USA: Man sues clinic as his girlfriend has Abortion without his permission

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Abortion_is_murder_sign_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg

The decision, described as a first, hinges on the state’s ‘personhood’ law recognising legal rights of the unborn.

An Alabama judge has recognized the legal rights of an aborted fetus,
allowing a man whose girlfriend ended her pregnancy at six weeks to sue
the manufacturer of the pill she used and the clinic that gave it to her.

The decree, issued by Madison County Probate Judge Frank Barger, explicitly
states “Baby Roe” is a person and allows plaintiff Ryan Magers to name the
fetus as a co-plaintiff in the suit for “wrongful death.” Magers said in court
filings that when his then-girlfriend discovered she was pregnant in early 2017,
he “repeatedly pleaded” with her to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth,
but she wanted to have an abortion.

Abortion rights groups expressed alarm, saying the Alabama judge’s decision last
month sets a dangerous precedent at a time when the idea of “fetal rights” — which
recognize embryos and fetuses as separate from the women who carry them — is gaining
currency in state legislatures, courts and law enforcement agencies. In one New Jersey case,
a mother lost custody of her child when she had a vaginal birth instead of the C-section her
doctors insisted was necessary. In others, pregnant women who drank or took drugs — both illegal
and prescribed — and then had miscarriages were accused of child abuse. And dozens of states have
passed fetal homicide laws that treat the unborn as a separate entity from the woman carrying them.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, tweeted Tuesday that the Alabama lawsuit is
a “very scary case.” It asserts that a woman’s rights are “third in line,” after the rights of a
man who impregnates her and the fetus she aborts, she said.

“It has the potential to be used in other states, and it’s part of abortion opponents being
emboldened … and conservatives turning over every rock to see how they can ban abortion,”
said Elizabeth Nash, who studies state legislation at the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/03/06/alabama-judge-allows-man-sue-clinic-behalf-aborted-fetus/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.513806319a4d

[Niamh.]

Ridiculous

[Vicky.]

****ing ridiculous. This is always going to be an issue, as its something men cannot have control over in reality, nor should they. Its just biology. I f it was the opposite way and men had the babies, women would not get a say as such...you cannot force someone to go through a pregnancy they don't want, its just wrong.

In an idea world, a decision will be reached with both parents, but quite simply, the woman MUST have the final say and must be able to overrule his opinion, as its her body.

[Cherie]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Abortion_is_murder_sign_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg

The decision, described as a first, hinges on the state’s ‘personhood’ law recognising legal rights of the unborn.

An Alabama judge has recognized the legal rights of an aborted fetus,
allowing a man whose girlfriend ended her pregnancy at six weeks to sue
the manufacturer of the pill she used and the clinic that gave it to her.

The decree, issued by Madison County Probate Judge Frank Barger, explicitly
states “Baby Roe” is a person and allows plaintiff Ryan Magers to name the
fetus as a co-plaintiff in the suit for “wrongful death.” Magers said in court
filings that when his then-girlfriend discovered she was pregnant in early 2017,
he “repeatedly pleaded” with her to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth,
but she wanted to have an abortion.

Abortion rights groups expressed alarm, saying the Alabama judge’s decision last
month sets a dangerous precedent at a time when the idea of “fetal rights” — which
recognize embryos and fetuses as separate from the women who carry them — is gaining
currency in state legislatures, courts and law enforcement agencies. In one New Jersey case,
a mother lost custody of her child when she had a vaginal birth instead of the C-section her
doctors insisted was necessary. In others, pregnant women who drank or took drugs — both illegal
and prescribed — and then had miscarriages were accused of child abuse. And dozens of states have
passed fetal homicide laws that treat the unborn as a separate entity from the woman carrying them.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, tweeted Tuesday that the Alabama lawsuit is
a “very scary case.” It asserts that a woman’s rights are “third in line,” after the rights of a
man who impregnates her and the fetus she aborts, she said.

“It has the potential to be used in other states, and it’s part of abortion opponents being
emboldened … and conservatives turning over every rock to see how they can ban abortion,”
said Elizabeth Nash, who studies state legislation at the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/03/06/alabama-judge-allows-man-sue-clinic-behalf-aborted-fetus/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.513806319a4d


Womens rights are being trampled left, right and centre at the moment it seems, but this is Alabama, I wouldn't expect anything else


Take that rape Steam game for instance that would never have got past the ideas stage if it were male rape involved

[Niamh.]

