Good.

but ignore FOUL PLAY

I am relieved.

we are not talking about it

the premise was that it wasn't tampered with

Well, the premise is the consent, primarily.

If holes were poked, theres tampering and as such the man should not be responsible since he was lied to

So far, consent only seems to matter in the case of a woman. If a man fathers a child, as it is now, he is responsible financially.

And reality aint fair

So, then, if consent to one act of sex can be extended indefinatly into consent to something completly different, do you think rape should be a crime that is possible to commit in marriages or did you consent to sex by being married? @Cody

Not only that, he is doubly responsible in that he finances abortions.

That is not what marriage means

@Redneo

and if not him, then the state (and thus taxpayer) is responsible for that financing 😦

which is abhorent, since the taxpayers have nothing to do with ti

Yes, reality is not fair. But that is literally what we are talking about:

What would be fair?

If you consented to sex, and there WAS *NO* FOUL PLAY

strap the rape-e down and put the vacuum on her yahoo for purging of the falseley obtained fetus

then you are responsible too

so what is the question? the premise of consent of both parties having sex or the premise of consent to unprotected sex thus creating a child?

@Cody well, i would think it does. Since you seem to play the part of the traditionalist here

You keep saying if you consented to sex, but what if you didn't consent to being a father?

But consenting to SEX is CONSENTING to the CHANCE OF A BABY

This is like nailing jello to the wall.

What does that mean @Cody

Doesn't matter how much you try and prevent it

The question is:
"Should the man be responsible for a child, if he only consented to sex (with protection if needed) that ended up with impregnating the woman (without foul play)" @knightlyjug

I vote no.

@Cody i consent to the chance of a baby - maybe. But how is that relevant? Wether or not i consent, babies will be born

But, there are some corner cases, I think. If there were severely negligent, like using a condom from China that has a failure rate of 50%, and she is so fat they don't realize she is pregnant until it's too late, it might be different.

@Cody nothing about the existance of any baby intrinsicly makes nature put money in her bank account.

Cases of gross negligence are often treated separately, which presents a grey zone.

That is completely relevant punks, Just because we are in the modern age does not change the core principle of the human race

or for that matter, any species

actually ... no

you might want to read up on biology, but let's skip that point

i won't play devil's advocte here.

@Cody well, you are going to establish that the consequences are unavoidable before declaring them a risk

Biology states, that sex = CHANCE OF LIFE

if it IS avoidable later that i pay her, then it is not a risk

It's okay. I'll hold my tongue on how some animals reproduce.