Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Over the past few years I have learned that some pregnancies were accidental and not entirely preventable. But I have also learned that a lot of those accidents ended in full term pregnancy and birth with the intent of only the woman. 

For example : We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used. However due to potential statistical birth control failure it turns out two months later she finds out that she is pregnant.  Now legally speaking she has a few options, she can abort the pregnancy or allow a full term pregnancy with post birth options. 

However, in this case the man has no options, in fact the woman forces actions upon him, infringing on his freedoms as a would be father or none father. Given that the man and woman do not stay together as a family,  If the would be “mother “decides to raise the child, the would be “father” would have to pay child support. If the “mother” decides to get an abortion the “father” has no rights to deny the abortion. 

(Now I am not going to say the “father” should have a right to force the “mother” to give birth to a child she does not wish to have, although some arguments could be made for such cases. For instance, if she does not wish to have the baby and wishes to abort, then she would be liable for compensation to the “father” as  he has lost the ability to have that child, “denial of child” support. So basically if the woman wants to abort she would have to pay the man “denial of child support for the next 18 years, a reverse of the situation. ( again this is too extreme and would never happen))

Lets look at a different option, say the woman wishes to have the baby, however the man does not wish to have the baby (he does not wish to become a father). Could a system be in place where when accidental pregnancy happens and the woman wishes to have a child, the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? In other words, the would be father pays a certain amount equivalent to an abortion, to ensure that he is not legally the father and he has no duty to pay child care. This gives semi rights to both parties involved vs a system were all decisions are made by the woman. 

 

Current system:

Sex               Abortion?               Accepting pregnancy?                     agree?                                        Result?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Woman>       yes/no                              yes/no                                they both agree                      equal, mother/none, success

Man >            yes/no                              yes/no                                they both agree                       equal, father/none, success

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Woman>         no                                       yes                                           NO                            Mother, gets child support +18

Man >             yes                                      no                                             NO                      Forced fatherhood, forced child support +18 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
Woman>        yes                                       no                                            NO                         She has abortion, no further action

Man >             no                                        yes                                          NO                 He has no father rights, no ability for further action 


 

Amendment recommendation:

Sex             Abortion?                   Accepting pregnancy?                     agree?                                                                                   Result?

Woman>       no                                         yes                                             NO                              Mother gives birth to the baby, accepts abortion financial aid equivalency

Man >          yes                                          no                                               NO                             He has no fatherly rights to the baby, pays financial abortion aid equivalency

 

Thoughts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anthony said:

However due to potential statistical birth control failure it turns out two months later she finds out that she is pregnant.

However, in this case the man has no options, in fact the woman forces actions upon him, infringing on his freedoms as a would be father or none father

People who don't want to be parents don't leave all the birth control up to the other person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a man should have the same choice for an abortion as women.  If he chooses to have one, he never sees the child or has any responsibility for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dialamah said:

People who don't want to be parents don't leave all the birth control up to the other person.

I agree a responsible person generally does not get surprised by a pregnancy, since they have the self control to use proper protection. I was more referring to failed birth control or possible malicious actions caused by either party ( ie poking holes in condoms). One of the more common surprised pregnancies is when birth control pills are accidentally not taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Chapelle tackled this issue in his latest Netflix Special. 

"If you can kill this muthafucker, I can at least abandon him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Anthony said:

I agree a responsible person generally does not get surprised by a pregnancy, since they have the self control to use proper protection. I was more referring to failed birth control or possible malicious actions caused by either party ( ie poking holes in condoms). One of the more common surprised pregnancies is when birth control pills are accidentally not taken. 

Condoms do break or fall off. Plan B is there for that, but what if the woman refuses to take it? 

I'm astonished that men will automatically believe a woman, that she's regularly and responsibly taking a pill and that means they don't have to control their seed. 

Edited by Boges
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Boges said:

Condoms do break or fall off. Plan B is there for that, but what if the woman refuses to take it? 

I'm astonished that men will automatically believe a woman, that she's regularly and responsibly taking a pill and that means they don't have to control their seed. 

 

I was not aware of how known this is, known enough that Dave Chapelle  can talk about it freely apparently, thanks for sharing. 

 

I agree, and what ends up happening is completely up to the woman even though the intent was not to reproduce. 

