NationStates Jolt Archive

Parental rights - especially as they pertain to abortion, adoption, and child support - have been discussed quite a bit in NSG. Everything from the paper abortion to what to do when a man finds out that the child he has raised as his is not biologically his. Well, here's a new situation to add to the mix.

Most people have pretty much agreed (from what I've seen) that a woman who tricks a man into impregnating her (ie. stating she is on birth control when she actually trying to get pregnant) is pretty scummy and many would agree that the man should not hold the same amount of responsibility in that case as in those where the couple is honest with one another. Well, what if a man is trying to impregnate a woman against her will?

I recently found out about just such a case. A woman caught her partner slipping his condom off during sex - the condom that was their only form of birth control at the time. The first time, she made it clear to him that she did not want to get pregnant, and that it was absolutely unacceptable for him to do so. But he apparently has kids and wants more. The second time she caught him doing it, she broke off the relationship and has had no contact with him since.

She recently found out that she is pregnant - and too far along to consider abortion, which she is morally opposed to anyways. So her options are now to keep the child or to put it up for adoption. If she tells the father, he could block the adoption option. In most situations, I would say this is one of his parental rights. In this one, considering that he was intentionally removing birth control from the equation against her will, I'm not so sure. Should she be required to consult with him, considering that he apparently intentionally put her in this situation? Legally, she is not supposed to be able to put the baby up for adoption without his consent, but is that moral in this case?

Discuss.

We can't give the kid to him? He wanted it. Yeah, that sounds normal, he keeps the child and she'll just pay child support or something...

We can't give the kid to him? He wanted it. Yeah, that sounds normal, he keeps the child and she'll just pay child support or something...

Most people argue that a man tricked into impregnating a woman shouldn't have to pay child support. Should a woman tricked into being pregnant have to pay child support? Is a man who would get a woman pregnant against her will fit to be a father?

if she is morally opposed to abortion and doesn't want the kid then i would say she is morally entitled to put the kid up for adoption. legally i've no idea. alternatively i would think that the father is also morally obliged to bring the kid up by himself, but judging by his behaviour i not sure that would be in the best interests of the kid. i reckon since she is the one carrying the baby for 9 months with no support from the man then what to do with the kid is entirely her decision. and i don't believe there is any obligation on her part to pay an sort of child support if she doesn't want to.

In all honesty, if he pulled that sort of shit on her, why should she be victim to it? She shouldn't need to consult anyone before throwing the thing into an adoption center if the guy tricked her like that.

So, no. She shouldn't need to consult him at all. Hell, I'd even say he needs to ante up for hospital fees for when the baby gets delivered and a bit more due to the emotional stress, but that's the extremist in me. >_>

In all honesty, if he pulled that sort of shit on her, why should she be victim to it? She shouldn't need to consult anyone before throwing the thing into an adoption center if the guy tricked her like that.

So, no. She shouldn't need to consult him at all. Hell, I'd even say he needs to ante up for hospital fees for when the baby gets delivered and a bit more due to the emotional stress, but that's the extremist in me. >_>

oh, no that's not extreme. that's perfectly reasonable i think.

She should be able to take him to court, have him take custody of the child, and not be financially or otherwise encumbered by the child in any way she doesn't choose. Of course, that probably only happens in cases where the judge has an ounce of common sense, and wouldn't make some kind of psycho ruling I see more and more of them making, where she'd be 'punished' for having icky icky sex and made to take full responsibility where the father gets all the access he wants and doesn't have to pay a penny.

Which sounds implausible until you remember we live in the real world.

I think the guy shouldn't have a say in the child whatsoever unless he takes full responsibility for it. She doesn't want the baby, so as long as it doesn't completely inconvenience her, I don't see why she'd be against just handing custody over. It's not like they're in a relationship now.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the man but I wonder whether giving the child up for adoption without the possibility of him taking custody would be a violation of the child's rights.

This is a tricky situation so I'm not going to answer for definite yet.

Most people argue that a man tricked into impregnating a woman shouldn't have to pay child support. Should a woman tricked into being pregnant have to pay child support? Is a man who would get a woman pregnant against her will fit to be a father?

Really? Cuz I've been told child support was all about obligation to the child, not the parent, once that child is born, both parents have a responsability for it, no? And since the mother has decide to participate in the pregnancy and birth the child...

Beyond abuse and neglect, fit rarely comes into the legal side of it. Personally speaking, I think a lot of people aren't fit to be parents, but what can I do?

Really? Cuz I've been told child support was all about obligation to the child, not the parent, once that child is born, both parents have a responsability for it, no? And since the mother has decide to participate in the pregnancy and birth the child...

It is an obligation to the child. But if one of the parents had little reason to believe there would be a child, while the other was actively attempting to have one, the responsibility balance gets shifted quite a bit. The obligation held by either parent may be different based on the actions that led to the pregnancy.

Beyond abuse and neglect, fit rarely comes into the legal side of it. Personally speaking, I think a lot of people aren't fit to be parents, but what can I do?

Very little unfortunately.

I'd like to know how she could somehow miss being pregnant for a few months and how someone who doesn't want kids and is pro-life could only use a condom

I think the authorities should take the child away its clear both parents are retarded

The obligation held by either parent may be different based on the actions that led to the pregnancy.

Ah, a little caveat I wasn't previously aware of...

