New topic
Printable| Ex-Moderator |
katt said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: They should, yes. I think it's a horrid idea to fabricate a relationship from the fact a child is created. That is the worst excuse to stay together. Women who have children against the wishes of the man should take care of that kid themselves. It is their choice to have it. We have a huge problem in the UK it seems young men and woman are not taken responsibility for there actions, we have a large percentage of 1 parent family’s where young men stay with the young woman for a short period during pregnancy or after giving birth then breaking up and not seeing or paying for the child they both produced. As much as I agree with you about woman who deliberately falls pregnant I do think men have 2 take some blame 2. Agreed. No one should be deceitful. But the only way a man can guarantee he doesn't impregnate someone is by not having sex. His next best option is to wear a condom. Every time. |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: katt said: We have a huge problem in the UK it seems young men and woman are not taken responsibility for there actions, we have a large percentage of 1 parent family’s where young men stay with the young woman for a short period during pregnancy or after giving birth then breaking up and not seeing or paying for the child they both produced. As much as I agree with you about woman who deliberately falls pregnant I do think men have 2 take some blame 2. Agreed. No one should be deceitful. But the only way a man can guarantee he doesn't impregnate someone is by not having sex. His next best option is to wear a condom. Every time. Yes and Yes. Legally he is obligated to pay, cuz the state will find a sucker one way or the other, but he is not obligated to stay in a relationship with that woman or to have contact with the child. 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: katt said: We have a huge problem in the UK it seems young men and woman are not taken responsibility for there actions, we have a large percentage of 1 parent family’s where young men stay with the young woman for a short period during pregnancy or after giving birth then breaking up and not seeing or paying for the child they both produced. As much as I agree with you about woman who deliberately falls pregnant I do think men have 2 take some blame 2. Agreed. No one should be deceitful. But the only way a man can guarantee he doesn't impregnate someone is by not having sex. His next best option is to wear a condom. Every time. Exactly and every man knows that if you have sex with a woman that she can get pregnant- unless she has had a hysterectomy. Even the pill is NOT 100% effective. I guess gay couples do not have to worry about this issue. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I just wish they would unveil the male pill, that way there is no longer any excuse for the man. "Waiting to be banned" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
liberation said: I just wish they would unveil the male pill, that way there is no longer any excuse for the man.
There are already condoms and vasectomies.  There are already no excuses. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: CarrieMpls said: Agreed. No one should be deceitful. But the only way a man can guarantee he doesn't impregnate someone is by not having sex. His next best option is to wear a condom. Every time. Yes and Yes. Legally he is obligated to pay, cuz the state will find a sucker one way or the other, but he is not obligated to stay in a relationship with that woman or to have contact with the child. oh, agreed. No relationship with the mother is required. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: liberation said: I just wish they would unveil the male pill, that way there is no longer any excuse for the man.
There are already condoms and vasectomies. There are already no excuses. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
wait what if it goes the other way?
is it wrong for a guy try to get the girl preggers? Poppys, daisys life is crazy | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meggy said: wait what if it goes the other way?
is it wrong for a guy try to get the girl preggers? Yes! 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: Yes and Yes. Legally he is obligated to pay, cuz the state will find a sucker one way or the other, but he is not obligated to stay in a relationship with that woman or to have contact with the child. oh, agreed. No relationship with the mother is required. But I do think a relationship with the child is required as the child is the innocent 1 in this scenario the child should not lose out. In my opinion if your old enough 2 lay down with another then ur old enough 2 be adult enough 2 put ur differences aside attempt 2 have a amicable split and help look after your flesh and blood. If an amicable split can not happen then seek a good go between be it family members, local authorities etc 2 keep contact lines open. One day that young child will turn into a adult and will want answers the door should always be open 2 that child. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: Getting pregnant or having a kid to rescue your relationship or make a man stay with you is A STUPID IDEA. If you are thinking about or have done this, you need therapy in the biggest way. Oh, it's not fair to your kid either.
yep.
