NationStates Jolt Archive

For the record, I've never seen this site before so I have no idea whether the site is considered "conservative" or "liberal" or any other word that Americans have to say every five minutes to prevent their heads from exploding.

A bill recently passed by the Michigan House of Representatives:

The proposal actually makes it a crime for a man to "change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement" with a pregnant significant other, to "file or attempt to file for a divorce" from his pregnant wife or to "withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support" from a woman whom he has been supporting -- if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy.

Source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061130/OPINION01/611300306/1008

What will they think of next?

wow. can that possibly pass constitutional scrutiny?

Sounds crazy.
Sure, a guy who does that is a dick. But to make it illegal? The government needs to butt out. If they make every version of assholish behavior illegal we'll all be in jail.

Jesus, yeah, that will REALLY make things better. I mean, damn, if things aren't working out, bring a third, helpless party into it to guilt your partner into staying, and now have the law enforce it.

I predict more domestic abuse will come out of this brainchild.

To me it sounds like a good way to ensure that new mothers are not put up shit creek. But it also sounds difficult to implement.

Jesus, yeah, that will REALLY make things better. I mean, damn, if things aren't working out, bring a third, helpless party into it to guilt your partner into staying, and now have the law enforce it.

I predict more domestic abuse will come out of this brainchild.My brother came by his first child that way. He and his girlfriends relationship was on the rocks so she stopped taking the pill. She admitted it years later.
It didn't prolong the relationship more than a couple of months.

Sounds crazy.
Sure, a guy who does that is a dick.

Is he? If it was clear that he didn't want children and his partner decided to have children anyway, is it really fair to force him to stay with her?

My brother came by his first child that way. He and his girlfriends relationship was on the rocks so she stopped taking the pill. She admitted it years later.
It didn't prolong the relationship more than a couple of months.

Yeah, I know a few people who got a husband that way... oddly enough, they're all divorced. Wow, what could have caused it, you think?

Coercion of EITHER party is a bad idea.

Is he? If it was clear that he didn't want children and his partner decided to have children anyway, is it really fair to force him to stay with her?Generally a guy who dumps a pregnant wife or girlfriend has some 'splaining to do. But the law is specifically aimed at guys who use withdrawal of support as a way to pressure a woman to terminate a pregnancy. In my book, he's a dick.

Wow... they managed to combine an anti-abortion bill with a child support bill. And managed to screw up both in the process.

I am certainly no expert, but it seems that it would be difficult to establish "mens rhea" in a case like this.

Compelling financial support for a child you helped conceive is one thing, but compelling cohabitation...sounds iffy on grounds of free association and so on.

Stupid law.

But to respond to Kat, it can also work out the other way. I know a couple, who married at 17 and 18, because of an unplanned child. They are still, twenty years later, happily married, and have four children.

This is why the discharge of semen associated with orgasm should be voluntary and governed by a small switch that toggles between "sperm" and "other", where the "other" would be determined by personal preference of one's companion, drawn from a wide array of commerically available cartridges of cool whip, low-fat yogurt, peach lip gloss, and assorted substances.

This is why the discharge of semen associated with orgasm should be voluntary and governed by a small switch that toggles between "sperm" and "other", where the "other" would be determined by personal preference of one's companion, drawn from a wide array of commerically available cartridges of cool whip, low-fat yogurt, peach lip gloss, and assorted substances.

Quoted for brilliance. Nice 10th post.:p

Quoted for brilliance. Nice 10th post.:p

Thanks, Dodudodu...hope I'm not all downhill from here.

Rats! I don't have a uterus.

I guess I'll just have to suck a mean cock to get my boyfriend to stay... that, and be the intriguing conversationalist I fool people into believing I am.

Rats! I don't have a uterus.

I guess I'll just have to suck a mean cock to get my boyfriend to stay... that, and be the intriguing conversationalist I fool people into believing I am.

Pragmatic.

To me it sounds like a good way to ensure that new mothers are not put up shit creek. But it also sounds difficult to implement. Well, plenty of people in the US talk about how they hate it so much that they have to pay taxes to support other human beings...so you know what? Yes, if you get a woman knocked up, you should have to pay for rather than expecting the state to.

How'd you like them apples?

Pragmatic.

Don't let it be known that I wouldn't put certain inhibitions aside for the right person...

Don't let it be known that I wouldn't put certain inhibitions aside for the right person...