Or the " you know how hard it is to get pregnant, it wont happen just this one time", many children have been made by irrational in the moment decisions. But I do wonder how many children would exist if both parties had a choice in the manner. I also wonder how many children would still be around if the mother knew that she would get no financial support of the would be father. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Anthony said:

if the mother knew that she would get no financial support of the would be father. 

Kind of stupid imo.  If you boys can't keep it put away don't whinge about the consequences.  Babies are one of the consequences of sex and if your condom breaks or her birth control fails, a baby may happen.  Complaining that she can opt out but you can't ignores the reality that women take all the risks of pregnancy or abortion, so it is their decision which risk they're more willing to take.

Child support is government-mandated because why should taxpayers be on the hook for your babies?  Not to mention the concerted effort, in the States, to deny women access to both abortion and birth control, the way conservatives and the religious right in Canada shames women for having babies they "can't afford" and also shaming them for having abortions - and maybe you'll get an idea why you don't get to just walk away free and clear from a baby you took part in creating.

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Kind of stupid imo.  If you boys can't keep it put away don't whinge about the consequences.  Babies are one of the consequences of sex and if your condom breaks or her birth control fails, a baby may happen.  Complaining that she can opt out but you can't ignores the reality that women take all the risks of pregnancy or abortion, so it is their decision which risk they're more willing to take.

Child support is government-mandated because why should taxpayers be on the hook for your babies?  Not to mention the concerted effort, in the States, to deny women access to both abortion and birth control, the way conservatives and the religious right in Canada shames women for having babies they "can't afford" and also shaming them for having abortions - and maybe you'll get an idea why you don't get to just walk away free and clear from a baby you took part in creating.

I disagree.  I'm pro choice, and pro equality.  I don't believe a woman has to take responsibility and not whinge about the consequences so I don't see why a man should.  The reasons you give why a woman should be able to opt out but a man should not do not make sense to me.  A woman has to go through the pregnancy, which I hear is not much fun, but I can't imagine being on the hook for an unwanted offspring until it reaches 18 is much fun either.

 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dialamah said:

Child support is government-mandated because why should taxpayers be on the hook for your babies?  Not to mention the concerted effort, in the States, to deny women access to both abortion and birth control, the way conservatives and the religious right in Canada shames women for having babies they "can't afford" and also shaming them for having abortions - and maybe you'll get an idea why you don't get to just walk away free and clear from a baby you took part in creating.

Well, in Canada, access to abortions are not an issue. Especially if the "fetus" is unwanted from the get-go. 

We've decided, as a society, not to force a women to have a child she doesn't want, but we don't have a problem forcing a man to support a child he doesn't want. 

Is it always the man's fault when birth control does fail? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Boges said:

Is it always the man's fault when birth control does fail? 

No, but it's his risk as much as the woman's that sex will result in s pregnancy.  Men need to understand that. 

Too many men, and women, want to put all the responsibility of birth control and all the consequences of pregnancy on the woman, with the man "opting in" if he feels like being a dad, financially or otherwise.  Women  not men, deal with societal censure for getting pregnant when they lack money, and getting an abortion for any reason  including because they lack money.  

Men need to understand that a possible consequence of pregnancy is a child who will need a father.  If they don't want that, they should use a condom regardless of the birth control the woman uses.  They should know the woman's moral or religious stance on abortion before having sex.   Boys should be taught this from a young age  the same way girls are taught to avoid putting themselves in situations where they could be raped.

Life isn't fair, the best we can do is mitigate risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well, in Canada, access to abortions are not an issue. Especially if the "fetus" is unwanted from the get-go.

 

Not true....

 

Quote

Because some provinces have failed to provide accessible or funded abortion services as per the Canada Health Act, access to abortion is still difficult for many people, especially those in rural, remote, or conservative areas; minority and immigrant women; low-income women; teenagers; transgender people, and other disadvantaged groups.

Lack of access to abortion violates women’s and trans peoples’ constitutional rights, but governments often lack the political will to make abortion accessible. Even the medical profession has succumbed to anti-abortion pressure by not performing abortions or training providers.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/access.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dialamah said:

No, but it's his risk as much as the woman's that sex will result in s pregnancy.  Men need to understand that. 

Too many men, and women, want to put all the responsibility of birth control and all the consequences of pregnancy on the woman, with the man "opting in" if he feels like being a dad, financially or otherwise.  Women  not men, deal with societal censure for getting pregnant when they lack money, and getting an abortion for any reason  including because they lack money.  

