get a full-time job to pay child support, I won't be able to go to college" is somehow execrable, as "you should have thought of that before you had sex!" is now somehow a logical response. "If <xyz>, then don't have sex!" has never worked. We all agree that abstinence-only as a sex education pedagogy is a miserable failure, so why is the same logic being used here?

Different dynamic. In one situation no one is being harmed except a ball of cells. In the second the child is actually alive. It needs to be cared for. So the needs of the child trump the needs of the parent. And yes, a certain amount of guilt will be utilized to get "deadbeat dads" to do the "right thing", part of the game.

And the lack of sympathy is just because there are no solutions. So ultimately, complaining that people will have sex and that blaming them for it has never worked will not work as an argument because people don't give a shit. There is no solution-that they want to consider anyway- and the argument allows them to distance themselves from the person because it's all his fault. And since there is no actual solution personal responsibility, no matter how unreliable, will have to suffice.

Actually, several people (including myself, obliquely) have given possibilities for making the system better in this thread. Some of the proposed possibilities are clearly worse, others are more debateable. Ignoring them and saying "nope, what we've got is as good as it's going to get" is the attitude of someone uninterested in the issue. And if you're not interested in the issue, why post at all?

Edit: Metahive: I saw your post, I just haven't formulated a coherent response yet. I promise I'll get to it when I can.

Well, they have to have done it between when I last checked the thread and right now because when I left it was the same chorus of "we need more options!" and "tough shit" that pervades these discussions and I assumed that the deadlock would continue (and it more or less has). But you're right, one suggestion was made:that the state pay child support until the father/mother finishes secondary education.

I'd say that that it is possibly not a horrible idea. totally politically impossible, sure. Horrible? That depends on how you feel about ideals vs. reality.

Practical issues: What happens if someone picks a shitty major like Scientology studies? And can the principle not be applied to all sorts of projects like starting a business? At what point is the venture too risky to be considered a good bet? Hell, at what point is something a viable option? Starting a farm? A restaurant? The net is going to have to be very good.

And aren't child support payments based on current income? Is there going to be interest?

[General Zod]

Actually, several people (including myself, obliquely) have given possibilities for making the system better in this thread. Some of the proposed possibilities are clearly worse, others are more debateable. Ignoring them and saying "nope, what we've got is as good as it's going to get" is the attitude of someone uninterested in the issue. And if you're not interested in the issue, why post at all?

Edit: Metahive: I saw your post, I just haven't formulated a coherent response yet. I promise I'll get to it when I can.

That's rather missing the point, I think. If someone tells you that you have reprehensible morals, going "lol the system is broken" is just a cheap deflection and doesn't address the fact that your morals are reprehensible.

[Terralthra]

Well, they have to have done it between when I last checked the thread and right now because when I left it was the same chorus of "we need more options!" and "tough shit" that pervades these discussions and I assumed that the deadlock would continue (and it more or less has). But you're right, one suggestion was made:that the state pay child support until the father/mother finishes secondary education.

I'd say that that it is possibly not a horrible idea. totally politically impossible, sure. Horrible? That depends on how you feel about ideals vs. reality.

Practical issues: What happens if someone picks a shitty major like Scientology studies? And can the principle not be applied to all sorts of projects like starting a business? At what point is the venture too risky to be considered a good bet? Hell, at what point is something a viable option? Starting a farm? A restaurant? The net is going to have to be very good.

And aren't child support payments based on current income? Is there going to be interest?

Child support payments in California, at least, are based on "earning potential" if someone is underemployed or unemployed. So, no, not exactly.

[Scrib]

Wait, they're based not on what you have but what you could have?How do you calculate that anyway, state average for profession or degree? Doesn't that system run the risk of sinking some people? I guess it'd stop people from slouching but it seems dangerous, especially if it's inflexible.

[Terralthra]

Wait, they're based not on what you have but what you could have?How do you calculate that anyway, state average for profession or degree? Doesn't that system run the risk of sinking some people? I guess it'd stop people from slouching but it seems dangerous, especially if it's inflexible.

Yes, they base it on what you could make given your qualifications, based on a family law judge's discretion. And yes, it absolutely can and does sink some people. I should point out that the system screws the custodial parent at times, too. If they are a well-qualified person (degrees, experience, etc.), but are working part-time in order to have time to care for the child, their income is still factored based on earnings potential, which may mean that the non-custodial parent can be found not to owe anything or to owe significantly less, because the custodial parent could work more.

[TheHammer]

nitpick: It will possibly make her sick. I've known women to take it and go about there day with little actual side effects.

But you're right, it's not fair. What they should do is make a pill that can induce those same side effects in a man and sell them together. Then they can both suffer the same consequences. And I suspect if you give most men the choice between having an unplanned/unwanted child or being sick for a few days he'll take the being sick for a few days

So will a lot of women, hence we have the morning after pill available. My chief objection to Jub is his minimization of the effects on the woman. He characterizes it as a "simple pill" and a "simple solution". No, it's not, really, even if a lot of people choose it as the lesser evil.

