I really need help from the fathers out there.

[GoNative]

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.

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

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...

[mousee09]

[quote=GoNative;846275]
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? ).
[quote]

Religion has nothing to do with it, and if it did they probably wont have gotten pregrant in the first place.

There could be MANY reasons to why she wanted to keep the baby, maybe she didnt want to go through the abortion because of the possible risks! Maybe she does view it as killing the baby. whos knows? how can you try to judge her without knowing her real feeling on the matter?

[GoNative]

Whether you agree or not religion can have a lot to do with how people view sex. MMM's attitude of you shouldn't have sex if you don't want a baby reminds me of stuff you hear from religious groups in the US.
I'm not judging her and have no problem if chooses to have the baby. Just don't think it's fair to expect him to be there because of her choice. I thought that was clear...

[mousee09]

life aint fair, this type of thing happens all the time. you can either hit it ahead on, or run away or just not going in that direction.

[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'

[RealJames]

Originally Posted by MMM

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

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by MMM

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?

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.

[Nyororin]

I think that most everyone involved in the debate that has developed out of this kind of needs to step back and not read things into the first post that are simply not there.

First of all, the only one who knows WHY she is choosing not to abort is the original poster (Salvanas).
What we do know is that she made the choice not to abort, and that he is not going to force her. He also said that he is making the choice to try and take responsibility in some way.

No one ever said that they fought over it. No one said that she is trying to force him to be a father. No one said much of anything other than that it is a stressful time, and that advice was needed.

Why has this turned into a debate about whether she should have made that decision? About whether women should be able to force men to be fathers when they don`t want to? About the evils of having sex?

Maybe she is making a "wrong" decision. It is her decision to make. Maybe he has every right to leave her for choosing to have the baby he doesn`t want. But he is making the decision to try and take responsibility.
We don`t know their relationship, we don`t know how this was discussed, we don`t know the reasoning. At the very least we should try to be supportive and understanding of the choice that Salvanas is saying he wants to make, and of his stress and confusion.
Going on about the evils of sex, the evils of not aborting any baby that isn`t coming into a perfect situation, the evils of making choices someone else doesn`t see as "right"... Is not going to help anything.

[dogsbody70]

Maybe not Nyrorin, but its the sort of theme that many people have various opinions about.

It is not surprising that it has possibly escalated.

It is a common occurrence surely not at all unusual.


As far as the young man is concerned it is up to he and his girl friend in the end. He wanted advice from other men on this really but has to sort it out with his G/F and families.

[MMM]

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.

[MMM]

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.

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.

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.