billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote>Cover it or get the snip.
?? Surely if a condom fails, or the vasectomy wasn't 100% effective, he is still responsible, no?
Yes, still responsible. Somebody has to be, so it's either the father or society.
Suppose she lied to him and told him she didn't have HIV. Does that relieve him of any responsibility to protect himself?
Dont do the crime... if you cannt do the time...
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Richards 0
QuoteSuppose she lied to him and told him she didn't have HIV. Does that relieve him of any responsibility to protect himself?
Does that not qualify as a type of assault or endangerment? I am sure she could be charged for that (or at least I hope she would).
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
wmw999 2,446
Suppose she was just wrong -- didn't realize that she was HIV positive? Suppose _he_ was.
Regardless, when it comes to protection, everyone's responsible, both for taking protective measures, and when they fail.
If nothing else, a decent guy can be a great counterpoint to a mother who lies. And a really great mother can be a good counterpoint to a dad who doesn't want to be involved.
Of course, the real win-win is when both parents can cooperate for the benefit of the child, and make it safe for the kid to love both of them, regardless of their marital status.
Wendy W.
Regardless, when it comes to protection, everyone's responsible, both for taking protective measures, and when they fail.
If nothing else, a decent guy can be a great counterpoint to a mother who lies. And a really great mother can be a good counterpoint to a dad who doesn't want to be involved.
Of course, the real win-win is when both parents can cooperate for the benefit of the child, and make it safe for the kid to love both of them, regardless of their marital status.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
jakee 1,489
QuoteSuppose she was just wrong -- didn't realize that she was HIV positive? Suppose _he_ was.
Then its a completely different scenario isn't it.
In the UK people can and have been prosecuted for knowingly infecting others with HIV.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
cyric77 0
He is an adult, and should know that there is always a risk of pregnancy when having sex, so if he decides to go ahead with the act, then he should accept the consequences of his actions. Its not like he is being forced to sleep with her, and he can always say it's either a condom or no sex. I have had that scenario happen to me on many occasions, and I have yet to meet a woman who gets angry with me for insisting on protection, and if she does then thats a big red flag.
Damn straight he should be held responsible - responsible to the child that HE caused.
I hear numerous variables dealing with this situation. All of them are related to "but/for her statement, she wouldn't be pregnant."
I like to break it to them, "but/for your act of sexual intercourse, it wouldn't have happened."
An attorney could tell him, "You've got a strong case." He may believe the attorney. It's up to him. And he may come back later and say, "But!" But he's still on the hook/
A salesman could say, "This is the best car on the lot!" Of course he can believe the salesman. And later that week take the car back and say, "But!!!" But he's still got the car.
Someone could tell him, "There are no real dangers in skydiving." He may want to believe those people, too. And he may later, from a wheelchair, say, "But!"
but he's still got the paralysis.
He may have someone tell him, "You don't have to pay taxes." Maybe he could believe that, too. And he may later tell the judge, "But!" But he'll still face prison time and a hefty fine.
And he may have someone tell him, "" [repeat ad nauseum].
I don't care if you don't want the kid, you are responsible for the kid. End of story. Enough said. Can't handle it? Then go home and jerk off.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I hear numerous variables dealing with this situation. All of them are related to "but/for her statement, she wouldn't be pregnant."
I like to break it to them, "but/for your act of sexual intercourse, it wouldn't have happened."
An attorney could tell him, "You've got a strong case." He may believe the attorney. It's up to him. And he may come back later and say, "But!" But he's still on the hook/
A salesman could say, "This is the best car on the lot!" Of course he can believe the salesman. And later that week take the car back and say, "But!!!" But he's still got the car.
Someone could tell him, "There are no real dangers in skydiving." He may want to believe those people, too. And he may later, from a wheelchair, say, "But!"
but he's still got the paralysis.
He may have someone tell him, "You don't have to pay taxes." Maybe he could believe that, too. And he may later tell the judge, "But!" But he'll still face prison time and a hefty fine.
And he may have someone tell him, "
I don't care if you don't want the kid, you are responsible for the kid. End of story. Enough said. Can't handle it? Then go home and jerk off.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Darius11 12
I think the big difference is that in all the incidences you mentioned no one is 50% responsible. No ones throws you out of the plane, no one takes your check out for you and signs it for that car.