When contrasted against raising/supporting a child for 18+ years, being sick for a few days is a simple solution. I believe that was the point he was getting at. Sure it sucks being sick for a few days, that's why it is used as emergency contraception.

I'm saying many of the statements you are making to counter Jub's position are the same ones pro-lifers make when speaking against abortion. The fact that you are pro-choice means your statements are rather hypocritical for reasons I already outlined.

Again, bullshit. It is in no way hypocritical to say people need to be responsible for their actions AND support their right to choose those actions. You're really reaching here.

Bullshit? You are saying that if a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant she gets to choose, and if a man has unprotected sex and gets a woman pregnant then TOUGH SHIT he has to take responsibility for his actions! If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have an abortion she can not be compelled by a man to carry the child. If she wants it and the man doesn't? Tough Shit. Should have worn a condom or been more careful about who you fuck. You don't seet the hypocrisy in that? You are applying the same logic that pro-lifers want to have applied to women who get pregnant.

And lets not kid ourselves here. For all of your talk about "It's a woman's body, and its her right to do what she wants", most women who choose to get an abortion aren't doing so because of the 9 months of pregnancy. Health reasons aside, they do so because of one of the reasons I cited whose impact is felt during the 18+ years AFTER the woman's body has left the equation. The "choice" has always ultimately been about whether or not a woman will choose to bring a child into this world. She often has weeks or even months to ponder all the ways it will impact her life before making the decision to keep it or not. The Man? Tough shit, he made his decision during the 15 minutes of sex, so he just has to "fucking deal with it".

You're free to sit back with your "life isn't fair" stance, but don't pretend for one minute that it's not hypocritical.

[Korto]

Why are we regarding contraception as the responsibility of one person OR the other? It's a joint responsibility. If contraception is not used, they BOTH decided not to use it. More particularly, if a condom is not used, they BOTH decided not to use it, not just the man, but the woman too. Broomstick, you yourself evidenced this fact

Back when I was fucking fertile men for my own amusement that actually WAS the standard I applied - I used birth control for me and if he didn't wear a condom he didn't get sex from me. Funny - it wasn't that big of an issue.

Unless we're talking rape, and we're not, then both decided to have sex without a condom. To think any less is to say that women are incompetent to make their own decisions.

Jub's point is simply this. The woman get's more opportunities of choice than the man, and the extra choice is "the big one". This is plain fact. Any other opportunities being brought up apply to both sides equally. She could have decided not to have sex. She could have found someone of a different mindset to have sex with. She could have decided a condom would have been used.
Unfortunately (and I'm sorry to have to have to repeat it, Jub, I know you're sick of it) the biology is unequal, abortion is a medical procedure to the woman, and none of us (you included, I know) want to have a society where one person can override the sanctity of someone else's body (except for special cases where a person is deemed incompetent, obviously. A six year old can't decide he doesn't want a bone-marrow transplant. You're having one, kid.)
I myself have spent some time on occasions thinking about the inherent unfairness of the situation, and I'm afraid I've been unable to think of a reasonable solution. It's probably best to just accept that there is an inequality of choice, we don't know how to fix it, and by having (consensual) sex you implicitly accept that inequality.
Points of Note -
* I feel that the man has carried out his part of the contraception-work adequately if he has received a verbal reassurance that the woman is on a competent birth control.
* If the woman lied about such (an unusual circumstance, although I can see it happening with a groupie having sex with her idol, and so wanting to have his baby), she is guilty of rape. He would have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, however.
** Interesting point of debate - would the woman being found guilty of rape give the man the right to an abortion?
* Birth control can fail. Condoms particularly aren't that reliable, even used properly. Can we please stop automatically blaming the man for any conception? There was someone else involved, they could even both have been on birth control and both failed.
** This even means the guy in the OP may have used a condom, and done everything (up to the point where he poisoned the woman) right. He's still an arsehole.

I think it's best to think of the child who needs to be looked after as a completely separate issue from who is or isn't to blame for the existence of said child. The child needs to be brought up. This takes work, and money. The child "belongs" to the mother and father. If one is taking the lion's share of the work-load, it seems fair that the other takes the lion's share of the money-load. This statement is gender neutral.
I am quite open-minded to the idea that primary carers are given a stipend from the government. This would be on the theory that children are the country's future, child-minding is a job, and so the country should compensate those doing the job. To me, this would be enough to live on decently but modestly (scaled to the number of children), and not income-tested. For tax purposes, it would be treated just the same as a job. There would be problems to work out, but that's why governments employ experts. Yes, there is the risk of "welfare mums" (or dads), having "kid after kid to live the high life without working" (because us parents all know that looking after kids is shit-easy and not stressful or hard work at all) but that's a spectre I feel far more common on radio then real life.

In Australia, the government pays the carer, and gets money off the other parent in recompense. This means the carer is not dependant upon the other parent. It also means that how much the other parent pays is scaled to their income. For instance, if you're on the dole or AusStudy (the dole for students), then you'll probably be paying $13 a fortnight, if I remember properly. This would mean that a kid's life isn't ruined because the two of them made a mistake or were just plain unlucky.

To backtrack (to page 1!), I don't approve of it [edit - the illegal abortion of the child in the OP] being called murder. Murder is the death of a human being. Either a foetus is or isn't a human being, make your mind up. If it is, then abortion is murder, and binge-drinking is conduct endangering a child and possibly manslaughter. If it isn't, then this isn't murder. You can't determine whether something is or isn't a human being based upon whether the mother does or doesn't want a child.
The argument that "Well, it would have been in 8 months" fails because (a) the same argument can be used anti-abortion, and (b) you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt the child would be carried successfully to term.
"Murder" is however just a label. I have no problem with it being labelled "Battery causing miscarriage", with a significant punishment applied.

[Jub]

Once again thanks to the people making the point I've so ham fistedly been trying to get out. I'm bowing out for now, and might come back fresh tomorrow for some added thoughts.

Also, and especially to Broomstick, I didn't really want this to get nasty, but this has been a bit mean spirited and one sided and I lost my temper a bit. I'm sorry for that and hope that it doesn't cause any overly hard feelings.

Lastly, I want it to be clear that outside of a few posts much earlier in this thread which have been revised to my current stance, I never stated that men should get off the hook free and clear. I just wish that there were more and better options for what starts off as an equal act. I hope that perhaps this topic could shed light on ideas to that end.

[Scrib]

Wait, they're based not on what you have but what you could have?How do you calculate that anyway, state average for profession or degree? Doesn't that system run the risk of sinking some people? I guess it'd stop people from slouching but it seems dangerous, especially if it's inflexible.

Yes, they base it on what you could make given your qualifications, based on a family law judge's discretion. And yes, it absolutely can and does sink some people. I should point out that the system screws the custodial parent at times, too. If they are a well-qualified person (degrees, experience, etc.), but are working part-time in order to have time to care for the child, their income is still factored based on earnings potential, which may mean that the non-custodial parent can be found not to owe anything or to owe significantly less, because the custodial parent could work more.

That seems like the sort of system that spawns the horror stories you constantly see MRAs crowing about.

[Korto]

Seems particularly dangerous, a "We'll run the risk of hurting a whole bunch of innocent people, to try and stop a few people who may be ripping off the system" deal. Stark mentioned the same kind of thing in the thread about welfare being too comfortable.

[chitoryu12]

If the woman lied about such (an unusual circumstance, although I can see it happening with a groupie having sex with her idol, and so wanting to have his baby), she is guilty of rape.

Korto, I'm not entirely sure that you know the definition of "rape."

[Scrib]

If the woman lied about such (an unusual circumstance, although I can see it happening with a groupie having sex with her idol, and so wanting to have his baby), she is guilty of rape.

Korto, I'm not entirely sure that you know the definition of "rape."

Well, if you can have that weird 'sex by surprise" thing with Assange and condoms breaking a while ago then this seems to be in the same vein. But iirc that issue went away and I don't think that it was ever legally valid in the US.

That said, this isn't even the strangest description of rape I've seen this month. If you really wanted to you could make the argument. Good luck getting anywhere with it though.

[Terralthra]

If the woman lied about such (an unusual circumstance, although I can see it happening with a groupie having sex with her idol, and so wanting to have his baby), she is guilty of rape.

Korto, I'm not entirely sure that you know the definition of "rape."

Well, if you can have that weird 'sex by surprise" thing with Assange and condoms breaking a while ago then this seems to be in the same vein. But iirc that issue went away and I don't think that it was ever legally valid in the US.

That said, this isn't even the strangest description of rape I've seen this month. If you really wanted to you could make the argument. Good luck getting anywhere with it though.

Such would more properly be referred to as contraceptive fraud or "conversion."

I feel it's reasonable to point out that every civil case I can find brought by men on such grounds has failed, including a man who was raped in his sleep by the prospective mother, a minor male statutorily raped by an adult woman, a man lied to about his partner's contraceptive use, and a father with learning disabilities that were argued to make him incapable of consenting to father a child. All were told by civil courts that they would be "subverting legislative intent" to let them out of child support payments in fact or in principle (by suing for financial damages). Read more here, ignoring the hyperbolic title.

At least one case, the action has been in favor of a woman bringing such a case against a man with whom she consented to have sex, having been told he was sterile.

