Dudley, you are burried along with the others. *thumbs down his post to -3*

Nice reading skills there. They've been dating for 5 months, she stopped taking the pill 3 months in, meaning she is now 2 months pregnant. Maths is fun.

So, following your logic, I should be prepared for a drunk driver to hit and kill me, because that is a consequence of driving. Hell, I should be prepared to be beaten down in the street, because there are crazies everywhere and you never know when you might get murdered. A mother should be prepared to be murdered by her son because she took away a gaming console? (that actually did happen). Once again, as I have said before, sex is not only for reproduction. That idea is merely propaganda from all the various churches and religions. Not everyone believes that nonsense, and live a very happy, and responsible (condoms, bc) sex lives. Humans aren't the only ones who have sex for pleasure.

Technically drunk driving is a consequence of both drinking and driving, but mainly drinking. Which is one of the many reasons people shouldn't drink too much they lose control of their actions. It is all consequence. Also, people do tend to watch where they walk late at night to not put themselves in more danger than they cannot control. But I think you might have taken the logic a few steps too far. Also, that kid who killed his mum over a games console, that's an example of how some people are stupid with no morals at all to understand the term 'proportionate response'. I think what wordgirl meant was that if you're going to have a sex life (whether or not you use protection/various birth control methods) that you have to face the fact that accidents happen and that nothing is 100% guaranteed to work and therefore it is possible that the girl will still get pregnant, whether or not it was wanted. And I tend to feel that abortion shouldn't be looked at as another form of birth control (as some people do view it) but only one where it's necessary or only taken after a lot of serious consideration.

But the thing is, the OP was lied to. He believed that he and his girlfriend were being responsible in their sex life. The fact that she lied and deceived him should not reflect badly on him. He believed that he was taking the proper steps, and got ****** over because his girlfriend is a crazy bitch. I think he has the complete right to walk away and leave her. He should also get a lawyer when she comes for the child support. While I'm not saying that the soon to be child should be punished, I also do not think that the OP should be burdened with the child. He was tricked into conceiving. That woman does not deserve a cent of his money.

I never meant to put the OP down. I do agree that in this case that the girl deliberately lied to him about the measures they were taking that things have ended badly. However as he was having sex he should have also accepted that it was a remote possibility in the first place. Because the girlfriend lied about it it seems that the OP should walk away, but would you really want to leave your child with that girl? The lying just gives him the right to walk away if he wants to do so... Or at least, in my mind.

I'm curious, would you say the same if the genders were reversed? If a woman's boyfriend lied to her, used condoms (with holes poked in), and then told her about it after she got pregnant, would she be at fault? Would she just have to "accept the consequences of sex"? And honestly, I don't think the child should be left with her. The OP can just call child services, and warn them to keep an eye on the child. Simple solution, and he doesn't have to be directly involved.

I'm not saying he is at fault, I'm just saying that there should have been a tiny voice at the back of his head somewhere warning him that his actions might result in her being pregnant. Generally I say the same whichever way around the roles are, but in the case you outlined I think the woman would have slightly more right to be angry, as she's the one who carries the child. I'd say she should still have had the little voice. Note how I say 'slightly', I still think the OP has the right to be angry at his girlfriend, so I suppose I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed. And I quite like your child services solution.

Cinn, thank you for your support. :) Babushka, I do believe that in doing any activity, we should all be prepared to accept the risks that come with it. Some risks are worth taking, for example, walking down a relatively safe street in suburban medium-sized city, USA. Some risks are not worth taking, for example, walking down the street in Khandahar, Afghanistan. Activities cannot all be deemed equal in terms of risk of negative consequence or even in terms of the weight of the consequence to a person's life and well-being. Taking a risk that is theoretically/statistically never going to happen (having a child that will ultimately murder you) is very different from taking a risk of pregnancy while using birth control (which can be up to one in five; a high risk in my opinion). To answer your other question about sex-reversal, I would say that both parties are equally responsible regardless of who committed the deception. I would also think that in that situation, it is the deception that is more harmful, and if we're comparing the weight of the deception, it would be worse for the woman for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that women are the ones who tax their bodies and risk their lives by carrying children and statistically speaking, women get "stuck" with unwanted children far more frequently than men do, so for a man to deceive a woman into pregnancy is a far, far greater breach of trust and a lack of respect than a woman doing the same. That said, in a world where we're only considering the responsibility of taking care of the child, both parties are, and pardon my pun, here: screwed. :)