Real Chick Lit: “Rattled,” Accidental Pregnancies, & Paternal Responsibility
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
relationships
10:00AM, Monday May 4th 2009
In 2007, 26-year-old magazine editor Christine Coppa found out she was pregnant by her boyfriend of three months. Christine decided to continue the pregnancy, a choice her boyfriend supported—until a few months later, when he suddenly decided he wasn’t prepared and/or didn’t want to be a father and subsequently signed away his parental rights. [See below.] Coppa wrote about her pregnancy and continues to write about being a single mom to her son “J.D.” for Glamour.com on her blog “Storked,” and recently released her memoir, Rattled!
I read the book and found it interesting, particularly because Coppa’s life is similar to mine, in that she’s in her 20’s, single, lives in New York (she now raises her son in NJ), and works in media. Like her, were I to find out I was pregnant at this particular stage in my life, I would probably choose to continue the pregnancy and have the baby. Rattled brought up an interesting issue, one I hadn’t really considered before in much depth. When an accidental pregnancy occurs, the choice whether to continue or abort it is in the woman’s hands. The man doesn’t have a choice in whether or not he will become a father, but societal opinion—though not always legal opinion—considers him equally as responsible for caring for his child, lest he be labeled a “deadbeat dad.” After reading Rattled, I wondered how fair that was.
In the book, Coppa’s baby daddy—referred to as “A”—is somewhat villainized. In fairness, “A” isn’t super sympathetic, in that he started off gung ho supportive of keeping the baby, then changed his mind, and essentially went AWOL. But even if he had handled it better, wouldn’t we still think of him as the bad guy? The guy who didn’t care about his child? The guy who ducked out of his responsibilities? In Rattled, it seemed clear that Coppa was going to have the baby with or without “A”‘s support. Since he’s not looking to enjoy the “perks” of fatherhood (i.e. a relationship with his son), should he be expected to bear any of the responsibility, including paying child support?
It takes two to get pregnant, but a woman has control over her body and holds all the decision making power as to whether she continues that pregnancy. If a guy isn’t ready to be a dad, should he have to bear the emotional and financial responsibility of one? And if he doesn’t, does that make him a bad guy?
NOTE: Coppa contacted The Frisky and wanted to clarify that her son’s father DID NOT legally terminate his parental rights. (In the book Coppa writes that “A” mentioned wanting to.)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Keesh Mia
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 10:07 am: [report]
This brings up a great question of who is responsible. However, the sad news is that ultimately, she is. Many have been stuck with the responsibility of a child without marriage under different circumstances. It sucks but I am also a single mom, responsible for everything for my child financially and otherwise but his father actually can has a say in the child’s wellfare so he uses that as a trump card to drive me nuts. So she may want to stay positive and know that it could be much worse. She could be me
Amelia
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 10:13 am: [report]
I am curious to know more about what it means when fathers sign away their rights…does that mean that they can’t ever suddenly decide that they want to participate?
tabby
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 10:20 am: [report]
I think it depends on if you have a legal agreement drawn up, or just a verbal agreement. If signs a legal document saying that he does not want to have any sort of custody, won’t have to pay child support, and relinquishes all rights, then it would be up to the mother (or the child when he or she is a legal adult) to decide if he should be allowed to participate if he wants to later on. However, most men and women don’t bother to do all that legal wrangling, in which case he is allowed to just show up and petition the courts for some kind of rights or access to his child if he so chooses later on.
Keesh Mia
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 10:24 am: [report]
They can always file to be re-involved. Then you go to court. But if he wants to be re-involved, sometimes the judge asks him to be responsible financially. However, if he has his own business and files zero income, he pays nothing. A friend of mine gets $26 a month and he is still late on his payments for over 6 months now.
peacock
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 10:56 am: [report]
Child custody laws are created by state statutes, so they vary state to state. Usually to end your rights as a parent you have to file some kind of termination of parental rights forms with the court, but there is usually a time period that this can be revoked in. The rights of the baby daddy can be tricky if the father actually wants to assert them. For instance, I had a case where the mom wanted to give the child up for adoption, but the father wanted custody. When he wouldn’t agree to terminating his rights the pregs mom basically fled half-way across the country to try and give the baby up in another state where you can place the baby with an agency before both parents terminate their rights. This poor guy has had to spend a LOT of money on attorney’s fees and travel to try and keep the mom from putting the kid up.
A lot of courts and judges still discriminate against fathers/automatically give preference to a mother in custody cases. Also, if a guy trusts a woman’s word that he is the father and signs the court papers to pay child support and then later finds out the kid isn’t his, there is no recourse for him to terminate the child support payments. The logic is that the child needs to be provided for and they shouldn’t take away a benefit already given just bc of someone else’s mistake.
Little Lamb
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 11:09 am: [report]
@ peacock
“Also, if a guy trusts a woman’s word that he is the father and signs the court papers to pay child support and then later finds out the kid isn’t his, there is no recourse for him to terminate the child support payments.”
I’m not sure what state follows this thinking, but I know that my state does not follow this. The child support payer (or man previously referred to as dad) can go back to court and terminate his child support liability. However, he generally cannot get the money back that he has already given. Know what solves this problem…a paternity test. Get one.
Little Lamb
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 11:16 am: [report]
I think that the whole “she gets the choice, he doesn’t, that’s not fair” argument is a little ridiculous. It’s not “equal” and it will never be possible to reach equality as long as women are the carriers of babies. (Which hopefully is how it stays!!!)
og217
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 11:27 am: [report]
Men totally get shafted here. By men I mean decent guys, not big jerks who run out on a woman who’s got his 4 kids. They are totally stuck with whatever the woman decides and if they don’t want the child, and that is not some monstrous thing, then he’s treated as awful. He’s a deadbeat, he’s awful, bla bla bla. But an accident with a friends with benefits is just not something most men want, and after begging for an abortion few men would decide to rejoice. Obviously this ruins their finances, causes problems, is in many circles shameful. Plus, when he does meet the right girl, she may not be interested in him because of this, or it may just ruin th efirst-child experience for both of them. Why is a guy a douche if he wanted to have sex with a woman but has no interest in having a child with her? In this day and age sex is not a precursor to a life-long relationship, and women can be tricky. One little mistake and the guy is punished forever. I think it’s not fair. If the woman does not consent to an abortion and insists on having a child the man adamantly does not want, it should be considered fine for him to disengage and not be looked at askance. She essentially made a choice to be a mother alone. He made a choice to not be a father. How is one bad and one good? If the woman wanted her child to have a father she should not have been getting it on with all sorts of dudes not knowing what they want.
Little Lamb
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 11:51 am: [report]
@og217
Yes, women can be tricky. But if a man is with a women he doesn’t trust, or has not built a trustful relationship with, he should probably bag it up.
“If the woman wanted her child to have a father she should not have been getting it on with all sorts of dudes not knowing what they want.” If the man didn’t want to be a father, he shouldn’t have been getting it on with all sorts of women not knowing what they want (or on the pill, or whatever the case may be). These men you’re talking about need to figure it out…sex can lead to babies. It’s a risk you take.
I think still think the worst part is on the womens’ shoulders—-they are also criticized for either choice they make. That’s getting shafted!
writergirl
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 11:56 am: [report]
In today’s day and age if a woman decides she wants to have a baby and the father doesn’t—well, that’s his choice. We’re so big on *our* choice when the father asks for an abortion, we don’t consider his feelings if we decided to continue with the pregnancy.
I don’t think a man should just walk. That’s wrong. I think he should be honest and upfront with the mother, not pull a disappearing act. He should take the steps necessary to terminate his parental rights, legally protecting himself. I thought I read of a case a while ago where a man made it clear he didn’t want the baby, the woman had it anyway, then sued him for child support when the kid was like 3. I don’t remember what the upshot of the case was—I’m pretty sure he did have to pay child support—but the question was the same. If he didn’t want it to begin with, and the mother had agreed to raise the child without him, why was he suddenly libel? If he had signed away his rights, he wouldn’t be beholden.
We don’t hold it against women who give the baby up for adoption—we sympathize with them. None of us would dare judge a woman for opting to have an abortion—we sympathize and tell her it was a good thing she had the option.
Why should we judge a man differently if he’s not ready—financially, emotionally—to become a father? What’s the difference between him and the mother who gives her child up for the same reason?
Why should we judge the man if he decides to terminate his parental rights? He’s probably doing the child a favor because if he’s forced into a situation where he has to raise, visit with, financially support a child he really didn’t want, the resentment is going to be obvious. Especially to the child.
writergirl
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 11:58 am: [report]
Meant to add—and in the end, it is the children who get hurt in situations where Mommy and Daddy can’t get along.
The child’s interest is paramount when you learn you are going to become a parent—whether you want to be or not. So you do what’s best for your child. If that means terminating your rights—well, then, that’s the right thing to do.
No one should be judged because they don’t want to be a parent. Recognizing that fact and taking steps to ensure that the child is cared for in other ways makes that parent an exceedingly *good* parent.
wawmama
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 12:07 pm: [report]
Let’s be honest, they’re immature manipulators within both genders. Deadbeat dads are a major problem, and being a single mom is very liberating, yet scary. I’ve seen good guys being taken advantage of, with the “he never paid me,” and I have a dead beat ex. I’ve seen other mothers who have worse struggles then me because their exs have work the system. Yes it sucks when people think badly of you.
Rose
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 12:17 pm: [report]
I’m surprised only one commenter said what I was thinking, which is that men need to take responsibility for not making babies they don’t want to take responisbility for raising. If you don’t trust your partner, use a condom or don’t sleep with her.
lemniskate67
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 12:33 pm: [report]
If a guy is sleeping with someone he doesn’t want to risk having a kid with, he needs to wear a condom. If he’s got half a brain it wouldn’t even be an issue because the condom would go without saying.
Anniekins
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 01:56 pm: [report]
Writergirl- “None of us would dare judge a woman for opting to have an abortion—we sympathize and tell her it was a good thing she had the option.”
Are you seriously under the impression that women are not judged for an abortion? Ummmm…those protesters aren’t outside abortion clinics for moral support.
retro chic
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]
Y’know even this discussion is reflective of what happens IRL and in court… Where is the child in all this? The one that is voiceless, defenseless with *no choice* and the one that matters most!? The so-called parents have forfeited what is fair to *them* once a child enters the picture.
As others cited, don’t want paternal (or maternal) responsibility?
√ Wear condoms or
√ File for Termination of Parental Rights… immediately, and,
√ Resolve issues out of court if possible, otherwise,
√ Filing only upon joint agreement
√ If you don’t agree to above, everyone gets “screwed” in court
Anything else is immature whining…
The one that suffers, of course, is the child—and the one State laws are presumably designed to protect… “What is in the best interests of the child.” Well-meaning, but very flawed or archaic laws/judgments in some cases. That gets plowed under in the heat of expensive battles and mudslinging. When you enter the courts, you are putting your life and others’ involved into arbitrary hands who do not know you or your family. They even encourage out-of-court cosigned arrangements then filed for court approval before entering those gates to hell. The courts are no place to determine the fate of many for the next 18 years. Best to wear a condom or decide your life may not be your own for a very long time, unless you’re one of the rare few who are mature enough to put the needs of the child first, last and always without the courts breathing down your neck.
As for termination of fathers’ parental rights, in CA, the courts frown on nonparticipation of any kind. An extreme case, a woman can even try to terminate the father’s rights by truthfully cite the father as a drug-addicted, gang-banging prison inmate and they will not be revoked (unless it’s proven he directly harmed the child). Only when the father files for termination, do his rights get revoked. The State feels he is more likely to pay (yeah, from that hefty prison salary), if his rights remain intact. It is also a backlash to the time when many women cried wolf claiming child/sexual abuse by the father in order to receive full custody, hence higher support payments. Now a woman can risk losing her child on grounds of parental alienation. The father has equal rights here.
And, you would be surprised how many fathers who don’t want to parent (pay/visit), but wish to legally remain the “father.” It is an ego blow to some who selfishly, or via family pressure, don’t want that societal judgment! When another adoptive (usually step) father enters the picture do they sometimes give up their throne (even then then, it can go the other way). For those men who want to act responsibly after the fact, and don’t want to participate, should initiate termination. Otherwise, they leave themselves wide open to liability to always be in the defensive position in the eyes of the courts.
As for the rationalization that a father is less liable for a child that is a product of a “friends with benefits” union… you are no friend to the mother or the child—get yourself revoked asap.
wawmama
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 02:14 pm: [report]
@Retro chic. You are right on with trying to get things settled out of court if possible. (Once you go down that path it’s usually $200 a pop in.)And I know people who want to keep the title of dad with out actually being one. They suck.
Both people involved are responsible for the baby…However if you don’t want to be in the picture, don’t let the door hit you, because chances are the kid is better off with out some one like that in their lives.
writergirl
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 02:22 pm: [report]
@Anniekins—“us” in the context of this discussion.
The fanatics you mentioned, yes, would judge her. But they would judge the man too for not taking his responsibility.
And while I think yes, if you don’t want to have a baby you should take the responsibility to prevent it—BOTH sides—lets face it. Birth control fails. And often. So while a good many fertilizations are prevented, they aren’t 100% prevented.
retro chic
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 03:01 pm: [report]
wawmama, exactly, thanks for summing me up. And you’re right about the child being better off. I got lucky, dealt OOC, but for awhile, the threat loomed, so I had to learn about these horrors, contingencies and consequences anyway so I could safely nav sharky CA waters.
wawmama
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 03:08 pm: [report]
@retro chic, It’s what I do.
I’m in the process of going for a third round of trying to get my divorce finalized, it’s been going on for almost two years. Why? Because my ex doesn’t want me moving on, or pay for the kids, luckily, I found a support group, and I’m not doing it on my own, so hopefully this last round will stick.
retro chic
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 03:25 pm: [report]
wawmama, I truly empathize. It’s so true, these last ditch attempts at control. Pathetic. Glad you’re getting the good support you need anywhere you can find it. You can never have too much. These misconceptions of victimized fathers need to go away. I’ll keep good thoughts for you… it’ll come out your’s and your kid’s way. Cheers!
Mainer
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 04:03 pm: [report]
I agree with a majority of the posts here that claim it is a mutual decision: women can get and abortion or keep the child; men can be a part of his childs life or not. Just handle it properly (i.e. don’t run off in the middle of the night and change your name).
The one faulty argument I saw here is the condom issue. I believe the post was a reference to “accidental” pregnancies. If you are having unprotected sex with someone in the absence of some other type of birth control, i.e. the pill, then you are more or less playing russian roulette. A resulting pregnancy is not an accident, it is a probability. Condoms can break, come off, or just not work and that’s when accidental pregnancies occur (the issue behind the post). Claiming this issue can be avoided by use of a condom is providing a solution to a different problem.
So really the only way to avoid an unwanted bun in the oven is to only have sex with people we wouldn’t mind having a child with? Not sure that is going to happen. There are no preventative measures we can take - that’s what makes it an accident. It is all in how two people handle the situation.
theattack
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 05:34 pm: [report]
Mainer - Thanks for finally saying that! There’s no form of contraception that’s 100% effective.
I am pro-choice, and I believe the man should have a say in his child’s life. Ultimately though, the woman has the final say, because it’s her body. If the guy doesn’t want an abortion and she does, she SHOULD have the final say, because she’s the one that has to deal with it the most.
I think guys should get their word in, and the two people should try to reach a decision together, but if neither will budge, it is her decision, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Why is everyone so worried about one thing backfiring on a guy, when 1) So many things in our culture put women at a disadvantage. Why are we SOO concerned when one thing disadvantages men? We need to be glad that we have this choice to make right now, and work toward not letting politicians decide our fates for us. 2) He knew that sex made babies. The woman is going to face a huge ordeal whether she has an abortion or has the baby. Both situations are horribly inconvenient for the woman. He knows what he’s getting into beforehand, and he shouldn’t be able to back out at the last minute just because it’s an inconvenience. Of course it is, and it’s 50% your responsibility! You can’t walk out and then think you can just come back whenever the expensive diaper days are over, and it’s CONVENIENT for you.
Also, I’d just like to point out that abortions aren’t always accessible for women, especially if they are financially dependent on a man that doesn’t support her choice to have one. Sometimes the decision is in the hands of whoever holds the wallet. Having a baby is more expensive in the long run, but if you can’t afford to terminate the pregnancy before 12 weeks (I think it’s 12), you don’t really have a choice after all.
vampchicksam
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 06:09 pm: [report]
A woman for opting to have an abortion. As much as I think its the womans choice abortions not legal everywhere ie Northern Ireland, and the rest of the UK. I agree with most of you. Unfortunately more responsiblty lays with the woman because shes carrying the kid, and if she chooses an abortion is the one that has to live with that in her head. Both partners engage in sex so 50/50 responsiblity in getting her pregant. Not every contraceptives a 100% all the time except the not having sex, unfortunely they fail even the pill. Its a risk you take when you have sex.
Mainer
wrote on May 4 2009 @ 06:55 pm: [report]
Granted, it does take two to tango…well, it takes three to tango; two to have sex - though that doens’t have the same ring to it. Either way, just because a pregnancy is equally divided when it comes to responsibility doesn’t mean that both parties are in it together. Ultimately what happens is the woman’s decision. A guy can’t force a woman to keep the kid or abort it. If she wants the kid she’s going to have it, if she doens’t then she won’t (although, what if the guy wanted it and the girl wanted to abort - we wouldn’t shun her for bailing, why would we the guy?)