So, how much does obligation shift for certain actions? What does it take to completely absolve you of responsibility? How about only partially?

I'd like to know how she could somehow miss being pregnant for a few months

Remarkably easily. There have been cases of women being oblivious to their pregnancy until they actually give birth.

Remarkably easily. There have been cases of women being oblivious to their pregnancy until they actually give birth.

...Strange, that...

Remarkably easily. There have been cases of women being oblivious to their pregnancy until they actually give birth.

isn't it you 'know kind of hard to miss?

"oh look I'm not bleeding anymore and I've started throwing up, craving things, getting strange inner kicks and have all of a sudden got allot fatter, must be nothing though why everyone keeps saying congratulations to me is anyones guess la lala"

...Strange, that...

I'm not refering to women who are in denial or who just claim to be oblivious if that's what you're implying. Extremely irregular periods combined with a tendency towards sudden weight shifts made it possible in the case I'm thinking of.

isn't it you 'know kind of hard to miss?

"oh look I'm not bleeding anymore and I've started throwing up, craving things, getting strange inner kicks and have all of a sudden got allot fatter, must be nothing though why everyone keeps saying congratulations to me is anyones guess la lala"

Not every woman is affected by pregnancy in the same way. If you've got a woman who has irregular periods and an unstable weight then it's much harder to tell.

If you've got a woman who has irregular periods and an unstable weight then it's much harder to tell.

I don't think irregularities in period lengths go into the months scales nor does a pregnant woman look like a fat woman

I'd also like to know how retarded you have to be to miss the other signs of pregnancy and not think "hmm maybe I had better see a doctor"

I don't think irregularities in period lengths go into the months scales nor does a pregnant woman look like a fat woman

I'd also like to know how retarded you have to be to miss the other signs of pregnancy and not think "hmm maybe I had better see a doctor"

Look, I'm not interested in arguing this with you. I know a woman who didn't know she was pregnant until she went into labour; none of her friends or family had any idea either. If you don't believe me then that's your business.

I think this falls into that category of fucked up stuff that the law just doesn't, and perhaps can't cover without fucking over much larger groups of people. You can make the argument that she ought to be able to put the kid up for adoption without his consent, but I get the feeling that will screw over more people than the current system allows for, and in a situation like this one, where you're left with no option where no one will get screwed, I think you have to go with who suffers the least damage.

The woman did have the option, at one point, of terminating the pregnancy, after all. The fact that she says she's morally opposed to the option doesn't negate its existence. That position, moral or otherwise, has consequences, which means that she now bears responsibility for that child, whether she plans to raise it or put it up for adoption. Is there an option where she can claim that she doesn't know who the father is and get around the law that way?

I'd like to know how she could somehow miss being pregnant for a few months and how someone who doesn't want kids and is pro-life could only use a condom

I think the authorities should take the child away its clear both parents are retarded

She's always been irregular - going 6 months without menstruating is not a strange thing to her. Also, she did take a home pregnancy test at approximately 2 months - it came up negative, so she figured she must just have a stomach virus. It was when she started showing and feeling kicking in earnest that it became obvious that the home test was probably wrong.

She had gone off the birth control pill because it was greatly affecting her moods. Granted, she should have gone in and simply had it changed to a different type, but that's not what happened.


Ah, a little caveat I wasn't previously aware of...

So, how much does obligation shift for certain actions? What does it take to completely absolve you of responsibility? How about only partially?

I'd say that one person being essentially tricked (ie. poking holes in condoms, lying about contraceptives, etc.), there is a great deal more responsibility on the person doing the deceiving. After all, that person was attempting to become pregnant/impregnate the other and doing so through deceptive means. Up until now, I'd only heard of this type of thing happening when a woman was trying to become pregnant against the wishes of the man.


I don't think irregularities in period lengths go into the months scales

Then you don't know many women who are very irregular. I've known more than one woman who has been known to go up to 6 months with no period.

nor does a pregnant woman look like a fat woman

No, but most pregnant women don't start showing until about 4 months, either. Strangely enough, she was in her 4th month when she found out she was pregnant.

I think this falls into that category of fucked up stuff that the law just doesn't, and perhaps can't cover without fucking over much larger groups of people. You can make the argument that she ought to be able to put the kid up for adoption without his consent, but I get the feeling that will screw over more people than the current system allows for, and in a situation like this one, where you're left with no option where no one will get screwed, I think you have to go with who suffers the least damage.

Legally, yes. But morally?

The woman did have the option, at one point, of terminating the pregnancy, after all.

Did she? In some states, by the time she found out she was pregnant, elective abortions are out the window - she'd pretty much need a medical (albeit not necessarily a life-threatening) reason.

The fact that she says she's morally opposed to the option doesn't negate its existence. That position, moral or otherwise, has consequences, which means that she now bears responsibility for that child, whether she plans to raise it or put it up for adoption.

That isn't something she or I would dispute.

Is there an option where she can claim that she doesn't know who the father is and get around the law that way?

