Is she pregnant?

[Ms_Lilith]

While I am unhappy with the court system, I've always held the opinion that a female has responsibility for her body. Given BC availability for the last 40 years and the post WWI economic change in the status of women, the reasons for "1 fuck" = "lifetime support" don't exist any more.

Everything that is said to the guy ("if you can't keep your pants on...", "if you can't take 1 minute to put a condom on...") applies equally to the girl.

Females are NOT helpless. They do not have to economically prostitute themselves.

So what is wrong with saying the responsibility lies equally between them?

And what's wrong with applying normal contract and liability law concepts? They work for everything else...

The problem with this reasoning is that while a guy can put a piece of rubber over his dick, in 30 seconds and far lessen the chances of conception, women's birth control options are not that simple. Sure, there's the female condom, but it's not that effective, for one. All of the other women's birth control options are INVASIVE. Birth control pills, patches, shots, and rings are all hormonal, and fuck with a woman's system. The cap or the diaphragm are invasive, as is an IUD.

I agree that a woman should make sure that her man has a condom on before engaging in sex, but I do stand by the fact that male birth control is a much easier option to engage in, due to the fact that it is not at all invasive.

And why should the woman have sole care and sole payments over the child? It took TWO people to create it, it should take two people to support and raise it.

 

[kinky shy girl]

I suppose you've never paid for anything in your (dating) life.

Give me, give me, give me -- You had fun that night and now you want a free ride...

But back to the real question: Can he get prenatal care for his child?

It's not really about the (potential) mom getting a free ride. It's about the child receiving support from both parents.

just from his tone, it didn't seem like the original poster was worried about his gf getting prenatal care. after all, he did ask when it's too late to get an abortion. i could be wrong, but it sounded like he wants a way out.

 

[kinky shy girl]

So what is wrong with saying the responsibility lies equally between them?

If you're concerned about equal responsibility, then why is it unreasonable to expect *both* biological parents to contribute to the child's care? If one parent decides s/he doesn't want to raise the child, why isn't it fair that the absent parent at least contribute monetary support?

 

[BirdsWife]

If you look at the court records, you'll find I've paid over $150K of child support in the last three years.

And how much of that was current support versus support in arrears?

I had several of my employees whine about not having a paycheck left after support is taken out, but I have little sympathy for them when the court papers in front of me show that 10% of what is taken is for current support and the remaining 90% is to repay some of the tens of thousands they owe in back support.

Kids still need food, clothes, a roof over their head, water to shower with, lights to study by and transportation to the doctor, even when daddy is "between jobs" or disabled. If a man seems to think he has a disproportional financial burden when it comes to supporting the children that he was equally responsible in creating--whether or not birth control was used--or that a women will "trap" him simply to receive the huge windfall child support brings , then there is a very simple solution to that problem: keep his dick in his pants.

Men who don't "play", don't pay.



BirdsWife,
Mother of a beautiful girl conceived while using an IUD.

 

[Beloved]

I will address the initial question first.

It is possible that she could be pregnant. Any form of birth control other then abstinence is fallible. Point blank young man if you had intercourse and you ejaculated viable sperm into a female who happened to have released a viable egg then there is always a chance that she will become pregnant. I hate to seem like a raging feminazi here but the women are all quite right. If you were not prepared to deal with the potential of a child resulting from this union~ drunk and stupid or sober and sane~ then you should have not engaged in sexual intercourse.

Now to the important question- at least to you. Is it likely she's pregnant? Regrettably there is no way we can answer that question for you. Although the mechanics are essentially the same each woman is a unique individual and only she will know her body well enough to know if there is something amiss. The traditional signs do not apply to all women. I menstruated for the first 2 months of my first pregnancy so an absence of menses was no way for me to know. I had no strange appetite changes during my second pregnancy so no warning signs there. I get nauseous over a number of different things. My point is that I knew in the depths of my soul that there was something different about my body after each of my children was concieved. I knew I was pregnant often before a blood test could confirm it.

