I really need help from the fathers out there.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by GoNative

I just feel in this particular situation where both parties had been taking contraceptive precautions then there is basically an assumption that a child is not the desired outcome of their sexual relationship and this is understood by both. Due to an unlucky course of events pregnancy has occurred. It hasn't occurred due to either party being irresponsible. With this in mind if she now wishes to continue with the birth then I don't see how it is fair to force the male to be a father against his wishes. If they weren't both taking contraceptive precautions then I would think very differently about this. But since they were I really believe there is a good argument to be made that a child was definitely not desired and has only occurred due to an accident. To be held responsible for that for the rest of your life is one hell of a burden in my book, considering the options available.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If you don't want to be a father, don't have sex. The odds might be teeny-tiny, but so are the odds of winning the lottery, but eventually someone does it. 1.25 million babies were born to unmarried teens in the US in 2009.

If I am talking on my cell-phone and rear end the car in front of me, is that not my fault?

If I drink and drive and crash into someone's home should I not have to pay that family because "I didn't mean to"?

If a child was "definitely not desired" then why are we engaging in the one activity that makes children?

Contraception like condoms and the pill are not 100%. Everyone knows this.

The sex was a mutual decision, so the results are a mutual responsibility.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. If you don't want to be a father, don't have sex. The odds might be teeny-tiny, but so are the odds of winning the lottery, but eventually someone does it. 1.25 million babies were born to unmarried teens in the US in 2009.

If I am talking on my cell-phone and rear end the car in front of me, is that not my fault?

If I drink and drive and crash into someone's home should I not have to pay that family because "I didn't mean to"?

If a child was "definitely not desired" then why are we engaging in the one activity that makes children?

Contraception like condoms and the pill are not 100%. Everyone knows this.

The sex was a mutual decision, so the results are a mutual responsibility.

Yes... a MUTUAL responsibility.

There is nothing mutual about a woman holding a man hostage with a child he doesn't want.

Furthermore.. I find your attitude to sex a little outdated and your analogies don't reflect the mutual sentiment you claim to advocate nor does it accurately reflect the dilemma here.

(drinking and driving into a house or talking on a cellphone while driving are the result of individual, not mutual complacency. Tell me MMM... is the driver of the car the man and the owner of the house the female? I think I'm going to withold my Freudian judgement

just kidding)

If I would create an analogy that more accurately reflects this dilemma and ultimately what I think are healthy attitudes towards sex I would use orienteering.

You're both planning to end up in one place, you take a wrong turn and end up in another. All of a sudden your partner who is carrying some of your equipment decides that they prefer this destination (or they deceived you and planned it all along).

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Yes... a MUTUAL responsibility.

There is nothing mutual about a woman holding a man hostage with a child he doesn't want.

There is only one way a man can guarantee he isn't going to be a father. That is by not putting his penis in a woman's vagina.

That's it. ONE thing he doesn't have to do. When he does that he has legally signed off on whatever happens next.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Furthermore.. I find your attitude to sex a little outdated and your analogies don't reflect the mutual sentiment you claim to advocate nor does it accurately reflect the dilemma here.

(drinking and driving into a house or talking on a cellphone while driving are the result of individual, not mutual complacency. Tell me MMM... is the driver of the car the man and the owner of the house the female? I think I'm going to withold my Freudian judgement

just kidding)

It doesn't matter if it is one person or two people. It is about taking responsibilities for your actions, intended or not.

You cannot argue that you are not responsible for the damage you do if you are the cause of an accident, and the same is true of creating a baby. It is a mutual responsibility between both parties. The man KNOWS this before he engages in sex. He KNOWS that if he has sex he might have a baby. How is he not 50% responsible?

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

If I would create an analogy that more accurately reflects this dilemma and ultimately what I think are healthy attitudes towards sex I would use orienteering.

You're both planning to end up in one place, you take a wrong turn and end up in another. All of a sudden your partner who is carrying some of your equipment decides that they prefer this destination (or they deceived you and planned it all along).

You are describing a situation where a woman is poking holes in your condoms in order to make a baby, and you can prove it, I think the man should be less legally responsible for the child than he would otherwise. He takes some responsibility (assuming he was a willing partner) because he engaged is the behavior that creates children, but certainly that responsibility should be reduced on a legal level.

Here's the law (at least as I understand it in the US) what happens to the baby is the choice of the mother. If the mother wishes to abort, that is her choice. If the mother chooses adoption, the father's family may have the choice to take the baby first (but that may depend on the state). If the mother chooses to keep the baby, the father is responsible financially for the child to a certain degree until the age of 18.

You accepted responsibility for the results of your activity when you consented to sex.

This isn't old fashioned, this is reality.

If you don't like the ride your passenger took you on, you shouldn't have let her in your car in the first place.

[Ronin4hire]

You misunderstood my analogy MMM. She didn't necesseraly poke holes in the condom. She just changed her mind. I thought I made that clear when I used the word "or" in

(or they deceived you and planned it all along).

Furthermore It DOES matter that it was 2 people because to ignore that is to ignore one of the most fundamental things regarding about sex.

