Smoothie operator flees country
This is a follow up to my November 29 post on Manishkumar Patel, accused of slipping his mistress RU-486 on 2 occasions, once in a smoothie, to cause her to abort twice.
Patel has apparently jumped bond in WI and fled to India, leaving friends and family who posted his $750,000 bail high and dry. A Sify story states his formerly pregnant girlfriend has claimed part of the money. Get this, his wife supposedly took off with him.
What losers, all.
[HT: moderator MK; photo courtesy of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]
Jan.11, 2008 2:46 pm |
RU-486 |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What a scumbag.
why reality? he was using his right to choose, give the guy a break.
Ugh. Jerk.
Jasper:
Be polite.
Jill,
I still want to know how this guy got his hands on RU-486 when it prescribed and taken in the doctor’s office; not to mention I believe there are at least two sets of pills to take.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/rocky-mountains/emergency-contraception-ec.htm
Midnite, you DON’T need a prescription. See the link…
Also Midnite, since PP will give it to men (specifically stated on the website) they obviously AREN’T making it a requirement to take it in a doctors office. :(
Kristen –
This guy is a creep.
Does anyone think he deserves serious jail time?
Emergency contraception and RU-486 are totally different medications. EC is available over the counter for purchase by anyone 18 and up. RU-486 is administered by a DR. This scumbag got hold of some somehow–black market, internet “pharmacy,” or perhaps in Mexico.
RU-486 is administered by a DR.
That’s what I thought.
Ru486, is not “Plan B” that is over-the-counter at CVS/Rite-Aid/Walgreens.
It says his wife is a physician…wonder if he is too?
His right to choose was having sex with her and not doing anything to prevent a pregnancy. It stopped being his choice after his genes were out of his jeans.
I’ve read that he got RU486 from outside the US. That’s why he didnt need a prescription. His wife must have been pathetically desperate to let a rat b*st*rd like that back into her life.
RU486
Note: An RU-486 abortion involves two drugs
When taken alone, RU-486 causes a complete abortion only about 60% of the time.3 A second drug, a prostaglandin, is given 48 hours later to increase its effectiveness. The prostaglandin causes uterine contractions to help expel the embryo.
According to a September 24, 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, only 1% of general practitioners and 6% of gynecologists gave RU-486 to a patient in the first year that it was available in the United States. Among doctors who specialize in abortion, only 12% have offered RU-486.70
Clinics which do a high volume of business are more likely to offer RU-486 abortions. The National Abortion Federation [NAF] estimates that half of NAF- member clinics offer mifepristone.71
Almost all college and university health centers will not dispense RU-486, because, they explain, “they can’t meet FDA guidelines for administering it safely.”72
I hope they extradite him and hit him with both barrells legalistically speaking. This guy is a sack of garbage all the way ’round –
Midnite, way back when I was reading about this in November, I recall he got the RU-486 from someone in India.
PLAN B
Plan B
Thanks for the info Jill.
Kristin,
This man did not waltz into his local PP get this drug, and then “spike” his girlfriend’s drink. He obtained the drug illegaly.
Yes, I saw the site I linked to earlier in the week and forgot it wasn’t ru-486. But obviously it isn’t hard to get illegally.
Kristin,
Nothing is hard to get illegaly if you try hard enough. Ask a meth addict or crack addict.
Midnite, I’ve noticed that you always let people know that you spell your name m i d n i t e NOT m i d n i g h t. My name is spelled KristEn not KristIn. Really I don’t care but you seem particular about names and you’re the only one who ever spells my name that way. (Really this is not meant in anyway snippy, just an observation.)
Midnite 4:16
Sad, but true…
Kristen,
I always have to remind myself that your name isn’t KiRSten…
I get all kinds of spellings. I don’t care really one way or the other. Usually I let people spell it whatever way they want. The only problem was when I let the mortgage lender I was working with spell it without correcting her and all the mortgage papers were drawn up with “Christy.” When I first spoke to her I was just shopping around and then forgot about correcting the spelling.
Kristen,
My bad. Actually, I’m not picky about unles your name is Yllas. He’s an a$s. I was just trying to piss him off. If you want, just call me by my real name Ashley, or I answer to Ash.