Men need to understand that a possible consequence of pregnancy is a child who will need a father.  If they don't want that, they should use a condom regardless of the birth control the woman uses.  They should know the woman's moral or religious stance on abortion before having sex.   Boys should be taught this from a young age  the same way girls are taught to avoid putting themselves in situations where they could be raped.

Life isn't fair, the best we can do is mitigate risk.

Absolutely, both men and women contribute to reproduction and share the risk of reproduction. Yes women are at a higher risk and are affected by the consequences of pregnancy. Women are the holders of reproduction, women inherently have to be smart when having sex, because it effects them more than a man. IE if this is a one night stand and not a long term  possible "dad" then maybe strong birth control should be used. Vise versa if a man has a one night stand and the woman is not a long term possible " mother" than strong birth control should be used, yet he has no control after the fact if the birth control fails, where as she does.  

Women deal with societal censure, why?  Societal censure come from making bad decisions made by men or women, not from pregnancy or abortion.

I think men do understand the possible consequences of pregnancy. In my opinion if you told a man or a woman right before sex that this would result in pregnancy I doubt most would continue. 

My concern is that there is an unspoken contract where if you use a condom or women use birth control and have sex, the intent of that sex is for pleasure and specifically not to reproduce. Yet once pregnancy is confirmed, that contract is assumed to be void, why?

The other option is to terminate:

Man and woman have sex, birth control was used by either or both participants, she gets pregnant.  Since birth control was used it means the woman goes through an automatic abortion by law, she has no choice, he has no choice since the choice was made before the act of having sex by using birth control. Simple and equal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Anthony said:

Women deal with societal censure, why?  Societal censure come from making bad decisions made by men or women, not from pregnancy or abortion.

In which case, women are in a lose-lose situation because even in our progressive society, if they have a baby out-of-wedlock, they are censured, especially if they don't have much money.  If they have an abortion, they are censured for being careless "using abortion as birth control", and being a murderer.  

Men are only censured if they fail to pay child support, and you'd be surprised by how many men simply disappear, even on kids they said they wanted, leaving the woman to raise them.

It isn't fair, I agree.  Men and women make mistakes and there are consequences.  Men who think abortion availability should be their "get out of jail free" card do not understand that many women, while supporting abortion in the abstract, would never have an abortion themselves for moral or religious reasons.   They underestimate the effect birth control, abortion and pregnancy can have on a woman's body and mental health and over-estimate women's dishonesty and avarice to justify their desire for consequence-free sex.  It isn't fair, and men have to take their lumps just like women do when it comes to unintended pregnancy.

45 minutes ago, Anthony said:

My concern is that there is an unspoken contract where if you use a condom or women use birth control and have sex, the intent of that sex is for pleasure and specifically not to reproduce.

"Unspoken contract" does not exist.  If you want a contract, get it in writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

In which case, women are in a lose-lose situation because even in our progressive society, if they have a baby out-of-wedlock, they are censured, especially if they don't have much money.  If they have an abortion, they are censured for being careless "using abortion as birth control", and being a murderer.  

Men are only censured if they fail to pay child support, and you'd be surprised by how many men simply disappear, even on kids they said they wanted, leaving the woman to raise them.

It isn't fair, I agree.  Men and women make mistakes and there are consequences.  Men who think abortion availability should be their "get out of jail free" card do not understand that many women, while supporting abortion in the abstract, would never have an abortion themselves for moral or religious reasons.   They underestimate the effect birth control, abortion and pregnancy can have on a woman's body and mental health and over-estimate women's dishonesty and avarice to justify their desire for consequence-free sex.  It isn't fair, and men have to take their lumps just like women do when it comes to unintended pregnancy.

"Unspoken contract" does not exist.  If you want a contract, get it in writing.

Yes women will be censured for making bad decisions and carelessness with sex since they are the key holders to reproduction. Yes men will be censured for making bad decisions and carelessness with sex since they are the providers of sperm. I do not think this is a bad thing, you do not want to encourage people to make bad decisions in society. 

Men are censured especially if they go around having unprotected sex with women, not only STI transmission but also the high risk of getting a woman pregnant. It is very irresponsible and looked down upon in a social setting, even with other men.  