One day I'll be the woman for you :D

Don't let it be known that I wouldn't put certain inhibitions aside for the right person...

Flexible.

Flexible.

Yes...

One day I'll be the woman for you :D

... but let's not get ridiculous.

Well, plenty of people in the US talk about how they hate it so much that they have to pay taxes to support other human beings...so you know what? Yes, if you get a woman knocked up, you should have to pay for rather than expecting the state to.

How'd you like them apples?

Yes, of course no woman has managed to purposefully gotten pregnant to prevent her boyfriend from leaving.

Well boys, there's a reason Jesus invented a whoopsy-doo down the stairs.

Well boys, there's a reason Jesus invented a whoopsy-doo down the stairs.

Well, I always knew Jesus was a bit... *puts forth hand, alternates between supinating and pronating it*

Well boys, there's a reason Jesus invented a whoopsy-doo down the stairs.

At the right of the throne of god, amidst an endless field of kneeling angels, amidst the unbounded shimmering perfection of the creator of all things, Jesus is saying "Dude, she fell, I swear".

I wonder if this still applies if the woman is carrying another mans child.

Say....
- Couple are together.
- Missus gets pregnant.
- 2 months later guy finds out kid is not his.
- Guy ditches missus.
- Gets sent to jail.

This is why the discharge of semen associated with orgasm should be voluntary and governed by a small switch that toggles between "sperm" and "other", where the "other" would be determined by personal preference of one's companion, drawn from a wide array of commerically available cartridges of cool whip, low-fat yogurt, peach lip gloss, and assorted substances.

I know someone already said it, but I felt compelled to say so myself.

Hammurab wins at life.

Sorry, re-read it.

Only if it's decided that he's leaving her to get her to abort the child? Now it makes less sense than what I previously objected to. It will never get through... right?

Having been in a relationship where the girl told me she was on the pill and then having the joy of finding out she was lying about it a week after a marathon sex session, I'm absolutely THRILLED about this legislation!!!

Yes, of course no woman has managed to purposefully gotten pregnant to prevent her boyfriend from leaving.

Yes, but the law is on her side now.

Stupid law.

But to respond to Kat, it can also work out the other way. I know a couple, who married at 17 and 18, because of an unplanned child. They are still, twenty years later, happily married, and have four children.

The law is stupid alright.
Even more stupid is the idea behind it that the State or the Government should be allowed to get involved in people´s private lives and emotional crisis management.
Next thing my wife will write a letter to our MP every time we have an argument...:headbang:

If a woman deliberately came off contraception in order to get pregnant without telling me about it beforehand I would never see or speak to her again, and not give her one single penny to support it. If that requires I go to jail then so be it; I'm quite happy to cut off my nose to spite my face. I can't stand lying at the best of times; to lie in those circumstances, to deliberately mislead someone in order to destroy their life, would be completely unforgivable.
I appreciate accidents happen, and would unhappily make the best of it if one did, but such a deliberate action... Ugh. Makes me shudder thinking of it.

I don't think a law like this would work. It doesn't take a genius to work out:
Kill spawn as soon as it appears + guilty plea + good behaviour + decent lawyer = less time in prison than you'd have to spend supporting the spawn if you didn't kill it, and you don't have to spend it with the mother either.

If a woman deliberately came off contraception in order to get pregnant without telling me about it beforehand I would never see or speak to her again, and not give her one single penny to support it. If that requires I go to jail then so be it; I'm quite happy to cut off my nose to spite my face. I can't stand lying at the best of times; to lie in those circumstances, to deliberately mislead someone in order to destroy their life, would be completely unforgivable.
I appreciate accidents happen, and would unhappily make the best of it if one did, but such a deliberate action... Ugh. Makes me shudder thinking of it.

I don't think a law like this would work. It doesn't take a genius to work out:
Kill spawn as soon as it appears + guilty plea + good behaviour + decent lawyer = less time in prison than you'd have to spend supporting the spawn if you didn't kill it, and you don't have to spend it with the mother either.

Yeah i agree with you a 100%, why should the man support for a baby that was deliberately conceive!

why not makes most things illegal, while youre at it, like eating fruit on a sunday? im sure that's a affront to something or other, its only a matter of how hard you search.