besides, if you have to go to such an extreme to make him stay, he's not right for you anyhow | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
katt said: CarrieMpls said: oh, agreed. No relationship with the mother is required. But I do think a relationship with the child is required as the child is the innocent 1 in this scenario the child should not lose out. In my opinion if your old enough 2 lay down with another then ur old enough 2 be adult enough 2 put ur differences aside attempt 2 have a amicable split and help look after your flesh and blood. If an amicable split can not happen then seek a good go between be it family members, local authorities etc 2 keep contact lines open. One day that young child will turn into a adult and will want answers the door should always be open 2 that child. I think no man should be racketeered into having a relationship with a child. They should have one because they want it, not because they got trapped into it. The child's innocence is irrelevant to me in regards to that. [Edited 4/12/07 17:35pm] 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Condoms and a vasectomy...hell no!, i wanna be able to shoot blanks, the male pill would allow for this. "Waiting to be banned" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: katt said: But I do think a relationship with the child is required as the child is the innocent 1 in this scenario the child should not lose out. In my opinion if your old enough 2 lay down with another then ur old enough 2 be adult enough 2 put ur differences aside attempt 2 have a amicable split and help look after your flesh and blood. If an amicable split can not happen then seek a good go between be it family members, local authorities etc 2 keep contact lines open. One day that young child will turn into a adult and will want answers the door should always be open 2 that child. I think no man should be racketeered into having a relationship with a child. They should have one because they want it, not because they got trapped into it. The child's innocence is irrelevant to me in regards to that. [Edited 4/12/07 17:35pm] Then the man in the first place should have kept a condom on everytime he layed down with the woman then he would not be put in the predicament in the first place. Moral of this story: (singing in my Madonna voice) – Hey U don’t be silly put a condom on ur willy  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
katt said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: I think no man should be racketeered into having a relationship with a child. They should have one because they want it, not because they got trapped into it. The child's innocence is irrelevant to me in regards to that. [Edited 4/12/07 17:35pm] Then the man in the first place should have kept a condom on everytime he layed down with the woman then he would not be put in the predicament in the first place. Moral of this story: (singing in my Madonna voice) – Hey U don’t be silly put a condom on ur willy I totally don't believe a man not wearing a condom when having sex = forced to be a dad to a kid he doesn't want. Pay yes, forced into relationship no. 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Im not sure if everyone knows about this recent case in the UK, I can see both sided but I do feel sorry 4 her as the woman now has no chance of having a child of her own.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...295.stm?ls Woman loses final embryo appeal woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner. Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up. She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process. Ms Evans, 35, said she was "distraught" after the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruling, but Mr Johnston said "common sense had prevailed". Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, but six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored prior to her treatment. But she and Mr Johnston, who lives in Gloucester, split up in 2002 and he wrote to the clinic asking for the embryos to be destroyed. Ms Evans took the case to the High Court in 2003 asking to be allowed to use them without Mr Johnston's permission. She has argued he had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind. Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allows either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted. Ms Evans lost both the case and the appeal and was told she could not take the case to the House of Lords She then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which again ruled against her a year ago. Her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court under three articles of the European Convention of Human Rights represented her last chance to save the embryos. The court ruled unanimously that there had been no breach of the right to life, but on the right to respect for private and family life and on the prohibition of discrimination the 17 judges ruled 13 to four. After the decision, Ms Evans said: "I am distraught at the court's decision. It is very hard for me to accept the embryos will be destroyed." But Mr Johnston said: "I feel common sense has prevailed. Of course I am sympathetic, but I wanted to choose when, if and with whom I would have a child." Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "I think it was the only sensible decision which the Grand Chamber could come to. "UK law is clear. It is a principle of shared responsibility." But he added: "We feel dreadfully for Natallie." Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee, said the decision was welcome. "Having a child is a life-long undertaking to which both partners should be fully committed." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
katt said: Im not sure if everyone knows about this recent case in the UK, I can see both sided but I do feel sorry 4 her as the woman now has no chance of having a child of her own.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...295.stm?ls Woman loses final embryo appeal woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner. Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up. She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process. Ms Evans, 35, said she was "distraught" after the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruling, but Mr Johnston said "common sense had prevailed". Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, but six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored prior to her treatment. But she and Mr Johnston, who lives in Gloucester, split up in 2002 and he wrote to the clinic asking for the embryos to be destroyed. Ms Evans took the case to the High Court in 2003 asking to be allowed to use them without Mr Johnston's permission. She has argued he had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind. Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allows either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted. Ms Evans lost both the case and the appeal and was told she could not take the case to the House of Lords She then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which again ruled against her a year ago. Her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court under three articles of the European Convention of Human Rights represented her last chance to save the embryos. The court ruled unanimously that there had been no breach of the right to life, but on the right to respect for private and family life and on the prohibition of discrimination the 17 judges ruled 13 to four. After the decision, Ms Evans said: "I am distraught at the court's decision. It is very hard for me to accept the embryos will be destroyed." But Mr Johnston said: "I feel common sense has prevailed. Of course I am sympathetic, but I wanted to choose when, if and with whom I would have a child." Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "I think it was the only sensible decision which the Grand Chamber could come to. "UK law is clear. It is a principle of shared responsibility." But he added: "We feel dreadfully for Natallie." Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee, said the decision was welcome. "Having a child is a life-long undertaking to which both partners should be fully committed." If she wants to be a mother so badly, she should adopt. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: Getting pregnant or having a kid to rescue your relationship or make a man stay with you is A STUPID IDEA. If you are thinking about or have done this, you need therapy in the biggest way. Oh, it's not fair to your kid either.