Woman are not the victims of pregnancy, they have an equal role in decision to have unprotected sex, they currently have the unanimous decision of continuing until birth.  Fortunately, We live in a society were women can say no at any point during sex, we are not talking about women who are forced into sex/rape, we are talking a woman and man enter into a mutual agreement to have sex, if that sex is not protected both the man and the woman are at fault for not stopping.

"They underestimate the effect birth control, abortion and pregnancy can have on a woman's body and mental health" I agree some men do underestimate those effects, that is true. But coming back to my post, what happens when a man does take the responsibility of using a condom, it breaks, it has a hole in it or somehow she gets pregnant, either by choice or by accident and she wants to keep the baby. It can not be that even though the man took the required responsibility and use birth control, he is still forced to provide or be a father to the kid just because she demands it of him. 

Would an acceptable system work if every time a man and woman have sex,  they sign a contract stating it is purely for pleasure and not reproduction, in that it would automatically void any responsibility to the possible child by of either party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DELETED RE-COPIED OPENING POST

I am sorry but I mediated family disputes for over 20 years. You mind telling me how a pregnancy is accidental? You either use a contraceptive or you do not as a male. Unless a woman deliberately pokes a hole in the contraceptive while the man is not looking there is no accident. Give me a break.

Your entire premises tries to make up an excuse for discharging your sperm in a vagina without a contraceptive. It then comes up with an absurd payment, to avoid responsibility for the consequence of that action, i.e., "the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? "

Your payment scheme is absurd. Tell it to the child as they grow up that their biological father  paid the equivalent of an abortion fee, so does not have to help them with expenses.

How much is the abortion fee? You do realize it  ranges from $0 to $1,200?  I know that for a fact. Is that it? Is that what you think you should pay for consequence free ejaculation?  You realize if you have sex and spread a sexually transmitted disease to a woman she can sue for more then that?

Use a contraceptive.

Edited by Charles Anthony
DELETED RE-COPIED OPENING POST
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rue said:

I am sorry but I mediated family disputes for over 20 years. You mind telling me how a pregnancy is accidental? You either use a contraceptive or you do not as a male. Unless a woman deliberately pokes a hole in the contraceptive while the man is not looking there is no accident. Give me a break.

Your entire premises tries to make up an excuse for discharging your sperm in a vagina without a contraceptive. It then comes up with an absurd payment, to avoid responsibility for the consequence of that action, i.e., "the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? "

Your payment scheme is absurd. Tell it to the child as they grow up that their biological father  paid the equivalent of an abortion fee, so does not have to help them with expenses.

How much is the abortion fee? You do realize it  ranges from $0 to $1,200?  I know that for a fact. Is that it? Is that what you think you should pay for consequence free ejaculation?  You realize if you have sex and spread a sexually transmitted disease to a woman she can sue for more then that?

Use a contraceptive.

The notion that there is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy is preposterous.

The notion that choice should apply to women but not to men equally so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 3:00 PM, Rue said:

I am sorry but I mediated family disputes for over 20 years. You mind telling me how a pregnancy is accidental? You either use a contraceptive or you do not as a male. Unless a woman deliberately pokes a hole in the contraceptive while the man is not looking there is no accident. Give me a break.

Your entire premises tries to make up an excuse for discharging your sperm in a vagina without a contraceptive. It then comes up with an absurd payment, to avoid responsibility for the consequence of that action, i.e., "the man can optionally pay the abortion equivalency financial amount or give a certain amount of time so that he is released of all liabilities to the baby after birth as a father/caretaker? "

Your payment scheme is absurd. Tell it to the child as they grow up that their biological father  paid the equivalent of an abortion fee, so does not have to help them with expenses.

How much is the abortion fee? You do realize it  ranges from $0 to $1,200?  I know that for a fact. Is that it? Is that what you think you should pay for consequence free ejaculation?  You realize if you have sex and spread a sexually transmitted disease to a woman she can sue for more then that?

Use a contraceptive.

 

 

"use a contraceptive" My proposal was walking through the idea that a contraceptive was used or that an unjustified deliberate action taken by the man or the woman was used to sabotage the contraceptive.

 

" You mind telling me how a pregnancy is accidental?" Failure rate of common contraceptives: Male condoms 13%, female condoms 21%

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm

 

"Your entire premises tries to make up an excuse for discharging your sperm in a vagina without a contraceptive." It does? Did you read what I wrote?