Anyhoo, Sorry, That writing is kind of small, and I am out of contacts at the moment and hate my glasses, so I am walking around kind of blind, lol. Sorry, once again.
Midnite 4:16
Sad, but true…
With motivation, money (or power) anything that is illegal can be bought for the right price.
My bad. Actually, I’m not picky about unles your name is Yllas. He’s an a$s.
LOL! Really, I don’t care….
Sort of off topic…
Did you hear that Marion Jones was just sentenced to 6 months in prison for lying to investigators? That’s so sad. I don’t condone the lying but that’s a harsher sentence than the child molesters in Vermont.
And the guy in this story is probably gone forever with no punishment. This system is so messed up.
“His right to choose was having sex with her and not doing anything to prevent a pregnancy. It stopped being his choice after his genes were out of his jeans. ”
why force a man into an unwanted pregnancy?
“His wife must have been pathetically desperate to let a rat b*st*rd like that back into her life.”
Texas Red,
why are you being so judgemental, he had other plans with his life. If he had this baby he would be forced to pay child support, etc. This would infringe on his bodily autonomy.
Jasper, in my opinion you’re being silly. I don’t think ol’ Patel is gonna get much support here, from either side.
You can obtain the medicagtions (Mifepristone and Misopristol) after “a medical consultation which takes place online” (and depends on the accuracy of your information or in his case how well you can contrive a story) through the pro-choice organization, “Women on Web”
or illegally through foreign pharmacies.
Sorry, that was me, I forgot to log in.
“This would infringe on his bodily autonomy.”
No because the fetus is not inside his body, attached to his body, living off his body.
His bodily autonomy is over his sperm, which he recklessly abandoned.
I wonder if India is going to try and find him?
“This would infringe on his bodily autonomy.”
Jess: No because the fetus is not inside his body, attached to his body, living off his body.
Right on, Jess.
Doug
P.S. – I love your picture – you have a fun sense of humor IMO.
And you’re a Babe, too.
Manishkumar?
Maybe he’s with Manish Harold at White Castle.
Anyone look there?
“No because the fetus is not inside his body, attached to his body, living off his body.”
It doesn’t matter, maybe during pregnancy the fetus is not living off his body, but once it’s born, he shouldn’t be obligated to pay and support that child he choose not to have.
This whole idea of the government forcing men to support children against their will is obsurd. Just because a man has sex does not mean has to become a father.
sex != fatherhood
..
Oh no! a man ended pregnancy! let’s stone him! hang him! the poor guy, now they all want to push their morals on him. well maybe his morals and sense of right and wrong is different from yours!
It doesn’t matter, maybe during pregnancy the fetus is not living off his body, but once it’s born, he shouldn’t be obligated to pay and support that child he choose not to have.
Posted by: jasper at January 11, 2008 9:06 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee, three of the “Army of God” founders were deadbeat dads, Randall terry was a deadbeat dad, and Curves founder and pro-life activist Gary Heavin spent six months behind bars for being a deadbeat dad.
Apparently pro-lifers don’t think fathers should have to pay for children they DO choose to have!
Laura,
I’m showing the absurdity and heartless attitude of the pro-abort position.
Laura,
I’m showing the absurdity and heartless attitude of the pro-abort position.
Posted by: jasper at January 11, 2008 9:46 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And I’m showing you the absurd and heartless attitude of people who would force women to crank out children they can’t afford to care for.
You can’t even count of “pro-life” men to support their children. Who suffers?
This whole idea of the government forcing men to support children against their will is obsurd. Just because a man has sex does not mean has to become a father.
sex != fatherhood
..
Posted by: jasper at January 11, 2008 9:12 PM
……………………………………………….
Actually an ejaculation does not make a man a father. If a man does not wish to be a father, he needs to avoid the donation of his sperm. Once given away, the sperm belongs to the recipient to do with as the recipient pleases.
Do you PL folks gather outside the homes of dead beat sperm donors mumbling incantations? Of course you don’t Once there actually is a child, you don’t give a damn about them.
Do you PL folks gather outside the homes of dead beat sperm donors mumbling incantations?
Posted by: Anonymous at January 11, 2008 9:57 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excellent question.
“Actually an ejaculation does not make a man a father. If a man does not wish to be a father, he needs to avoid the donation of his sperm.”
