Fair for him to oppose paying for dc in this context? (Please be kind)

[biwncs]

before I start I want to say I’ve NC as I am embarrassed by this and I know I do NOT smell of roses here. Please don’t post if it’s just to sling mud at me, i know I haven’t been perfect by a long way.

when I was 37 I panicked about wanting dc and my partner at the time was 40. He had pushed it back a year already but in fairness to him we hadn’t been together long, only two years. He would often make comments about wanting dc and where we would take them, what schools theyd go to etc. I came off the pill and didn’t say and although we also used condoms (we always have, we prefer it), I became pregnant. He was conflicted at the start but after a couple of weeks said it was up to me and he would support me either way. I asked if he wanted a termination a few times and he said no. So we carried on. Half way through the pregnancy I felt I had to tell him I had come off the pill. It was a horrible conversation understandably but we moved past it. A year or so later we broke up, since then my ex has refused to pay a penny and hasn’t spent any time with dc. He has no other kids and as far as I know not with anyone else. He tells me he shouldn’t have to pay as I made him have a dc. I now feel so conflicted about maintenance? I feel he was giving me all the signs he wanted us to have dc and I did openly discuss termination and he said no. But ultimately he’s right I came off the pill and didn’t say. I am so confused/sad as to what to do and what’s right. He doesn’t seem interested in dc either and i feel that’s on me, though I never ever had him down as someone who would abandon his child. I just don’t know what to do and feel he has a point regarding finance.

Do the math. Risk of pregnancy using condoms vs, risk of pregnancy using condoms + BC pill is 1,000x higher.

I hand you a bag of 10,000 M&Ms. I tell you 1 M&M will impregnate you, you’re likely to take your chances and eat a few because a risk of 1 in 10,000 is infinitesimal.

If I handed you that same bag and said 1,000 of the M&Ms will impregnate you, so you have a 1 in 10 chance of getting pregnant, would you still snack on them?

why would you have to prove that?

is me accepting to undego a surgery with a 0.1% risk of death the same as me accepting to undergo one with a 10% risk of death? hey, I accepted that the risk is never going to be exactly zero, so it shouldn't matter how large the risk actually is. i consented to a risk larger than zero and that is that.

Exactly, you wouldn’t have to prove that the risk was zero. 🤨

It’s late and I can’t follow this one so I’ll use the shark one you posted earlier:

If I was then bitten by a shark, I couldn’t claim the chance of me being bitten by that shark was zero. I also couldn’t refuse any medical treatment on the grounds that I didn’t want to be bitten by a shark.

Not true. Under English law, this type of non consensual sex IS considered to be rape. There have been recent prosecutions in the UK and Europe for this type of thing.

www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-57618003

duh, simply by being in the same room as the bag of M&Ms the man has already accepted the risk of pregnancy and deserves what's coming to him. obviously!

Yes you would. Or you’d have to prove a level of risk you were happy with, which would be impossible since no contraception is 100% reliable.

What would our responses be if a man came on here and posted that he’d removed the condom without his partner’s consent? The OP’s actions are the equivalent of that, I think.

Again, laws have changed recently. People HAVE been prosecuted for similar situations: www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-57618003

No, it is true it is not rape under English law in matters of fertility. Stealthing is completely different.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-53511729

web.archive.org/web/20170311122135/blog.cps.gov.uk/2014/08/charging-decision-concerning-mps-special-demonstration-squad.html

Id say that was rape. But that’s not what happened here.

you really don't do math, do you @Pumperthepumper ?

What time zone are you in just now @LaLuz7 ?

apparently an alternative universe where women are allowed to lie about contraception and trap men into parenthood, but when men do it to women it's called rape. I can't even...

American?

I disagree.

According to section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, “a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”. Section 76 explains that if the defendant:
(a) intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the act;

OP’s admissions in this thread clearly indicate that she intentionally deceived him about the purpose of the act (to conceive a child) and the nature of the act (she was on a specified type of contraception).

what? no. i should be offended lol

Are you on GMT?

Now to bring in the lying aspect. You’re at a beach, you’re told it’s safe, only one shark a year ever nips anyone. You go for a swim and are chomped by a shark. You later find out that beach actually gets 3 shark attacks every day…

Youre telling me you’d be ok with that? If you’d known the truth, would you have skipped into the waves merrily? Or would you have chosen a different beach?

stop stalking me

Oh, I agree it is rape. But case law currently disagrees.

“The appeal was heard by the Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales, Lord Burnett of Maldon, sitting with Mrs Justice Cutts and Mrs Justice Tipples.
Their judgment said: "In terms of section 74 of the 2003 Act, the complainant [the woman] was not deprived by the appellant's [Lawrance's] lie of the freedom to choose whether to have the sexual intercourse which occurred."
The judges looked at similar cases involving deception, including Julian Assange's extradition case, where a judgment said sex without a condom would be a sexual offence in the UK if the other partner had only agreed on the condition a condom was used.
They also considered a case known as R(F), which involved a woman who consented to sex with her husband on the condition he withdrew before ejaculating.
However, the Court of Appeal judges said Lawrance's case was different from these cases.
The judgment said: "Unlike the woman in Assange, or in R(F), the complainant agreed to sexual intercourse with the appellant without imposing any physical restrictions.
"She agreed both to penetration of her vagina and to ejaculation without the protection of a condom."
The woman was, instead, "deceived about the nature or quality of the ejaculate", the judges said.
"The deception was one which related not to the physical performance of the sexual act but to risks or consequences associated with it."

No. I believe OP has made it clear in this thread that he had made it quite clear he did not want a child and thus that he only wanted sex with the two forms of protection she deceived him into believing were present. She made it very clear that she ‘secretly’ removed one of these conditions herself, with the purpose of conceiving a child. The implication that he did not and would not have agreed to sex without those two conditions in place is very clear, based on the evidence presented by OP.

It is not often that a man in his situation would actually have this sort of evidence, though, is it?

Yes, as the high court of appeal justices ruled
The deception was one which related not to the physical performance of the sexual act but to risks or consequences associated with it.

= not rape.

They don’t agree with us yet.

They're not really the equivalent as they were still using a form of contraception that is considered to be highly reliable. Most couples who use contraception only use one form of it.

I don’t know. It is extremely strange that OP quickly became pregnant after stopping the pill even though she was using condoms, and she refuses to answer any posters’ questions about whether or not she tampered, no?

I agree. It’s suspect. Unless they were using them incorrectly from day 1.