"We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used"  

 

"Tell it to the child as they grow up that their biological father paid the equivalent of an abortion fee, so does not have to help them with expenses."  This has nothing to do with what I am proposing, feel free to start a new thread for the long term effects to the failed contraceptive children. 

"You realize if you have sex and spread a sexually transmitted disease to a woman she can sue for more then that?"

If there was a possibility that she could decide to have a sexually transmitted disease "abortion" then I would disagree with such actions. But since she is forced to be infected by the STD, she is without choice and thus has the right to sue.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony I was not clear on your premises, specifically:  "" My proposal was walking through the idea that a contraceptive was used or that an unjustified deliberate action taken by the man or the woman was used to sabotage the contraceptive. "

If a  man could show a woman deliberately sabotaged a contraceptive to get pregnant she commits a deliberate or pre-meditated act.

However I would advise you its usually the other way around, i.e.,

https://sex-crimes.laws.com/sex-crimes-news/contraceptive-sabotage-happening-to-many-women-36302.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2896047/

https://www.stdaware.com/blog/cutting-holes-in-condom-sabotage-legalities/

I also know this myself from anecdotal evidence having worked with abusive men in the family court system.

Do women trick men and get pregnant. Of course it may happen. How often does it happen I do not know.

I can tell you if a man pokes a hole in a contraceptive and makes a woman pregnant without her consent it could constitute a sexual assault in Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/man-who-sabotaged-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault-top-court-rules/article17367231/

Here is the specific wording from the above article that talks about whether it would be a crime for a woman to sabotage a condom:

"Peter Sankoff, a specialist in criminal law at the University of Alberta, said that psychological harm could in rare cases be a foundation for a future sexual assault claim by a man, say, whose condoms were sabotaged by a woman so she could have a baby. In a series of tweets, he said he knows many men who experienced an unwanted child, and as a result "spiralled downward" psychologically.

Others, including Michael Plaxton of the University of Saskatchewan law school, Sonia Lawrence of York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, and Luke Craggs, the lawyer for Mr. Hutchinson, disagreed, saying the court would limit charges to cases where there was bodily harm.

"My preliminary view is that the decision seems to have been carefully written such that women who lie about birth control don't have the same jeopardy," Mr. Craggs said in an interview. Mr. Hutchinson was found guilty at his trial and sentenced to 18 months in jail, but had been free on bail awaiting the Supreme Court ruling.

A man with unwanted paternity would have to show the same level of harm as a woman experiences from an unwanted pregnancy, said Elizabeth Sheehy, who teaches law at the University of Ottawa. "It would be a tough case to make. I don't think it's impossible. I think it's pretty remote. Would it be different if a man had repeatedly communicated his vulnerability in that regard and had his wishes deliberately thwarted? I don't know – you'd be making new law here."

In previous rulings, the Supreme Court has upheld aggravated sexual assault findings where individuals did not disclose that they have the Hiv virus – because it carries a "significant risk of serious bodily harm." But the rulings on Hiv disclosure, the court's majority said on Friday, "did not foreclose the possibility that other types of harm may amount to equally serious deprivations." It could have said "bodily harm." It just said "harm." "

That's the best answer I can give you right now. So in the specific case you have presented their MIGHT be a criminal charge layed. MIGHT being the operative word. If you wanted to sue a woman in civil court for a tort, i.e., bodily injury caused by such an action, it would say have to be exposure to a disease, perhaps emotional stress and suffering but I think the law is completely vague and unpredictable whether a woman who deliberately sabotages a contraceptive to get pregnant can get financial support from the man she deceived. Its just not clear. We just don't have any cases to go by. All I can tell you is courts always put the best interests of the child first. If they thought a woman went full term as part of a financial coercion scam, they might just have the grounds to take the child away from her and adopt the child out if they thought the mother was not a good candidate to keep the child and the biological (deceived) father did not want the child. I have a feeling in such a case they could take the baby away from the mother. Imagine a mother who only wanted a child for money. That does not sound like its in the best interests of the child but I have a feeling in such a case they might not be able to force the child on the biological father as he too would be a reluctant parent and therefore poor candidate.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

Anthony I was not clear on your premises, specifically:  "" My proposal was walking through the idea that a contraceptive was used or that an unjustified deliberate action taken by the man or the woman was used to sabotage the contraceptive. "

If a  man could show a woman deliberately sabotaged a contraceptive to get pregnant she commits a deliberate or pre-meditated act.

