Hello Friend,
If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.
It will be the most efficient use of your time.
And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.
Thank you for visiting and have a great day!
I agree with you 100% that this is the way it is right now. However, that isn't the way it should be IMO, and in the opinions of many other men.
It's not unfair to men at all. Unfair is when you don't know the risks. Every man knows that if you have sex with a woman a pregnancy could result. Every man knows that he has NO CONTROL over whether or not a woman keeps or aborts a baby he helped create.
I thought I said this already, but I guess not. I would never advocate forcing a woman to have an abortion, that's just barbaric, and you're correct, a violation of human rights.
They had a 4 month affair. The woman claims they had intercourse. The man claims they didn't. Considering the length of their affair, I find it highly unlikely that they never had intercourse. I think he's just trying to get out of paying child support by claiming she must have saved his sperm and used it to make herself pregnant. It's highly unlikely the sperm would even live that long to make his claims possible.Originally posted by SAYNO
You know, Its up to you to believe what you want to.
You can choose to believe or not, no sweat off my back. But, before you call someone a liar, at least have the werewithall to check, you prove yourself to be a fairly lazy person, and ignorant of the most simple science, since all you had to go is google it.
You dont believe me huh? :yawn:
See article below:
"In February the Illinois appellate court wrestled with a question that almost seems too outlandish to be real: If a couple never has intercourse but the woman secretly impregnates herself with the man's sperm, is the man legally responsible for the child? Apparently so, said the courts.
The woeful tale began six years ago when Richard O. Phillips, a Chicago doctor, had a brief romance with another doctor, Sharon Irons. According to Phillips, the two never had intercourse, but Irons did perform oral sex on him on three separate occasions. According to court papers, Phillips alleged that Irons secretly kept his sperm and later impregnated herself with it. Phillips had no idea until Irons filed a paternity lawsuit two years later. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the genetic father and Phillips was ordered to pay $800 a month in child support.
Phillips countersued, arguing that Irons deceived him and that he was tormented by "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare." He also claimed that Irons had stolen his "property," i.e. his sperm, so she had no right to use it for impregnation without his consent.
The courts dismissed his claim in 2003, ruling that his suffering was not severe enough to justify legal remedy. It further asserted that Phillips could claim no property rights to his bodily fluids after the act.
According to the Associated Press, the court wrote, "[Irons] asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift -- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."
Not surprisingly, Phillips appealed, and won a partial victory. The appellate court declared that Phillips' pain did justify a lawsuit on the grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a lawsuit that is ongoing"
http://www.dailycardinal.com/media/...Sperm.She.youre.Still.The.Father-929158.shtml
Hmm, on second thought maybe I should have told you a tale of ghosts and goblits, I'd bet you'd believe in that huh?
Sayno'
There are none so blind as those who cannot google! :woo:
Again...it is NOT the child's fault their birth was unplanned. You are claiming it is okay to punish the innocent child by not making the father equally responsible for supporting it. That's not okay. Again...the man KNOWS the risks and if he wants to avoid those risks he needs to be more responsible in preventing them from happening.
If abortion weren't legal and women had to support any child they had by themselves they would definitely be less likely to have casual sex. Even the slvtty women would stop being slvtty. The "sexual revolution" had a lot to do with the availaility of abortion. Take that away and it will change things dramatically.
Yeah, well, the WOMAN knows the risks as well and the WOMAN should have just as much responsibility in the situation.
No, of course it's not a fetus' fault, only a retard would make that kind of comment.
). This way the child isn't "punished"
You have NO idea how expensive it is to raise kids, do you. I was married for 10 years and divorced my ex husband because he was an abusive drunk with Borderline Personality Disorder. I was an idiot when I was young and was too naive to see all the warning signs. I married him when I was 18. Three kids later, I'd had enough. I left him. I had really tried to make it work but just couldn't stand it any more. He has never contributed much of anything in the financial support of the children HE insisted on having. Now, let's discuss the costs of supporting those 3 children...
Why do you insist on absolving men of being responsible for the outcome of carelessly having unprotected sex?Originally posted by italostud
No, of course it's not a fetus' fault, only a retard would make that kind of comment.
A child will not be "punished" if the father doesn't support it. If the mother decided that she wanted the baby, knowing that the father didn't want to have it, then that is HER decision.
Another flaw in your thinking is one of the reasons children are so messed up these days. You equate money with upbringing.
According to you, it's okay for a single mother to raise a child, as long as she has a cheque every month(which will probably be spent on her new boyfriend, but that's another thread
Try this, next time you see some young children without fathers, tell them "You know, you may not have a dad, but your mom gets a big fat cheque every month from a man who never wanted you. Aren't you glad you were never punished for their mistake?"
Obviously, the child's "punishment" is not from an absence of money, but from the absence of a father.
Now, go back and read that paragraph about 3 times. Then go back and read your second sentance. Do you see what you said?
Your thinking is completely flawed. In fact, I would go so far as to say; a woman who brings a child into the world, knowing it won't have a father is the selfish, irresponsible one.
This is the problem, women think that everything is fine, as long as they have their child-support cheques. They don't consider what harm they're doing to a child by bringing it into a fatherless family.