Just because the man donated his spearm doesn’t mean he consented to fatherhood. just like if a women has sex, doesn’t mean she consented to Motherhood.
“Once given away, the sperm belongs to the recipient to do with as the recipient pleases. ”
Thats not true, because if the recipient was the sole owner, the giver would not be obligated to support the result of the pregnancy.
“Actually an ejaculation does not make a man a father. If a man does not wish to be a father, he needs to avoid the donation of his sperm.”
Just because the man donated his spearm doesn’t mean he consented to fatherhood. just like if a women has sex, doesn’t mean she consented to Motherhood.
“Once given away, the sperm belongs to the recipient to do with as the recipient pleases. ”
Thats not true, because if the recipient was the sole owner, the giver would not be obligated to support the result of the pregnancy.
Posted by: jasper at January 11, 2008 10:05 PM
……………………………………………..
Of course sperm donors are not consenting to parental obligations or parental rights. They are also not allowed control over the sperm once donated. Or the person the sperm is donated to.
Since the whole intent of sperm donation is in creating anonymous pregnancies, the man would be an idiot for donating his sperm if he wished to be involved in a potential child’s life.
Conversely, if he is simply recklessly donating to a potential pregnancy with a woman not wishing to be pregnant, the sperm is hers to do with as she sees fit.
Men have not been traditionally legally or morally obligated to financially support any resultant children from their donations. Thus the women’s movement and the need for female equality in the matters of earning money. They support the children.
I totally agree with you Jasper. Men should not be legally forced to financially support children. It is obviously such a distasteful concept for so many men. They should be spared the pain of I Can’t Do With My Money What I Want To Do Syndrome. I hear it’s causing male breast cancer. As well as a moral domino effect that will cause men to go to war and such. No kidding!
Men will soon be killing over things like religion, land, oil—–all those money making things.
What has the world come to?
**********************************
“Once given away, the sperm belongs to the recipient to do with as the recipient pleases. ”
Thats not true, because if the recipient was the sole owner, the giver would not be obligated to support the result of the pregnancy.
Posted by: jasper at January 11, 2008 10:05 PM
***********************************
excellent point jasper. but as the father I would want rights cause I would want to be able to stop anybody from harming the baby, including the mother, if she had consented to intercourse.
Thats not true, because if the recipient was the sole owner, the giver would not be obligated to support the result of the pregnancy.
Oh no – Jasper, “recipient” no longer matters, there. Society is saying that it wants the parents to support the kid. Mom, Dad, oh yeah fine and dandy, but regardless of what went before, society says that born children should be supported, and that the parents should, first and foremost, be the ones to do it.
Let’s say the man is the custodial parent. Then, the woman is expected to pay support just as the man is if the woman is custodial.
Doug
Men should not be legally forced to financially support children.
The thing is, it comes to the point where either somebody supports them, or not, and society is just not going to willingly let the parents off the hook.
In a sense I agree with you, but think that once a baby is born, it’s too late, and thus thinks society.
Going back earlier, if a woman and a man agree that any pregnancy will be ended, and then if the woman changes her mind, and wants to continue a pregnancy because the man will have to pay, IMO that’s a crappy reason.
If she can pay and wants the pregnancy to continue, then again, IMO, okay.
However, once a baby is born, then I’d rather see both parties – the man and woman – held accountable to pay, rather than other people.
Wow Doug,
IMHO the answer is much simpler.
Both parents are responsible and neither can kill the child. You might be overthinkig this
(off topic)
About the weekly poll…
Didn’t anybody read this article? It was huge news on the political blogs:
Tuesday January 8, 2008
Huge “Ethical” Embryonic-Like Stem Cell Discovery Not So Ethical After All – Fetal Cells Used
TENNESSEE, January 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Children of God for Life reports that a recent stem cell breakthrough that turns adult skin cells to “embryonic” is not a pro-life solution as currently done. On November 21st and 22nd, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka and Dr James Thomson published back-to-back studies that were hailed as moral alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. Both studies involved introducing genes into adult stem cells through a lentivirus, which reprogrammed them to become “embryonic” or induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells, without destroying human embryos. But pro-lifers may have celebrated too soon, without studying the methods used in the papers.
Both researchers used several versions of the 293 aborted fetal cell lines to modify the DNA of the host adult skin cells, in order to accomplish the reprogramming.