She can lie about it - certainly. It might even be the most moral option. But it is illegal.

no she doesnt get to adopt the baby out without his knowledge. that is the way to disaster for the child. if he finds out, he takes the baby back from the only parents the child has ever known. bad thing.

i guess she isnt old enough to realize that there IS no 100% effective birth control. even without his condom shennanigans she could have gotten pregnant. it still would be his baby. his very wanted baby. the only way for her to have known for sure that she would never get pregnant by him was to never have sex with him.

sucks to be her.

she is in the same position that a man would be in. she cant give the baby up for adoption without his consent. she can give him custody of the child but she will still have to pay child support. sorry for the inconvenience but once there IS a baby, it has rights of its own that are not dependant on the circumstances of its conception.

I don't think irregularities in period lengths go into the months scales nor does a pregnant woman look like a fat woman

I'd also like to know how retarded you have to be to miss the other signs of pregnancy and not think "hmm maybe I had better see a doctor"


Some women also spot during their pregnancy, which is taken as a period, especially if it is normal to a woman to have short periods.

There are alot of women that don't get too big in their pregnancies. Especially first-timers. You would just think you are gaining a little weight.

A baby's movement/or kicking could be considered "movement of your bowels". (lay down when you feel this happening to you, that is how it feels when a baby moves)

Most of the women who do not know they are pregnant are first-timers so they don't really know what pregnancy is like. And as RLI said before, not all women get the symptoms of pregnancy.

no she doesnt get to adopt the baby out without his knowledge. that is the way to disaster for the child. if he finds out, he takes the baby back from the only parents the child has ever known. bad thing.

i guess she isnt old enough to realize that there IS no 100% effective birth control. even without his condom shennanigans she could have gotten pregnant. it still would be his baby. his very wanted baby. the only way for her to have known for sure that she would never get pregnant by him was to never have sex with him.

sucks to be her.

she is in the same position that a man would be in. she cant give the baby up for adoption without his consent. she can give him custody of the child but she will still have to pay child support. sorry for the inconvenience but once there IS a baby, it has rights of its own that are not dependant on the circumstances of its conception.

So the best thing for the baby is to give it up to a controlling bastard who saw no problem whatsoever with attempting impregnate a woman against her will (which is essentially rape)?

Of course she could have gotten pregnant without him doing so, but the fact that he did so certainly added to the chances - and puts him squarely on my "not a good parental candidate" list.

So the best thing for the baby is to give it up to a controlling bastard who saw no problem whatsoever with attempting impregnate a woman against her will (which is essentially rape)?

Of course she could have gotten pregnant without him doing so, but the fact that he did so certainly added to the chances - and puts him squarely on my "not a good parental candidate" list.It doesn't sound to me like there is a "best for the baby" option available here. It's all a bunch of shitty options. I have no idea how far along she is--if she's between 12 and 20 weeks, she might have a hard time finding a doctor to perform an abortion, but she probably could do it, but that sounds like it's not an option for her regardless. It's shitty, but it sounds like she's going to have to choose whether she'll be an unwilling single parent or an unwilling child support payer, because adoption just doesn't sound like a legal option for her.

So the best thing for the baby is to give it up to a controlling bastard who saw no problem whatsoever with attempting impregnate a woman against her will (which is essentially rape)?

Of course she could have gotten pregnant without him doing so, but the fact that he did so certainly added to the chances - and puts him squarely on my "not a good parental candidate" list.

women get pregnant by bad men all the time. the only way to avoid it is to not have sex with bad men.

his sexual practices are irrelevant to his abilities as a father. he may be a great father, he may be a horrible father. removing a condom is not evidence either way.

she has a tough choice to make. the one she CANT make is to lie about who the father is and adopt it out. the man wanted this baby, if he finds out he is very likely to do whatever it takes to get the baby away from its adoptive parents. she cant put her child in that position.

otherwise she needs to talk to a lawyer.

In regard to not knowing that you are pregnant, it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

For women with PCOS, for example, a year or more can go by without a period. Or the lack of periods could be taken for hitting early menopause. Also, like Damaske says, a lot of stereotypical pregnancy symptoms don't happen or could be mistaken for something else - not everyone gets morning sickness, or cravings. And the internal movement can feel like gas or other normal internal twinges, or indeed a stomach virus.

This does seem like a really sucky situation to be in.

It doesn't sound to me like there is a "best for the baby" option available here. It's all a bunch of shitty options.

But one out of them will be the best, albeit not great.

I have no idea how far along she is--if she's between 12 and 20 weeks, she might have a hard time finding a doctor to perform an abortion, but she probably could do it, but that sounds like it's not an option for her regardless.

She found out just before 20 weeks. She's past that now.

It's shitty, but it sounds like she's going to have to choose whether she'll be an unwilling single parent or an unwilling child support payer, because adoption just doesn't sound like a legal option for her.

It isn't a legal option - that I know (although proving that someone knew who the father of the baby was is certainly difficult). But is it a moral option?


women get pregnant by bad men all the time. the only way to avoid it is to not have sex with bad men.

Indeed. Unfortunately, bad men sometimes pretend to be good men.

his sexual practices are irrelevant to his abilities as a father. he may be a great father, he may be a horrible father. removing a condom is not evidence either way.

His sexual practices are paramount to rape. He is willing to use a person's body against her will for something she is not alright with. And we want to give that type of person a baby to take care of?

she has a tough choice to make. the one she CANT make is to lie about who the father is and adopt it out. the man wanted this baby, if he finds out he is very likely to do whatever it takes to get the baby away from its adoptive parents. she cant put her child in that position.

