Man accused of tricking girlfriend with abortion drug
Federal authorities in Florida say the son of a Tampa-area fertility doctor is accused of tricking his girlfriend into taking an abortion drug to kill her unborn child.
A federal grand jury indicted 28-year-old John Andrew Welden on Tuesday.
Prosecutors say Welden forged the doctor's signature on a prescription for Cytotec, relabeled a pill bottle as "Amoxicillin" and told the woman his father wanted her to take the antibiotic.
The Tampa Bay Times reports incident occurred in March after an ultrasound at Dr. Stephen Ward Welden's office confirmed the pregnancy. The doctor is not accused of a crime.
Weldon's defense attorney characterized the actions as "aberrant" but pointed out his client has no criminal history. A U.S. magistrate denied bail Wednesday. He faces up to life in prison.
"I was never going to do anything but go full term with it, and he didn't want me to," explained Remee Lee, 26, Welden's now ex-girlfriend, told WPTV.com.
Another Jesus Freak thread....
You sure know how to bring these anti-gay types into DL OP!
He didn't want a baby. He should also use condoms next time. And the abortion pill should be readily available imho.
How many times have girlfriends tricked their boyfriends into getting them pregnant?
I say, payback is a bitch.
Well, he just saved himself 18 years of child support.
Uh, what, R4? A woman can't force a man to ejaculate inside her. And how do you equate "tricking a man" into conceiving a baby with premeditated murder?
Oh, and payback for whom? I don't recall reading anywhere that THIS woman "tricked" her bf?
You are an ignorant fucktard, R4.
They BOTH were negligent in having unprotected sex to begin with.
R8, give it a rest.
I don't know how this was a jesus freak thread when jesus wasn't mentioned, but OK.
The interesting thing here is the debate about a woman terminating a pregnancy and a man deciding to do the same thing. Previous threads have leaned toward a woman being able to decide to abort without discussing it with the sperm donor (Jimmy Connor/Chris Evert).
He would have been on the hook for years of child support which could have affected his future. According to pro-choice folks, that is the exact same dilemma facing women.
Explain the difference.
I'm not sure what the charge should be here.
Performing an illegal abortion? Assault? Something with the drug? All of the above and then some?
R10 Bitch I give you a rest
Idiot at R4
He had the choice to wear a condom. He chose not to do that. Birth control is not 100 percent, and a condom is actually far more reliable if used correctly.
By not choosing to wear a latex condom he took a risk. And guess what happened. The risk backfired. It was his choice, his responsibility.
I'm not saying that it's okay for a woman to lie and tell a partner she's on birth control if she's not. But none of the methods used by women are foolproof, and most men know that.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
As for punishment, this is not a serious crime. A glob of protoplasm was washed away. He should be fined.
Nowhere does it say he didn't use a condom. They do break you know, like the pill fails. I have two straight male friends that are now married to women who somehow got pregnant when they were on the pill/had an IUD and assured the guys he didn't need to wear a condom.
He did exactly what a woman is legally allowed to do and should not be treated differently than any woman going in to have a vacuum tube stuck up her snooch.
Um, at the risk of sounding like a troll, how much sympathy would you have for someone who contracted HIV from someone who promised their partner no condoms were needed?
The difference is pregnancy has a solution that in the past has been a unilateral decision for a woman. That boundary has been broken. Planned Parenthood should be building a monument to this guy if they really believe in reproductive freedom.
r18 are you really as stupid as what you just posted?
Reproductive freedom means tricking his girlfriend into taking a pill that would end her pregnancy without knowledge? She did not have knowledge therefore could not consent or choose.
Do you realize how dumb you sound?
She could have had an abortion without his knowledge. Potato, potatoe.
Because it's inside HER body.
[quote]As for punishment, this is not a serious crime. A glob of protoplasm was washed away. He should be fined.
What the actual fuck? She woke up in a pool of blood. He administered a powerful drug to her that could have killed her. He's not a medical doctor.
God, is this dumb fuck at R16/R11 for real? Listen Sherlock, you can not compel a woman to physically carry a child. The law says she has a choice about what to do with her own body---a body that is necessary to nourish a baby and carry it to term. No man's body is required to incubate a healthy full term baby.
Nor should you be able to compel a man to pay for it. If you support abortion as contraception you cannot argue with what this pioneer did for men.
Um, the reason I'm pro-choice is because the fetus is a part of the WOMAN'S body. Only she gets to choose if she wants to allow it to remain there.
Once the fetus becomes a self-reliant being, then no one can choose to terminate it.
So, what this guy did was inflict harm on a part of the woman's body. I think he can be tried for assault.
Slipping someone a drug without their knowledge is a crime even without a pregnancy involved.
So the guy's a criminal before we even reach the issue of abortion.
R24. That fetus wouldn't be there without his cum. He can then be on the hook for paying child support for 18 yeas because she, and she alone, decided to keep it. Sorry, but if she can decide whether or not to keep it, he should be able to as well.
He should be charged for the crime of assault, but how could he face life in prison for this? Punishment does not fit the crime.
R7 is a fucking C*U*N*T.
[quote]A woman can't force a man to ejaculate inside her. And how do you equate "tricking a man" into conceiving a baby with premeditated murder?
So much wrong up there. Women do trick men into pregnancies by telling them they are on the pill. Happens all the time!
And equating an abortion with murder is a right-wing tactic you dumb twat. It's not a person.
Some women in this thread want it both ways, and sorry I will not support you on that.
If she may abort unilaterally, then he should not be on the hook for paying for the child resulting from the fuck job.
R29. Right on
No, r26/r29. His choice comes in when he chooses not to wear a condom and shift responsibility for birth control onto the woman. If you're that worried about your girlfriend/hookup/wife/whatever not getting knocked up, wear a goddamn condom. He chose not to wear a condom and take his chances, so he has to deal with the consequences of that.
I'd never trust a hookup/new boyfriend who told me we didn't need condoms because he was disease-free. If I did and got sick, that would be my problem. Likewise, if a guy chooses to bury his head in the sand (if you will) and have sex with a woman without a condom on, that's his choice and he has to deal with the potential fallout, including diseases and/or 18 years of child support.
R31. Ridiculous. Condoms break, people decide to have unsafe sex. That shouldn't trap him into child support if she wants to keep it. If she makes that call,then she should pay for it on her own. Reproductive freedom should work both ways.
I do not agree with you and I will withdraw from this thread after this post.
BUT, for you, I hope you get knocked up with triplets and very soon.
I don't fuck women, so for me, our discussion is theoretical.
Oh, and drop dead, you goddamn cunt.
Seems to me it was his baby too, he had every right to abort it.
Yes, I know, no one will agree with me. He was stupid to let her find out.
R33. How insightful. F&F
Reproductive freedom does work both ways. He has the choice to have safe sex and, often, chooses not to exercise it. (Be honest, how many women get pregnant because a condom broke rather than because a guy didn't want to wear a rubber? I'm not saying it never happens, but the oddball case is not sufficient to justify sweeping policy changes.)
Once there is a clump of cells growing in the woman's body, it is her choice to do as she wants with her body. If he didn't want her to have the ability to make choices about what to do with her own body, he could either have chosen to have safe sex, or he could have chosen to move to Saudi Arabia. But being sorry after the fact doesn't give a man the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
What a fucking bitch...to tell the cops! She should just live and learn.
Nor does her deciding to keep it justify impacting his life for 18 years. It does, as they say, take two to tango.
r35 Why do suggest f&fing r33? Because he called you a cunt? I hate to break it to you, darling, but you are a cunt. (Sorry.)
[quote]He did exactly what a woman is legally allowed to do and should not be treated differently than any woman going in to have a vacuum tube stuck up her snooch.
The woman is choosing what she wants to do with her own body.
The man is choosing what he wants to do with HER body. That's the difference.
At the very least, slipping a drug into someone else's system by deception is an act of poisoning. He should not get life in prison but he should definitely do prison time. What he did was a felonious assault on her body.
R39. Why? Because I don't believe women hold the sole decision in a relationship? We are after reproductive freedom and equal rights, right? You should crawl back up your mothers cunt.
Right, r38. It does take two to tango. And knowing that it takes two, he should take responsibility for his own actions (and the consequences of those actions) rather than fobbing the blame onto someone else. When a child is conceived, that means 18 years of child support. If he can't afford 18 years of child support, then he should [italic]choose[/italic] to wear a condom when having sex with a woman. If he chose to have sex without a condom, he should accept responsibility for that.
A woman told you she was using birth control and got pregnant? Tough shit. You're the one who [italic]chose[/italic] to have sex without a condom.
By that logic, a man should be able to pursue entrapment charges if he finds out she got pregnant on purpose.
Women don't hold the sole decision-making power in a relationship, r41. The man has the choice to have safe sex. He does not have the choice to assault her body after he chose to have sex without a condom on. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's true.
And she didn't have any say in him not wearing a condom and wanting to be his little cum dumpster? We still do not know any details about their use, or non use, of contraception.
It doesn't matter what she thought about him not wearing a condom. She may have been all for it. But it's his body, and he's the one who will be responsible for child support if she decides to have the baby. If he doesn't want to be on the hook for child support, he's the one responsible for making sure it doesn't happen.
Again, if I take some random guy's word that he's disease free and it turns out he's not, that's on me. I don't care how ardent he is, if it's not wrapped, it's not going in.
The prosecutors in the Ariel Castro case must be watching this very carefully since they wanted to seek the death penalty for the many aborted fetus's Castro caused by kicking Michelle Knight in the stomach.
Heinous as both these crimes are I don't want the fundies all frothed up again about abortion being murder. If a woman wants to abort she should have that right. If someone forces her to by any means that is assault.
Can't wait for the day Dollarama sells do it yourself abortion kits, then the anti-gay Christians might become preoccupied and forget about attacking gays.
Women pay child support too. Also, they are not "trapping" a man to get rich. Most men pay far, far less than it actually costs to raise a child for 18 years.
I would be furious with any woman who forced me into parenthood but on the other hand, if I didn't want a baby I'd get my dick fixed and then have as much sex as I pleased. I mean, either you are serious, or you aren't. I'm a pretty serious person.
By the way, all those old rich dudes, who keep having babies? They look like damn fools.
Unless a man can honestly argue that he had no idea that sex can (and does) lead to pregnancy, he has no business claiming he was trapped by a woman.
I don't know any men that stupid but you might.
You fucking pull out if you can't be bothered with a rubber.
Pull out? What? Are you 12? Pull out is not a very good idea but better then nothing, I guess.
"Explain the difference."
Very easy. The one who's growing something in her body, gets to call the shots.
r19 "Reproductive freedom" works both ways; he should be free to not have a child against his will. And before you say "Then he should've used a condom", we're not sure he didn't. As someone pointed out, condoms break. Also, how do we know the girlfriend didn't get her hands on his condoms and poke holes into them, or fish a used one out of the trashcan and turkey baste herself?
If he's smart enough to obtain, re-label, and convince her to take the morning-after pill, then he's smart enough to use a condom.
LOL @ mentally challenged R55. It was a "6 weeks after" pill.
Pro-choicers...be careful here. When you say this is a heinous crime, you are playing right into the hands of the pro-life movement. It was NOT a child. If you start arguing on the basis of a potential child, then you're making the pro-life argument. pregnancies miscarry all the time. What he did was a form of assault, but the protoplasm is irrelevant.
As for the person arguing the "father's rights" point, here's what I say. You're not 100 percent wrong, ethically speaking. They both took the same risk, yet she gets to decide the repercussion and he has no say in it, and that does seem unfair. But you're missing the point that others are making. There's no way to give him a say in it without violating HER body in some way, and that changes the ethical dynamic. No, it's not entirely fair that she gets to decide that they will be bound together forever, and that he will be on the hook financially. BUT, the fetus develops inside HER body for nine months, and that cannot be changed without a court intervening and forcing her to do something with her body that she objects to. And we have decided, as a civilized society, that the state should not have that kind of power over a person's body. This prevents lots of horrible things...forced abortions, forced lobotomies (psycho-surgery, it's called now), torture of criminal suspects, etc. We don't want the courts deciding these things. There was a time when gay men were chemically castrated, for example...we'd prefer not to go back to those days.
So, it's not that you don't have a point. In an ideal world the two parties would make the decision together, in conjunction with medical professionals and counselors. But we live in a highly dysfunctional society, where people do all sorts of messed up things, like carry fetus' to term when the father is hostile towards the idea. You can't allow the state the start dictating unwanted surgeries, however, and abortion is a medical, surgical procedure. It goes too far and gives too much power to the state. Do you see?
It's illegal to slip someone a mickey. End of story.
It wasn't a mickey, it was a pill she could have gotten herself, just like an aspirin
It's illegal to drug someone without their consent, dumbass at r59.
[quote]Pro-choicers...be careful here. When you say this is a heinous crime, you are playing right into the hands of the pro-life movement. It was NOT a child.
Yes, this is an excellent point. This is not a heinous crime because he "murdered an unborn baby," it's a heinous crime because he assaulted someone.
There are 7 Billion people on the planet today, about 6 Billion more than the planet can sustain in the long term.
Abortions should be mandatory unless you get special permission for a baby license.
She took his bare cock and load. A pill is hardly assault.
"It's OK -- I have bad endometriosis. My doctor says I probably can't get pregnant. I've never used protection. Go ahead. "
I slip the abortion drug into random people's drinks at the bar I go to, male and female
Of course he had no right to give her a drug. I do believe that a woman has a right to choose. I also believe that if they have the sole right to decide to carry the fetus, then a man should have the right to say he disagrees and will not support this accident. Instead, we have dumbass teenage girls keeping their babies and dumping them on their parents.
If I had a daughter who got knocked up at 15 I'd slip her that pill.
R65 should be signed "Date Rapist".
There is no greater crime than robbing a woman of her right to have a baby. This is what the death penalty is for.
[quote]I also believe that if they have the sole right to decide to carry the fetus, then a man should have the right to say he disagrees and will not support this accident.
Agree 100%. If a woman insists on keeping a baby that the man doesn't want, he should have the ability to sign away his parental rights.
And R66 should be signed Clueless Moron
[quote]If a woman insists on keeping a baby that the man doesn't want, he should have the ability to sign away his parental rights.
He has the right to do that. He can get himself snipped, wear a condom or abstain from sex with women.
[quote]Can't wait for the day Dollarama sells do it yourself abortion kits, then the anti-gay Christians might become preoccupied and forget about attacking gays.
Taking this off-subject a bit, here's something the fundies and OMM types can go batshit over. I was at a 99 cent store yesterday and guess what they had at the checkout stand by the candy bars? Condoms. Lubricated and reservoir tipped. I am not kidding. I didn't bother to look more closely for the quantity.
No matter how you feel about abortion, you cannot deny that he committed serious crimes. He stole a prescription pad. He forged a doctor's signature and fraudulently obtained a dangerous drug. Then he tampered with a prescription. Then he drugged someone.
All of that is very serious and warrants punishment. The fetus or embryo plays no role in this discussion.
Some of you people are frightening because you apparently think it's fine to drug people without their consent. You all are the date rape druggies, I guess. You would probably slip antidepressants into someone's food or drink if you thought they were depressed.
If it's true she woke up in a pool of blood, that sure seems like criminal assault.
Not so fast R72. As far as courts are concerned they based it on what your LOSS was. Since she did not die, or become crippled from it in any way, she has no loss.
And before you say she lost a child you cant prove that. Many women have had still born from natural causes.
R57 closed the thread. Nothing more to see here.
[quote]Um, at the risk of sounding like a troll, how much sympathy would you have for someone who contracted HIV from someone who promised their partner no condoms were needed.
HIV is a life threatening disease, not a common everyday event like taking a dump.
News Flash: Child birth is not a miracle, it happens every day of the year in every place on the planet.
It always amazes me as a gay man how straight women want it both ways. They want equal pay, equal power, equal rights, but then they want men to treat them like the age of shiveringly opening doors, paying for dinner, and begging to marry them. Oh sure, they will treat once in a blue moon but that is bs since they would not like equal pay once in a blue moon.
Even women making tons of money do this. They never hook up with a guy who is making minimum wage when they are making six figures. The demand an equally successful guy.
I have heard these women say "they get tired of paying for things" and look down on them as looser. Which I also find odd because the other way around, the women can be rich housewives and they are considered lucky.
[quote]As far as courts are concerned they based it on what your LOSS was. Since she did not die, or become crippled from it in any way, she has no loss.
What a dumbass you are, R75. That's for awarding monetary compensation in a civil suit. Not for determining punishment for a criminal act.
According to your retard logic, someone who is raped "has no loss" either, huh? No broken bones, no loss of life = no crime.
[quote]age of shiveringly
You're not smart enough to remember to breathe on your own, are you?
Rape R79 is usually violent and therefore the women were physically hurt. You dont have a choice in rape to terminate the event, with pregnancy you do. One is a choice, one is not.
Unless of course you are on the sides of those bimbos that get drunk and let their tits hang out at a party flirty with all the guys. Then after doing the lacrosse team they claim rape.
Oh, and before you say it doesn't happen, it already has.
R81 is quite deranged and irreparably damaged.
You're posting from prison, aren't you R81?
R82 looks like she might be the same bimbo in R81s description. Once a slut, always a slut.
What about the case where a man doesn't know he has impregnated a woman, because she never tells him?
The case where his first clue is when he receives a demand letter for child support from a court.
A someone suggested up-thread, if the man objects to a full-term pregnancy resulting in a child, he should be allowed to go to the courthouse to file a paper absolving him of any parental rights and responsibilities provided he knows about the pregnancy has discussed his objection with the mother.
I'm with r82
R75 makes a case for selective late late term abortions.
Apparently his mothers prenatal attempts were only half successful.
He must also think the extremely high rate of cancer and mutations in Hiroshima and nagasaki had nothing to do with the atomic bomb.
The only accepted use of Cytotec is in the treatment of gastric ulcers. Both the drug company that makes Cytotec (Searle) and the FDA have issued warnings about using Cytotec to induce labor or as an abortion drug.
From the article at the link:
[quote]Cytotec® can cause abnormally strong uterine contractions (hyperstimulation or tetany) so strong that the uterus ruptures, resulting in severe injury or death of the mother and child. It can cause such heavy bleeding that to save the mother's life, her uterus must be removed (hysterectomy), leaving her incapable of bearing another child, and disrupting her natural hormones. The violent contractions it provokes also increase the risk of amniotic fluid emboli that can result in a stroke or death.
If the accused's father gave him the drug for the purpose of making his girlfriend abort, the father could end up in trouble too.
R84 + 1.
That seems only fair. I know someone that that happened to. Nice guy, but only found out he had a kid when some papers showed up demanding cash.
It happens more then you think.
By the way, no one has mentioned giving the kid up for adoption. Once the kid is born and OUTSIDE of the female body, you are no longer controlling her body.
Maybe the man should have a say in that. Like if you DECIDE to keep the child, then YOU support it.
R87 on the face of that it sound bad, but you can cherry pick the side effects.
If you read most persecution drugs they list everything from rash to death. Even my hair pills have a warning about pregnant women even touching the pill with their hands.
Watch a drug commercial like Viagra or Boniva. Sided effects include, blood clots, stroke, death etc.
Dose anyone know if the women had any of these effects besides the abortion?
R89, according to the story, the woman to whom Cytotec was administered woke up in a pool of blood. That's not a normal outcome, so something was going on besides aborting the fetus.
I'm wondering if she ended up requiring a hysterectomy.
What is R2 going on about?
R90, if that's the case, she's going to sue him for all he's worth (and ever could be worth).
The irony is that it will have been cheaper to:
1. Have the baby
2. Talk to her about how he felt
R91, linking to an inflammatory Faux News story, particularly one about abortion, is bound to attract some less than savory and homophobic types to DL.
It's asking for an invasion of knuckle-draggers.
Calm down people! R89 says it's A-okay to slip potentially life threatening, illegally obtained prescription drugs to anyone you please.
No need to tell them what they're taking or inform them of the possible side effects or hazards so they can make their OWN informed decision about the risks to their own body/life. After all, the chances of someone dying are, you know...sorta low.
The only knuckle draggers on this thread, R93, are twisted and deranged, woman hating gay men.
[quote]"I was never going to do anything but go full term with it, and he didn't want me to," explained Remee Lee, 26, Welden's now ex-girlfriend.
[quote]Thinking wedding bells were in their future, Lee said learning she was pregnant back in February was elating and a blessing.
Sounds like he did talk to her and maybe she had another idea in mind.
Erm, R16, except that it's HER body. The whole point of abortion rights is that a woman should be in control of her own body. It guess you missed the foundational aspect of that.
Not sure he should be charged for murder but certainly fraud the prescription, illegally administering the drug and grievous bodily harm. Murder? No.
Forcing a man into marriage is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
R90, I'm sure she would have mentioned having to have a hysterectomy in that interview.
Remember, you can't spell hysterical without hysterectomy - Peter Griffin
Abortion Kiosks - just like the Kodak Photohuts of the 1980s. Women would get an abortion and go shopping for new clothes afterwards.
[quote]I'm sure she would have mentioned having to have a hysterectomy in that interview.
Because you have special insight into the minds of women, R99? If she suffered any permanent damage, it might have been deemed better saved for the discovery stages of his criminal trial. At this point, there are likely to be strictures on what she can discuss.
She's going on TV to talk about someone forcibly aborting/murdering her baby, so yeah, I think she would be inclined to milk being rendered sterile if given the opportunity.
Of course she'll "victim it up" to the hilt. Don't doubt this for a second!
I certainly hope so, R103.
Poor straight guys never can catch a break.
[quote]Poor straight guys never can catch a break.
Especially those poor non-condom-wearing straight guys who think birth control is not their responsibility.
Since everybody seems to have spoken up for poor guys who are trapped into marriage or who want their partners to have abortions and are refused only to be stuck with 18 years of bills, I'll talk about the other type of men you might not be familiar with. Or maybe you are and don't want to acknowledge that shits like this exist. (I don't even know why gay men are concerned with how straight men spread their seed and the consequences.)
There are a lot of straight guys out there who are completely offended to the point of red-faced anger by the mere thought that a woman would abort [italic]their[/italic] fetus. I've learned about these attitudes in general discussions about abortion with guys I've known throughout the years. Some of it stems from political or religious conservatism in their background. I've also known a couple, though, who have no real political convictions and are non-religious and would not want their partner to have an abortion. It's all about their "rights." I've actually asked, "but what about child support, etc." to which they have sincerely answered "she can give it up for adoption." [italic]The fuck?[/italic] What about prenatal and hospital costs? "Oh, she'd have insurance." Uh, huh. OK guys. And these are the ones who actually verbalize their complete narcissism and self-asorbption.
You have to wonder how many of these guys who love [italic]their[/italic] babies and probably coerce partners into giving birth actually put their money where their mouths are once the kid drops. The world is full of deadbeat dads proud that their progeny is running around with no help from them.
I suspect that for every poor entrapped soul who has unwanted children, there's another one or two of these gems out there fertilizing indiscriminately and without consequence.
I would support guys as you descibe being castrated chemically or physically.
I think there are far fewer of these than you think, though.
Maybe they're just trying to be macho blowhards, R108. Who knows really what they would do when put in the situation. There's the example of that married Tennessee physician who ran for Congress on the usual pro-life/family/Jesus schtick and asked/told his lover to have an abortion. But he had a great deal to lose. Then again, there are plenty of stories of men who just take off or ignore court judgments all together. They're clearly not interested in the back end of things in any way, shape, or form.
[quote]Of course she'll "victim it up" to the hilt. Don't doubt this for a second!
Considering that she was an actual victim of an actual crime, there's nothing wrong with this.
R110...no, that's wrong. Using this as a platform to promote an anti-choice agenda is NOT okay. He did not KILL her BABY. There was NO baby. It galls me that even supposed liberal media is saying he "killed" her fetus...that's infuriating.
This is an assault, but it is not murder. If she plays that card then I completely lose sympathy for her.
The thing is that if Florida has a statute that somehow defines a fetus as a life, the state has a legal right/obligation to prosecute. The law is the problem.
Is John Andrew Welden a med student or a resident? How would have known to forge the prescription for Cytotec if:
[quote]The only accepted use of Cytotec is in the treatment of gastric ulcers. Both the drug company that makes Cytotec (Searle) and the FDA have issued warnings about using Cytotec to induce labor or as an abortion drug.
Did his father provide information or did he just Google for a drug name and consult the PDR? He was willing to risk this to save some $:
[quote]so strong that the uterus ruptures, resulting in severe injury or death of the mother and child. It can cause such heavy bleeding that to save the mother's life, her uterus must be removed (hysterectomy), leaving her incapable of bearing another child, and disrupting her natural hormones. The violent contractions it provokes also increase the risk of amniotic fluid emboli that can result in a stroke or death.
How do we know he wasn't trying to murder her?
The anti-choice freaks are all over this thread pretending to be pro-choice, but they give away the game over and over and over again by not understanding the concept of CHOICE.
The USA is over its head in Christian Fundamentalism as evident on this thread.
The USA is the Christian version of Iran.
This is a good argument for oral. Or anal.
It's best it happened before she became too attached. Hopefully, she'll breed more carefully in the future.
If I could help him out of the country, I would.
R113. That woman is bat fucking shit crazy
[quote]Seems to me it was his baby too, he had every right to abort it.
Seems to me your blind hatred for women is causing you to spew ridiculous opinions.
We'll take that deal if you go with him, R118.
Fuck off. I don't think he did anything wrong. Man, nor woman should be forced into parenthood.
Seems to me Welden's girlfriend, the "easy date," had the right to control her body by closing her legs -- but she did not.
Instead she decided to use her snooch to trap herself a husband, the son of a doctor.
And she didn't like it when victory was snatched from her.
Bitch needs to put on her big girl panties.
You're fucking nuts, r122. You have to hate women pretty strongly to think a guy who dosed his girlfriend did "nothing wrong."
How do you entice your dates home, R122? No old- fashioned convo since Roofies are more convenient?
How did you manage to get all of that information out of that story, r123? I can't seem to find any of that info.
Oh, right. Your fevered imagination.
What r123 says is true, sort of. Having made the choice to have sex with him, she should have been prepared to accept the consequences.
But that's the thing about this story: she was prepared to accept the fallout. She decided to have the baby. He's the idiot who somehow didn't realize that having sex could lead to pregnancy, and was so desperate to avoid the consequences of his actions that he poisoned someone.
R123 is 2000% right
Well, for the pathological woman haters on here, men can do no wrong, no matter how psychotic, violently or irresponsibly they behave. Allrrrrrightie then ....
R129...they're trolls. This site was long ago taken over by trolls who argue from various points of view, often in a contradictory fashion. Trolldar was supposed to preempt that, but trolls soon realized they just had to dump their cookies. you have places like Troll Kingdom, where folks get points for doing this kind of thing. The stuff that's being said is CLEARLY trolling, and unfortunately it works and gets a reaction.
R128 -- this is r123
At r33, I cursed you when I really meant to direct my bile at r31.
Very sorry. I should have corrected this last night.
And keep up the good fight. Some of the loudmouth women posting in the thread want special, one-sided rights and I won't have it.
I support women for their right to a legal abortion, but not to the detriment of innocent mean who do not wish to be a father and who have expressed this, when given a chance, to the woman carrying their child.
This is rank entrapment, plain and simple. If it is not a crime, it damn well should be.
R129, do you happen to have any insight as to why they troll? What's the payoff?
R123, what if you are mistaken?
What if he persuaded her to have sex with him...by seducing her in the jacuzzi in her doctor dad's condo in the mountains?
What if she was on the pill?
What if her hormones were kicking in and she had this overwhelming biological impulse to fuck his brains out and to hell with consequences she's young and immortal?
I don't understand some gay men's fascination bordering on obsession with a topic that will never be an issue for them. Why is a rich Republican white boy from Florida suddenly their concern?
I know DL has been invaded by fraus over the years, but I'm beginning to believe DL is being taken over by 22 year old straight Repug frat boys from Texas. Can't you guys just stick with butt chugging for your kicks? (tip: stick with red, white stings per your Tennessee brethren)
He told her he didn't want to be a father, r134.
"I was never going to do anything but go full term with it, and he didn't want me to," explained Remee Lee, 26, Welden's now ex-girlfriend, told WPTV.com."
When was the last time that was a concern for you, R135?
So. Accidents happen, r134.
And what he did to her was no accident. And very very harmful. Fatal, in fact.
If he didn't want to be a father, then the responsibility was on him to secure birth control and make sure she knew his feelings on the matter beforehand, r135. That's the extent of his input on the matter. After that, every decision regarding impending parenthood is left entirely to the one biologically required to cultivate a child inside them: the woman.
At no point does the man have any sort of right to give her a drug against her will in order to take the right to that decision away from her.
You're arguing crazy shit.
What kind of barbarian thinks drugging someone against their will is a solution for anything??
[quote]Fuck off. I don't think he did anything wrong. Man, nor woman should be forced into parenthood.
You're not nice. That's a mean thing to say.
He didnt have to slip it to her. He gets no sympathy from me.
A woman never traps a man. It takes two to tango, remember that!
R132, some people just get off on it. They get to rile people up, and apparently they find that enjoyable. This is a site where it's fairly easy to get a strong reaction quickly, and they love that.
r138 - He was wrong to do it, but get a grip. Unless the woman herself died, there was no "fatality" involved.
R142 - I agree. There are a lot of men who don't want to use condoms because "it doesn't feel the same".
If you don't want to have children, wrap it up every time.
No one knows what truly happened, but he committed a crime.
And for every man "trapped" into a marriage, there's a woman who is equally trapped and can't leave due to financial or other reasons. Women and their children frequently live in much worse financial conditions after divorce, regardless of any child support arrangements.
Per r139 --
"After that, every decision regarding impending parenthood is left entirely to the one biologically required to cultivate a child inside them: the woman."
Who says? You?
The law? Laws can be changed.
A man should NOT be forced to be a father if he tells his sex partner he does not want to be one.
She should not be allowed to trap a man into marriage -- and if you cannot admit that this happens then you are nuts.
Why do you folks keep arguing with such an obvious troll?
There is a LOT more to parenting then child support. If a man does not want to be a father, he should never be forced. If you want a baby that bad...get pregnant by a man who wants it.
[quote]There is a LOT more to parenting then child support.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...