Your analogies are very inaccurate because they ignore the essence of the dilemma.

Finally I'm not ready to be a father. My current girlfriend is not ready to be a mother. I feel you've missed the crux of the dilemma by a longshot.

[RealJames]

As logical as it may be, the concept of refraining from vaginal sex to prevent pregnancy is something that no significant portion of the world will ever adopt. Sex is mainstream, packaged, sold, distributed etc.

In the case accidental pregnancy, I don't think either of the parents have more of a right than the other to decide if the child is kept or not (after birth).
But I think if either of the parents doesn't want to be involved in that child's life then that's fine.
If a woman doesn't want the child after birth, the father can keep it or it can go up for adoption.
If a man doesn't want the child after birth, the mother can keep it or it can go up for adoption.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

You misunderstood my analogy MMM. She didn't necesseraly poke holes in the condom. She just changed her mind. I thought I made that clear when I used the word "or" in

(or they deceived you and planned it all along).

I did understand your analogy, Ronin. I just addressed them in a different order.

It's your car, right Ronin. You tell who can get in, and who cannot. You tell where the car goes, and where it doesn't. Where your car goes is your responsibility, no?

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Furthermore It DOES matter that it was 2 people because to ignore that is to ignore one of the most fundamental things regarding about sex.

Yes, it takes two to tango (unless one is raping the other). When we say it takes two to tango that means both people are responsible for the results. Are you disagreeing with this?

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Your analogies are very inaccurate because they ignore the essence of the dilemma.

Finally I'm not ready to be a father. My current girlfriend is not ready to be a mother. I feel you've missed the crux of the dilemma by a longshot.

Then please explain it to me.

If you are saying my analogies are inaccurate, please explain how.

Fundamentally, are you not responsible for your actions.

Just to be clear, I am not saying people shouldn't have sex. People should have all the sex they want and all the sex they can get. All I am saying is take responsibility for your actions. I am hearing "I didn't MEAN to have a baby," and "I wore a condom so..." So what? If you make a baby, and your girl wants to keep it, you are going to be a father. That's reality. It's not a judgement call or a moral finger-point. It's reality. You can either be a man and be your child's father, or be a dead-beat dad and hit the road.

[RealJames]

I think there's a considerably big difference between a dead-beat dad that hits the road and a 20 year old boy that admits to himself it's no time for him to be a father, and that his gf should honestly admit the same thing to herself about being a mother.

EDIT: I think it depends largely on age honestly, responsibility for your actions is incredibly important but only past a certain age, 20 is pretty borderline, most the 20 year olds I meet are borderline retarded.

[Ronin4hire]

Just in case this thread moves on a couple of pages before I get back.

I just want to say to MMM that I intend to be back to address your post but I have to go now.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by RealJames

As logical as it may be, the concept of refraining from vaginal sex to prevent pregnancy is something that no significant portion of the world will ever adopt.

I am not talking to the whole world, I am just talking to the JF members.

I am not telling people to have sex or not have sex. All I am saying is take responsibility for your actions.

Originally Posted by RealJames

Sex is mainstream, packaged, sold, distributed etc.

Sex is an intimate act between two individuals. I think what you are describing is pornography. I cannot buy a thing at a store, open it up, use it, and make a baby by accident.

Originally Posted by RealJames

In the case accidental pregnancy, I don't think either of the parents have more of a right than the other to decide if the child is kept or not (after birth).

Then you should sign a pre-coitus agreement with your sex partner to ensure you will not be held responsible in case she gets pregnant. The law is not on your side unless you do this.

Originally Posted by RealJames

But I think if either of the parents doesn't want to be involved in that child's life then that's fine.
If a woman doesn't want the child after birth, the father can keep it or it can go up for adoption.
If a man doesn't want the child after birth, the mother can keep it or it can go up for adoption.

The father doesn't have to be a part of his child's upbringing legally, but the law makes him at least financially responsible.

But it is interesting to hear how disposable this generation sees babies. This has come up on other threads and people talk about how many dead-beat dads there are in the UK and how big a problem that is.

I am reminded of a line from a Chris Rock stand-up act which is only a few years old, but it sounds outdated with some of the JF users here.

I will paraphrase as he describes different kinds of brothers and says:

"You get these brothers that say 'I take care of my kids.' Well, you are SUPPOSED to take care of your kids. It's like these guys that brag saying 'I ain't never been to jail.' Well you ain't SUPPOSED to been to jail."

It sounds like "taking care of my kids" is an old fashioned concept to be proud of.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by RealJames

I think there's a considerably big difference between a dead-beat dad that hits the road and a 20 year old boy that admits to himself it's no time for him to be a father, and that his gf should honestly admit the same thing to herself about being a mother.

EDIT: I think it depends largely on age honestly, responsibility for your actions is incredibly important but only past a certain age, 20 is pretty borderline, most the 20 year olds I meet are borderline retarded.

So let me understand, what are you saying should happen to the children of parents under 20 or 21?

And if most 20 year olds are "borderline retarded" then are you saying they shouldn't be forced to take the responsibilities of having sex, or that they simply shouldn't have sex, or something else altogether?