He didn't just want this baby, apparently. He wanted a new little wife. Should we make sure he gets that too?

otherwise she needs to talk to a lawyer.

That is probably advisable either way.
__________________

So the best thing for the baby is to give it up to a controlling bastard who saw no problem whatsoever with attempting impregnate a woman against her will (which is essentially rape)?

Of course she could have gotten pregnant without him doing so, but the fact that he did so certainly added to the chances - and puts him squarely on my "not a good parental candidate" list.
Personally, if a guy wants a kid that badly that he'd do anything to get one... that's a pretty dedicated father. Insane? Yes. But rather an insane parent who cared than... you know what... not the point.

If I were the woman, I'd get an abortion, video it then mail the tape to the guy. And there's no such thing as being too far gone to get an abortion. If you're running into limits, you're just not trying hard enough. But then, I'm an insenstive anti-life guy so I shouldn't really comment.

As for women coming to term without knowing they were pregnant, it can and does happen. It doesn't happen to people with an IQ of over 100, but it still happens to a suprising number of people. You don't have to be totally stupid to not realise you're pregnant, but unless you're self delusional, you're gonna be dumber than average.

His sexual practices are paramount to rape. He is willing to use a person's body against her will for something she is not alright with. And we want to give that type of person a baby to take care of?


I wonder if rapists pay child support...[/musing]

she has a tough choice to make. the one she CANT make is to lie about who the father is and adopt it out. the man wanted this baby, if he finds out he is very likely to do whatever it takes to get the baby away from its adoptive parents. she cant put her child in that position.

So you wish to reward the father for being a scumbag ?

As for women coming to term without knowing they were pregnant, it can and does happen. It doesn't happen to people with an IQ of over 100, but it still happens to a suprising number of people. You don't have to be totally stupid to not realise you're pregnant, but unless you're self delusional, you're gonna be dumber than average.

Maybe if they got every single symptom of pregnancy you could make that claim but not everyone has that experience.

So you wish to reward the father for being a scumbag ?

he IS the father of the child. there is no way around that. he has rights/responsibilities and the baby has rights.

would we force a woman who tricked a man into getting her pregnant to abort the pregnancy or to adopt out the baby? that is (almost) just as scummy.

Parental rights - especially as they pertain to abortion, adoption, and child support - have been discussed quite a bit in NSG. Everything from the paper abortion to what to do when a man finds out that the child he has raised as his is not biologically his. Well, here's a new situation to add to the mix.

Most people have pretty much agreed (from what I've seen) that a woman who tricks a man into impregnating her (ie. stating she is on birth control when she actually trying to get pregnant) is pretty scummy and many would agree that the man should not hold the same amount of responsibility in that case as in those where the couple is honest with one another. Well, what if a man is trying to impregnate a woman against her will?

I recently found out about just such a case. A woman caught her partner slipping his condom off during sex - the condom that was their only form of birth control at the time. The first time, she made it clear to him that she did not want to get pregnant, and that it was absolutely unacceptable for him to do so. But he apparently has kids and wants more. The second time she caught him doing it, she broke off the relationship and has had no contact with him since.

She recently found out that she is pregnant - and too far along to consider abortion, which she is morally opposed to anyways. So her options are now to keep the child or to put it up for adoption. If she tells the father, he could block the adoption option. In most situations, I would say this is one of his parental rights. In this one, considering that he was intentionally removing birth control from the equation against her will, I'm not so sure. Should she be required to consult with him, considering that he apparently intentionally put her in this situation? Legally, she is not supposed to be able to put the baby up for adoption without his consent, but is that moral in this case?

Discuss.

The man is of no consequence to the pregnancy, but should certainly be held responsible for the child, whatever the mother wants to do with it.

What he has done should also be considered a crime, but if he goes to prison, he will have a very difficult time supporting the child.

he IS the father of the child. there is no way around that. he has rights/responsibilities and the baby has rights.

would we force a woman who tricked a man into getting her pregnant to abort the pregnancy or to adopt out the baby? that is (almost) just as scummy.

Would a rapist have the same rights in your eyes if he got his victim pregnant?

he IS the father of the child. there is no way around that. he has rights/responsibilities and the baby has rights.

would we force a woman who tricked a man into getting her pregnant to abort the pregnancy or to adopt out the baby? that is (almost) just as scummy.

No, but I wouldn't force a man in that position into being a part of the child's life if he didn't want to, either. I would also, in any custody proceedings where they both wanted the child, give the person who had been deceived much more consideration than the deceiver.

In the end, I don't know if it will be an issue. I think she's leaning heavily towards keeping the child, even though she doesn't think she is in the best of circumstances (she wanted to wait to have children until she was in a stable relationship).

Would a rapist have the same rights in your eyes if he got his victim pregnant?

This man is a rapist.

This man is a rapist.

Thats my opinion but not necessarily the opinion of the person I was replying to

Would you consider a woman who tricked a man a rapist too? just curious

Thats my opinion but not necessarily the opinion of the person I was replying to

Would you consider a woman who tricked a man a rapist too? just curious

If you "trick" someone into having sex, you have removed their ability to choose, and you are a rapist, regardless of gender.

Legally, she is not supposed to be able to put the baby up for adoption without his consent, but is that moral in this case?

Absolutely. The man doesn't sound like a particularly responsible parent anyway...

