The fuck are you talking about? I wasn't talking about any of that at all and didn't mention anything of the sort. I was speaking solely about whose responsibility a child is and how that's handled. You mentioned a way that guys shamefully weasel out of it and I brought up a brought that guys shamefully get locked into it.
Neither is claiming rape while drunk.
Here's a question to answer that question: Do you or would you flirt with a guy making him think he has a chance - only to leave him hanging at the last second - just for the fun of it?
If the answer is yes = you are an evil bitch who should have karma strike thee down with great vengeance and furious anger.
If the answer is no = you score less evil points as a woman.
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." -- Winston Churchill
Yet we go back to the main problem with pregnancy, a woman is in the end the one who has to deal with being pregnant, bear the child or find the means to get rid of it when she makes a bad choice. She knows she'll be the mother, and have to raise it. And if the father of the child doesn't want in, she'll have to being suit to get him to pay his share of this if she can find him and meet the evidenciary requirements, plus the court fight to get him to submit to a paternity test if nothing else (which i feel should be mandated by statute to avoid the whole who's the father debate if we can, to remove that as an issue).
Male = can dodge it by denial of paternity, dropping off the face of the earth, fighting it in court forever or until the woman runs out of money, patience, or emotional reserves (being pregnant or caring for a new child takes alot out of a person), flee the country, or settle. None of these involve actually having to sit down and care for the child or be involve in anyway in its upbringing or life.
Burden: on the woman, grossly so.
Qualified no, I flirt with women, usually. Do I break even?
I agree with all that, but what I'm saying is that even though women can be greatly screwed over in that way why is it so biased so that even if a man is not the father he still gets held legally responsible. For instance, the guy I mentioned earlier was not the father and had the tests to prove it, had been out of the relationship with the woman for several years, yet the case still dragged on to make him pay for the child until it defaulted - not because of evidence, mind you - due to shoddy attendance.
Is it rough for a single mother? Hell yes. My mom was until I was 17 since my dad died when I was two years old, so it's not like I have zero experience witnessing that first-hand. But I don't feel that a rough life for one person should get forced onto another simply because they liked each other for a while. Just because the guy was around since birth and helped support her back then doesn't mean that he should have to for the remaining 15 years or whatever because of a mistake that he had nothing to do with.
p.s. My last comment was simply stating that merely because something isn't as commonplace doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed, such as the initial issue of drunken consent.
One word. Condoms.
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often." -- Winston Churchill
I'm no family law expert but I think your friend may have had a bad lawyer. No evidence plus a negative paternity test in my mind should have been grounds for summary judgment (IE: Judge, take the evidence here in the best possible light for her, negative paternity test, cheating, ect... and make a call now and end this.)
TR: Also, Condoms, and don't fuck women who cannot support themselves, they've got motives.
Just treat women like objects. It hasn't failed for me yet.
Bookmarks