Womens rights are being trampled left, right and centre at the moment it seems, but this is Alabama, I wouldn't expect anything else


Take that rape Steam game for instance that would never have got past the ideas stage if it were male rape involved

Yeah or child rape. But it's acceptable for women to be raped it seems

[bots]

i'm usually pretty slow on the uptake, but I have certainly noticed a fairly major erosion of womens rights almost on a daily basis over the last 18 months, its quite shocking

[Josy]

Pathetic

[Niamh.]

i'm usually pretty slow on the uptake, but I have certainly noticed a fairly major erosion of womens rights almost on a daily basis over the last 18 months, its quite shocking

It really is, it feels like we're going backwards

[arista]

Its typical USA

[Vicky.]

i'm usually pretty slow on the uptake, but I have certainly noticed a fairly major erosion of womens rights almost on a daily basis over the last 18 months, its quite shocking

Oh for sure, there is a targetted attack on womens rights over the past few years, from many angles. Its scary really, and many seem quite willing to give away the few rights we have :/

You know the abortion argument from MRAs, tends to be 'men should get a say in abortions'...which on the face of it seems sort of reasonable, BUT they also say, if men do not want to bring up/pay for a kid then they should be able to make the woman get rid. So basically..a woman gets no say at all even though its her undergoing either the medical procedure (which is not ****ing pleasant..or easy) or a pregnancy (which again is not as easy as they seem to think it is..though less dangerous thse days). Basically just more..'rargh men should have control of everything, even biology'. Its all the womans fault when something happens, and she should not get a choice, it should all be the man who decides because, thats right :bored:

Also quite interesting, is these 'abortion is murder' types tend to crossover with those who think that parents who **** off should not have to pay for the kids they abandon (well, they stick up for fathers who **** off at least, obviously mothers ****ing off is rarer, but those are basically the devil and should be hunted down and imprisoned...). I have even recently noticed a crossover with these religious types, and saying that even contraception is murder as it was a potential child 'chucked away' :umm2: So everyone should just have endless babies then...as anything else is murder. Well, that would end well.

[Beso]

It's a tough one because the law the man is using was set up to prosecute neglectful parents who damaged their unborn kids by drinking and taking drugs.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i wonder why she did not tell the father that she was going to abort the baby?

seems odd

[Vicky.]

i wonder why she did not tell the father that she was going to abort the baby?

seems odd

Erm, given his reaction has been to sue the clinic, I think thats probably quite obvious D:

[Tom4784]

His permission?

What an arsehole, a woman can do what they want with their own bodies and if men like this don't like it, they can figure out a way to carry babies instead. Until that happens they need to shut the **** up.

****ty attitude from the man and a desperate cashgrab to boot. Vile.

[Crimson Dynamo]

His permission?

What an arsehole, a woman can do what they want with their own bodies and if men like this don't like it, they can figure out a way to carry babies instead. Until that happens they need to shut the **** up.

****ty attitude from the man and a desperate cashgrab to boot. Vile.

So you are saying that in any relationship where a happy couple conceive the woman can go off an abort the baby at anytime without discussion and if the man is upset he can F+++ off?

that cant be what you mean (I may have got the wrong end of the stick?)

[user104658]

It ultimately always has to be the woman's choice. That said, I do think there should always be a conversation just borne of mutual respect before action is taken, even if their mind is made up, just to explain the reasons and talk it through. I obviously don't think it should be legally mandated but I do think it's morally the right thing to do.

Obviously, that's only if it's a normal relationship or situation. If it's any sort of abusive relationship or there's a risk of such then there are clear reasons for not having that conversation. Also if it's just the result of a one night stand with a random I don't think it's particularly necessary.

Most men (unless there's some religious element) will ultimately accept the decision if it's a respectful relationship, even if they're upset at first. A lot of the hurt caused by these things comes as much from "being left in the dark" as it does the actual outcome.

[Vicky.]

There should be talks about it of course, ideally. It should be a joint decision, in a way. However, the ultimate decision must come down to the woman, and of course she should be able to overrule what the man wants. However, I think that usually it IS talked about, in abusive relationships...not so much. I figure this woman knew the reaction to her saying she wanted an abortion, hence doing it 'behind his back'.

Of course men can be upset about it, but there is no solution to this. It really cannot be any other way, for civilised people at least.

[user104658]

There should be talks about it of course, ideally. It should be a joint decision, in a way. However, the ultimate decision must come down to the woman, and of course she should be able to overrule what the man wants. However, I think that usually it IS talked about, in abusive relationships...not so much. I figure this woman knew the reaction to her saying she wanted an abortion, hence doing it 'behind his back'.

Of course men can be upset about it, but there is no solution to this. It really cannot be any other way, for civilised people at least.