If you "trick" someone into having sex, you have removed their ability to choose, and you are a rapist, regardless of gender.

My opinion aside, reading the story, he didn't trick her into having sex with him, she chose to freely, and even if he left the condom on she still could have become pregnant.

Now, my personal opinion is that he still did something wrong, but, like what has been said, the only sure way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. The baby still has its own rightsand both of them should support it. Also, he should not get the baby, as he would most likely be a bad influence on it.

My opinion aside, reading the story, he didn't trick her into having sex with him, she chose to freely, and even if he left the condom on she still could have become pregnant.

She would not have had sex with him without a condom. Thus, he tricked her into having sex with him by pretending that he had the intention of using the condom - and even putting one on.

I think the guy should have to take it, or maybe go to jail. I wonder if she could sue him... Probably. Or, if she wants to keep it, he should be made to pay child support.

My opinion aside, reading the story, he didn't trick her into having sex with him, she chose to freely, and even if he left the condom on she still could have become pregnant.

Now, my personal opinion is that he still did something wrong, but, like what has been said, the only sure way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. The baby still has its own rightsand both of them should support it. Also, he should not get the baby, as he would most likely be a bad influence on it.

i agree with you, its not rape. its scummy and perhaps there should be a law against it, but its not rape.

no more than a woman claiming to be on the pill when she isnt is raping the man who has sex with her.

he "gets the baby" no matter what. he is the baby's father. whether he wants primary physical custody of the baby is unknown but he will have all the rights and responsibilities of a father no matter how creepy his actions were to get there.

i agree with you, its not rape. its scummy and perhaps there should be a law against it, but its not rape.

no more than a woman claiming to be on the pill when she isnt is raping the man who has sex with her.

he "gets the baby" no matter what. he is the baby's father. whether he wants primary physical custody of the baby is unknown but he will have all the rights and responsibilities of a father no matter how creepy his actions were to get there.

The woman consented to have sex if the man wore a condom. Therefore when the man took off the condom, he lost her consent.

When the discusson about a man who does not want to have a baby comes up, I say that if the man had SEX(no matter what his stated feelings on having a child) he has indicated that he is open to the possibility of pregnancy and he then bears reponsibility for the results. If the mother chooses adoption or abortion, his responsbility ends there, but if she chooses to keep the child, he is responsible for support.

The same is true in this case. The woman had sex, which means she must accept responsbility for her actions. If she chooses not to abort, then the law says that the father has a say in any adoption proceedings. It may not be ideal for him to do so (and in this case it sounds like a bad idea) but if the father wants to keep the child, the mother should also bear the responsbility of child support.

It may SEEM like rape, in that she has said she does not want to get pregnant, but unless she has said no to sex at all, I don't believe it actually IS rape. She has been a willing participant in an act which may end in pregnancy regardless of any protection, and she continued to have sex with him even after he tried at least once to slip one past her. The fact that she continued to have sex with him makes the result as much her fault as his.

The guy is dumb. He should just prick the end...

It's alchemy.

The woman consented to have sex if the man wore a condom. Therefore when the man took off the condom, he lost her consent.

I would almost buy that the first time it happened... but she consented to sex with the same man again.

i agree with you, its not rape. its scummy and perhaps there should be a law against it, but its not rape.

It is no less rape than getting someone drunk to have sex with them. A person who does something like this is intentionally removing the option of informed consent. How can that be anything but rape?

no more than a woman claiming to be on the pill when she isnt is raping the man who has sex with her.

If he would not have sex with her otherwise, it is rape for her to claim to be on the pill to get him to do so.

he "gets the baby" no matter what. he is the baby's father. whether he wants primary physical custody of the baby is unknown but he will have all the rights and responsibilities of a father no matter how creepy his actions were to get there.

But should he? Should someone like that have any custody or rights to an infant at all?

Discuss.

while it's not rape, it's not entirely his fault. yes he is scum, but if Condoms where the only thing she was relying on then she left the choice up to him. she could've been on the pill, or get an operation. risky but she could've taken those steps. now it's down to what most rape cases fall into... He said, She said.

However there are options.

1) Are they married? if not, more power to her.

2) If he wants the child, he pays for half or all of the bills and he raises the child.

3) He cannot force her to marry him.

So you wish to reward the father for being a scumbag ?

Unfortunately she DID reward him by having sex with him again.

Unfortunately she DID reward him by having sex with him again.

Not a big fan of giving people second chances, are you?

The first time, it could have been one of those "Oh, it feels better this way," things. The second time, it had been made expressly clear to him that the action was unacceptable (hence the reason that she broke off the relationship at that point).

I would almost buy that the first time it happened... but she consented to sex with the same man again.

The old "rape me once shame on you, rape me twice shame on me" defense, huh?

The old "rape me once shame on you, rape me twice shame on me" defense, huh?
Rape me twice....a raped chick don't get raped again?

The woman consented to have sex if the man wore a condom. Therefore when the man took off the condom, he lost her consent.

It is no less rape than getting someone drunk to have sex with them. A person who does something like this is intentionally removing the option of informed consent. How can that be anything but rape?


people lie about sex all the time.

"oh baby i love you"

"youre the only one"

"im on the pill"

"ive had a vasectomy

"my wife doesnt understand me"

"of course ill marry you"

"my boyfriend is out of town"

whatever.

thats not rape. to call it rape is to diminish real rape.

if you want to make lying to get sex a crime FINE, but dont call it rape.

and be prepared to fill the prisons with sex offenders.

people lie about sex all the time.

"oh baby i love you"

"youre the only one"

"im on the pill"

"ive had a vasectomy

"my wife doesnt understand me"

"of course ill marry you"

"my boyfriend is out of town"

whatever.

thats not rape. to call it rape is to diminish real rape.

if you want to make lying to get sex a crime FINE, but dont call it rape.

and be prepared to fill the prisons with sex offenders.

What is the definition of rape?

What is the definition of rape?

sex against your will.

saying yes because he told you he was prince of wales just doesnt qualify as rape.

Why would saying you're the prince of wales -increase- your chances?

And clearly it was sex against her will, because the conditions she allowed him to have it were not met. "you can have sex with me but only if you wear a condom" is not "screw me any way you like". When the condom came off, he was not meeting her conditions, and he knew that, and made efforts to ensure she did not. If it was a genuine accident, there wouldn't be this situation because nobody can be held responsible. However, that guy done it on purpose, and now she's burdened, for the rest of her life, with a child that she didn't choose to have. (Say what you like, but just because a condom has like a .1% chance to break or something is actually irrelevant in this argument. Because prevention fails is a pretty silly argument. "Your honour, I had sex without her consent, and now she's pregnant. But if I had used a condom, it STILL might have broke..... it's still rape.) The guy used deceit instead of force, but the consequences are identical.

Why would saying you're the prince of wales -increase- your chances?

And clearly it was sex against her will, because the conditions she allowed him to have it were not met. "you can have sex with me but only if you wear a condom" is not "screw me any way you like". When the condom came off, he was not meeting her conditions, and he knew that, and made efforts to ensure she did not. If it was a genuine accident, there wouldn't be this situation because nobody can be held responsible. However, that guy done it on purpose, and now she's burdened, for the rest of her life, with a child that she didn't choose to have. (Say what you like, but just because a condom has like a .1% chance to break or something is actually irrelevant in this argument. Because prevention fails is a pretty silly argument. "Your honour, I had sex without her consent, and now she's pregnant. But if I had used a condom, it STILL might have broke..... it's still rape.) The guy used deceit instead of force, but the consequences are identical.


well what do you think should be the punishment for this rape?

should we be seinding a woman who pricks a hole in the condom so that she can get pregnant to jail?

what about the man at the bar who claims to be a lawyer when he's unemployed and living in his parents basement?

what about the woman who says she is on the pill?

the man who tells a woman that he loves her so that she will consent to sex?

people lie to get sex all the time. are we going to punish them all?

this is not rape. it may be a violation but that doesnt make it rape. its creepy. its wrong. its not sex against her will.

I call this rape because it is sexual action the woman did not consent to. Now all we need to do is follow the procedure as thus.

To me, in this situation, whether the man's action was rape or not is immaterial. The real question is, what to do with this kid? Now, I would not be at all adverse to calling what he did rape, if it will get the best possible outcome for the woman who was wronged and the child who is an innocent victim.

What should that outcome be? In my opinion, the woman has a couple of options, all of which involve bringing a legal complaint against the man:

First, she needs a good lawyer to argue that he violated her trust by deceiving her about the condoms. Rape might enter into this, but it is far more likely to be a civil tort case. Breach of a verbal contract as well as violation of her civil rights, or something along those lines. Who knows, but it could end up being both civil and criminal, depending on the location.

Then she might petition a court to sever all of her parental rights/obligations to the child and hand it over to the father who wanted it in the first place. This would get her back to where she wanted to be, but I personally don't think that would be the best for the child, because as Dem points out, he's clearly a lying, manipulative bastard - not prime role model material. This is also not likely to happen if criminal issues are involved.

Alternatively, she might petition a court to sever the parental rights of the father on the grounds of his bad behavior and grant her the authority to put the child up for adoption without his agreement.

Or, let's say, she gets attached to the kid and decides to keep it. She should be able to sue the man for full child support, while still petitioning to have his access to the child severely limited -- no visitation or supervised visits only -- again on the grounds of his bad behavior. After all, if a man wants a child so badly that he would use a woman in this manner rather than look for a willing partner, it begs the question, what does he want the child for?

In any event, the woman should be able to sue the man for 100% of her medical costs from the pregnancy as well as pain and suffering and emotional distress damages.

I do not think that men who are tricked into fathering children they never wanted should be forced to pay for them, but if THIS man wanted this child so freaking badly, I say he should never be able to stop paying for it.

Logically, what he did is rape:
She agreed to have sex if he wore a condom.
He didn't wear a condom, so she didn't agree to have sex with him.
Since he did have sex with her and she didn't agree to have sex with him, he raped her.

this is not rape. it may be a violation but that doesnt make it rape. its creepy. its wrong. its not sex against her will.

Was she willing to have unprotected sex?

Blackmail Rape Example:

Man has a gun to your fathers head, tells you to sleep with him or he will kill him. You agree to save your fathers life.

Now judging by what some people have said in this thread, they wouldn't consider this rape, because you consented to the sex, regardless of the situation (extreme i know, but you get my point). If you have sex with someone under false pretense its rape, people conjure up visions of men battering women and holding them down, or drugging them. Sometimes rape isnt violent.

Statutory rape is where it gets real tricky,

"Im 18... really"

Was she willing to have unprotected sex?

if she was willing to leave birth control up to her (already proved unreliable) partner, it must not have been that important to her at that moment.

she consented to sex. rape is not about birth control. its about consent.

I think this falls into that category of fucked up stuff that the law just doesn't, and perhaps can't cover without fucking over much larger groups of people. You can make the argument that she ought to be able to put the kid up for adoption without his consent, but I get the feeling that will screw over more people than the current system allows for, and in a situation like this one, where you're left with no option where no one will get screwed, I think you have to go with who suffers the least damage.

The woman did have the option, at one point, of terminating the pregnancy, after all. The fact that she says she's morally opposed to the option doesn't negate its existence. That position, moral or otherwise, has consequences, which means that she now bears responsibility for that child, whether she plans to raise it or put it up for adoption. Is there an option where she can claim that she doesn't know who the father is and get around the law that way?


If she wants to risk getting sued by the father, maybe.

Is this you? y'know "I have this friend" kind of question.

if she was willing to leave birth control up to her (already proved unreliable) partner, it must not have been that important to her at that moment.

she consented to sex. rape is not about birth control. its about consent.

Yes it is.
Conditional consent counts too.
Just for arguments sake, what is the difference between:
"I will have sex with you if you wear a condom" and
"I would have sex with you if you were the last man on earth".
If the second guy goes and has sex with her while there are still other men on earth, it's obviously rape.

if she was willing to leave birth control up to her (already proved unreliable) partner, it must not have been that important to her at that moment.

she consented to sex. rape is not about birth control. its about consent.

If I say to a man, "I'll have sex with you but I don't want anal sex," that is a clear statement of what I am and am not consenting to. If that man then knowingly and willfully penetrates me anally, he has raped me, no matter how much I consented to other sexual practices.

This is no different. She consented to sex if and only if he was wearing a condom. She made this explicitly clear. He knowingly and willfully penetrated her without one. Thus, he committed a sex act that she had not consented to and had, in fact, explicitly made her lack of consent known.

Sure, it gets more fuzzy when lies are told to increase chances, but no explicit conditions for consent are set out. "Hey baby, I'm a lawyer," may be a shitty thing to do (assuming you're not), but unless the person you are trying to have sex with has explicitly said, "I only have sex with lawyers," or, "I'll only have sex with you if you are a lawyer," you'd be hard pressed to call it rape. But in this case, her conditions for consent were explicitly laid out and made clear. He broke those conditions. Thus, he had sex with her without her consent - the very definition of rape.

people lie about sex all the time.

Indeed. But this isn't lying about sex. This is willfully and intentionally committing a sex act on a person who has made it explicitly clear that they do not consent to that sex act.

There is a difference between lying in the hopes that it will increase your chances of sex, and taking deliberate action that you know for a fact is against the other person's will.

"I'll have sex with you but I don't want anal sex,"
...boring...

To me, in this situation, whether the man's action was rape or not is immaterial. The real question is, what to do with this kid?

Give it up for adoption to a stable, two-parents family while the father pays child support through the court but is not told the whereabouts.

When the cild turns 16 or so it will get to hear the whole story and can decide what it wants to do with it him/herself.

*snip for length*

Discuss.
As far as I am concerned, the man in your example is a rapist. Impregnating a woman against her clearly expressed wishes is rape.

Far as I'm concerned, the man in question should never be permitted contact with ANY children. If he has existing children, he should lose custody immediately and be permanently barred from ever seeing them again. He should be expected to pay child support until his children reach 18, and should be obligated to financially support the child that his rape has conceived even after it is adopted, but he should never be permitted any contact with the children.

Indeed. But this isn't lying about sex. This is willfully and intentionally committing a sex act on a person who has made it explicitly clear that they do not consent to that sex act.

There is a difference between lying in the hopes that it will increase your chances of sex, and taking deliberate action that you know for a fact is against the other person's will.
Exactly. He is a rapist. He engaged in a sex act against the clearly stated wishes of the woman in question.

If he could not grasp the meaning of "I don't want to get pregnant," then he is too stupid to be entrusted with child rearing. If he simply didn't care, then he is too fucked up to be entrusted with child rearing. If he thought that his desire for children entitles him to rape people, then he is too sick and selfish to be entrusted with child rearing.

In any case, this is an individual who clearly should never be entrusted with children.

Parental rights - especially as they pertain to abortion, adoption, and child support - have been discussed quite a bit in NSG. Everything from the paper abortion to what to do when a man finds out that the child he has raised as his is not biologically his. Well, here's a new situation to add to the mix.

Most people have pretty much agreed (from what I've seen) that a woman who tricks a man into impregnating her (ie. stating she is on birth control when she actually trying to get pregnant) is pretty scummy and many would agree that the man should not hold the same amount of responsibility in that case as in those where the couple is honest with one another. Well, what if a man is trying to impregnate a woman against her will?

I recently found out about just such a case. A woman caught her partner slipping his condom off during sex - the condom that was their only form of birth control at the time. The first time, she made it clear to him that she did not want to get pregnant, and that it was absolutely unacceptable for him to do so. But he apparently has kids and wants more. The second time she caught him doing it, she broke off the relationship and has had no contact with him since.

