Unexpected pregnancy

[NomNom]

How can she be five weeks pregnant if you had sex 3.5 weeks ago? I think she is trying it on. A medical abortion is safe up to 9 weeks of pregnancy. It is really not such a big deal, just some discomfort.
Just be straight with her, say you do not love her and are not ready to have a family with her. Also mention that you doubt that you are the father as it appears she was pregnant before you had sex.

Refer to the many previous posts about period cycles.

Personally I don't understand why she would say it's "safe" knowing that you were not wearing a condom.

 

[Shake&Bake]

How can she be five weeks pregnant if you had sex 3.5 weeks ago? I think she is trying it on. A medical abortion is safe up to 9 weeks of pregnancy. It is really not such a big deal, just some discomfort.
Just be straight with her, say you do not love her and are not ready to have a family with her. Also mention that you doubt that you are the father as it appears she was pregnant before you had sex.

Hells YEs! Tell her you could feel the head of the fetus as you were getting it on! :twisted:

 

[Cool E]

How can she be five weeks pregnant if you had sex 3.5 weeks ago? I think she is trying it on. A medical abortion is safe up to 9 weeks of pregnancy. It is really not such a big deal, just some discomfort.
Just be straight with her, say you do not love her and are not ready to have a family with her. Also mention that you doubt that you are the father as it appears she was pregnant before you had sex.

stupid advice.

You seems like you are still a teenager. How can you even say those words.

 

[Singal]

How can she be five weeks pregnant if you had sex 3.5 weeks ago? I think she is trying it on. A medical abortion is safe up to 9 weeks of pregnancy. It is really not such a big deal, just some discomfort.
Just be straight with her, say you do not love her and are not ready to have a family with her. Also mention that you doubt that you are the father as it appears she was pregnant before you had sex.

A pregnancy is calculated from the date of her last menstrual cycle.

 

[KalMaverick]

It's always easier to comment from your keyboard, until it happens to you, and then you realise that women aren't as innocent as they seem either. If she doesn't want to abort then she should be responsible for looking after it if he chooses not to be involved. This forced blackmail BS against guys has got to stop.

If you decide to have sex then you decide to deal with the consequences, one of those consequences are the female might get pregnant and might not want an abortion. While I don't believe in sex only after marriage I do understand there is some merit behind it.

This isn't some huge conspiracy theory, they weren't 99% safe and she by chance got pregnant, they had unprotected sex and the consequences were known from the beginning.

I'm glad the law sides with me on this one, if a female doesn't want an abortion and the male does then magically his responsibility should be zero? Now that is pretty messed up.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

I'm glad the law sides with me on this one, if a female doesn't want an abortion and the male does then magically his responsibility should be zero? Now that is pretty messed up.

The decision to have sex was mutual. The decision to have a child should be mutual too.

So if she wants the kid, the guy should be blackmailed into supporting it? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Accidental pregnancies do happen, but so does forced blackmail where a female deliberately gets herself pregnant to hook a guy. If she wants a child then she should have sex with someone willing to help her support it. Otherwise she should not have engaged in the act in the first place.

Just because it is 'the law', doesn't make it right. I've had it with people jumping to the defence of the poor hapless female without thinking about it (this is not aimed at you btw). With equal rights come equal responsibility.

 

[RiaX]

hello RiaX
*wave*

hello sir *waves back*

 

[KalMaverick]

The decision to have sex was mutual. The decision to have a child should be mutual too.

So if she wants the kid, the guy should be blackmailed into supporting it? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Accidental pregnancies do happen, but so does forced blackmail where a female deliberately gets herself pregnant to hook a guy. If she wants a child then she should have sex with someone willing to help her support it. Otherwise she should not have engaged in the act in the first place.

Just because it is 'the law', doesn't make it right. I've had it with people jumping to the defence of the poor hapless female without thinking about it (this is not aimed at you btw). With equal rights come equal responsibility.

The law might not be "right" I agree, but in this case it is needed to protect people.

I get what you're saying, I'm sure there are many cases of females trapping males just as I am sure there are many cases of males fooling females into sex and when she gets pregnant they disappear. The problem is that in this case an infant is involved and needs to be looked after.

So if she wants the kid, the guy should be blackmailed into supporting it?

There is no blackmail, if it is his kid (which it might not be) then he should've known what they law says in this regard, you see/hear it everyday, ignorance is not an excuse.

but so does forced blackmail where a female deliberately gets herself pregnant to hook a guy.

I won't argue that happens, in this case though, no. He willing chose to have unprotected sex, he wasn't 99% safe on his side and then was trapped, he decided that she saying "it's safe" was good enough for him and left it at that. His naivety, his mistake.

If she wants a child then she should have sex with someone willing to help her support it. Otherwise she should not have engaged in the act in the first place.

Ironic, if he doesn't want a child he should not engage in unprotected sex.

Just because it is 'the law', doesn't make it right. I've had it with people jumping to the defence of the poor hapless female without thinking about it (this is not aimed at you btw). With equal rights come equal responsibility.

I have a little experience with this, and I'm glad to say both sides took responsibility and are doing what they can to look after the child. With equal rights does come equal responsibility, it time this guy does what is expected of him.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Not arguing that he's immune obviously, I did say that he's equally at fault. He does need to accept responsibility in this case since it was totally avoidable. My point is that the fault is not solely his, as many in this thread have made it out to be

 

[Ancalagon]

Things will never be equal in this regard, because the sexes are simply not equal when it comes to procreation and never will be. However, I agree with Mike Hoxbig, although I know its a very unpopular opinion.

