Poll: Abortion : Should men get a say?

[Agema]

I also got thinking, anybody ever heard of the crazy women, the kind who lie about taking contraception in order to trap a man with a child for 18 years? does this kind of pregnacy deserve to be looked at differantly or is it still the same situation? To me i would see that as some sort of crime, guys definaly should have some way out there.

Which is why stories like this [http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html] continue to give me some amount of hope for the future, however small.

Let's put the story another way. That bloke starts screwing some girl he suspects is a bit unstable and needy just because she's a good lay, and lets the relationship progress evidently without letting her think he's just in it for fun. Then, when she goes a bit mental, instead of explaining straight away he's had a vasectomy, he cooks up an elaborate, vindictive scheme to humiliate her as much as possible, enjoying her evident distress throughout the process. Then, just in case he's not behaved enough like a scumbag from the story alone, he chucks in a few grossly misogynistic comments like (my emphasis added): "with all the moral self-righteousness that only a woman can muster up"; "she reverts to women's logic" (i.e., he means no logic at all).

I don't think vindictive misogynists bragging about using, then baiting and emotionally devastating vulnerable or messed-up women is that funny or any hope for the future at all.

 

[Sark]

You shouldn't be having sex with someone who doesn't agree with abortions. Unless, of course you are comitted to them in a long term relationship. If contraception fails, abort it, abortion is really just another form of contraception, you didn't mean to have a baby so failed condom and then not aborting is being indecisive.

Basically, if you want to be promiscuous, be prepared to have an abortion.

 

[Scrythe]

I also got thinking, anybody ever heard of the crazy women, the kind who lie about taking contraception in order to trap a man with a child for 18 years? does this kind of pregnacy deserve to be looked at differantly or is it still the same situation? To me i would see that as some sort of crime, guys definaly should have some way out there.

Which is why stories like this [http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html] continue to give me some amount of hope for the future, however small.

Let's put the story another way. That bloke starts screwing some girl he suspects is a bit unstable and needy just because she's a good lay, and lets the relationship progress evidently without letting her think he's just in it for fun. Then, when she goes a bit mental, instead of explaining straight away he's had a vasectomy, he cooks up an elaborate, vindictive scheme to humiliate her as much as possible, enjoying her evident distress throughout the process. Then, just in case he's not behaved enough like a scumbag from the story alone, he chucks in a few grossly misogynistic comments like (my emphasis added): "with all the moral self-righteousness that only a woman can muster up"; "she reverts to women's logic" (i.e., he means no logic at all).

I don't think vindictive misogynists bragging about using, then baiting and emotionally devastating vulnerable or messed-up women is that funny or any hope for the future at all.

You've obviously never been in this situation before, but I can tell you from experience that it's no picnic. After something like that, I think he reserves the right to a little bit of a misogynist about it.

Also, I'm very sure he wasn't porking her just "because he suspects she is unstable". I'm sorry, but I have yet to meet someone who's into that. By my assessment, he found out she was nuts after they dated for a while, and like a normal man he got sick and tired of her shit and broomed her fast.

Now I'm not saying all women are like this, but you can't ignore the fact that this sort of thing is becoming increasingly common. In fact, I know several women who actually do this to several different guys just for that sweet, sweet child support. And one of them is a fyke.

 

[DagothNereviar]

I had to register so I could get my say on the topic. I believe it should be a "case-by-case" sort of situation.

If the woman wants the baby, but the man doesn't (and it was an accidental impregnation), and she goes ahead with birth, then the man should have NO responsibilites for the child, but likewise NO rights either. If he decides within a few years he wishes to be part of the family, because he's now more financially secure, then the woman (and possibly child, depending on age. And maybe even any step-parent the child has) can decide (most likely need to be in some form of court or legal situation) whether or not to allow him to.

If the woman doesn't want the baby, but the man does, but the woman is happy to give birth [edit: or has to due to religious views] (with compensation. and once again it's through accidental impregnation) then I think (like someone in the first page suggested) the man should pay for the woman to have sick-leave for x months (probably between 9 and 12, or whatever) and pay for her medical bills (that are related to being pregnant/giving birth) but then when the baby is out, the woman (like with the above scenario) has NO rights and NO responsibilites for the child. [Edit: Likewise, tho, should she opt to be back in, she should have the right to say so, but whether or not is down to the father/child/step-parent]

[edit 2]
Should the man want the baby, but the woman wishes to have an abortion, and it was an accidental impregnation, then the woman needs to pay the man compensation (probably not as much as the above situation, though)
[/edit 2]

Although, thinking about it, there should be a "month trial period" (sounds rather horrible, I know) incase after the childs been given birth, then they end up changing their minds.