She recently found out that she is pregnant - and too far along to consider abortion, which she is morally opposed to anyways. So her options are now to keep the child or to put it up for adoption. If she tells the father, he could block the adoption option. In most situations, I would say this is one of his parental rights. In this one, considering that he was intentionally removing birth control from the equation against her will, I'm not so sure. Should she be required to consult with him, considering that he apparently intentionally put her in this situation? Legally, she is not supposed to be able to put the baby up for adoption without his consent, but is that moral in this case?

Discuss.

I do not think that anybody should pay child support if they did not want to have the child. Normall, I think of this in the context of the man because men are presently oppressed by laws that do not give them equal abortion rights in the form of what have been called paper abortions. I think that the same principle should apply to this pro-lifer woman. If she does not want to pay child support she should not have to. She should be able to turn over all parental rights to the Papa or put it up for adoption if Papa is unwilling.

I think this approach is probably kinder than my knee jerk reaction of "Well if she is a damned pro-lifer let her live with the consequences." This approach respects the right of a woman to make a decision (not to just have an abortion) that I disagree with, but I think it is important for a free society to allow people to make choices that I find disagreeable, as I probably will make some choices that others find disagreeable.

Give it up for adoption to a stable, two-parents family while the father pays child support through the court but is not told the whereabouts.

When the cild turns 16 or so it will get to hear the whole story and can decide what it wants to do with it him/herself.

thanks for ignoring the whole rest of the post in which I talked about some of the options, but yes, this is yet another option.

Ask the court to appoint a legal guardian to act as legal representative of the child until age 18, and have the father's child support obligations attached to the child, no matter who may actually be raising it at any given time. That way the mother can go free, but the father is still obligated to the child he insisted on creating, AND punished for his bad behavior towards the child and its mother.

You know, I read about that in a Chuck Palahniuk (sp?) novel, that this guy was trying to get his girlfriend pregnant and he was replacing her birth control with placebos and whatnot. It freaks me out every time I think about it...to not have control over one's reproduction is so goddamn scary.

I say she should give the baby to him, if he wants kids so freaking bad.

Originally Posted by Ashmoria
people lie about sex all the time.
Indeed. But this isn't lying about sex. This is willfully and intentionally committing a sex act on a person who has made it explicitly clear that they do not consent to that sex act.

There is a difference between lying in the hopes that it will increase your chances of sex, and taking deliberate action that you know for a fact is against the other person's will.
What if we were talking about a disease instead of a child? What if this guy had been HIV positive, but this woman consented to have sex with him as long as he used a condom to protect her from the disease? And what if he slips the condom off and later it turns out she is infected?

That's not "lying about sex." In some jurisdictions, he could be charged with a crime for the deliberate spreading of an infectious disease. In some places, he might even be charged with something like assault against the woman.

While I'm not comparing a child to a disease, I must say I don't see much difference in using deception to impregnate a woman against her will. He placed her health at risk and put an undo burden on her that she will have to go to a lot of trouble and expense to deal with. Depending on what decision is made about the child, she might be dealing with it for the rest of her life.

I fail to see how this is comparable to a man lying about his profession in order to get a woman think favorably of him, or a person claiming to have fewer partners than they really did, or one partner saying the sex was better than it was to avoid hurting the other's feelings. That's "lying about sex"; this situation is not.

Someone said there is a chance of getting pregnant while wearing a condom: let's say that probability is 2% then it means from 100 times sex, 2 pregnancies result on average. For unprotected sex, the chance of getting pregnant is 25%. This means this person has improved the chance of getting her pregnant 12.5 times.

Some of you have mentioned extremist action. Extremist action would be this.

1. Castrate the father (something I support happening to all sex offenders)
2. If the mother wants the child force the father to pay support
3. If the mother doesn't want the child she can set it up for adoption.
4. The father has no rights or privelages with the child.

I do beleive that with a good lawyer, or even a semi-decent lawyer and a well worded argument she coul prove it was non-consentual and therefore paramount to rape. He violated her expressed wishes and rights... however his defense could argue that there is only circumstantial proof that the child was concieved directly as a result of his condom removal.

Personally, I think the scumbag needs kicked in the rocks until he can only ejaculate blood.

I had a relationship with a women in college who was on the pill. She let slip once and told me she had stopped taking it in hopes of getting pregnant. Because she told me I gave her a second chance. Technically it was the same kind of circumstance as what the man and women went through (Just reversed). Had I found out about her doing it again, I would have called it off the same as the women did. Had I found out about a pregnancy (a thing that had me scared for almost a year after we parted ways) I would have attempted to take legal action against her; but as a male my hopes were at best nominal.
However, as she is a female and courts almost always rule in favor of the mothers I think she can win a civil suit against him cleanly and with few doubts.

Anyone that would trick their partner into getting pregnant/getting them pregnant needs to be removed from the gene pool if not charged with some type of crime.

To me, if he wants a kid that badly he can take sole custody of it without any child support. Or, at the very least, waive his right to block a decision to put it up for adoption.

I think this sort of thing happens a lot. I am pretty sure that there are women who will tell a man they are using birth control when they really arent. Usually the motive is something evil like wanting to trap the man in her evil hussy talons. I bet that gold diggers do this too either to land a rich man or get big child support checks.