 I agree also  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: katt said: Im not sure if everyone knows about this recent case in the UK, I can see both sided but I do feel sorry 4 her as the woman now has no chance of having a child of her own.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...295.stm?ls Woman loses final embryo appeal woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner. Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up. She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process. Ms Evans, 35, said she was "distraught" after the Grand Chamber of the European Court ruling, but Mr Johnston said "common sense had prevailed". Ms Evans was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2001, but six of the couple's fertilised embryos were frozen and stored prior to her treatment. But she and Mr Johnston, who lives in Gloucester, split up in 2002 and he wrote to the clinic asking for the embryos to be destroyed. Ms Evans took the case to the High Court in 2003 asking to be allowed to use them without Mr Johnston's permission. She has argued he had already consented to their creation, storage and use, and should not be allowed to change his mind. Current UK laws require both the man and woman to give consent, and allows either party to withdraw that consent up to the point where the embryos are implanted. Ms Evans lost both the case and the appeal and was told she could not take the case to the House of Lords She then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which again ruled against her a year ago. Her appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court under three articles of the European Convention of Human Rights represented her last chance to save the embryos. The court ruled unanimously that there had been no breach of the right to life, but on the right to respect for private and family life and on the prohibition of discrimination the 17 judges ruled 13 to four. After the decision, Ms Evans said: "I am distraught at the court's decision. It is very hard for me to accept the embryos will be destroyed." But Mr Johnston said: "I feel common sense has prevailed. Of course I am sympathetic, but I wanted to choose when, if and with whom I would have a child." Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "I think it was the only sensible decision which the Grand Chamber could come to. "UK law is clear. It is a principle of shared responsibility." But he added: "We feel dreadfully for Natallie." Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee, said the decision was welcome. "Having a child is a life-long undertaking to which both partners should be fully committed." If she wants to be a mother so badly, she should adopt. Agree 1,000,000,000% 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: Getting pregnant or having a kid to rescue your relationship or make a man stay with you is A STUPID IDEA. If you are thinking about or have done this, you need therapy in the biggest way. Oh, it's not fair to your kid either.
Ummm, where's this coming from?? As long as there's manipulative child bearing women and males who think birth control is up to the woman.....Voila!! Me, I had a tubal ligation years ago, so I've found other creative ways to be manipulative. I generally withhold sex until I get what I want, and proceed to walk around in cutoffs and a tight tee... .....then I slip a Viagra in the coffee
[Edited 4/12/07 16:32pm] Supa! There's other ways couples manipulate each other. Not just with a uterus. How about the partner who has the greater wealth?? and withholds, controls, limits, access to such. You're limiting the discussion to heterosexuals. There's many examples of trapping that has nothing to do with children. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
xplnyrslf said: xplnyrslf said: Ummm, where's this coming from?? As long as there's manipulative child bearing women and males who think birth control is up to the woman.....Voila!! Me, I had a tubal ligation years ago, so I've found other creative ways to be manipulative. I generally withhold sex until I get what I want, and proceed to walk around in cutoffs and a tight tee... .....then I slip a Viagra in the coffee
[Edited 4/12/07 16:32pm] Supa! There's other ways couples manipulate each other. Not just with a uterus. How about the partner who has the greater wealth?? and withholds, controls, limits, access to such. You're limiting the discussion to heterosexuals. There's many examples of trapping that has nothing to do with children. Oh God yes. I know this is true I'm just talking about kids.....MS. VIAGRA! 
I have had 3 opportunities to live a care free life as a paid participant in a relationship but I could never give up my autonomy and freedom. Besides, one was the great grandfather of father time and the other 2 were in the 400 - 500 pound range. Just a little too plump for my liking
. [Edited 4/12/07 18:52pm] 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 looking for you in the woods tonight Switch FC SW-2874-2863-4789 (Rum&Coke) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I agree. It will probably only make the situation worse, and the kid is the one who suffers most. Wanna hear me sing?  www.ChampagneHoneybee.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: JustErin said: If she wants to be a mother so badly, she should adopt. Agree 1,000,000,000% It's very hard to adopt once you've had cancer.  "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"-Dr Seuss
Pain is something to carry, like a radio...You should stand up for your right to feel your pain- Jim Morrison | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
shellyevon said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: Agree 1,000,000,000% It's very hard to adopt once you've had cancer. Is that because of life expectancy issues? If adoption is harder because of that, maybe she shouldn't have kids at all. Not trying to be harsh but if she had a kid and then dies, not really fair to the kid. 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: Getting pregnant or having a kid to rescue your relationship or make a man stay with you is A STUPID IDEA. If you are thinking about or have done this, you need therapy in the biggest way. Oh, it's not fair to your kid either.
Agreed  
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture! REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince "I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorSupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: xplnyrslf said: Supa! There's other ways couples manipulate each other. Not just with a uterus. How about the partner who has the greater wealth?? and withholds, controls, limits, access to such. You're limiting the discussion to heterosexuals. There's many examples of trapping that has nothing to do with children. Oh God yes. I know this is true I'm just talking about kids.....MS. VIAGRA!
I have had 3 opportunities to live a care free life as a paid participant in a relationship but I could never give up my autonomy and freedom. Besides, one was the great grandfather of father time and the other 2 were in the 400 - 500 pound range. Just a little too plump for my liking
. [Edited 4/12/07 18:52pm] It's Mrs. Viagra. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What you're saying is the extreme an individual goes, to get a partner to stay. Getting pregnant is an example that involves three people instead of two. In that same vein, how's this?
"If you leave me, I'll KILL MYSELF!" Even if that person dies a natural death 30 years later, there's always an element of guilt, for having left, even when it was the right thing to do. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Rock n roll baby | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: JustErin said: If she wants to be a mother so badly, she should adopt. Agree 1,000,000,000% I agree 2 but I do feel sorry 4 her. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |