No, it isn't the sequel to that Mike Myers movie from the early 90's. My ex-girlfriend messaged me last night. Conversation started light when suddenly she dropped a bomb. "I am pregnant." I never thought she would find a three-word phrase more terrifying than "I love you," but she did. I've been going nuts since she told me. The situation is complicated. A little background:

I met her on some dating site. We chatted for a couple of weeks, and there was clearly an attraction. We started chatting on the phone. A couple more weeks went by. I wanted to meet her, and she agreed to come to my apartment. Things moved quickly from there. In fact, she said "I love you" that first night she came to my apartment. The girl is *extremely* beautiful (she models) as well as highly intelligent (straight-A pre-med student). Apparently I am not, since her behavior did not set off any red flags in my mind until far too late. We were together nearly 24/7 for a few weeks, and things seemed to be going very well. Suddenly, around the beginning of finals week for me, she called and started a vicious fight. It was all downhill from there, and our relationship was ended. We continued talking and fighting for nearly a month until we both decided we needed to take at least some time off from each other. I hadn't heard from her in nearly a month until yesterday.

In the brief time we were together we had alootttt of unprotected sex. Now, this may seem foolhardy (and I suppose it was), but there are two main reasons I did it. Firstly, and significantly, she is fucking hot, and she begged for it. Secondly, she has some very serious health issues, for which she takes very large doses of painkillers, and I was assured that she was unable to conceive. It seems she is able to conceive after all.

Now, she tells me she is 100% certain that she is pregnant. She has also expressed the opinion that any baby she may or may not have is "hers" and not "ours," essentially on the theory that she would be doing all the work for nine months. She has already TOLD ME that she may decide to have this child, and lie and tell me that she has had an abortion. She has also expressed a possible interest in leaving the country, and raising the baby somewhere else. She isn't bluffing. She is quite wealthy, and has family in a few different countries, such as China. Most of this is probably moot, since I seriously doubt she can carry the child to term with her health problems. However, it does remain a possibility, and I would like to know my rights.

What if she is lying about being pregnant? What if she refuses to let me know the status of the pregnancy? I have already told her that I don't want custody if she has the baby. I am most definitely not ready to be a father. But I *would* want visitation rights. I feel very strongly that I would wish to be involved in the life of my child. The thought of her running off to China with my child makes me terribly angry.

Basically, it is a lose-lose situation. Her having this baby would change my life, and possibly ruin it. If she gets an abortion or miscarries, it is something I have to live with. If she is going to get the abortion, I want her to do it before the thing growing inside of her can possibly be considered a human being. I don't want to murder my child.

I need advice.

Welcome to probably the biggest life lesson you'll learn for a long time.

There's really not anything you can do, great, huh? Are you even sure it is yours?

Until she decides whatever she wants to do and either has it or doesn't you don't/can't do anything. After the fact you very well may have to take legal options to insure you can see the kid. Assuming she stays in the country.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I think I missed the punch line somewhere. All I got was something about a super hot chick who is really wealthy and a straight-A student in medical school (when she is not modelling) goes to the internet to get dates.

Should have put it in her ass.

Oh, and you're about to be scammed sounds like to me.

Who are you? (honest question)

Also, pictures or it didn't happen.

Wizardly...isn't that xardioso?

Tell her to go to Hell.


But seriously, you need to decide what outcome you desire before you can start weighing different options. Once you know what the best case scenerio is for you, it will be much easier to pick a course of action.

I think congratulations are in order!

Guess my pittance for wishing evil on you for going AFK during a fear raid you were leading when we wiped, left us to fend for ourselves, which I did.. and got a CR raid organized and through, which you promptly bitched at for taking so long has arrived~

Karma exists? Holy shit~

Yo' sup bra, grats on scorin that mega hottie. Man, I totally dig what is goin on wit ya, u just gotta play it cool and be a str8 up dude. If u the dad u gotta do wut u gotta do. She prolly just lyin tho, so dont sweat it.

Behold! The power of pussy.

Amaaaaazing what the human body can do . . . when it is designed to do it! Unless . . . her child is . . . JESUS?!!!

Right. I am sure you will get enough people telling you you were foolish--HERE and from family and friends. Just understand and accept that she, literally, planned to fuck you. Serve as an example for others to learn from. You are not the first; you will not be the last.

Having made a mistake others have made, you need to try to avoid making further mistakes many have then made.

Fine, now you need to protect yourself. First, you need to stop with this delusion:





Indeed you do. However, you need to get it from those who have experience in this matter, not from friends, family, and anonymous internet posters. They can give you emotional support which is helpful, but it will not solve you problems. Right now, your concern should be protecting yourself from further damage--REAL damage--financial as well as emotional.

To be frank, you will get better emotional support from those who have experience in your problem and can give you practical advice rather than "support" or "insults."

Where to get this advice?

Now, you make it fast and painful by, say, calling Tom Lykis, who after laughing at you will inform you you have joined the ranks of a lot of men who have thought with their "lower brains" and are in these bad situations. You may wish to listen to his show anyways to learn how guys do this all the time and what happens to them when they do not take it seriously.

He can then tell you whom to talk to, such as in organizations. He may even be very nice to you. Since you probably do not wish to serves as anonymous entertainment across the national airwaves, what you do next requires a lot of "leg work" on your part since it depends on where you live, as in the laws of your state.

Which means you need to speak with a lawyer.

Which means you need to speak with a lawyer.

Let me repeat that: You NEED to speak with a LAWYER.

Yes, that will cost money. Yes, that is painful, but you have to compare that to what is going to happen if you sit their at the mercy of this girl. Is she pregnant? Will she seek financial support from you? What are your rights? You need not only answers to that but how to get them and how to protect yourselves.

So how do you find a lawyer and organizations that can help you? You can "Google" it, but as this review notes--Expert Lawin its criticism of "father's rights lawyers," some lawyers advertise themselves "father's rights lawyers" just to attract clients. You need to find someone who actually knows the law in this area and/or knows lawyers who do who can help you.

For example, this site gives you some useful information on the law and recommends lawyers in various states: LawInfo. Of course, how they get those lawyers is the question: are they qualified or do they just pay the fees to be linked? These sort of things you need to find out.

Since you do not want to give out personal information on the internet, you are going to have to do this yourself, or PM Tarot with a location and age, and mention this thread. There are some people who might be able to point you in a direction. Otherwise, you need to start looking in your area for support groups and get their suggestions.

The benefits are potentially very great. You will feel a lot better if you are given the name of a person who is interested in your problem, has dealt with such, and is happy to help you rather than take your money.

Now, this has nothing to do with "avoiding responsibility" or any of that. I am not going to comment on what "you should do" regarding potential fatherhood. However, whatever you think is the right answer to that, you need to talk with people with real experience in this problem who can discuss the real implications of such.

Finally, I would cease communicating with this woman NOW. Find a source of advice first, THIS WEEK, then you will be told how she may be allowed to communicate with you. You are her chew toy WHATEVER is the "truth" of the situation. She can call and bat you about and emotionally torture you as she clearly has. Time to put a stop to that.

Best of luck.

--J.D.

Welcome to the baby scam. Even if it's NOT a scam, save all communications. Record to tape all voicemails. Document times. Then, go to a lawyer and express your concerns. Yes, it'll cost you, but it'll cost far less than a paternity suit from another country with different paternity laws. Refuse to sign anything until the biological father of the child is 100% certain. Signing a "I will not be responsible" document will imply that you accept that you're the father.

While you're doing this, find out what she wants from you, if anything. If nothing, great.

Well until the kid is born there is still time for her to get hit by a bus by "accident"...

First thing you need to do is post pics of this super hot piece of straight-A pre-med ass.

Second thing to do, is just trip her down a few flights of stairs.

I know they're joking about this, but I feel it should be commented that, as tempting as it sounds, if an 'accident' results in the loss of her child, most states permit prosecution for murder.

First off, blood test. Until there's proof it's yours, it isn't.

Second, Leykis FTW. You're likely being scammed. Welcome to the wicked web of games. Attorney is your friend in this, so listen to the one you decide on. Know it's an uphill battle now, so get a good one. A specialist, cause this has the potential to cost you more than just money.

As Leykis says... Tell the audience what brand of condom you were wearing when she got pregnant, so we know which ones not to buy.

:p

Need the number for Maury Povich?

Hot, Single, Sane.

Pick two.

One word: Idiot.

Two words: fucking idiot.

Three words: You fucking idiot.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Pretty much sound advice has been given.

Here's my thoughts on what's probably going on:

1) You're being scammed. Yeah yeah yeah she's all those things, and you know it because...she told you. You'd be amazed what people can fake (I constantly am). If she is scamming you then it's for money, attention, renewal of relationship/marriage, or any number of 'goals' that she thinks she can achieve through claiming pregnancy. Get a lawyer ASAP, etc.

2) She's a nutbag, and this is drama that feeds some sick needs. Same solution as above, coupled with the potential of looking at a restraining order. If it's this option she'll claim to have gotten an abortion or miscarried sometime in the next 9 mos.

3) She really is knocked up, and is a whack job to boot. Get a lawyer etc.

Personally I think it's #2.

_________________

I'm just curious where you're getting this from. I wish I had access to lexis or westlaw right now (they cut it off from us in the summer). Maybe I'll hunt around in findlaw.com or something. Don't take it personally, but I think you're wrong; it would be particularly inconsistent with certain (in?)famous United States Supreme Court jurisprudence (Roe v. Wade comes to mind, naturally). Why would a federal court ruling impact a state regulation? That's perfectly simple (but don't tell that to my conlaw prof): the supremacy clause and the fact that such laws would be tantamount to abortion laws contrary to the holding of Roe. Could such laws be tailored to technically fit Roe but still call killing a fetus murder? Possibly, but I haven't heard of it. I look forward to any such information if you have it.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

Ok, upon some of the most basic research, I have found that information. Just see my sig.

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

Happens to the best of us.

I know you've redacted this statement, but here's the comparison :

an abortion is a procedure performed by a licensed medical professional.

a "back alley" abortion is still prosecutable, and i'm pretty sure pushing a pregnant lady down the stairs would demonstrate intent, and possibly even malice aforethought.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I didnt say to kill the fetus, I just said to kill her.

Oh man you are an idiot. Anyone who falls for the "I can't get pregnant" routine is a supreme idiot.

I think JD said it best, go talk to a lawyer and do not talk to her again until you do.

1) I doubt she's rich; appearing rich and being are two different things. If she was rich she wouldn't care about you as mommy/daddy would protect their child and grandchild.
3) I doubt she's pregnant with your kid

HERE be a list of the state statutes regarding the death of an unborn child. Yes, it comes from the "National Right to Life" site . . . no, I do not agree with them . . . but it is a useful summary. That linkypoo will also take you to the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence act. Again, it is from the NRL, but it provides the law.



Deals with when in the course of development of the fetus, a state can make laws restricting abortion; it does not deal with infanticide. The "if but for" principle applies to law: "if but for your murder of the mother, the child would be born."



The Civil War.



Actually, it depends on the ruling. The federal court can declare a state regulation violates the U.S. Constitution.

Oh . . . and to Wizardly:

GET A LAWYER NOW!!!!1111!![!--Ed.]

--J.D.

I don't think you guys are shedding too much light on the situation by suggesting his actions were stupid, he already said what he did was dumb. Are we just repeating what he already said for good measure at this point? =p

I dunno.

Some people don't learn unless you pound it into their head.

We've said "you're dumb" and "get a lawyer" -- nothing else really needs to be said on the issue.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I think this is the best thread I've read in a long while. Hot straight-A med student model chick seeks internet lover. Sure would have raised a red flag in my mind, you should have known from the get go she was crazy. Goodluck though! (post pics)

_________________
Avelle <Risen>
80 Mage
Ner'zhul Server (Fuck Illidan)
Avelle 75 PLD/DRG/DRK/BRD
Midgardsormr - Active again
Elidrin 75 Paladin
Midgardsormr - Retired
Elidrin 65 Ranger
Lanys T'Vyl - Retired

I'd like to think I'm not so much dumb as extremely, incredibly trusting and gullible. Thank you to those who actually offered advice and constructive criticism. Maybe I was taken for a fool, but I did trust her while we were together.

I have been looking into finding competent legal counsel. This was already something I had been considering, being that my parents are lawyers, and I myself am a law student. Of course, I am more than a little reluctant to inform my parents of the situation.

It is certainly possible that she is lying to me. I really don't think she is trying to get any money out of me. I met her parents. They have money aplenty. In fact, while we were together she showered me with gifts, clothing, fancy dinners, etc. If anything, it's because she's deranged. She told me alot of incredible things while we were together. At first, I thought she was a pathological liar. Then she actually showed me proof of some of the things she had told me about. But not all. So maybe she lies alot. Maybe she doesn't. There isn't really any way for me to know for sure what is truth and what is fiction. But right now she is holding all the cards, and I have to assume the worst.

I thought internet dating was no longer taboo? I've met plenty of girls online. Though, it's true, most of the time you only get two out of "attractive, single, sane." I guess I tend to go for the first two qualities.

I'm currently at work, but maybe later I'll post some pics. You can photoshop swastikas on my forehead or whatever it is you people do.

It is not your job to be her psychiatrist.

--J.D.

Everyone else has already said it, but I'll say it as well.

Myself and everyone of my friends has at least at one point hooked up with a girl and then had them go on about how they're pregnant or how they think they might be. Every time it's happened, they haven't been pregnant or were lying.

Just thought you might like to know.

_________________
-Rileigh (aka Golliwog)

Pregnancy test from a doctor, or all you see is lines!

Be aware that what you write on the internet can be discoverable in a civil case.

--J.D.

Oh god, he's started with the Internet Lawyering...here we go...

_________________

Oh god, he's started with the cross thread trolling...here we go...

Additional legal advice (this assumes she's actually pregnant and it's yours): She cannot legally sign away the rights of a child. No parent can. So if she produced a document stating you wouldn't have to pay anything if you'll never see the kid, etc. it's not legal.

Let me repeat that, it's not a legal contract. There are now multiple court cases which make it law that a parent cannot sign away the rights of a child. A child is entitled to support from the biological parent, and one parent has no legal authority to relinquish that on behalf of the child.

It's bullshit, but there are now sperm donors paying support because of that interpretation of the law.

You do not sign shit. You do not say shit. You do not discuss anything regarding rights, responsibilties, etc. without an attorney present. Your mantra should be: "I will await the result of a paternity test." Period. Nothing more.

_________________

Yeah and sperm donors having to pay is total bullshit. I thought there was a common sense clause in all the legal bullshit.

that doesn't exist anymore

Not always true. :p I went through the court system, but my ex-husband has no parental rights.

I think if I *really* wanted, I could still somehow pursue child support, but I won't. Dumbass wouldn't pay it anyway...and that gives him a tie to us that I don't want.

_________________

Indeed.

Furthermore, once you Get Your LAWYER she only communicates through him unless he advises you otherwise.

Until then, you are UNAVAILABLE. You do not accept calls, you do not call her. You do not meet her. And, frankly, you do not spread pictures of her and you across Al Gore's Interwebs.

--J.D.

The court can terminate his rights, you cannot via contract. So if you had provided him with a contact (outside of court) that said, "Pay no support and give up your rights" then 5 years later decided to sue for support (on behalf of the child)...you could. And you'd get it.

The court however can (and does) terminate parental rights, which is legal. So you could do the exact same thing through the courts, and it would be upheld. Unless the law changes.

_________________

Remember, nothing beats:



--J.D.

I doubt that even gets a chuckle.

is doc numbnutz spewing garbage again?

When will he go back to his cage?

Funny...the only garbage post I see here is yours, Krby. Ironic.

While getting some law advice from an attorney sounds like good advice, I wouldn't go so far as to say all communication must be through one at this point. Sometimes the big guns just make the other side decide they need the same thing, and something that could have possibly been very simple to deal with gets complicated. Let the progression of the scenerio dictate when you get a lawyer involved for more than consultation advice.

I do not disagree; however, I am concerned that she will torture him with further communication. I would defer to a lawyer who has experience in such cases. There is a lot of detail we do not know--nor should we. I would think it would be best to avoid all communication until one has representation/competent advice.

--J.D.

Mr X. I realize you're a little hot in the collar about my comment in an entirely different thread (your post there makes more sense in light of this, I suppose), but these are really pathetic potshots. Your response to the first quote is entirely superfluous, as I've already acknowledged the existence of such laws, having expressed the original opinion with reservations in the first place. I’m sure, though, your quips are full of unintentional mistakes, and you’re actually a perfectly brilliant person.

Interestingly enough, I regretted pressing the “post� button almost as soon as I did so, as you might have guessed, because I remembered reading Keeler v. Superior Court (you may find it at 2 Cal. 3d 619). You probably have the proper reporter volume in your home so you can consult the case. But I’m sure you’re already familiar with it, though, you being the eminent scholar that I know you are, as it’s one of the more famous cases wherein a state Supreme Court would not allow conviction for murder because the victim, a fetus, was not a legal person in the sense required by the murder statute. Why was I troubled by this case? You surely must know it was the effect that this ruling had; because the (pre-Roe) decision by the California Supreme Court so inflamed the public, the state sought changes to the murder statute so as to include fetuses. At that point, the matter was purely statutory, and at the complete discretion of the people of California.

Come Roe, some 3 years later, the United States Supreme Court began to weigh whether or not a state’s interest in “human life�, however defined, may compare with a woman’s right to be free from bodily control of others. I will not bore you to reiterate what you undoubtedly already know about the other theoretical justifications and repercussions of Roe at the time of its issuance. As you already must surely know, a number of cases in the subsequent decades arose wherein state laws in varying form, aimed at curbing, discouraging, and even eliminating abortion in facially neutral (i.e. purporting to address allegedly “unrelated� issues like feticide and the woman’s health), but factually effective methods at furthering that agenda, were analyzed by the Court in light of whether they contradicted Roe’s holdings. You must have merely had but a momentary lapse in your great analytical prowess when you so narrowly stated that Roe is about abortion and couldn’t have anything to do with a murder statute. I’m sure you also had some outrageously cogent point in mind when you brought up the words “if but for�, as if they solved this problem. These comments of yours illustrate a fine mind, capable of great nuance and interconnection.

(On a side note, and out of sarcastic character for a moment, this really does illustrate the problem with most people when it comes to the law: you view it as some monolithic, wholly discrete package, wherein infanticide is entirely irrelevant to abortion and vice versa. Having heard such a comparison, the common idiot simply declares one unrelated to the other and never thinks twice about it. Believe it or not, legal reasoning is as muddled as the countless threads already devoted to this topic here in the past and such legal truisms as you migh wish exist are not so readily available. Admittedly, I fell into just such a trap myself, but recanted, thank you.)

The irony (intentional, no doubt) behind your attribution and simple acceptance of federal supremacy was a delightful parody. I’m sure that rather terse response belies your profound understanding of the intricate workings of our federalist system, in which state sovereignty is highly respected and valued and questions regarding when and where federal courts may intervene cannot be so simply pushed away under the mechanical labeling of “constitutional� issues. And it was indeed very clever of you in aid of this parody to pretend that you didn’t know that the supremacy clause is indeed a constitutional provision and that the basis for Roe, the case mentioned, is in fact constitutional law. How amusing a demonstration it was of the need to connect the dots and fill in the blanks for those who can’t do so for themselves (not you, of course).

Mr X., your criticisms come from a worm’s eye view. You see the obvious mistake, but miss everything else. Thank you for your time, as I’m sure you had the patience and capacity to read and digest 6 whole paragraphs. I don’t doubt that you did, because you’ve so clearly read the thousands of pages of case law you would feign to have knowledge of. I trust you’ll ignore every point I’ve made and go forward with another blistering round of non sequiturs. Oh, and stop quoting me out of context. It’s childish.



I should have been more careful when I wrote this. What I meant was that the distinction was theoretically possible, which you more or less point out, but that I had not heard of such a statute. Making the jump from my theoretical statements (which I still claim are relevant, but not definitive) to my factual ones truly was my idiocy in this context, though, because I should have never ventured to guess some generality regarding 50 independent state legislatures on an issue so obviously contentious. Again, I think I acknowledged the theoretical possibility of such statutes, I just made the mistake of then generally guessing that no legislature had enacted such statutes. (X, if you’re still with us, reread this section, thanks).

_________________
Knowledge without reason is useless.

http://boxrockssocks.blogspot.com/

Really not necessary; merely quote what is necessary for a response.

Allow me to demonstrate the utility of this approach. . . .



Arachtivix-chan.

I gather this is "fun?" Should I start seeking other plays on your username?



You realize incorrectly; this is a separate thread, irrelevant to an "entirely different thread," and, frankly, your comment made such an impression I have utterly forgotten it. If this disappoints you, I extend my sympathies.



You are imagining things. Methinks you find conflict where none exists. However, since for some reason you think plays on usernames is the paragon of wit, I am not surprised if you find yourself in a lot of conflicts. Such may be avoided if you merely stick to the relevant points and cease with fallacious tactics.



Unfortunately, it proved all too relevant.

Goes on for some time trying to demonstrate that he knows more than his original post implied.

Then complains that he is quoted "out of context."

This is curious given your frequent use of "strawmen"--creating arguments for others than they do not make. To wit:



Rather contrary to anything I have actually written. At least I quote the relevant portions of a post, rather than make up arguments for others. I would kindly ask you cease such practice since you are not, I regret to write, very good at it.

Nevertheless, unfortunately the context is there for all to see. If you dislike what your words say, I can only recommend that you take better care with them, Arachtivix-chan.

Goes on a bit more with matters irrelevant to the topic.

If I were an unkind man, I would find this appropriate for the tenor of your post:

Fortunately I am not.

Now, if you have anything relevant to the discussion, I am sure Wizardly will welcome it.

--J.D.

Me thinks you're still a fucking loser. And yes you pretentious prick, that is relevant to you trying to take over yet another thread. I think you need to remove you head from your ass and learn to read...You...Are...Not...Welcome...Here...

_________________

Arachtivix, know you've recanted some stuff etc. but may be of interest to you, in California there is a fetal murder law. However the law clearly provides provisions to medical professionals providing legal abortions. Additionally as you probably recall (because it was a heavily covered national story) Scott Peterson was not just charged (and convicted) of murdering his wife, but also his unborn son. It was the first high profile case (in California for sure, probably also nationally) which dealt with intentional killing of a fetus being murder (under very specific circumstances).

As I think you're already aware, it doesn't touch upon Roe...completely different legal issues. However socially, they're not different issues. The law can look at two similar things as two absolutely seperate things, but people don't. So it's understandable why it would be socially an issue which would impact upon Roe v. Wade, only in terms of raising the question: How is it murder in one instance, and not in another? Or perhaps even more accurately, how is it a 'person' to murder in one instance, and a 'non-person' in another.

Previously most fetal murder laws required 'first breath', meaning if the fetus took even one breath, at that point it became a person with all the rights inherent, and as such was an entity that could be 'murdered'. If it didn't, it was assault upon the female (or her murder if that was the case), but nothing specific to the fetus per se.

It's a bitch of a legal issue. On the one hand, Roe v. Wade upholds the right of a woman, etc. On the other hand, someone who murders a woman who's 8 or 9 mos pregnant...well it's hard to argue they didn't kill an infant, given the viability of that fetus. Had it been born just moments before it would be murder. Why draw the line there (at birth) for a criminal act? All fetal murder laws (AFAIK) involve fetuses that are clearly viable (usually around 8 mos of pregnancy), even though the point of viability can be 'reasonably' set at 24 weeks (even though not all will survive). Additionally late stage terminations are unbelievably rare, because it's almost always safer to deliver rather than terminate. 'Almost' being the point where it's medically necessary or you run a high risk of losing either the mother or both. Obviously there's still debate on whether or not late stage (and of course all abortion) should even be legal.