My ex-girlfriend tried to get pregnant. Thank goodness it didn't happen. She was a psyco. Why do girls try to do stuff like that? If they since the hard times or relationships being a bit rocky, why do they try to get pregnant? Some women even lie about being pregnant. :confused:

As for that legislation, If it's passed I won't expect it to last to long. I do find it to be very unconstitutional. If their is a baby involved, I know that laws are tightening up against the dead beat dads when it comes to paying child support and that it should but to force them to remain in a relationship isn't right especially if it's a violent one or one filled with miseries.

This is so totally unfair to men its not even funny, I am sure it will never work in reality....

Being a woman who got pregnant totally unplanned on both sides, when it came down to it I expected to face the possibility of rasing the child alone. If you have sex, kids may result, and taking all resposibility away from the woman is just silly... My relationship with the biological parent was not long in breaking down after i got preggers, not once did i go for Child support or anything. Figured if he was gonna run he wasnt going to make a good father, why have a dad around who isn't going to be that good male inflence a child needs? I now am in a very happy relationship with a man who loves me and my son and is the best dad a kid should have. From the get go my son has always known that he is mine all mine.... Never regretted the decision once...

This is such a stupid law. It is wrong on so many levels. First, if a man does not want to support a baby he should not have to. Especially if he tells the woman ahead of time that he won't pay for it if she births it.

Second, it rewards that stupid belief that if the relationship is rocky then go get knocked up and all will be well.

This sort of stuff reminds me of the last words of a serial man raper before he was executed (I think at Alcatraz). His last words were something to the effect of "If only all of humanity had but one neck so I could choke it."

This is so totally unfair to men its not even funny, I am sure it will never work in reality....

Being a woman who got pregnant totally unplanned on both sides, when it came down to it I expected to face the possibility of rasing the child alone. If you have sex, kids may result, and taking all resposibility away from the woman is just silly... My relationship with the biological parent was not long in breaking down after i got preggers, not once did i go for Child support or anything. Figured if he was gonna run he wasnt going to make a good father, why have a dad around who isn't going to be that good male inflence a child needs? I now am in a very happy relationship with a man who loves me and my son and is the best dad a kid should have. From the get go my son has always known that he is mine all mine.... Never regretted the decision once...

You are a very responsible lady. Although I am not a fan of unplanned pregnancy or having children out of wedlock, from your comments I can tell that you are a very nice and responsible person. Best wishes!

My ex-girlfriend tried to get pregnant. Thank goodness it didn't happen. She was a psyco. Why do girls try to do stuff like that? If they since the hard times or relationships being a bit rocky, why do they try to get pregnant? Some women even lie about being pregnant. :confused:

As for that legislation, If it's passed I won't expect it to last to long. I do find it to be very unconstitutional. If their is a baby involved, I know that laws are tightening up against the dead beat dads when it comes to paying child support and that it should but to force them to remain in a relationship isn't right especially if it's a violent one or one filled with miseries.

Yeah I had one lie about being pregnant. Darn near gave me a heart attack!

Generally a guy who dumps a pregnant wife or girlfriend has some 'splaining to do. But the law is specifically aimed at guys who use withdrawal of support as a way to pressure a woman to terminate a pregnancy. In my book, he's a dick.

Why should he have to give "support"? Is this a gender role thing? If he didn't want children and she decided to have one using his sperm, well that was her choice, wasn't it? He's no more than a sperm donor.

Besides, laws shouldn't be "aimed" in a general direction, they should be specific, to avoid abuse.

Why should he have to give "support"? Is this a gender role thing? If he didn't want children and she decided to have one using his sperm, well that was her choice, wasn't it? He's no more than a sperm donor.

Besides, laws shouldn't be "aimed" in a general direction, they should be specific, to avoid abuse.

Let's take you back to basic biology class...

If you fuck, there's always a chance of pregnancy.

Even if she's on the Pill. Even if you wear a condom. Even if you use foam, sponge, diaphragm, etc.

If you stick it in there, it may happen.

Whether she tells you a lie about her birth control method or not.

Whether you're dumb enough to think that birth control is only the job of the woman...

If you stick it in there, it may happen.

And if it happens, you made a conscious choice to stick it in there, knowing what might happen.

I wonder if this still applies if the woman is carrying another mans child.

Say....
- Couple are together.
- Missus gets pregnant.
- 2 months later guy finds out kid is not his.
- Guy ditches missus.
- Gets sent to jail.