Yes I agree with that; even if the man is adamant that he doesn't want it to be done the decision is ultimately the woman's.

[Ashley.]

i wonder why she did not tell the father that she was going to abort the baby?

seems odd

Odd? He isn't the one having the child, and therefore he shouldn't have the final say. Seems fair to me.

[Tom4784]

So you are saying that in any relationship where a happy couple conceive the woman can go off an abort the baby at anytime without discussion and if the man is upset he can F+++ off?

that cant be what you mean (I may have got the wrong end of the stick?)

Yes because it's her body, he doesn't have a claim on it. It's women who go through the process, it's women who take the risks so the idea that they have to ask for permission from a man for an abortion is ridiculous. We don't go through pregnancy so why should we dictate whether a woman should be forced through it?

Also it's not a ****ing baby, it's a collection of cells that could not sustain life on it's own.

This man is a money grabbing arsehole and I hope he gets laughed out of court.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Odd? He isn't the one having the child, and therefore he shouldn't have the final say. Seems fair to me.

isnt it that he had no say as she did not tell him?

[user104658]

Odd? He isn't the one having the child, and therefore he shouldn't have the final say. Seems fair to me.

To be fair LT did say "tell", not "ask". I agree that it's entirely the woman's choice but I also think (again, if it';s an actual relationship, not some random and not an abusive relationship) that the right thing to do would be to inform the father of the decision even if there's no chance it's going to change.

[user104658]

Yes because it's her body, he doesn't have a claim on it. It's women who go through the process, it's women who take the risks so the idea that they have to ask for permission from a man for an abortion is ridiculous. We don't go through pregnancy so why should we dictate whether a woman should be forced through it?

Also it's not a ****ing baby, it's a collection of cells that could not sustain life on it's own.

This man is a money grabbing arsehole and I hope he gets laughed out of court.

Again, respectfully informing a partner of a decision, even one that isn't going to change, is clearly not "asking for permission" it's basic decency in any relationship. To reiterate, not saying that anyone "has to" do anything, but on a personal level, I wouldn't be in a continuing relationship with someone on those terms.

[Denver]

I never understand when people say men should have no say on an unborn baby

[Tom4784]

Again, respectfully informing a partner of a decision, even one that isn't going to change, is clearly not "asking for permission" it's basic decency in any relationship. To reiterate, not saying that anyone "has to" do anything, but on a personal level, I wouldn't be in a continuing relationship with someone on those terms.

He pleaded with her not to have an abortion so he knew. It's not like she just upped and popped an abo-bo pill one day and even if she did, it's her right to do so.

When it comes to the pregnancy process, we are just, at best, supportive spectators. It's not us going through it's effects. The man's actions are both money grabbing and it sets a dangerous precedent that can set women's rights back, he's an arsehole.

It's down to the women's discretion whether they want to discuss it or not.

[Elliot]

I feel like if it isn’t a collective say it’s not a very healthy relationship. Having a baby and being a parent is a pretty ****ing life changing decision. It’s unfair on either party if anyone goes behind anyone’s back to do something this important. Of course this situation is a bit different and it is as if he wanted to force her to be a mom, but this is more @ people in this thread that it’s only up to the women, which seems a bit unfair

[Tom4784]

Until men can find a way to carry babies to term then it's completely the woman's decision. To suggest otherwise is a slippery slope.

As men, we must accept that our role in the child birth process is at the beginning and at the end. We're there for conception, We'll raise the child when it's born but during pregnancy, we can't take that burden for the woman instead, we can only watch and be supportive so we shouldn't have a say if a woman wants an abortion.

[Denver]

I feel like if it isn’t a collective say it’s not a very healthy relationship. Having a baby and being a parent is a pretty ****ing life changing decision. It’s unfair on either party if anyone goes behind anyone’s back to do something this important. Of course this situation is a bit different and it is as if he wanted to force her to be a mom, but this is more @ people in this thread that it’s only up to the women, which seems a bit unfair

But the same people would expect a man to pay child maintenance even if he said he didnt want the child

[Tom4784]

Then he should have worn a condom.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Until men can find a way to carry babies to term then it's completely the woman's decision. To suggest otherwise is a slippery slope.

As men, we must accept that our role in the child birth process is at the beginning and at the end. We're there for conception, We'll raise the child when it's born but during pregnancy, we can't take that burden for the woman instead, we can only watch and be supportive so we shouldn't have a say if a woman wants an abortion.

No man would stay in a relationship if a woman aborted his and her baby without a discussion

or at least i hope he wouldn't

[Tom4784]

No man would stay in a relationship if a woman aborted his and her baby without a discussion

or at least i hope he wouldn't

Considering the man in the story, that sounds like a blessing for her.

[Denver]

Then he should have worn a condom.

So your saying women cant be forced in to being a parent but men can? do you know how ****ed up that is?

women are just as guilty for unprotected sex its not a one way blame

[Tom4784]

Also, you can keep calling it a baby but it won't make it so, using emotive language won't make a bunch a cells a baby no matter how hard you try to push that false narrative.

[Tom4784]

So your saying women cant be forced in to being a parent but men can? do you know how ****ed up that is?

women are just as guilty for unprotected sex its not a one way blame

I've never gotten anyone pregnant because I'm careful, I don't want a baby, I don't want to risk having a baby. I only get into relationships with people who feel the same way.

I doubt there will ever be an occasion where I get someone pregnant unless it's mutually decided that it's what we both want, if men aren't that careful then it's their own fault that they'll have to put money forward for a baby in nine months time.

You can't compare men being forced to pay for a baby they created to forcing a woman through pregnancy. It's a stupid comparison.

[user104658]

He pleaded with her not to have an abortion so he knew. It's not like she just upped and popped an abo-bo pill one day and even if she did, it's her right to do so.

It's down to the women's discretion whether they want to discuss it or not.

I'm talking more "in general" than this specific case, it doesn't sound like it was a very healthy relationship (if it even was one?) in the first place so that's not what I'm really talking about.

I guess I agree with the BIB, however...

No man would stay in a relationship if a woman aborted his and her baby without a discussion

or at least i hope he wouldn't

I also am inclined to agree with LT on this one. It's entirely at the woman's discretion if she chooses to discuss it, yes, BUT I would say that if she chooses not to it should be a MAJOR red flag that there is something very wrong and unhealthy with that relationship, and it should prompt both parties to seriously reconsider being in that relationship at all. Again the final decision is the womans and I'm not disputing that; but the attitude of "meh I'll just away and do it without mentioning it" being acceptable in a respectful adult relationship? Just... no. That relationship is trash.

[user104658]

I've never gotten anyone pregnant because I'm careful, I don't want a baby, I don't want to risk having a baby. I only get into relationships with people who feel the same way.

I doubt there will ever be an occasion where I get someone pregnant unless it's mutually decided that it's what we both want, if men aren't that careful then it's their own fault

Dezzy honestly this is so naive that I'm wondering if you've actually been in a long or long-ish term heterosexual sexual relationship? I'm sorry as that's obviously a very personal question but... it's so far from that simple, that I can only assume someone who hasn't been there would think this is accurate :think:.

Biology is strong, we exist to reproduce, life finds a way. Unless one or both partners is actually infertile, there is no way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy. "Careful" just doesn't cut it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Also, you can keep calling it a baby but it won't make it so, using emotive language won't make a bunch a cells a baby no matter how hard you try to push that false narrative.

er

we are all a bunch of cells

[Tom4784]

Dezzy honestly this is so naive that I'm wondering if you've actually been in a long or long-ish term heterosexual sexual relationship? I'm sorry as that's obviously a very personal question but... it's so far from that simple, that I can only assume someone who hasn't been there would think this is accurate :think:.

Biology is strong, we exist to reproduce, life finds a way. Unless one or both partners is actually infertile, there is no way to eliminate the risk of pregnancy. "Careful" just doesn't cut it.

Oh cool, attack me. That's reasonable. Your experiences aren't universal, your relationships are different to mine but that doesn't mean I'm gonna make you out to be a liar just because your outlook doesn't line up with mine. What you've done is just try to undermine me personally instead of arguing against my opinion.

The chances of a condom breaking or not working in any way is critically low, if that did happen to me and whoever I was with at the time wanted to keep the baby then I'd accept it and do the best I can. I don't want babies but you can sure as hell bet I wouldn't demand she have an abortion or think that I was right to. Like I said before though, I only tend to enter relationships with people are on the same page as me when it comes to the big picture. It's a conversation I always have early on because it's a deal breaker if we don't agree.

[Tom4784]

er

we are all a bunch of cells

We can support our own existence, a six week old fetus (more like a microscopic egg at that point) can not.

[Crimson Dynamo]

We can support our own existence, a six week old fetus (more like a microscopic egg at that point) can not.

a baby/child cannot either

[user104658]

Oh cool, attack me. That's reasonable. Your experiences aren't universal, your relationships are different to mine but that doesn't mean I'm gonna make you out to be a liar just because your outlook doesn't line up with mine. What you've done is just try to undermine me personally instead of arguing against my opinion.