Now to ReadyOne.
I cannot deny that there is a great deal of pressure on a man to " be responsible" not only in the prevention of conception but in the care of a child should conception occur. I would ask you this though, is a father asked to spend the better part of a year as a human incubator? Is a father asked to spend 40 weeks having his internal organs rearranged so that he can act as host to a rapidly growing and incredibly demanding parasite? Is a father expected to surrender his life as he knows it to care for a child he has created? Does a father have to live with the trauma and psychological scarring that come from knowing that you have destroyed or surrendered a child you created. Does a father have to endure the chemical alteration of his body to avoid conception? Does a father compromise his own health and safety in order to bring his offspring into the world? Is there a risk of death involved in a man becoming a father? There is for a woman becoming a mother. In the long run all a man really has to do is either agree to prevent conception by protecting himself or agree to support the child he helped concieve. The rest of it is just observed from the sidelines as far as the father is concerned, or at least he has the luxury of it being that way. There's a lot more involved for a woman so to imply that we are "economically prostituting" ourselves to rip off the poor defenseless men of the world is foolish.
Are there women out there who will get pregnant strictly to trap a man and get a monthly check? Sure there are. There are slimeballs in every avenue of life my friend, but for the most part women do not choose to undertake motherhood as a means of financial support.

 

[ReadyOne]

And how much of that was current support versus support in arrears?

My case was filed in 2000; My decress was 2001, and none of the figure I mentioned was "arrears".

 

[Beloved]

Now it Hubby's turn

Figured WTH, I'm already in the doghouse, how much worse can it get?

Why is it solely the guys responsibility to have the protection? In this "enlightened" day and age of IUD's, Depo Prevera (sp?) shots, etc., why should the guy still be held totally responsible when she comes up preggers? It takes two to tango, and all she had to do was say "No", that would have settled everything. Seems like a lot of feminazi (to quote the wife) BS to sit here and say it's all his fault just because he didn't wear a condom.

Now as for support, if you do the crime, you should do the time. The way they talk about it on tv and radio, almost everybody over the age of 5 knows how babies are made. If your stupid enough to take her word for it that she's on some kind of protection, then I've got a bridge in NY I'd love to sell you. Whether you like it or not, it's a pay to play kind of thing.

-H

 

[Ms_Lilith]

Re: Now it Hubby's turn

Figured WTH, I'm already in the doghouse, how much worse can it get?

Why is it solely the guys responsibility to have the protection? In this "enlightened" day and age of IUD's, Depo Prevera (sp?) shots, etc., why should the guy still be held totally responsible when she comes up preggers? It takes two to tango, and all she had to do was say "No", that would have settled everything. Seems like a lot of feminazi (to quote the wife) BS to sit here and say it's all his fault just because he didn't wear a condom.

I agree with you. It's NOT just the man's responsibility to have protection. Between the two there should be SOMETHING. My point earlier was that men's protection is far less invasive than most women's protection options. You roll rubber on your dick. Woopee. We take pills, alter our hormones, stick devices (IUD's) into our uteri (uteruses?), deal with diaphragms and caps, blah blah blah. Much more irritating, difficult, time-consuming, and invasive.

However. Why can't the woman have a box of condoms on hand? When I make a date for sex (it's been a few years, people), I always insisted that a man bring protectin with him. If he forgot, I had condoms and spermicide available in my room.

Both should be responsible. Having said that, both should also be held responsible for the child.

 

[Willing and Unsure]

Re: Now it Hubby's turn

It takes two to tango, and all she had to do was say "No", that would have settled everything. Seems like a lot of feminazi (to quote the wife) BS to sit here and say it's all his fault just because he didn't wear a condom.

It does take two to tango, but why is it the woman's responsibility to say no? If the man isnt saying no, then he is just as responsible if the woman ends up pregnant as the woman is, no matter the reason or state of mind when they had sex.

Now as for support, if you do the crime, you should do the time. The way they talk about it on tv and radio, almost everybody over the age of 5 knows how babies are made. If your stupid enough to take her word for it that she's on some kind of protection, then I've got a bridge in NY I'd love to sell you. Whether you like it or not, it's a pay to play kind of thing.

-H

See that's one of those things right there, the guy can always say no if he wants to make sure he's not impregnating anyone.

But really now, just because a woman gets pregnant and has a child, does that really mean that if a man doesnt want it he can ignore it, not provide for it financially and just pretend like it doesnt exist? If a woman were to do that to her child (think baby in the dumpster stories here) she would be imprisoned for many many years becasuse she neglected and killed her baby. She was just putting it off to the side and ignoring it like the father did. Where's the harm in that? (This is just an example, I do not really think this way)

There are many women that get by without any form of child support. It is extremely difficult on them and the child and can cause many problems in the end for both of them. I've seen this happen first hand, only the situation was not where the mother wanted child support and couldnt get it, it was that she didnt want the asshole of a guy that was the father around at all and said she wouldnt take his money and he'd never see his kid. It's been really rough on her the last 8 years, but she's getting by, slowly but surely. Is this fair to the father then, that he doesnt get to have anything to do with his child, even if he wanted to? The woman didnt take the "free ride of child support" and "trap" him with the child. She's making it on her own. But at the same time, she refuses to let the guy that helped put her in this situation have anything to do with the child because he hasnt helped to get her out. Is that a reasonable thing to do?