Lets say you go to the track with your date - you two decide to split the $5 ticket you’re going to bet on a horse because you’re cheap (see Amelia’s post on spliting the bill on a date). Your horse ends up winning and you won $5,000 (because you were drunk and bet on the wrong horse, so the odds were horribly high against your steed). Your female date, the more nobel and respected of the two, wants to donate it to charity. You could really use that riding lawn mower for sale three blocks up and a new recliner that massages. What do you do? The RIGHT thing to do is to donate the money - it’s honorable and you’re doing what most would say is the “right and responsible thing.” After all, what you want is fairly selfish and only benefits yourself. In this scenario, most people would split the money and part ways, doing what each wanted rather than what one wanted. Does that make it wrong? I mean you split the ticket to begin with - you both have an equal stake in the result, right?
Granted I’m comparing having a baby to winning a horse race, but the principles are the same. Why should you be forced to do something you do not want to do just because you enter a very fun activity with a friend where the outcome is unexpected and priorly undiscussed? Likewise, why should your decision be solely based on hers? Guys should do the right thing - I agree, and if it happened to me I would be on board with whatever she wanted to do. But I don’t think that guys should be ridiculed for making a decision that is in their own best interest, especially if this event was neither planned nor discussed ahead of time. A woman’s body is her own, and carrying a child in there for 9 months is tough enough, let alone the prevailing 20 years. But it is no more her fault as it is his, and if she can decide to abort when he wants it, he can decide to abort if she wants it.
wonder_bread
wrote on May 5 2009 @ 10:57 am: [report]
ive read some of whats been written on here and agree with Theattack. i was always taught sex brings babies as we know and that if u aren ready for the possiblity of getting pregnate, no matter how slim they may seem at the time, you have no business having sex. and that goes for both parties. i believe most females handle the discovery of being pregnate better than their counter parts which is sad. i think that if u ever get too comfortable with the thought it could never happen to u u end up a higher risk of it happening to u. Having a baby is a beautiful experience not everyone is able to and those who can shouldn’t take it lightly but i still believe they should still have a choice whether to keep the baby or not. the male should be on board no matter wat the female chooses.he helped make it he should be held partly responsible for his decision.
IAgrl
wrote on May 5 2009 @ 11:46 am: [report]
While I can see, and appreciate both sides, there is one consideration that hasn’t been addressed… single mom’s who don’t receive financial support from the father *typically* experience difficulty meeting all of the financial needs of the child(ren). Kids are terribly expensive (although a joy!), and when a woman dips below a certain income level she most often relies upon the state/federal programs (i.e. food stamps, WIC, TANF, T-XIX, etc.) to raise those children. Why should the rest of the population pay for the child(ren)‘s needs when the father is not contributing? Shouldn’t he be the first to assist in paying for his child(ren)? Regardless of how much he wanted/didn’t want to be a father, they need to be supported. If he is unwilling to do so emotionally, I think that he should at least do so financially. The child is the one that suffers (as do taxpayers) if he doesn’t. The latest stats I remember (2008) reported that in the US 18% of all children live below poverty and 39% live in low-income families… I don’t remember the exact dollar amounts for those terms… but they are ridiculously low.
Granted, this argument does not apply to women affluent enough to meet the child(ren)‘s needs herself.
vtgirl1993
wrote on May 5 2009 @ 01:47 pm: [report]
I see it like this and it works for both genders: you don’t want a baby, then use birth control. Guys, this means always using a condom and spermacide regardless of the fact that she says she’s “on the Pill.” Ladies, you have several options in this arena.
I have zero sympathy for men—good or bad—who claim to have no say in keeping an unwanted pregnancy. You had a voice in the situation from the very beginning and if you chose NOT to use birth control, then you can’t whine about it later. Men aren’t ruled by their penises, so they need to use their head before having sex.
okayme
wrote on May 5 2009 @ 05:12 pm: [report]
I practice family law in Canada and I am shocked that father’s have the option of terminating their parental rights (and I am assuming their corresponding obligation to pay child support). Men do not have that option here on the reasoning that it is the right of the child to have access with both parents and to benefit from the financial support of both parents.
There is so much talk here about the “man being punished” for just wanting to have sex. Unfortunately, sex is not always consequence free for either men or women and there are risks to having sex: health risks, emotional risks and financial risks. If you want to have sex you have to live with the unintended consequences.
I don’t feel any sympathy for men who find themselves in this situation, I feel sorry for the children who are end up being punished for their parents’ “mistakes”.
snap
wrote on May 5 2009 @ 05:44 pm: [report]
people!
whoever said that men can terminate their rights (um, amelia?) was wrong! the fact of the matter is that a man ABSOLUTELY CANNOT sign away his rights and responsibilities if the mother is keeping the child. the right to support is the CHILD’S, not the mother’s. do your research, amelia!
that being said, men and women are different. women uniquely bear the burdens and benefits of pregnancy and childbirth and no amount of political correctness will change that. sure, the pregnancy may have been an accident, but it’s an inherent risk of sex. if a man does not want to have a child, he needs to wear a condom and pull out and hope for the best. if a pregnancy occurs, he should not be able to walk. a woman has a choice, yes, but that is because her body is involved in a way that the man’s isn’t. it’s not that it’s unfair, but just different.
amelia, i am shocked and appalled that you think it’s unfair to hold a man accountable for his getting a woman pregnant. it’s a risk that he takes when he has sex.
retro chic
wrote on May 5 2009 @ 06:08 pm: [report]
@um no, rights can be terminated in CA, tho, discouraged by many stringent restrictions. New stepfathers can adopt, if bio dad signs off “in the best interests of the child.” Provisions for potential quasi-involvement can be addressed outside of that agreement. I personally know two men who did this.
anatomization
wrote on May 6 2009 @ 01:53 am: [report]
This is absurd. All you people saying he should just wear a condom??? wtf? That is the exact same argument as the “she should just have left her legs closed” placed in the context of the male half of the species. Its rediculous. Now to the other point being discussed, men running away/not taking responsiblities for paying/raising their children. Well, as far as reproductive rights go men don’t have much. The courts consider men and women to be different classes of people in this regard. Now as a man I can’t say I appreciate being told I am in a different class regarding my rights. Maybe, dare I say, men might take more responsibility if they thought they had a right to control what happens with their 23 chromosomes. Or maybe men would take more responsibility if there weren’t so many women making irresponsible choices. I know one man whose girlfriend admitted she poked holes in his condoms because she wanted a baby no matter what. I also have another friend who wanted to raise his child, his girlfriend/ex thought she could do it on her own, her parents hated him and she never listed him on the birth certificate, it took him almost five years in and out of court to get her to accept the money he was setting aside for his child and get visition rights with his child. and btw pregnancy lasts for 10 months, not 9.
anatomization
wrote on May 6 2009 @ 01:56 am: [report]
Oh and on a legal note, talk to most lawyers, not the ambulance chaser, but people who study the law and youll find out you can’t actually sign away your rights. They are inalienable…gifted to you from birth and only recognized as law…not given by the law. Atleast if you American they are.
Little Lamb
wrote on May 6 2009 @ 07:28 am: [report]
@ anatomization
Umm…apparently you checked Wikipedia before it was edited for errors…pregnancy is actually complete at 38 weeks (which translates to just under 9 months actually). The doctors won’t let someone go longer than 42 weeks (which is still not at 10 months).
vtgirl1993
wrote on May 6 2009 @ 07:54 am: [report]
@ anatomization
I would say the women you listed are the exception, not the rule, just like most deadbeat dads. From my experience, the majority of men do take responsibility for the consequences of sex.
However, I stand by my previous post that men do have have reproductive rights—use a condom. BTW, I do believe that women also have the same responsibility to use birth control and/or keep their legs closed. As a woman, I’ve never been so “carried away” in the moment that I’ve forgotten birth control. I’m a “if one works 99.9% of the time, then let’s use two just to cover ourselves” kind of girl. Perhaps it’s because I am a women and I never forget for a moment that accidents happen…regardless of how many protective measures I take, I could get pregnant. That thought has always made me very choosy about who I sleep with as well. If everyone stopped for a second and thought “Hmmm…would I REALLY want to be connected to this idiot for the rest of my life because there’s always the possibility of a kid resulting from encounter?”, then I bet the birth rate would drop as would STDs.
BlueVibe
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 09:28 am: [report]
This goes for both genders: If you’re not ready for a kid, use birth control. Use two kinds of birth control. And don’t rely on your partner to have it on hand—get it yourself and take responsibility.
Neither Coppa nor her boyfriend acted like responsible adults and now they both ought to have to man up/woman up[?] and deal with the results.