If the woman gets pregnant and BOTH parents know about it (or if no contreception was used) then it's tough and the same laws apply as now (which is pretty much the woman decides).

However, if the woman is sneaky and lies about contreception just to get pregnant, then he can just completely opt out for everything, and the woman should be sentenced (I can imagine this being classed as something similar to "rape").
If a man is likewise sneaky and lies, then the woman gets to decide what happens. If she decides to keep it (or is forced to due to religious views) then the man should pay her compensation (and possibly child support) and likewise be sentenced.

I can't see a problem in that tbh xD

 

[pdgeorge]

Swine, as a female (I'm geussing?) you have every right to say "no I don't want to have sex" don't you? (same as guys do) the concequences of sex are sometimes HUGE. Both parties have to understand them and be willing to say BEFORE THEY TAKE THE RISK "Yes I'm prepared for this should the worst come around"
(or they should ATLEAST just look at better methods of contraception. While none are 100% if things are done correctly, It should work out to be alot lower, if not negligable)

Wrong guess.

Also, sex is not just for procreation, nor should it be. It is also for fun, for pair bonding, for love, for any one of a hundred other reasons, in us and in other animals.

However, unlike a lot of other animals, human females don't give any external signs that they are ovulating, so we need other ways to control conception and gestation in order to avoid unwanted births, because even outside of the periphery cases, there are many many people who are simply not able to support a child, whether that's financially, emotionally, or physically, through the nine months of gestation and the 18 years of dependent childhood, and people should not be forced into doing so.

Understandable, however how come the majority of women who say "I don't want to have children, but I want to have sex" don't follow through with the majority of contraceptive ideas? They think "oh yes, there is this one, I'll use this" without delving into the idea of other contraceptives aswell (that doesn't mean the man shouldn't aswell think about correct contraceptives, but women have a wider variety and primarily the ones offered to women are mainly aimed at stopping pregnancy)

'The pill' for one example, my girlfriend has been on it for a fair while, we've been having sex for over a year now with no other protection required and nothing so much as a scare in the whole time (honestly thats not quite the best thing that I would suggest to anyone else at all, however we both have decided we're happy to have kids if the issue did arise).
Implanon (the implant thing) is a similar thing, it doesn't work for all girls, however for some girls it's more effective then the pill.

but yeah, sorry just got lost there. If girls want to have the say so strongly "we want to have the right to choose if we have an abortion or not!" why arn't they first encouraged to sort through the multiple forms of contraceptives?
wouldn't it be better for the 'pro-abortion' for their image if they stopped pushing abortion so strongly, but instead offered up an alternative. "we will teach and encourage the use of correct contraceptives strongly. This way, there should be less need for abortions"

 

[mikecoulter]

I think men should have more of a choice if contraception failed. Otherwise, it's their fault and should have expected such a thing.

 

[Epitome]

1) Dont have sex?.. okay thats so not an option. Thin kabout your teenage years and what an important part sexual development was. you cant hold off on that till late 20's early 30's at the soonest. Imagine how awful that would be? a nation of 20some virgins all pissing their pants about sex... sounds teh liek catholic churches days. Sex is for reproduction but that is no longer its primary purpose in todays society.Today sex is about recreation, almost all media have sex incorperated in one way or another its impossible to not have sex until your ready for children without being a social outcast?
2) your last part about contarception i s in direct conflict with your earlier example, say driving down the road teh negligable chance tat of teh 10000 pedestrians teh one suicidal ine jumps in front of your car? Negligable factors are ones that are just that negligable, but in the case of conception ie a child being born no risk can be considered negligable. Only when contraception is 100% safe will it be a negligable factor.