 

[Hexxed]

Sigh, the male birth control pill thats apparently in testing can't get released soon enough IMHO.

 

[Beloved]

Re: Now it Hubby's turn

Figured WTH, I'm already in the doghouse, how much worse can it get?

Why is it solely the guys responsibility to have the protection? In this "enlightened" day and age of IUD's, Depo Prevera (sp?) shots, etc., why should the guy still be held totally responsible when she comes up preggers? It takes two to tango, and all she had to do was say "No", that would have settled everything. Seems like a lot of feminazi (to quote the wife) BS to sit here and say it's all his fault just because he didn't wear a condom.

Now as for support, if you do the crime, you should do the time. The way they talk about it on tv and radio, almost everybody over the age of 5 knows how babies are made. If your stupid enough to take her word for it that she's on some kind of protection, then I've got a bridge in NY I'd love to sell you. Whether you like it or not, it's a pay to play kind of thing.

-H

back to the wife~

H you really don't get it at all do you? Vixenshe said it pretty well. Birth control for a man = rolling on a condom or avoiding intercourse. Maximum cost and effort exuded is under $10 and a moment of his day.
BC for a woman= a visit to her OBGYN, a highly invasive exam, body and mood altering chemicals, repetitive check ups to ensure effectiveness of said chemicals and a constant presence in a womans life. Maximum costs and effort exuded is quite a good bit higher depending on method of choice as well. Also not all women can tolerate such methods due to side effects. Of course I'm saying this to grown man who has 2 children concieved on birth control so he should know all that already.
I honestly think if a man ever had to walk a mile in a womans reproductive shoes he'd think much differently.

Also Willingandunsure made an excellent point. If the woman ever walked away from her child the way men do we'd be stoned in the court of public opinion, yet a man can treat his child as little more then another monthly bill and as long as he pays that bill on time have nothing further demanded of him.

 

[SIC]

I'm not forcing her to do anything other than taking the test. if she's not willing to take the test. Then why is it my full responsibility to assist in nurturing the child. If she can't take 5 minutes to piss in a cup for a piece of mind, then I sure as hell not planning on spending the next 18 on taking care of a kid. Especially when it can be prevented.

Ok i didnt read every post here but i think should take the test for you yes.

But what you just said here is a coward move. Everytime you have sex there are risk. So now if she is and she doesnt want to get rid of it then its time for you be a man!!! You are in 50% now and if you dont want to see the kid you will be supporting it for 18 year.

To me it sound like you shouldnt be having sex until you are ready for the thing that can come from it!!!

 

[Beloved]

Actually, yes she can walk away...

...thanks to a law passed due to all the dumpster babies. If a mother decides that she doesn't want a child but is opposed to abortion, she do one of two things. 1) Give it up for adoption, or 2) Just leave it at a hospital. I'm not sure of the complete wording but my understanding of the law is that as long as you leave the child in a hospital, church, police station, (I.E. Someplace where immediate professional care can be given) then all you have to do is leave it at the doorstep, don't even have to show yourself. But that's getting off subject.

It does take two to tango, but why is it the woman's responsibility to say no? If the man isnt saying no, then he is just as responsible if the woman ends up pregnant as the woman is, no matter the reason or state of mind when they had sex

I never said that the guy was not responsible, all I'm asking is why is everybody here blaming just the guy? Unless it's a non-consentual thing, the girl knows what she's doing and the consequences of it and consents to it, then if she has unprotected sex and gets preggers, she's just as much to blame as he is.

As for support, I said the guy had a responsibility to pay, not that he could be forced to. I'm sure we all know at least one person who got screwed on the support issue one way or another, either a guy paying to much or a woman not getting enough (any).

 

[SweetErika]

You girls are being too hard on the poor guy. He's trying to care for his unborn child.
I hear you says that he shouldn't interfere with her not getting prenatal care, and that he should pay child support.

You can't have it both ways. If she's pregnant, which has not been confirmed, then he's either in 100% and can make her get care, or he's out 100% and shouldn't pay support. You want her to "have her cake and eat it too".