“Unless you read the papers published by Dr Yamanaka in Cell and Dr Thomson in Science, you would have no idea where the DNA came from that was used to transform the adult cells”, stated Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, a pro-life watchdog organization focused on stem cell research and aborted fetal cell lines in medical products. “And even then you would have to know what you were looking for to understand it”, she added.
For example, while Dr Yamanaka reports using PLAT-E, PLAT-A and 293FT cells in his paper, the proper name for these cell lines is HEK (human embryonic kidney) 293. The cells were obtained from an electively aborted baby by Dr. Alex Van der Eb, Crucell NV, the same company producing aborted fetal cell line PER C6, derived from the retinal tissue of an 18-week gestation baby.
In the second study, Dr James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, also used aborted fetal cell line 293FT to produce DNA used to modify adult cells. Furthermore, Dr Thomson obtained the DNA sequences he used from human ES cells. And before using foreskin fibroblasts, Thomson tested the reprogramming on IMR-90 aborted fetal cell line, taken from the lung tissue of a 16-week gestation female baby.
“Pro-lifers may be deceived by the excitement about these publications”, Vinnedge cautioned. “Using aborted fetal and embryonic stem cells from deliberately destroyed human beings is certainly not any kind of moral victory.”
Vinnedge noted that the research is fraught with other moral and clinical problems, such as fatal tumors, which are a well-documented attribute of embryonic stem cells, and which also occurred with the adult reprogrammed IPS cells. And while Yamanaka and Thomson allege the new cells generated would be “patient specific” with no immune rejection problems, this claim is premature because there is foreign DNA present from the lentivirus used to modify the cells.
However, it is not necessary to use aborted fetal cells to produce the lentivirus at all, noted Dr Theresa Deisher, R&D Director of Ave Maria Biotechnology Company, a research firm dedicated to pro-life alternatives for unethical human therapeutics.
“There are other ethical ways to produce the DNA needed for transformation, efficiently and morally,” said Dr Deisher. “If these means were employed to produce the needed DNA, there would be no moral issues with the use of reprogrammed adult cells for research.”
Read Dr Deisher’s editorial Why Are We Celebrating the Reprogramming of Adult Cells? http://www.cogforlife.org/reprogramandethics.htm
Wow Laura,
That is really something that needs to be looked at closer…
Rae,
Can you translate the above into English for us?
Thanks Laura. That was a real eye opener…
Patel has also already lost his attorney for fleeing the country last month. See http://www.lifenews.com/state2756.html
Sign up for LifeNews.com news there beause we’ve covered this story about a dozen times over the last month or two.
IMHO the answer is much simpler. Both parents are responsible and neither can kill the child. You might be overthinkig this.
Truthseeker, sure, in your opinion, but I was giving mine. No, neither parent can kill the child, but that’s not the argument. As far as men feeling like “I should not have to pay,” society is saying it’s too late once there is a born child..
At that point, the parents, with all the custodial and non-custodial stuff factored in, if it applies, and the various incomes of the parents, etc., society’s primary desire is that the child be supported, regardless of wrangling between the parents or not.
Doug
The problem is that, unlike women, men don’t get to choose whether the child is ever born or not. It’s completely up to the woman. So, if he WANTS his child, he may have to stand idly by while his child is murdered in-utero by the mother. Nothing he can do about it. If he does NOT want the child, he has no recourse if the mother decides to have the baby. Once that happens, he is held fully and completely responsible for the child, regardless of his ability to pay or of his personal situation (married to another woman, has other children, etc.)
This is where it gets even more unfair. AFTER birth, a woman again gets to decide whether she will even take responsibility for the child by choosing whether to give the child up for adoption. Heck, she can even change her mind at the last minute and just drop the newborn off at the hospital, no questions asked.
So, all of the hype about “she should have the right to abort because she’s not financially or emotionally ready to parent a child” carry NO weight because the father is given NONE of those options.
The right to legal abortion is actually one of the most discriminatory public policies EVER. It discriminates against the baby, who end up dead in any one of a variety of sick ways; and, it discriminates against the father, who is forced to take responsibility for his actions, unlike the mother. If he takes matters into his own hands and slips the mother RU-486, he is guilty of murder. If the mother goes to abortionist and has her baby ripped from her womb or takes the RU-486 herself and chemically poisons her baby to death, she is exercising her “right to choose”.