1) I stated the whole "or they should ATLEAST just look at better methods of contraception. While none are 100% if things are done correctly, It should work out to be alot lower, if not negligable" at the END because I didn't want to keep justifying "don't have sex unless you have 100% contraception" each and every time. I understand alot of people want to just fool around and have sex etc. but what I'm saying is if your not prepared for the concequences, don't do it. Think about my teenage years? I'm 21, I first had sex when I was 19. The way your talking is as if sex is something everybody HAS to do no matter what. The more that 'helpful' people like you keep encouraging everyone "COME ON GUYS! ROOT! ROOT EACHOTHER! DO IT!" the more that people just keep having sex for the sake of it (and continue to forget to be careful more and more about contraception) People shouldn't just be having sex for the sake of it, the more people rely on meaningless sex the more relationships break down among heaps of other issues. (As so many people here have even said they don't have to care about sex massivly, just because you don't have sex regularly doesn't mean you are a social outcast.)
Plus SEX isn't the only sexual thing out there, what happened to the days when sex was like "oh we've been fooling around for about a year now... I think it's time we went that far"

2) .... ok THIS is the one that screwed me trying to understand what you even said...
'say driving down the road teh negligable chance tat of teh 10000 pedestrians teh one suicidal ine jumps in front of your car?'?!?
what the hell is wrong with you? that sentance not only didn't make sence, but it had nothing to do with my example!
What I said was "killed a family of 5" (IE: It was YOU who was the person that turned around and hit THEM) not "suicidal" pedestrians jumping infront of you. What you said (if applied to the same context as me) is bassically talking about a girl turning around and screwing a guy specifically TO get pregnant and lieing to him about it.
And I said "CONTRACEPTION IS CAN NOT BE 100% SAFE!" because it seriously can not be. There is always problems, errors, etc.
If anything, contraception (in relation to the driving analogy) is representative of 'paying close attention to everything around you, driving safely etc.' which would once again minimize the chance of hitting someone (or getting someone pregnant)

K i worded my example wrong, you said that the guy driving his car has 99.999% chance of not hitting sum1 but if he does its his fault. My point was that if hes the unlucky dude who gets the .001 because of something outside his control (hence suicdal guy) i dont think he should be held to blame. In teh case of failed contraception the .001 represents the unlucky. its nobodys fault when it fails, it wasnt supposed to happen but it did and now the situation exists. Should the man who is now in the situation get NO say at all in the last remaining way of preventing this reality from occuring. Say mand and wife have 99.99 percent of not having child, then it happens man has 0.00% say while woman has 100% say in the abortion choice, i think thats unfair. Sorry i didnt word it better.

And for the first i wasnt suggesting that abstience is impossible or even that sex is mandatory ( although i did get and American pie flashback reading). i mean that todays society has a difefrant view on sex, when a couple first has sex has gone from "oh we've been fooling around for about a year now... I think it's time we went that far" to the " 3 date rule". That snot something anyone can do anything about its just the way alot of public opinion has gone. sex doesnt have the stigma attached, see i live in ireland where divorce was only legalised less than 15 years ago, the pill only became available shortly after, there wasa ban on contraceptions. After the decades of repression attitudes have changed such that the country is full of sluts. now i may not agree with this but in my clas at school of 30 students only 2 remained vigins until 19, most started sex at 16-17 some earlier. I started at 16. now those that didnt have sex were talked about and i know thats not how it shud be but its teh way it is here. but at that age nobody is ready for a child, but tio dismiss sex altogether because your not ready for the possbility of a child is , impractical.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

"Should the father get a say?"

Yes. How much? Depends. It also depends on which parent agrees with my viewpoint on the whole issue. Obviously the parent I agree with should have more say than the one I don't.

 

[WlknCntrdiction]

You shouldn't be having sex with someone who doesn't agree with abortions. Unless, of course you are comitted to them in a long term relationship. If contraception fails, abort it, abortion is really just another form of contraception, you didn't mean to have a baby so failed condom and then not aborting is being indecisive.

Basically, if you want to be promiscuous, be prepared to have an abortion.

I agree completely with this. It may be "harsh" to most but that is basically what abortion is. In my opinion it's not a fully functional human at the time it's conceived and can not think for itself, therefor we have to think for it, I don't feel I would be "killing" a child cause it's nowhere near that stage yet. But then we get into the area of when life begins so I'm just going to leave it there.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I think the man's opinion should be taken into account. But the fact of the matter is, pregnancy is renowned as one of the most painful experiences a woman can have.

If you and your wife were extremely thirsty and a traveller came along saying he would give you a bottle of water if he's allowed to kick you in the crotch, does your wife get a say?

 

[pdgeorge]

Your still not getting it...

I used 99.999 as a number as an example. I know traffic accidents happen regularly, and infact the majority of them arn't 'accidents' they are nothing more then one person who was being a dumbass and should have been watching the road! (IE: the DRIVERS FAULT FOR NOT DOING THINGS RIGHT) the odds were so low because most people won't be in that situation where they cause the death of someone. It's a random probability thing I just made up off the top of my head that really didn't work concidering probability infers 'accident' 'random occurance that just happens' but thats not what I ment. I ment it more in the "this is how likely the person who caused the death to those 5 people will be you" sence.
And there is no suicidal person jumping infront of the car! Since when have you ever heard of a family of 5 jumping infront of someone elses car intentionally? The idea was someone who was driving without paying attention or took full precautions to drive safely screwed up and killed innocent people.

And yes, it IS someones fault when something fails. That thinking is taking responcibility away from people. People need to think about what they do before they do it, think about the likelyhood their preperations will fail and just in general think.
If you knew before hand that there was a chance something was going to fail but you still went ahead with it dispite that fact and just hoped it didn't fail, then you are still to blame for it failing.

Also for the second part... Just because it's 'public oppinion' 'socialy acceptable' etc. doesn't mean thats the way things should be handled. The general populace, average society are full of idiots. People who make bad decisions and then turn around and try and find a way to blame others. Thats the general view of most people.
It's socialy acceptable in some areas to beat your wife. Does that mean that it's right? It's socialy acceptable in some areas to do alot of things that I am willing to bet you will be disguisted about. Infact, I'm willing to bet the same trend is even there within friends etc. Just because it's socialy acceptable doesn't mean it's wise to do in the slightest.

Oh and that mindset "but tio dismiss sex altogether because your not ready for the possbility of a child is , impractical." is only a modern idea that has come about recently. And no, the repression of sex wasn't only a catholic thing, many cultures stated ifyou want to have sex, you have to get married. If you have a kid, you have to accept responcibility, etc.
The idea that it's impractical is only in your mind because you couldn't stand the idea of not having sex, and thats the same reason alot of people will argue the exact same thing. Sex isn't something that absolutly HAS to be done, it's something that is nice to do, it's something that can be enjoyed responcibly, but it's not impractical to avoid it.

(BTW: just in general, as I said earlier, I have nothing against sex outside marriage and all that crap, all I'm saying is people should fucking learn how to use contraception and take responcibility for themselves)

 

[DagothNereviar]

I think the man's opinion should be taken into account. But the fact of the matter is, pregnancy is renowned as one of the most painful experiences a woman can have.

If you and your wife were extremely thirsty and a traveller came along saying he would give you a bottle of water if he's allowed to kick you in the crotch, does your wife get a say?

Lmao. Best. Comparison. EVAH XD

 

[Epitome]

Your still not getting it...

I used 99.999 as a number as an example. I know traffic accidents happen regularly, and infact the majority of them arn't 'accidents' they are nothing more then one person who was being a dumbass and should have been watching the road! (IE: the DRIVERS FAULT FOR NOT DOING THINGS RIGHT) the odds were so low because most people won't be in that situation where they cause the death of someone. It's a random probability thing I just made up off the top of my head that really didn't work concidering probability infers 'accident' 'random occurance that just happens' but thats not what I ment. I ment it more in the "this is how likely the person who caused the death to those 5 people will be you" sence.
And there is no suicidal person jumping infront of the car! Since when have you ever heard of a family of 5 jumping infront of someone elses car intentionally? The idea was someone who was driving without paying attention or took full precautions to drive safely screwed up and killed innocent people.

And yes, it IS someones fault when something fails. That thinking is taking responcibility away from people. People need to think about what they do before they do it, think about the likelyhood their preperations will fail and just in general think.
If you knew before hand that there was a chance something was going to fail but you still went ahead with it dispite that fact and just hoped it didn't fail, then you are still to blame for it failing.

Also for the second part... Just because it's 'public oppinion' 'socialy acceptable' etc. doesn't mean thats the way things should be handled. The general populace, average society are full of idiots. People who make bad decisions and then turn around and try and find a way to blame others. Thats the general view of most people.
It's socialy acceptable in some areas to beat your wife. Does that mean that it's right? It's socialy acceptable in some areas to do alot of things that I am willing to bet you will be disguisted about. Infact, I'm willing to bet the same trend is even there within friends etc. Just because it's socialy acceptable doesn't mean it's wise to do in the slightest.

Oh and that mindset "but tio dismiss sex altogether because your not ready for the possbility of a child is , impractical." is only a modern idea that has come about recently. And no, the repression of sex wasn't only a catholic thing, many cultures stated ifyou want to have sex, you have to get married. If you have a kid, you have to accept responcibility, etc.
The idea that it's impractical is only in your mind because you couldn't stand the idea of not having sex, and thats the same reason alot of people will argue the exact same thing. Sex isn't something that absolutly HAS to be done, it's something that is nice to do, it's something that can be enjoyed responcibly, but it's not impractical to avoid it.

(BTW: just in general, as I said earlier, I have nothing against sex outside marriage and all that crap, all I'm saying is people should fucking learn how to use contraception and take responcibility for themselves)

See i feel like we are arguing and yet i seem to agree with you up to a point. I was only using the car crash as an example of ashit happens to a guy thats not his fault example, the same would have been true if it was a train driver who could not possibly stop his train before suicide jumps in front. it was improbable, an assoicated risk, but one so small as to be impractical to accomodate everystep of the way, what i was getting at is that the failure ie the .001 is in my eyes nobodys fault. And why is teh man being blamed for te failure contaception is not his responsibility, you seem to be saying that contt=raception fails and you should be willing tto deal with the consequences , but thats exactly what this thread is about, if teh contraception failed because say the woman screwed up and incorrectly took her pill, should teh man then have exclusive say because it wasnt his fault? I'm trying to understand your logic to whos to blame)

And i know that the majority are not the brightest and it takes people with a better understanding to create laws and such, burt at the end of te day it is teh majority that is affected. im not saying something is inherently right or wrong butr it must be accounted for? Its easy to say its not a smart thing to do but the masses still do it, we cant just ignore it because it was a stupid thing to do?

 

[pdgeorge]

I think the man's opinion should be taken into account. But the fact of the matter is, pregnancy is renowned as one of the most painful experiences a woman can have.

If you and your wife were extremely thirsty and a traveller came along saying he would give you a bottle of water if he's allowed to kick you in the crotch, does your wife get a say?

Actualy... The wife probably would get a say if you actualy had a good relationship
"Honey we havn't drunken anything in ages, I really need this, please!"
".... goddamn it, fine. I'm not thirsty but my wife needs it so I'm willing to make this sacrifice"

(transform to abortion)
Man: "Please don't... You know how strongly I feel about it"
Woman: "Fine, I'll go through with it" (maybe ad: "and we'll put them up for adoption since we can't look after a kid atm") however if the woman got an abortion dispite the feelings of the guy... bubbye relationship... Something that ment alot to the guy was calously ignored and thrown away. (On the flip side, if the girl did go through with it, the guy had damn well better be thankful and supportive)

 

[pdgeorge]

See i feel like we are arguing and yet i seem to agree with you up to a point. I was only using the car crash as an example of ashit happens to a guy thats not his fault example, the same would have been true if it was a train driver who could not possibly stop his train before suicide jumps in front. it was improbable, an assoicated risk, but one so small as to be impractical to accomodate everystep of the way, what i was getting at is that the failure ie the .001 is in my eyes nobodys fault. And why is teh man being blamed for te failure contaception is not his responsibility, you seem to be saying that contt=raception fails and you should be willing tto deal with the consequences , but thats exactly what this thread is about, if teh contraception failed because say the woman screwed up and incorrectly took her pill, should teh man then have exclusive say because it wasnt his fault? I'm trying to understand your logic to whos to blame)

A car crash isn't something that is (almost) ever 'nobodies fault', in most cases one driver wasnt paying attention, driving safely, etc. etc. Train drivers also have extencive training to do everything they can to not hit someone on the tracks.
But the point I'm making isn't that it is the womans fault or it's the mans fault the pregnancy occured, the point I'm making is it's both of their fault and they should have both thought about it all BEFORE they had sex. The point is both of them screwed up, they both should have been more prepared beforehand instead of relying on a fix up solution after they screwed up.

 

[Epitome]

See i feel like we are arguing and yet i seem to agree with you up to a point. I was only using the car crash as an example of ashit happens to a guy thats not his fault example, the same would have been true if it was a train driver who could not possibly stop his train before suicide jumps in front. it was improbable, an assoicated risk, but one so small as to be impractical to accomodate everystep of the way, what i was getting at is that the failure ie the .001 is in my eyes nobodys fault. And why is teh man being blamed for te failure contaception is not his responsibility, you seem to be saying that contt=raception fails and you should be willing tto deal with the consequences , but thats exactly what this thread is about, if teh contraception failed because say the woman screwed up and incorrectly took her pill, should teh man then have exclusive say because it wasnt his fault? I'm trying to understand your logic to whos to blame)

A car crash isn't something that is (almost) ever 'nobodies fault', in most cases one driver wasnt paying attention, driving safely, etc. etc. Train drivers also have extencive training to do everything they can to not hit someone on the tracks.
But the point I'm making isn't that it is the womans fault or it's the mans fault the pregnancy occured, the point I'm making is it's both of their fault and they should have both thought about it all BEFORE they had sex. The point is both of them screwed up, they both should have been more prepared beforehand instead of relying on a fix up solution after they screwed up.

okay i get that but that wasnt teh question , teh qustion was not about if abortion is teh right or wrong thing to do when the situation occurs but more that should teh man get a say in it or is it ultimately the womans responsibility?

 

[lolmynamewastaken]

i think the final desicion is up to the woman and that guys should accept it

 

[Helicockter]

at the end of the day, pregnancy and birth are things that happen to a womans body, as it abortion if they choose to have one. Allowing a man to "have a say" essentially is giving him sovereignty over someone elses body, which is an extremely dangerous idea. Of course in any healthy relationship if the woman gets pregnant they should talk it over together and come to a mutually agreeable decision, but when negotiations break down, no, the man should not get a say. After the baby is BORN of course it's a different story, both parents have rights and responsibilities, but until that point it's up to the woman.

Oh, and child support? it's not about "punishing" a man or rewarding a woman, it's about what is best for the CHILD. If you have a part in making a child, even if you thought you were just dipping your wick, you have a responsibility to support the life of that new human being. In legal terms, that takes the form of financial support. Of course if a father wants to be a major part of the kids life there should be mechanisms in place to give him the right to do so even if he and the mother are estranged. But even if he doesn't want the kid, that doesn't diminish the fact that the kid will be better off with his financial contributions, and it is the welfare of the CHILD that is important in these cases. that's the ideal of course, I won't deny that people abuse the system, but that just means better policing and policy details are needed, not a conceptual change.


of course there are complexities with reproductive rights (if a woman is drinking heavily or shooting up while pregnant AND planning to carry to term, then should the state be able to forcer her into rehab as it will have an adverse effect on the child when it is born? if a woman deliverately deceives a man to get pregnant, such as lying about being sterilized or poking holes in a condom, should he still be legally bound to pay child support? etc), but in normal cases of "condom malfunction" or dumb asses not using protection, no. It's her choice.

 

[JaredXE]

Let's put the story another way. That bloke starts screwing some girl he suspects is a bit unstable and needy just because she's a good lay, and lets the relationship progress evidently without letting her think he's just in it for fun. Then, when she goes a bit mental, instead of explaining straight away he's had a vasectomy, he cooks up an elaborate, vindictive scheme to humiliate her as much as possible, enjoying her evident distress throughout the process. Then, just in case he's not behaved enough like a scumbag from the story alone, he chucks in a few grossly misogynistic comments like (my emphasis added): "with all the moral self-righteousness that only a woman can muster up"; "she reverts to women's logic" (i.e., he means no logic at all).

I don't think vindictive misogynists bragging about using, then baiting and emotionally devastating vulnerable or messed-up women is that funny or any hope for the future at all.

And then lets put the story ANOTHER way. The guy starts dating a woman that he thought was good company, attractive and fun in bed. Yes, she had some problems, but who doesn't? He doesn't inform her on a private medical surgery he had because it's none of her business, and he makes no move to commit further than he already has, thus not leading her on.

THEN THE DUMB ***** GOES AND SLEEPS AROUND IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT SHE GETS KNOCKED UP

I think that most any guy, when confronted with such a manipulative *****, would do the same thing. Maybe not drag it on like he did, but remember, he DID have a purpose. He spent much of that time getting his ducks in a row and getting all the legal paperwork required to put her in her place. Oh, and speaking of baiting and potential emotional devastation.....she never told him that she had slept around and that there was a chance that the baby wasn't his (from her perspective). No, she employed "Woman's Logic" I.E. NO FUCKING LOGIC AT ALL. Just a selfish need to get the outcome that benefits HER the most.

You know, if it weren't for the fact that vasectomies stop being reversable after the first year (and I do want kids when I am married), I would get one right now just to ensure that there is no "accidental" conceptions by crazy, self-righteous sluts.

 

[Helicockter]

You know, if it weren't for the fact that vasectomies stop being reversable after the first year (and I do want kids when I am married), I would get one right now just to ensure that there is no "accidental" conceptions by crazy, self-righteous sluts.

or you could, y'know, not sleep with sluts.

also there are currently trials for male injection-based contraceptives, that combined with condoms and a decent spermicide would be about 99.99% effective even if you DO go sleeping around with women you don't like.