Since he's linked by law to any child, he has the right in many places to compel her to take care of it even before it's born. There have been people charged with substance abuse while pregnant on the basis of the damage to the unborn. (Not that this is the case here, but it illustrates the logic used.) If she's pregnant she needs to be eating right, not drinking, etc. Postponing confirmation isn't wise. He should be able to compel her to take a test and act on the result. If he can't, then he's not a party to the child because he has no control over its welfare.

Finally, my personal opinion. Sex outside an agreed commitment to care for a possible child should not bind the father to support the child. If a guy finds out a girl he had a weekend fling with is pregnant with his child, and he doesn't want it, and mom keeps it, then he shouldn't have to support it.

I (and I suspect most of us) advocate her taking the test and getting prenatal care as soon as possible. If I was talking to the girl in question, I would tell her to do both in no uncertain terms. It's the "force her to take the test and should have an abortion so I don't have to take care of it" type-statements that bother me, because you simply can't force her to do things she doesn't want. Unless we're talking legal action for pre-natal care or drugs, then I agree the court system should make those decisions for her.

I also happen to agree somewhat with your personal opinion on planning pregnancy and paying child support. I agree that it's not right for a woman to get pregnant through deceptive means and make the father support it. However, under other circumstances, you have to assume the people involved weren't using proper care in preventing the pregnancy...if a man doesn't want a baby, he should do his very best to make sure it doesn't happen through condoms, spermicide in the condom, a vasectomy, only having sex with a committed partner, and abstinance.

What would happen if we let all of the parents who didn't want their children off the hook? Then, all of the people who are paying child support now could just say they didn't want the kid in the first place? We'd add a whole class of unwanted, hungry, poor children to society.

 

[Owlz]

I saw a great bumper sticker once...

... 'If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.'

 

[SweetErika]

Re: I saw a great bumper sticker once...

... 'If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.'

LOL...too bad so many people don't follow that advice! It's controversial and maybe off-topic, but I liked the one I saw yesterday...
"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

*Edited for the wording...it was off the first time.

 

[Beloved]

"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

This sat on the back of my car for years! Right along with the one that said " Every Mother is a working Mother!"

 

[ReadyOne]

My daddy taught me three things...

1. Never draw to an inside stright,

2. Never argue politics or religion,

3. Don't answer and empotional argument with logic.

PS: How's the poor (potential) child to be born doing? Getting nutrants? Not getting drugged?

 

[Cakegirl]

Finally, my personal opinion. Sex outside an agreed commitment to care for a possible child should not bind the father to support the child.

If a guy finds out a girl he had a weekend fling with is pregnant with his child, and he doesn't want it, and mom keeps it, then he shouldn't have to support it.

BC is a two way street but the money street seems only one way. The accidental pregnancy, if treated as an auto accident, would assign blame 50-50. But for an accidental child, it seems the blame is 100% to the father.

BS.

Sex does not require an "agreed commitment" to care for a possible child. Sex is designed to make babies. If you have sex, and a baby is made, that is not the time to claim ignorance or surprise, or to try to weasle out of commitment by saying that you had no legally binding contract.

If a guy finds out a girl he had a weekend fling with is pregnant, he has as much responsiblity as the woman does for that child. They were both stupid, and the probably should have not had sex or used birth control, but they didn't, and a baby was made, which is what happens with sex, you know.

The money doesn't have to be one way. If the father takes 100% of the custody of a child, and is responsible for all the financial and emotional expenditure, the mother would have to pay child support to the father, the same as if it went the other way. You just don't find that many dads taking that responsibility.

Cakegirl

 

[Beloved]

BS.
The money doesn't have to be one way. If the father takes 100% of the custody of a child, and is responsible for all the financial and emotional expenditure, the mother would have to pay child support to the father, the same as if it went the other way. You just don't find that many dads taking that responsibility.

That's true, the guy could get 100% custody, and therefore get paid child support then have to pay. But how many times has that happened? Not very! Judges, as a general rule, are very loath to give 100% custody to the father unless there's a clear cut danger to the child's welfare presented by the mother. In other words, unless the mom's a crackwhore or molester, she gets the kid. More and more fathers are getting 50% custody, but the hassles he has to go through just to get that almost make it more then it's worth. The system is very mother biased.

 

[SensualCealy]

First off, a woman can get pregnant even if she doesnt get her periods. Some women dont expell the lining of the uterus therefor dont get their periods like everyone else.