However I would advise you its usually the other way around, i.e.,

https://sex-crimes.laws.com/sex-crimes-news/contraceptive-sabotage-happening-to-many-women-36302.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2896047/

https://www.stdaware.com/blog/cutting-holes-in-condom-sabotage-legalities/

I also know this myself from anecdotal evidence having worked with abusive men in the family court system.

Do women trick men and get pregnant. Of course it may happen. How often does it happen I do not know.

I can tell you if a man pokes a hole in a contraceptive and makes a woman pregnant without her consent it could constitute a sexual assault in Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/man-who-sabotaged-condoms-guilty-of-sexual-assault-top-court-rules/article17367231/

 

 

(Sorry I do not want to quote the entire text as it might get a little long. )

 

None of those links have statistical facts, they are based on a single survey. I also question the intended bias, why were only women surveyed?

 "Reproductive control including pregnancy coercion (coercion by male partners to become pregnant) and birth control sabotage (partner interference with contraception) may be associated with partner violence and risk for unintended pregnancy among young adult females utilizing family planning clinic services."

 This is a bias sample set, this is only women utilizing family planning clinic services. They did not sample the average female population they sampled women already in need of family planning, which generally have been abused or are in a unwanted pregnancy situation.  Where is the survey of men for reproductive control coercion,? Again we have a one sided sample set.

 

"I also know this myself from anecdotal evidence having worked with abusive men in the family court system."  I am sure there are many abusive men and women that is awful, abusive partners are horrible and destroy future relationships. But for those partners that are not abusive yet have accidental pregnancies how can we make it fair in terms of choice to both sexes? 

 

It is good to see that it is illegal to sabotage contraception, I am not sure how a man or a woman could totally prove in court sabotage of a contraceptive without a guilty plea, as in the link. I was also remarking upon the failure of contraceptives since they can fail and result in a accidental pregnancy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthony I do appreciate your points. How prevalent a problem men being tricked by women  into impregnating them is probably hard to define as one would think many of such situations would not be reported by men but I am not sure whether this warrants any legal reform. As for biasthe articles are not I agree infallible I just offered them up so you can see its a problem for women as well and there are stats for it but they would be reported by wome.. Having worked with men in the court system, most of them abusive, I do have a bias yes from seeing so much domestic violence but I hope you see I am not trying to be deliberately bias with you but I admit it so you d not think I am white washing your concern. I also think the subject matter is inherently bias in this sense, that pregnancy does not happen to men physically , so ultimately it happens to a woman and presents that added issue to them we men do not have.

By the way, proving criminal fraud is almost impossible in Canada. You have to be able to show a premeditated plan to deceive someone to specifically get money out of them. The need to prove that beyond reasonable doubt is very difficult indeed to do with fraud and this is why you see when it is done there is usually written evidence and/or videos. Its a tough thing to prove even when in a civil tort case you need only show on a balance of probabilities your position, then it switched to the defendant to prove beyond reasonable doubt they did not do the sabotage. The easiest defence to it is stupidity by the way.

Yes as you said condoms leak but if we are specifically talking about pin holes put in condoms, as I told you any woman found to have done this and who gets caught is  probably not going to be able to force child support  on men if it was proven  and as I said the child will probably be taken away from her if the courts find out that was the motive of pregnancy and they suspect the mother is unfit. So my explanation is trying to show you the system has not necessarily allowed this to be a major problem. 

I am aware of domestic violence studies of women beating men or sexually assaulting them  but not coercing them by poking holes in condoms. I worked on both the criminal prosecutor side and then in the family courts on sexual assault and violence issues, particularly of children. Some women genetically can get pregnant even on the pill. I am no expert but I was always told iud's were the safest of the contraceptions devices to prevent pregnancy but obviously they do not stop transmission of diseases and they can infect women. As for men, if they are that worried maybe they should put the contraceptive on themselves out of the package.

That may not be a legal issue but a trust issue.