It is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. If abortion is right, then this man’s actions were right. If this man’s actions were wrong, then abortion is wrong. Period. (I vote for the latter)
Michelle,
No, the man doesn’t get to choose, because he’s not the one pregnant. Men can’t get pregnant, so there is not going to be any perfect “equality,” here.
I think people should communicate fully about this early in a relationship, before any pregnancy. I agree that it can be very sad for a man who wants the baby to be born to have the woman choose abortion. So, let’s be clear on what both people want and what would be decided in the case of pregnancy.
There does come a point when it’s entirely up to the woman whether there will be a child or not, and the man’s opinion may or may not matter to her – the bottom-line decisiion is hers.
And you’re right – once a baby is born, then he’s on the hook, financially, just as the mother is, barring adoption. This is not society saying the woman is “better” than the man, it’s society saying it wants the child to be supported, and the parents are first and foremost the ones to do it. Now, there is some equality – the non-custodial parent is expected to pay the custodial parent to help with the cost of the kid.
It is the most asinine thing I have ever heard of. If abortion is right, then this man’s actions were right. If this man’s actions were wrong, then abortion is wrong. Period. (I vote for the latter)
Posted by: Michelle at January 12, 2008 8:07 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, he isn’t allowed to give his girlfriend RU-486 any more than I’m allowed to remove my boyfriend’s gallbladder.
You are not allowed to make medical decisions for other competent adults. Whether someone has an abortion or not is NOBODY else’s business, just as my boyfriend’s gallbladder is HIS business.
ff,
you are correct that the smoothie killer did violate the woman’s rights to privacy, and that is criminal. And she should be able to sue that monster not only for violating her right to privacy but also for the wrongful death of her baby.
ff said:
***********************
You are not allowed to make medical decisions for other competent adults.
************************
ff, where do you stand on Parental Notification laws. If someone were to perform an abortion on one of my unemancipated daughters, lets say age 15, and I had not consented. Now she regrets having it done. Should she be able to then sue the abortionist and I be able to join suit with her against them since a minor cannot enter into a binding legal contract?
PP is such a predator that they don’t even think they need to “notify” a minors legal guardian before perfoming such an invasive procedure.
I can see a lot of lawsuits coming down the pipe
and I can’t see why they haven’t started already.
If the state of Illinois doesn’t get their act together soon and find a way to implement the
Parental Notification Act of 1995 then are are going to be held liable too.
Truthseeker,
How about a picture?
Doug,
But isn’t that the stated goal of legalizing abortion…creating “perfect equality” for women? If success in creating “perfect equality” is criteria for keeping a policy, then abortion has failed miserably. It has not only failed to make women equal to men, it has taken 40 million innocent lives in the process, roughly half of them female. It has also been suggested to contribute to everything from child abuse to cancer to depression and suicide among post-abortive women.
To suggest that it should be acceptable to kill a man’s child simply because he is a man (and therefore physically incapable of nurturing a fetus through to birth) is the height of sexual discrimination. It’s all about retribution, not reproductive choice. Both partners make the choice when they choose to engage in sex, which we’ve known for millennia results in pregnancy.
So you believe that discussing what the plan would be in the case of an unplanned pregnancy would give any power whatsoever to the father? Please…spare me. First of all, no one knows what they will feel when they’re actually in the situation. Second; say the man and the woman signed a contract in advance in which the woman promises that she would not abort in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, then aborted anyway, and the father took her to court…he would be laughed out of the courtroom and you know it. Because it’s not about what’s right; it’s about what is Politically Correct.
Face it, it’s all about a twisted, Frankensteinian form of feminism that has unjustly made a woman all-powerful in the only situation in the universe in which she has this God-given power and GIFT to nurture and give life to another human being. It’s a sad day indeed when women feel that their only way to assert their power and equality is to make themselves sexually available to men at a whim, and then terminate the resulting life, even if the father wants his child. Revolting.