Anyhoo...huge hijack but tossing that in. The original point being, that if someone intentionally assaulted someone intending to cause a miscarriage, in some states it would be murder. The laws vary state to state, of course. Regardless it would be a criminal act (even if not murder) and I'm sure no one was discussing it as a real possibility, but rather as a tongue in cheek thing that devolved into a legal discussion.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Back on point, the main reason to have an attorney before having further discussion is to ensure you do not entail additional liability. People who are emotionally involved in things often say or do stupid things. "Look, I'll take care of everything. don't worry about it!" is a verbal contract. Sure, someone might say it and kinda mean it at the time, but when faced with thousands of dollars in hospital bills...state that wasn't what they really meant. Normally I'd say sure two reasonable rational people can (and should!) discuss such matters without involving lawyers and high fees and shit.

We're not dealing with 'reasonable, rational, or normal' here. If based on what little has been said you're not of the opinion this chick is a fucking whacko...well I'd hate to see what you think a whacko is. Anyone who plunges that deep into a 'relationship' that fast, has some serious issues. I personally don't even think she's pregnant, I think this is whackjob drama. My prediction is she'll claim abortion or miscarriage, since she won't be able to produce a baby. Unless she steals one.

One last thing, heavy painkillers and/or narcotics doesn't make you infertile, and any med. student would know that. I'd additionally add anyone in pain management would know that. I have been prescribed narcotics for years to manage pain (as well as random trips to the ER for morphine) and while there are MANY serious issues in using narcotics for pain management, infertility isn't one of those issues.

So, if what you're saying is true, she's a liar. A "straight A med. student" would be aware of it. And I believe anyone actually in pain management would also know it because the doctors have long ass talks with you about medication and the pros and cons of it. Additionally it's not prohibited to get pregnant while taking heavy narcotics for pain...but it's also not the best idea either for a variety of reasons. There may be concerns with the condition causing the pain (which you didn't mention) but there are also some issues regarding narcotic use during pregnancy. Not enough that it's prohibited, but enough to be a concern.

_________________

Well, since she is already plugged... can I have her number?

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

I've had friends on both sides of this sort of issue.

One friend was divorcing her husband (back in March) and during the time period for it to become finalized, she started dating this other guy and got pregnant. Because she was pregnant before the divorce was final, the state (of Washington) declared automatically that her soon to be ex-husband was the father. She and her soon to be ex-husband had to attend a Court Hearing so he (the ex) could declare that the child was not his. In doing so, he did have to legally sign away any rights as father of the child. The father was present and he signed the same document stating he was the father and would take all responsibility etc etc...

The other friend. He was dating this chick (whom was also a friend of mine), in a similar fashion to Wizardly. They had unprotected sex numerous times, but her passion for getting drunk wasn't to his liking...so he dumped her. A few weeks went by, she calls me to tell me that shes pregnant and he's the father. I'm like "You better tell him." She did. Well, she applied for state aid because she just didn't make enough to support herself. In WA State, if you're a single mother and you apply for state aid, the state demands to know who the father is...so the state can set up child support. The same thing would've happened at the birth of the child anyway. Well, since he's being pointed out as the father...the state starts sending him all the legal shit and papers telling him how much money he's going to have to start shelling out. He gets pissed. So, he invokes his right to a paternity test. In classic talk show style, turned out he wasn't the father. Turns out that she was fucking some other guy while they were dating.

But anyway, the best advice is to talk to a lawyer.

Oh, my friend has the results of the paternity test framed on his wall...

_________________

I'm aware of at least one case (and I'm certain there are far more) where a man is paying support for a child not biologically his, because the divorce was not finalized. Now, if he had recognized the child as his, or treated it as his kid...okay that might be understandable. But he never claimed paternity, and always disputed it. Only reason I heard about it was that the case had worked its way rather high through the court system (and the kid was now like 10...). He was STILL paying support to a child that wasn't his, a child he'd never seen.

Crazy. I wouldn't have thought it possible. I 'get' the reason for such laws, it's bigger bullshit for a man to think someone is his child, then in a divorce find out he's NOT the biological father, then lose all rights to the child he considers his. Biology doesn't make a 'parent'. And it's bullshit for a kid to suffer that too. But I think if a man disputes the paternity say, before the age of 3, or has little to no interaction with the child (Mom has left, hasn't seen the spouse even though there's no divorce) there should be no responsibility to provide support for a child that isn't yours.

Anyhoo sounds like your friend was very fortunate.

_________________