Before two people have sex, they can choose not to, to make the chances of having a baby zero.
If they do have sex, one or both of them can use/insist on protection, to greatly reduce the chances of having a baby.
If they have sex without protection, and the woman does not want to get pregnant, she can take the morning after pill.
If they have sex, with or without protection, and the woman gets pregnant, there are now only two options left.
One is have an abortion.
The other is continue to carry the child.

So now the woman is pregnant, and while it affects her much more than it affects the guy, she is also the only one who can do anything about it. She alone can take the morning after pill or go to the abortion clinic. Its not nice that it is the woman that has to, but thats the way it is.

So if she knows that the man does not want the child, how can she force him to support it? She has a way out - the abortion. It isnt nice, but its there. Yes, both parties screwed up, but now, only she can fix it. If she doesnt want to fix it, why is she allowed to demand support from the man?

 

[KalMaverick]

Not arguing that he's immune obviously, I did say that he's equally at fault. He does need to accept responsibility in this case since it was totally avoidable. My point is that the fault is not solely his, as many in this thread have made it out to be

Oh no I agree fully.

She is just as much as fault (if not slightly more so). We just unfortunately don't have her side of the story, which I wish I could hear because that could be interesting, so I can't really comment much on her.

But trying to convince her to have an abortion? I don't know, just does not sit right with me.

@Ancalagon

Because the baby does not result from choosing not to have an abortion, it results from having sex in the first place, by your logic at step Z (where the females decides to keep/abort) is where responsibility arises, by my logic step X (where they have sex) is where responsibility arises.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

So if she knows that the man does not want the child, how can she force him to support it? She has a way out - the abortion. It isnt nice, but its there. Yes, both parties screwed up, but now, only she can fix it. If she doesnt want to fix it, why is she allowed to demand support from the man?

Pretty much what I'm trying to say. She is the one with options, not the guy. Why should her choice then affect the guy, when their bumping uglies was a mutual decision? Morning after pills are easily available - again, she is the only one who can make that choice. If she chooses not to, and then chooses not to abort, then it is safe to assume that her intention was always to have a child. In which case the guy was misled since this was not disclosed at the beginning, even though he was stupid not to use protection.

 

[STS]

Pretty much what I'm trying to say. She is the one with options, not the guy. Why should her choice then affect the guy, when their bumping uglies was a mutual decision? Morning after pills are easily available - again, she is the only one who can make that choice. If she chooses not to, and then chooses not to abort, then it is safe to assume that her intention was always to have a child. In which case the guy was misled since this was not disclosed at the beginning, even though he was stupid not to use protection.

+1

 

[Singal]

1. The OP was stupid not to use protection.
2. They are both at fault.
3. You cannot insist that she has an abortion :wtf:

 

[Ancalagon]

1. The OP was stupid not to use protection.
2. They are both at fault.
3. You cannot insist that she has an abortion :wtf:

No, you cant. It is up to her.

But I feel, if the man does not want the baby, then the woman should not be allowed to demand any kind of support from him, ever, since she has the option to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[KalMaverick]

Pretty much what I'm trying to say. She is the one with options, not the guy. Why should her choice then affect the guy, when their bumping uglies was a mutual decision? Morning after pills are easily available - again, she is the only one who can make that choice. If she chooses not to, and then chooses not to abort, then it is safe to assume that her intention was always to have a child. In which case the guy was misled since this was not disclosed at the beginning, even though he was stupid not to use protection.

Not necessarily, maybe she is just as irresponsible as the OP, and also does not want a child but various other factors influenced her decision not to have an abortion.

You seriously can't say "Not having abortion = Wanting a child"

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

But I feel, if the man does not want the baby, then the woman should not be allowed to demand any kind of support from him, ever, since she has the option to terminate the pregnancy.

Or avoid it altogether the morning after.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Not necessarily, maybe she is just as irresponsible as the OP, and also does not want a child but various other factors influenced her decision not to have an abortion.

You seriously can't say "Not having abortion = Wanting a child"

Morning after pill? Would taking one not signal her intention to not have a child? As you said, ignorance is not an excuse. The option is there, before it even gets to the point about discussing an abortion, but she chose not to exercise it.

 

[Singal]

No, you cant. It is up to her.

But I feel, if the man does not want the baby, then the woman should not be allowed to demand any kind of support from him, ever, since she has the option to terminate the pregnancy.

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman. Pretend you have feelings and emotions. Still think it's that easy to terminate a pregnancy?
There would be no problem if the OP had just used contraception, therefore he is liable for child support. Even if the lady had been on the pill, a course of antibiotics(if she was sick) would have rendered it useless and he'd still be where he is right now.

 

[marine1]

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman. Pretend you have feelings and emotions. Still think it's that easy to terminate a pregnancy?
There would be no problem if the OP had just used contraception, therefore he is liable for child support. Even if the lady had been on the pill, a course of antibiotics(if she was sick) would have rendered it useless and he'd still be where he is right now.

Why does it always have to be the fault of the guy?
Women lie about the pill, they lie about contraception too