-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But you said you were okay with abortion...
- Thread starter Koldo
- Start date
Me Myself
Back to my username
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes, very good point. He has the right to walk away just like the woman does. If she chooses not to, that shouldn't invalidate his right to walk away.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Exactly. If the woman can choose, the man can choose.
Alceste
Vagabond
And how do you intend to prove to a family court that without the abortion agreement, he would never have had the sex?
You're treating an offhand comment as a get out of jail free card for deadbeat dads.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
It is in the scenario I gave.
Yup, in which case she's supposed to have an abortion. The pregnancy isn't the issue; the having the kid is.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't. This is a completely hypothetical situation.
Me Myself
Back to my username
How would that be necessary?
The thing is the agreement was, what he would or wouldn't have done if there was not is pure speculation.
Alceste
Vagabond
I think that if you really believe child support should be completely optional for fathers because women can have abortions if they can't afford a child, I'd say you are probably the bad decision of the women who sleep with you. Do you tell them these views first?
Me Myself
Back to my username
This is completely irrelevant for the conversation. We are talking about how the legal system should be and your comment is merely a disguised "it just is, lets stop arguing because it is this way and it is right because it already is and you are wrong because you are against it"
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I never said any of that. I'm talking about this specific case. In general, if a couple sleeps together and she gets pregnant, they are both responsible for the kid, assuming the woman wants to take it to term. It's only in this very specific situation where there's the agreement of what will happen in the chance that she does get pregnant, that I think he should be able to walk away.
And since I've only ever slept with one woman (at least in a way that could get her pregnant), and since I married her years before getting her pregnant, it's not really an issue in my particular case (since I'm not planning on going anywhere and can't wait until January when my son is born). I was using the sort of general "me" when I mentioned it earlier.
Alceste
Vagabond
Well, let's try to make it just a tiny bit plausible, shall we? Have you ever, in the entire history of mankind, heard of a guy who will ONLY have sex with a woman after she promises to have an abortion if the coupling results in pregnancy? I sure haven't. It seems to me other factors are more compelling.
But if there is one freak out there who considers such a promise so crucial that it is the sole deciding factor in whether or not he risks impregnating a woman, he should protect his interests by writing a pre-sex contract stipulating his liability (or lack thereof) in case of fatherhood, then get his date to sign it in front of two witnesses. We certainly shouldn't rely on hearsay.
Look, it's very simple. He made a decision. That decision has consequences. No one else should be responsible for his poor decision-making.
Do I need to spell it out? There is no guarantee, even if the women says "I'll get an abortion", that a child will not result from the decision to have sex, because you cannot force the woman to have an abortion and it is not unreasonable to suspect that she might change her mind. If a man makes that poor judgement call, to believe that his method of birth control (relying upon a woman to have an abortion) is fail-proof, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be responsible for his poor decision making.
It's a two way street, at least until those virgin births become more popular.
The mother gave raw material, too--that's what made the baby.
[youtube]zHJBmFzliMU[/youtube]
egg cell and sperm cell fertilization - YouTube
If a man promises a woman to "pull out in time", and she becomes pregnant, should he be legally completely responsible for the care of that child? And in addition, should she not recieve financial compensation for herself, for the time, energy, and bodily changes that were caused to her due to him not keeping his promise?
Funny, that this case very likely occurs much more frequently than the one presented by the OP, and yet I haven't heard any of the posters so keen on punishing broken agreements seeking a law enforcing this one.
Funny, that this case very likely occurs much more frequently than the one presented by the OP, and yet I haven't heard any of the posters so keen on punishing broken agreements seeking a law enforcing this one.
That's exactly it. The child will be the one to suffer the most. A woman may have broken her promise to abort, but the child has done nothing wrong.
Each of my 3 children were a result of my husband "pulling out". That's how much pulling out works.
No, it wasn't.
"She'll use the money for drugs" was the foreseeable consequence. Whatever link there is between that and "she gets pregnant" is only in your own head.
I thought you were pro-choice; no?
I guess some men are only pro-choice if the woman chooses to have an abortion, not to choose to keep the baby.
Lifes a gamble sometimes, you can't go and sue the Casino once she takes all your money. Well you could try but it would be silly.