Rather than admit that he has a right to have a say in whether his child will be born, abortion supporters would actually rather absolve fathers of their obligation to financially support their born offspring. Some man somewhere is going to find a lawyer who will win a case like this, and then all hell will break loose. Abortion supporters would rather see children with no paternal support than give up the exclusive right of the mother to choose life or death for the child. Their ends justify any means necessary, even children living in squalor, all in the name of a woman’s “right to choose”.
It’s a sad day indeed when women feel that their only way to assert their power and equality is to make themselves sexually available to men at a whim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“make themselves sexually available to men”
Huh?
Sorry, but all the women I know have sex because they like it, and have been known to aggressively pursue it.
Thank you Michelle for your post at January 13, 2008 5:41 PM
I am glad somebody else thinks a man should have a say if the sex was consentual. I think a lot of men don’t want this because they would rather “choose” multiple partners with no responsibility.
ff,
Are you ignoring my posts about parental notification?
Are you ignoring my posts about parental notification?
Posted by: truthseeker at January 13, 2008 6:16 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you suggesting that your daughter shouldn’t be able to get an abortion without your permission?
ff, you had said earlier
***********************
You are not allowed to make medical decisions for other competent adults.
************************
That made me think that you understood minors generally are not capable of making competent decisions. That is common belief. And it is also common belief that a girl is “able” to get pregnant long before she is competent to make serious medical decisions or see all the possible long-term effects of an abortion.
For that reason IMHO it is better for the childs welfare if their parent or legal guardian is
“notified” before an abortion is performed.
I hear you have some nieces that you love dearly.
It wouldn’t mean they couldn’t have an abortion without parental consent. It would mean their parent or legal guardian would need to be notified so they could speak with them about
the possible long-term effects, not to mention finding them an abortionist without malpractice suits if it came down to that.
Do you think parental “notification” would be a good thing for your nieces? I am guessing they are minors now.
mk,
sorry i don’t have a picture but I’m tall dark and handsome
Michelle, that was a heck of a post. : )
Legal abortion appeals to people who think the woman should be free to make her own best choice, there. It’s not like it can magically make men and women the same.
I don’t think men should be able to force women to have abortions against their will nor to continue pregnancies against their will.
No, the man would not necessarily have any power, since he’s not the one pregnant. Both people should get to know each other and be honest. If the woman isn’t going to do what he wants, then from the man’s point of view the time to ensure his own happiness is before it’s too late. After that, you are right – she may not do what he desires.
Certainly, no “contract” would be seen as enforceable. Still, to the extent that people can know each other, it’s not all that hard that get a feeling for what another person would do in a particular situation.
It’s a sad day indeed when women feel that their only way to assert their power and equality is to make themselves sexually available to men at a whim, and then terminate the resulting life, even if the father wants his child.
That’s pretty over-the-top, and women aren’t limited to that, anway, not at all.
……
Rather than admit that he has a right to have a say in whether his child will be born, abortion supporters would actually rather absolve fathers of their obligation to financially support their born offspring. Some man somewhere is going to find a lawyer who will win a case like this, and then all hell will break loose.
I disagree. Child support is a separate issue. It’s not simply man versus woman or custodial parent versus non-custodial. It’s society saying, in effect, “We want this kid taken care of, and the first people on the hook for it are the parents.”
Doug
I am glad somebody else thinks a man should have a say if the sex was consentual.
Truthseeker, I can see both sides of this deal. If the woman, for example, promised to continue a pregnancy then opted for abortion, it could really be bad for the man, no argument about it.
Same for a woman promising, “no kids,” then changing her mind and the guy ending up having to pay child support. Bummer. There is a point where the existence or not of a child is 100% up to the woman, and for her to continue the pregnancy because the guy is going to have to pay is a crappy reason (IMO of course).
And same for men acting like they’d be willing fathers then backing out. Or agreeing that any unwanted pregnancy would be ended, then complaining when the woman doesn’t continue it. Much better to be straight with each other in the beginning.
Doug
“There is a point where the existence or not of a child is 100% up to the woman, and for her to continue the pregnancy because the guy is going to have to pay is a crappy reason (IMO of course).”
how about for a woman Doug? what if a woman aborts because it is for financial reasons? is it ok?
Jasper, IMO to viability, yes – her reasons are her own.
I’m saying that if she would not have kids on her own, then for her to decide “yes” based on the fact that the man will have to pay is a bad deal – I would hope that kids would be more wanted than that.