The law applies to anyone who knows she is pregnant and takes action with the intent of getting her to have an abortion, so it would apply to him if a jury decided that he was leaving her to try and get her to have an abortion.

Of course, one would hope that, if he had found out the child was not his, it would be clear that he was leaving her because she cheated on him.

Let's take you back to basic biology class...
blah blah

Looks like you're the one lacking knowledge here - with abortion as an emergency option, pregnancy is completely avoidable.

I could see a woman taking civil action if someone tried to coerce her into an abortion, but I can't really see that it is necessary to make it a criminal law. Not to mention that the law could so easily be abused. There are a myriad of reasons someone might withdraw support or leave a relationship and move out that wouldn't be, "You get an abortion or I leave," but they could be portrayed that way by a smart lawyer and a woman willing to lie.

Looks like you're the one lacking knowledge here - with abortion as an emergency option, pregnancy is completely avoidable.

That's if the woman wants an abortion.

Are you going to hold her down and give her one against her will?

Looks like you're the one lacking knowledge here - with abortion as an emergency option, pregnancy is completely avoidable.

Technically, an abortion doesn't help avoid a pregnancy. Pregnancy has already begun. It ends a pregnancy.

To say that abortion helps avoid a pregnancy is like saying that fire extinguishers prevent fires.

For the record, I've never seen this site before so I have no idea whether the site is considered "conservative" or "liberal" or any other word that Americans have to say every five minutes to prevent their heads from exploding.

A bill recently passed by the Michigan House of Representatives:



Source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061130/OPINION01/611300306/1008

What will they think of next?

Hmm

*law introduced*
*domestic violence cases up 25%*

That's if the woman wants an abortion.

Are you going to hold her down and give her one against her will?

I think I made it pretty clear that it's the woman's choice. In fact that was the basis for my argument. I won't repeat it. You can read it or ignore me. I won't argue against someone who can't be bothered to read my argument.

Technically, an abortion doesn't help avoid a pregnancy. Pregnancy has already begun. It ends a pregnancy.

To say that abortion helps avoid a pregnancy is like saying that fire extinguishers prevent fires.

OK, I didn't type exactly what I meant. Anyway, to match the analogy, extinguishing a fire isn't as good as preventing it, but it's better than nothing.

So how do you prove the intent of the father? If it boils down to her word against his, he's screwed.

So how do you prove the intent of the father? If it boils down to her word against his, he's screwed.

Well we could always invent an accurate lie detector...

Assuming that's not to difficult...

Whether she tells you a lie about her birth control method or not.
Right, so he should be held responsible if she deliberately lies in order to get pregnant?

What about if he lies and says he's had a vasectomy, and she gets pregnant because of it. Should his wish to get her pregnant mean she shouldn't be able to have an abortion?

Whether you're dumb enough to think that birth control is only the job of the woman...
Nobody's saying that, are they?
Sadly there are only three options available to men at the moment (unless you're lucky enough to get on a clinical trial, or really fancy spending a considerable time in a very hot bath every day - which isn't even tested thoroughly); 1) abstinence, 2) condoms, 3) vasectomy. Believe it or not, some women don't like 1 or 2 much, and 3 has the problem that reversal is unreliable. Therefore, in many couples, contraception is on the shoulders of the female even if the man takes an active interest (indeed, he'd be foolish not to IMO).

So how do you prove the intent of the father? If it boils down to her word against his, he's screwed.

Precisely the problem. ((Bear in mind that the father is not the only person affected by this law, btw, it is anybody who helps support her or whom she lives with. A roommate, parent, sibling, etc. could be affected by it as well)). The law requires that a threat of such action requires it to be said more than once, but if she claims to have been the only one to overhear it, it truly is her word against his. And it comes down to how much a jury likes the two of them.

Nobody's saying that, are they?
Sadly there are only three options available to men at the moment (unless you're lucky enough to get on a clinical trial, or really fancy spending a considerable time in a very hot bath every day - which isn't even tested thoroughly); 1) abstinence, 2) condoms, 3) vasectomy. Believe it or not, some women don't like 1 or 2 much, and 3 has the problem that reversal is unreliable. Therefore, in many couples, contraception is on the shoulders of the female even if the man takes an active interest (indeed, he'd be foolish not to IMO).

"I don't like it much," isn't a viable excuse. Yes, sex without a condom is generally better. However, a couple should only forego the use of a condom if they are completely willing to deal with the increased chances of a pregnancy, and all the consequences thereof.