Anyways Anthony what do I know I am a virgin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rue said:

Anthony I do appreciate your points. How prevalent a problem men being tricked by women  into impregnating them is probably hard to define as one would think many of such situations would not be reported by men but I am not sure whether this warrants any legal reform. As for biasthe articles are not I agree infallible I just offered them up so you can see its a problem for women as well and there are stats for it but they would be reported by wome.. Having worked with men in the court system, most of them abusive, I do have a bias yes from seeing so much domestic violence but I hope you see I am not trying to be deliberately bias with you but I admit it so you d not think I am white washing your concern. I also think the subject matter is inherently bias in this sense, that pregnancy does not happen to men physically , so ultimately it happens to a woman and presents that added issue to them we men do not have.

By the way, proving criminal fraud is almost impossible in Canada. You have to be able to show a premeditated plan to deceive someone to specifically get money out of them. The need to prove that beyond reasonable doubt is very difficult indeed to do with fraud and this is why you see when it is done there is usually written evidence and/or videos. Its a tough thing to prove even when in a civil tort case you need only show on a balance of probabilities your position, then it switched to the defendant to prove beyond reasonable doubt they did not do the sabotage. The easiest defence to it is stupidity by the way.

Yes as you said condoms leak but if we are specifically talking about pin holes put in condoms, as I told you any woman found to have done this and who gets caught is  probably not going to be able to force child support  on men if it was proven  and as I said the child will probably be taken away from her if the courts find out that was the motive of pregnancy and they suspect the mother is unfit. So my explanation is trying to show you the system has not necessarily allowed this to be a major problem. 

I am aware of domestic violence studies of women beating men or sexually assaulting them  but not coercing them by poking holes in condoms. I worked on both the criminal prosecutor side and then in the family courts on sexual assault and violence issues, particularly of children. Some women genetically can get pregnant even on the pill. I am no expert but I was always told iud's were the safest of the contraceptions devices to prevent pregnancy but obviously they do not stop transmission of diseases and they can infect women. As for men, if they are that worried maybe they should put the contraceptive on themselves out of the package.

That may not be a legal issue but a trust issue.

Anyways Anthony what do I know I am a virgin.

 

Rue, I was not aware of difficulties pertaining to premeditated sabotage. This is concerning for both parties involved as that means realistically two people having sex take an extremely high risk by assuming that both parties are of the same opinion for the outcome of the sex. 

You could be right, it is a trust issue between the two parties. I was more proposing that if people continue to have sex without a strong trust between them, that either party may not fully understand the risks involved. I was hoping to mitigate the risks by creating a choice for both parties if an unwanted outcome emerges. 

I agree it is also the men responsibility to verify contraception integrity. From an anecdote : friend found that all his newly bought unused condoms had small pin holes through the package, this was discovered after filling up the condom with water for integrity verification. Later he found his girlfriend had decided to get pregnant and decided to "adjust" the contraception with a few pin holes without his knowledge. That relationship ended very quickly. But again as you said very difficult to prove, I would also question the decision to be in an untrustworthy relationship.  

But to some degree it should be more apparent especially to younger generations that even though contraception is used, it does not mean there is no pregnancy risk, which at least from my experience has been assumed. (Basically don't have sex with someone with whom you would not potentially want a child) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 3:01 PM, Anthony said:

 

Rue, I was not aware of difficulties pertaining to premeditated sabotage. This is concerning for both parties involved as that means realistically two people having sex take an extremely high risk by assuming that both parties are of the same opinion for the outcome of the sex. 

You could be right, it is a trust issue between the two parties. I was more proposing that if people continue to have sex without a strong trust between them, that either party may not fully understand the risks involved. I was hoping to mitigate the risks by creating a choice for both parties if an unwanted outcome emerges. 

I agree it is also the men responsibility to verify contraception integrity. From an anecdote : friend found that all his newly bought unused condoms had small pin holes through the package, this was discovered after filling up the condom with water for integrity verification. Later he found his girlfriend had decided to get pregnant and decided to "adjust" the contraception with a few pin holes without his knowledge. That relationship ended very quickly. But again as you said very difficult to prove, I would also question the decision to be in an untrustworthy relationship.  

But to some degree it should be more apparent especially to younger generations that even though contraception is used, it does not mean there is no pregnancy risk, which at least from my experience has been assumed. (Basically don't have sex with someone with whom you would not potentially want a child) 

Your intent is perhaps benevolent but there is a limit to how far the state can regulate how any man uses his penis

Call me a libertarian when it comes to my penis. I think I would d a a better job regulating my penis than a Ministry of Penis Authority investigator giving me an audit thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...