Man sentenced to 13 years for tricking girlfriend into taking abortion pill

[Geosurface]

Sounds like you are pretty much saying what I have been saying.

The point of child support is to bail women out for the poor choices they make.

Yea.

But I want to make clear that I think there are PLENTY of situations where the man being required to pay child support is probably completely justifiable. I'd rather we were still the sort of society where that became necessary FAR less often, but within the society we are today... if some guy just attempts to leave a woman high and dry with a kid after they had initially both been on board with the idea of having one, and/or after he's been helping provide for the raising of the kid since it's birth... and then he just decides to bail when the kid is 1 year old or 5 years old or 13 years old or whatever...

Then I can completely understand requiring him to help his child financially. However I don't think it would be apocalyptic if it wasn't required. And removing it might go a long way to making people take marriage more seriously again.

I'm not sure. I guess I need to devote some more thought to this.

Do you think child support is appropriate sometimes?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Someone really needs to discover the multiquote button.

Stop trying to oppress men!

 

[nehalem256]

Yea.

But I want to make clear that I think there are PLENTY of situations where the man being required to pay child support is probably completely justifiable. I'd rather we were still the sort of society where that became necessary FAR less often, but within the society we are today... if some guy just attempts to leave a woman high and dry with a kid after they had initially both been on board with the idea of having one, and/or after he's been helping provide for the raising of the kid since it's birth... and then he just decides to bail when the kid is 1 year old or 5 years old or 13 years old or whatever...

Then I can completely understand requiring him to help his child financially. However I don't think it would be apocalyptic if it wasn't required. And removing it might go a long way to making people take marriage more seriously again.

I'm not sure. I guess I need to devote some more thought to this.

Do you think child support is appropriate sometimes?

It seems like the situation you describe could just as easily be reversed with the woman abandoning the dad with the kids after X years. You should be held accountable for the commitments you take on, and so child support would be completely appropriate. I don't see any need for allowing someone to have unlimited take backs.

It just seems to me that spilling your semen in a woman is not a legally binding contract. And society certainly doesn't treat a woman welcoming a man's seed into her as a legally binding contract, and anyone who tried to claim such would probably be branded as a woman hater.

It seems to me that taking marriage seriously would fix a lot of problems.

Men are NOT treated, and are not held to special standards, when it comes to sex. Because it just takes ONE person to prevent a pregnancy. If you have unprotected sex, and expect the woman to worry about not getting pregnant - then you deserve whatever comes to you,.. and that mentality is what led to the unfair treatement of men in parenthood related trails.

This also goes for women. But, as a man, a true thinking smart and intelligent man, you figure out if you need to put on a rain coat or not. Scoffing and throwing that responsibility to woman means you lack responsibility and damn well deserve getting dragged through the coals.

Now that I think on this more it comes to me that the logic you are presenting is absurdly contradictory.

Why is having an abortion the sole responsibility of the woman? Because its her body.

So why should birth control also be the sole responsibility of the woman? BECAUSE ITS HER BODY.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she uses birth control. Why do you think men should be responsible for women's bodies? I mean what is next? Should we not allow women in public without a male relative to look after them?

 

[Newell Steamer]

The key thing you are missing is that we used to live in a world where women where helpless and needed men. Women were not considered equal to men and it was therefore necessary to protect them.

Now, women are equals, yet they still insist on being treated like they the are helpless little flowers.

I think the key thing you are missing is that I want to continue "discussing" anything with you.

You lied.

You posted a fake sensationalist story, that proved nothing more than you purpetuating a fantasy that there is a war on men.

Get a grip for God's sake. Because whatever crusade you think you are on, is being ruined from your own lies and efforts. Which would mean, there is no crusade, since you aren't even providing any facts and truth. Just links to bullshit made up stories that can't be verfired, based off of laws that were never ruled for.

You're a troll man, just stop it already.

 

[hal2kilo]

You're a troll man, just stop it already.

Good look with that. Obsession is a powerful thing.

 

[Geosurface]

You lied.

Evidence it was lying as opposed to sloppy fact checking, please?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Evidence it was lying as opposed to sloppy fact checking, please?

The evidence is right under the "War On Men" manifesto.

 

[z1ggy]

Kid was going to grow up with out a father probably, so all in all it's probably better off for the unborn and the rest of society that he was not born.