"I don't like it much," isn't a viable excuse. Yes, sex without a condom is generally better. However, a couple should only forego the use of a condom if they are completely willing to deal with the increased chances of a pregnancy, and all the consequences thereof.

Aye.
But if one partner claims to be using some other, reliable form of contraception the choice made may well be different than if they don't, which is the point of my argument.

Aye.
But if one partner claims to be using some other, reliable form of contraception the choice made may well be different than if they don't, which is the point of my argument.

But it shouldn't be. If preventing pregnancy really means a great deal to them, they should be taking all the precautions they can.

My fiance and I used a condom and the birth control pill at first. As we got a little more financially stable and could possibly support a child if I got pregnant (not to mention made sure we both had been tested), we dropped the condom use and now rely exclusively on the pill. However, this was a decision made specifically because our wish to avoid pregnancy was lessened. When it becomes something that isn't an issue at all, I'll go off the pill and see what happens.

But, as long as we were both absolutely adverse to the idea and couldn't support a child, we were both taking steps to avoid a pregnancy.

But it shouldn't be. If preventing pregnancy really means a great deal to them, they should be taking all the precautions they can.

My fiance and I used a condom and the birth control pill at first. As we got a little more financially stable and could possibly support a child if I got pregnant (not to mention made sure we both had been tested), we dropped the condom use and now rely exclusively on the pill. However, this was a decision made specifically because our wish to avoid pregnancy was lessened. When it becomes something that isn't an issue at all, I'll go off the pill and see what happens.

But, as long as we were both absolutely adverse to the idea and couldn't support a child, we were both taking steps to avoid a pregnancy.
But I'd assume you'd let your fiance know that you'd stopped taking it before you had sex, even if you didn't discuss it with him. You wouldn't let him assume that you were still taking it, and he is willing to take the risk that the pill might not prevent pregnancy but he might not be willing to take the risk of not using any contraception.
The intent is the important thing (to me). In one case it's an unfortunate accident, in the other it's deliberate maliciousness. They just happen to have the same outcome.

My girlfriend recently stopped taking the pill (it was causing severe headaches), but as she told me beforehand there was no problem, other choices could be made. If she hadn't told me beforehand (or at least before we'd had sex) I don't think it would have been unreasonable for me to be somewhat upset. (When she told me her headaches were possibly caused by the pill I encouraged her to stop taking it.)
It's a shame there's no reliable vasectomy-reversal operation. If there was I'd have one in a flash (I might currently have no desire to have children, but could get hit on the head or something and change my mind. I'm only 25, after all). Hmph.

But I'd assume you'd let your fiance know that you'd stopped taking it before you had sex, even if you didn't discuss it with him. You wouldn't let him assume that you were still taking it, and he is willing to take the risk that the pill might not prevent pregnancy but he might not be willing to take the risk of not using any contraception.
The intent is the important thing (to me). In one case it's an unfortunate accident, in the other it's deliberate maliciousness. They just happen to have the same outcome.

Of course I would. And of course I would expect that from anyone.

However, if I were really serious about preventing pregnancy, I wouldn't rely on it. If a man told me he'd had a vasectomy, I'd still be on the pill and, at least at first, still insist on a condom.

It's a shame there's no reliable vasectomy-reversal operation. If there was I'd have one in a flash (I might currently have no desire to have children, but could get hit on the head or something and change my mind. I'm only 25, after all). Hmph.

Hehe. My fiance always says that, if there were a male birth control pill on the market, he'd be the first in line. =)

Of course, now that we're talking about the possibility of having kids after we're married, that may have to wait... =)

Hehe. My fiance always says that, if there were a male birth control pill on the market, he'd be the first in line. =)

It's a shame the only tested, reliable, long-term, reversible male contraceptive (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISUG) is only available in India. Stupid developed world! *Sulks*

(Apologies if the link doesn't work. I think it's right, but Wikipedia/my ISP/something is broken this evening. RISUG's the one, anyway.)

It's a shame the only tested, reliable, long-term, reversible male contraceptive (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISUG) is only available in India. Stupid developed world! *Sulks*

(Apologies if the link doesn't work. I think it's right, but Wikipedia/my ISP/something is broken this evening. RISUG's the one, anyway.)

Interesting. I'd be leery of using something when they apparently aren't at all sure how it works, but once they get that worked out, we may see it in trials here in the US.