http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/LIFESTYLE/603090385/1005 Discuss. And by the way, the second this turns into an abortion debate, this topic is getting locked. We've had enough of those here. Besides, this isn't about abortion. Keep it on topic.
It's something I haven't thought about before. I guess that in terms of the baby, the man DOES deserve some rights if the woman is allowed to abort.
No arguing about abortion? But I love arguing in circles! That's a tricky one. I'd agree with that if it was a case where the child was accidentally conceived (ie: broken condom) where he obviously didn't want the child in the first place. If anything, he could pay any fees he was forced to pay with the money from his large lawsuit settlement with the condom company. But if they entered into consensual unprotected sex, I think he should co-assume the responsibility of caring for the child. He can't get all the pleasure and then just turn on his heels and neglect the child. He needs to take into account the consequences down the road for temporary pleasure. And it's not like he can make the woman abort the fetus. So it's about thinking about the future, rather than just going for fleeting fun, however unpleasant that may seem.
In consensual unprotected sex, both parties (should) know the reprocussions. This is not an argument of what is fair for the parent, but what is fair for this child that shouldn't have been brought to life in the first place. If the mother has to provide, so should the sperm donor...I mean, this is something small that completely depends on others for protection...now everything is based off of money and you can't live without it so it makes it only fair to have the male provide some sort of sustenance for the child to grow on. If you REALLY didn't want the kid, you should've taken better precautions. Now that it's alive, take responsibility; it's a living creature from your own seed!
Yeah, it's also like this in Belgium I heard stories about girls from 17 years old who stop taking the pill so they can get pregnant without their boyfriend knowing about it. When the boyfriend finds out and doesn't want the child there's nothing he can do about it, he'll have to pay (money not the expression) for the child and it's mother for the rest of his life. I think that really sucks ...
Hard to say... I'm inclined to think that just by having sex both partners should be accepting responsibility for what might happen. On the other hand, if the woman is lying about being on the pill... Yeah, I dunno. It's a tough question.
It's no excuse...The dude should wear a condom even if the girl really IS taking the pill...it's just common sense if you don't want a kid...you have to be as safe as possible...'cause from what I know there is no 100% chance of NOT getting a kid if you want to have sex...so...if someone does get pregnant...and he didn't use a condom it's his own damn fault... my opinion...
frontman makes a very valid comment and yes - that is my opinion on it as well as far as protection is concerned. as for the case...very interesting. not to sound like i'm trying to start some sort of sexist debate, but it does seem that most things concerning pregnancy seem to focus solely on the needs of the female, when indeed - it is a two-way occurance. so yes, it is quite satisfying to consider the other half of the coin. however - my opinions on this subject can be found in mark's posts as well as those that follow. i won't insult your intelligence by repeating them