Second, I know its been said before but I quit reading the posts on here when the fingers started to be pointed, You both are at fault for not taking the proper measures to ensure pregnancy wouldnt be an issue let alone stds. If she is on the pill and you have a condom on , you both would be safe right now, or relatively. IF you carry your own condoms even better, you cant be trapped with pin pricked doms.

Third, sperm doesnt make you a dad, you can be a donor or you can fill the shoes of a dad, being there for the kid, showing him or her what its like to take responsability for mistakes or situations you rather not have happened. Many times the person that steps in is a better dad then the one that took off ,since its her fault she got pregnant- NOT always the case.

Fourth, she could be scared to death that you are going to take off if she says yes, its easier to ignore the situation then deal with it. I saw a girl at work this past week, not yet 15 and she looks like she is about 7 months along, who will be there for her?

Good luck, and dont cast blame until you discuss the situation as an adult with respect for the situation and for the unborn child if there is one. There is always adoption and if you both choose, abortion.

Cealy,
Pro choice is the only choice!

 

[Missingmeds]

Re: Re: Now it Hubby's turn

I agree with you. It's NOT just the man's responsibility to have protection. Between the two there should be SOMETHING. My point earlier was that men's protection is far less invasive than most women's protection options. You roll rubber on your dick. Woopee. We take pills, alter our hormones, stick devices (IUD's) into our uteri (uteruses?), deal with diaphragms and caps, blah blah blah. Much more irritating, difficult, time-consuming, and invasive.

However. Why can't the woman have a box of condoms on hand? When I make a date for sex (it's been a few years, people), I always insisted that a man bring protectin with him. If he forgot, I had condoms and spermicide available in my room.

Both should be responsible. Having said that, both should also be held responsible for the child.

I buy the condoms and the spermicide, and I am on BC pills. I take my part of the responsibility to not bring a child into this mess we call a world seriously, always have and always will.

I have been always been the one that had a spare condom or two handy if someone else needed one. Why? Because even in High school I knew how babies come about.

It is both parties responsibility to make that pregnancy and stds are not an issue and in preventing one, you help prevent the other.

Now as to the dumpster baby issue, we just had a judge here release a woman (college age woman) from jail after she had served less than 20 months for leaving her newborn in a dumpster and the baby died. Makes me want to puke, ( no, not morning sickness).

 

[love2teaseu]

BS

I am a woman and I agree with Ready One. He is being totally reasonable about all the contract stuff. It really makes sense. It is a load of crap. Women do INTENTIONALLY stop using bc and never tell their partner. That is DECEITFUL. And any woman who does deserves to get walked out on. Why would anyone want to stay with someone who LIES about one of the most important things in life. What other lies has she told. maybe the one about HONOR AND CHERISH!!!

But at the same time why should I have to pay for someone else's kid. I didn't do that, and it's not my problem. Why should I have to pay??? The fact is, someone does have to pay. And it should be the woman

The first 10 years of my relationship with my husband, I had to be on the pill to not get pregnant. And I by myself performed one of the most amazing miracles in the history of man kind. I DIDN"T get knocked up. I must be a freaking genius. It has been another five years since I stopped using the pill, yet the miracle continues.

I think it sounds more like this poor guy is getting jerked around. Dollars to donuts there is another girl around that he would rather be with, and she knows it. When are other women going to get it through their skulls that a baby doesn't make a man love you.

 

[TXappeal]

My 2 cents

Is her right to decide whether she wants to have the baby or not, the guys has no voice nor vote in this.

The guy does not have to contribute with anything unless, after the baby is born she requests child support. Of course, if a DNA test proves that the baby is not his, he does not have to pay anything.

If the guy is concerned that she won't get prenatal care, he can go to Adult Protective Services (or Child Protective Services if she is a minor) and file a report so a Social Worker can visit her and see that she gets proper attention.

A baby is not a purchase that you can negotiate. 'Why I have to pay' and similar idiotic remarks do not count in here. You did cum, now be responsible if it is called for.

You can not mandate a woman to use any contraceptive method. You can ask if she is using it. If she says no, or you suspect she is lying do not have sex with her, or use a condom.

For those guys who don't like the present state of affairs, you can tie your nuts, practice onanism in isolation (you can buy a very realistic doll for that purpose), or (God forbid) avoid sexual relationships altogether.

 

[boston_bbw]

Since it's almost been 2 weeks now maybe we need an update from Las Angles