Apples and oranges really
Apples and oranges really
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
wmw999 2,446
In each of those cases, however, you are responsible for your behavior. It doesn't matter what someone else is responsible for if you're responsible for the possible consequences. ("You" in this case is not referring to you, Darius -- sometimes English just doesn't make clarity easy). That someone else is responsible for their actions, and the consequences. It's not always that a whole has two exact halves; kind of like the deal where if each person is giving 50% to a marriage, then there isn't a 100% marriage there (trust me on this one).QuoteI think the big difference is that in all the incidences you mentioned no one is 50% responsible.
If a woman gives you oral, then uses the semen to make herself pregnant -- then, yes, you're really not responsible. You had no reasonable expectation that pregnancy could happen from oral sex.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Quote
In the UK people can and have been prosecuted for knowingly infecting others with HIV.
Likewise, here in the US.
We are all engines of karma
Quote
If a woman gives you oral, then uses the semen to make herself pregnant -- then, yes, you're really not responsible. You had no reasonable expectation that pregnancy could happen from oral sex.
Would this even work?
We are all engines of karma
Quote
Yes, still responsible. Somebody has to be, so it's either the father or society.
Agreed. Absolutely agreed.
We are all engines of karma
QuoteI think the big difference is that in all the incidences you mentioned no one is 50% responsible.
Actually, all of them DO have some responsibility in it.
QuoteNo ones throws you out of the plane,
No, but if they tell you you not to worry and then reality hits, well, should the jumper who took a risk so blatantly obvious be excused?
Quoteno one takes your check out for you and signs it for that car.
Nope. Typically, a guy would take his own
i dunno. It seems like the both involve a deliberate effort at denial of risks.
Edited to add: an easier solution would be to only bang rich chicks. Federline has himself set for life with child support, even if he only gets weekends with the kid, it's probably good for a couple hundred thousand per year.
If you knock up a very wealthy woman, you can avoid almost all responsibility and STILL get child support coming to you for the 4 or 6 days per month you've got the child.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
couple hundred thousand per year
I read in the Enquirer it was 300K.
LOL!!!
We are all engines of karma
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteSuppose she was just wrong -- didn't realize that she was HIV positive? Suppose _he_ was.
Regardless, when it comes to protection, everyone's responsible, both for taking protective measures, and when they fail.
If she did not know then obviously she has acted in good faith, even if like him she was being irresponsible. I was specifically refferring to scenarios where someone been informed by their doctor that he/she has tested positive for the disease and then knowingly lies to a person he/she is about to have intercourse with about it. Yes he should think for himself but she should be charged if she has knowingly lied to about having the disease.QuoteIf nothing else, a decent guy can be a great counterpoint to a mother who lies. And a really great mother can be a good counterpoint to a dad who doesn't want to be involved.
Of course, the real win-win is when both parents can cooperate for the benefit of the child, and make it safe for the kid to love both of them, regardless of their marital status.
Agree 100%
RichardsMy biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Tink1717 2
NEVER trust a woman who says she's on the pill and/or doesn't want a kid.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
QuoteThis was inspired by a thread in BF, and something similar happened to a very good friend.
Just want to get some feedback from all of you.
Who is responsible in the following satiation?
Morally? The same party that's responsible when making sperm bank withdrawls with artificial insemination should be footing the bill when she decides to use a free sperm bank with natural methods.
Legally? Unless the guy has a signed release from the woman, protecting society and children from guys who'd lie about the circumstances of conception is going to require him to support the child.
When both parties are telling the truth about using or not using birth control and it fails it's a joint problem.
deeter 0
QuoteA man and a woman want to have sex.
Right ON!! Down with THAT!!
QuoteThe man expresses that he is clean but does not want children
Good on 'em. Slap a slicker on she'll either want it or not. If she doesn't like the way it "feels"....well, unless it's latex and she has an allergy or sensitivity, suck it up.
QuoteThe woman says that she is on the pill and does not want the man to use condoms she is clean and does not like the feel.
You have got to be fucking KIDDING, right? There's integrity and then there's life. Does not like the feel...horse shit! Is she 16?
QuoteThey get pregnant and the guy takes responsibility as he assumes that the birth control failed as it sometimes does.
Takes responsibility? Does she want this baby? Does she want support for an abortion? Wuh?
QuoteLater it is found out that the woman was never under any birth control and she knew she had a very high chance of getting pregnant.
Sounds like some "woman", and I use this term here with not much conviction, is a liar.
QuoteShould the father be held responsible?
Yep.
Naive dude. And stupid chicks like that give us REAL women a bad name. Sad situation, that.
kallend 2,027
The child is entitled to support from its parents.
Moral of the story - be very careful where you stick it.
Moral of the story - be very careful where you stick it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
?? Surely if a condom fails, or the vasectomy wasn't 100% effective, he is still responsible, no?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites