Quote:
Originally Posted by GoNative
All your examples above are of people being irresponsible. This couple wasn't being irresponsible. From what I can tell they were doing pretty much all you could reasonably expect to avoid a pregnancy. There is a big difference compared to a couple who took no precautions and ended up pregnant.
The result was completely unexpected and not desired or why have sex with contraceptives? You can reasonably expect that the chances of a pregnancy when using the pill and a condom are pretty slim. This idea that unless you are prepared to have a child don't have sex is utterly ridiculous and sounds like something the religious right in US love to preach. Are you one of these religious nuts MMM? (Oh sorry not allowed to discuss religion...gee wonder why?  ).
So according to you there's a mutual responsibility even though he was being completely responsible right along with the expectation that no child would be created. And she has decided to have the baby regardless of what his feelings about it are? Where's the mutual decision to start a family? There is none, but it's ok then for her to go ahead with it and expect him to be there? Nothing mutual about that at all... |
First of all, no I am not a religious person, and my statements have no moral or religious reasoning behind them.
I guess you haven't been reading what I am saying. Contraceptives are not 100%. Everyone knows that.
How can you say "there's no expectation that the child would be created"?
They did the ONE thing it takes to have a child!! Maybe there was a VERY LOW expectation, but you cannot say NO expectation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoNative
Maybe we need to bring in something like a pre-nup but for any sexual relationship we have. Something along the lines of 'we will take all precautions possible to not have a child using contraceptives but if one should occur and the mother decides to go ahead with the birth then the biological father will not be held responsible in anyway'  |
I think this is what I was talking about when I mentioned a pre-coitus agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealJames
I'm all for taking responsibility, and I think the responsible thing for a 19 and 20 year old to do is to give up the child for adoption, not ruin 3 lives.
By sex being mainstream I meant that sex is something that's forced on the minds of the population of the world and they all want to try it out and get into it, it's no surprise there are so many teenage births.
I don't consider babies disposable at all, in fact it's because of how important they are that I wouldn't want to see them raised by a father that doesn't want it, and a mother who's psychotic enough to think she can force her bf into sticking around for the child.
and LOL at the quote, that gave me a good laugh 
What I meant is that I think a child parented by it's biological 19 and 20 year old parents would be worse off than being adopted by a family that actually wanted a child. And so would the biological parents for that matter. |
Every couple's situation is different, and so I cannot say without a doubt that child would definitely be better off in another home, but basically I agree with you. I think the couple should do what is in the best interest of the child, if they do decide to go through with the birth.
And I understand what you are saying Nyororin. This has moved beyond Salvanas and his situation, so I won't do anything more to push it out, but it is a hot-button issue. All I will say is I didn't see anyone saying sex was "evil" and if you got that from me, then I did a poor job of representing myself. I think it is quite the opposite of evil. I was just responding to the notion that a man should be able to walk away from a baby if he doesn't want one, no strings attached.