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.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||05/19/2013|
Another Jesus Freak thread....
You sure know how to bring these anti-gay types into DL OP!
|by Anonymous||reply 2||05/16/2013|
He didn't want a baby. He should also use condoms next time. And the abortion pill should be readily available imho.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||05/16/2013|
Well, he just saved himself 18 years of child support.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||05/16/2013|
They BOTH were negligent in having unprotected sex to begin with.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||05/16/2013|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||05/16/2013|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||05/16/2013|
Because it's inside HER body.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||05/16/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||05/16/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||05/16/2013|
You fucking pull out if you can't be bothered with a rubber.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||05/16/2013|
Pull out? What? Are you 12? Pull out is not a very good idea but better then nothing, I guess.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||05/16/2013|
"Explain the difference."
Very easy. The one who's growing something in her body, gets to call the shots.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||05/16/2013|
LOL @ mentally challenged R55. It was a "6 weeks after" pill.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||05/16/2013|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 57||05/16/2013|
It's illegal to slip someone a mickey. End of story.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||05/16/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||05/16/2013|
"It's OK -- I have bad endometriosis. My doctor says I probably can't get pregnant. I've never used protection. Go ahead. "
|by Anonymous||reply 63||05/16/2013|
I slip the abortion drug into random people's drinks at the bar I go to, male and female
|by Anonymous||reply 64||05/16/2013|
R65 should be signed "Date Rapist".
|by Anonymous||reply 66||05/16/2013|
There is no greater crime than robbing a woman of her right to have a baby. This is what the death penalty is for.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||05/16/2013|
And R66 should be signed Clueless Moron
|by Anonymous||reply 69||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||05/17/2013|
If it's true she woke up in a pool of blood, that sure seems like criminal assault.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||05/17/2013|
R57 closed the thread. Nothing more to see here.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||05/17/2013|
[quote]age of shiveringly
You're not smart enough to remember to breathe on your own, are you?
|by Anonymous||reply 80||05/17/2013|
R81 is quite deranged and irreparably damaged.
You're posting from prison, aren't you R81?
|by Anonymous||reply 82||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||05/17/2013|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 89||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||05/17/2013|
What is R2 going on about?
|by Anonymous||reply 91||05/17/2013|
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
|by Anonymous||reply 92||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||05/17/2013|
Abortion Kiosks - just like the Kodak Photohuts of the 1980s. Women would get an abortion and go shopping for new clothes afterwards.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||05/17/2013|
Of course she'll "victim it up" to the hilt. Don't doubt this for a second!
|by Anonymous||reply 103||05/17/2013|
I certainly hope so, R103.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||05/17/2013|
Poor straight guys never can catch a break.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||05/17/2013|
I would support guys as you descibe being castrated chemically or physically.
I think there are far fewer of these than you think, though.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||05/17/2013|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 113||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||05/17/2013|
The USA is over its head in Christian Fundamentalism as evident on this thread.
The USA is the Christian version of Iran.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||05/17/2013|
This is a good argument for oral. Or anal.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||05/17/2013|
It's best it happened before she became too attached. Hopefully, she'll breed more carefully in the future.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||05/17/2013|
If I could help him out of the country, I would.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||05/17/2013|
R113. That woman is bat fucking shit crazy
|by Anonymous||reply 119||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||05/17/2013|
We'll take that deal if you go with him, R118.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||05/17/2013|
You're fucking nuts, r122. You have to hate women pretty strongly to think a guy who dosed his girlfriend did "nothing wrong."
|by Anonymous||reply 124||05/17/2013|
How do you entice your dates home, R122? No old- fashioned convo since Roofies are more convenient?
|by Anonymous||reply 125||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||05/17/2013|
Well, for the pathological woman haters on here, men can do no wrong, no matter how psychotic, violently or irresponsibly they behave. Allrrrrrightie then ....
|by Anonymous||reply 129||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||05/17/2013|
R129, do you happen to have any insight as to why they troll? What's the payoff?
|by Anonymous||reply 132||05/17/2013|
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?
|by Anonymous||reply 133||05/17/2013|
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)
|by Anonymous||reply 134||05/17/2013|
When was the last time that was a concern for you, R135?
|by Anonymous||reply 136||05/17/2013|
So. Accidents happen, r134.
And what he did to her was no accident. And very very harmful. Fatal, in fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||05/17/2013|
What kind of barbarian thinks drugging someone against their will is a solution for anything??
|by Anonymous||reply 140||05/17/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||05/17/2013|
He didnt have to slip it to her. He gets no sympathy from me.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||05/17/2013|
A woman never traps a man. It takes two to tango, remember that!
|by Anonymous||reply 143||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||05/17/2013|
r138 - He was wrong to do it, but get a grip. Unless the woman herself died, there was no "fatality" involved.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||05/17/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||05/17/2013|
Why do you folks keep arguing with such an obvious troll?
|by Anonymous||reply 148||05/17/2013|
[quote]There is a LOT more to parenting then child support.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||05/18/2013|