I think it's pretty obvious that these are not the majority of child support cases, but it nonetheless remains that a man who was raped in his sleep by a woman, impregnating herself against his will, nonetheless was forced to pay child support. Is it the position of those saying "the system's fine" that if he didn't want to pay for a kid, he shouldn't have gone to sleep drunk?

[Korto]

If the woman lied about such (an unusual circumstance, although I can see it happening with a groupie having sex with her idol, and so wanting to have his baby), she is guilty of rape.

Korto, I'm not entirely sure that you know the definition of "rape."

Rape by Deception

Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.
The act—known in Tennessee and California as rape by fraud[1]—is recognised in few jurisdictions.

(edit - put down definition for those who don't feel like clicking the link)
And I'm not saying it would be convicted as such, particularly not in US law (which I am even less qualified to judge then Australian law), I am saying that I think it should be.

[Serafina]

Let's get back to the core reason why Jub is a sexist asshole:

Because he is arguing that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion just because they had sex with her.

You know, it's called Pro-Choice for a reason, instead of pro-abortion. Her body, her decision.
Now that should be self-evident to everyone who understands consent or the importance of right to bodily integrity. But in case it isn't, consider that it's wrong for pretty much the same reasons that rape is wrong - the act is not inherently bad or harmful (despite the risks involved) - but because of the way it's forced on you it becomes a traumatic, harmful experience.

No argument i've seen here does alter that in any way.

Now if Jub was genuinely concerned with protecting men from having to pay child support, he could argue in favor of a one-sided, partial adoption: Give over your rights and duties related to the child over to the state without affecting the mothers rights and duties. That means the state pays child support, you give up any right to contact or see the child, and a more worthy person can become the co-parent along with the childs mother. An elegant system to everyones benefit.

But no, instead he argues that you should protect your money by forcibly dragging women to have abortions. Hey, sorry that in ran you over with a car and broke your leg, but listen, amputating your leg will be easier on my insurance than fixing it so i ordered your doctors to do it, kay?

[Terralthra]

Can you actually quote him saying that men should be able to force women to have abortions? Or is it that he's saying that once a woman becomes pregnant, the decision to abort or carry the child has a huge impact on the man, and he gets no say in it, and that isn't fair? The former would be pretty horrible, the latter is a statement of fact, and "thus men should be able to force women to have an abortion" is your inference, not his position.

[Metahive]

Can you actually quote him saying that men should be able to force women to have abortions? Or is it that he's saying that once a woman becomes pregnant, the decision to abort or carry the child has a huge impact on the man, and he gets no say in it, and that isn't fair? The former would be pretty horrible, the latter is a statement of fact, and "thus men should be able to force women to have an abortion" is your inference, not his position.

I hate to sound like a dick, but what is a guy to do when she gets pregnant, wants to have the kid, and refuses to let him off the hook?


If that's not a veiled attempt to make excuses for a forced abortion then nothing is.

[Terralthra]

Can you actually quote him saying that men should be able to force women to have abortions? Or is it that he's saying that once a woman becomes pregnant, the decision to abort or carry the child has a huge impact on the man, and he gets no say in it, and that isn't fair? The former would be pretty horrible, the latter is a statement of fact, and "thus men should be able to force women to have an abortion" is your inference, not his position.

I hate to sound like a dick, but what is a guy to do when she gets pregnant, wants to have the kid, and refuses to let him off the hook?


If that's not a veiled attempt to make excuses for a forced abortion then nothing is.

I'm not at all supporting what this guy did, but you can sort of see why he might want to do it. If a guy knows he's screwed financially and that he has no say in the matter drastic things start to look more appealing. Until things are changed to give men more of a say in his stake in a pregnancy I can honestly see this sort of thing happening from time to time.

Understanding the motivations of an evil act doesn't mean you support the act itself.

[Metahive]

Considering he keeps harping on about how it's all so goddamned unfair that males would actually have to face the consequences of their actions I view this is as dishonesty and therefore disregard it.

A woman that got pregnant cannot dodge the responsibility for what happened during sex, she has to deal with it in some way and take responsibility no matter what, whether through birth or abortion. Why should the male and the male alone get a get-out-of-jail free card? Why keep blathering about the alleged unfairness of child-support when otherwise the mother would have to bear the whole brunt of it alone? Is a mother who has to raise a child not sacrificing time and money as well to be able to do so? Why's that so completely ignored in this thread in favor of clutching the pearls about poor males who might not be able to enter secondary education.

Also, this whole sidetrack is ass-backwards anyway. If the apologists were actually concerned about that they'd clamor for a system where the state bears the costs for secondary education, like in some European nations, instead of attempting to foist a deadbeat parent tax on the population or any such silliness.

EDIT:
Also, he expresses all that understanding for the poor male that was "forced" to commit a crime, but has no word of sympathy for the mother that lost a wanted child.