The chances of a condom breaking or not working in any way is critically low, if that did happen to me and whoever I was with at the time wanted to keep the baby then I'd accept it and do the best I can. I don't want babies but you can sure as hell bet I wouldn't demand she have an abortion or think that I was right to. Like I said before though, I only tend to enter relationships with people are on the same page as me when it comes to the big picture. It's a conversation I always have early on because it's a deal breaker if we don't agree.

Personally I don't see how it was an attack, I'm not making any judgement based on the extent of your male-female relationships and I said I know it's an overly personal question. However, I don't know of anyone - literally anyone - who has regularly (as in several times per week) been engaging in heterosexual "fertile" sex for a prolonged period of time, be that with a long term partner or several partners, who has not had at least one "pregnancy scare". Condom failure rates are critically low, sure. 98%+. Which means that if you've had sex 500+ times you are pretty much statistically certain to have had at least one failure.

[Niamh.]

Considering the man in the story, that sounds like a blessing for her.

Indeed

[Tom4784]

a baby/child cannot either

If you separate a fetus from the womb, it will die pretty quickly because it can't exist outside of the womb or a womb-like environment.

Babies can support their own life but not their needs, just like any other person, they'll die without food or water.

You can't compare the two with a straight face.

[Niamh.]

Personally I don't see how it was an attack, I'm not making any judgement based on the extent of your male-female relationships and I said I know it's an overly personal question. However, I don't know of anyone - literally anyone - who has regularly (as in several times per week) been engaging in heterosexual "fertile" sex for a prolonged period of time, be that with a long term partner or several partners, who has not had at least one "pregnancy scare". Condom failure rates are critically low, sure. 98%+. Which means that if you've had sex 500+ times you are pretty much statistically certain to have had at least one failure.

It did come across as patronising towards Dezzy tbf TS, if someone has very strong feelings on not wanting kids they well be extra careful, I have a very close friend who's like this, she's married and my age and has never had a pregnancy scare because she really really doesn't want kids.......

[Tom4784]

Personally I don't see how it was an attack, I'm not making any judgement based on the extent of your male-female relationships and I said I know it's an overly personal question. However, I don't know of anyone - literally anyone - who has regularly (as in several times per week) been engaging in heterosexual "fertile" sex for a prolonged period of time, be that with a long term partner or several partners, who has not had at least one "pregnancy scare". Condom failure rates are critically low, sure. 98%+. Which means that if you've had sex 500+ times you are pretty much statistically certain to have had at least one failure.

It was an attack because you basically tried to put doubt on my experiences because they weren't like your own.

As for the condom argument, that is why most of the women I've been with are either on the pill or have an implant, it's nigh on impossible for both to fail at the same time.

[user104658]

It was an attack because you basically tried to put doubt on my experiences because they weren't like your own.



As for the condom argument, that is why most of the women I've been with are either on the pill or have an implant, it's nigh on impossible for both to fail at the same time.I mean it was pointing out a mathematical fact (that the more possible-pregnancy sex situations you're in, the higher the likelihood of contraceptive failure) but I suppose "Argh I've been attacked" is as good a counter argument to that as any, since there aren't any.

[Tom4784]

I mean it was pointing out a mathematical fact (that the more possible-pregnancy sex situations you're in, the higher the likelihood of contraceptive failure) but I suppose "Argh I've been attacked" is as good a counter argument to that as any, since there aren't any.

Except the one I said in the post you quoted but you do you, sis.

[user104658]

Except the one I said in the post you quoted but you do you, sis.

Well not to do a Livia and jobgasm, but if you understand odds and probability, you also understand that increasing the number of fixed variables doesn't change the fact that more chances = more likelihood. I mean if you want actual figures;

Condom failure is 98% (thus odds of failure are 50/1)

The pill has a "perfect" (lab) rate of 99% but a "real terms" rate of 91%, we'll split the difference and call that 95% or 20/1

The combined odds therefore are 50/1x20/1 = 1000/1, or 99.99% effective.

Which means if a couple is together for 10 years and has sex 100 times per year, using condoms and the pill, it is probable that they will experience one failure. I personally think with the best will in the world perfect usage is unlikely and even that 1000/1 figure is unrealistic, but I suppose with extreme vigilance possible. That doesn't really mean much in real world scenarios, though.

As most are only using one form of contraception the failure rate is 1 or 2 in 100, which means if a couple has sex 100 times a year, they will have 1 or 2 failures a year. If they have sex 200 times a year, they will have 2 to 4 failures. And so on. Again... you literally cannot argue against the maths of probability, it's not possible. If it was the scumbags I work for wouldn't be in business :shrug:.

[Vicky.]

My sister is pregnant currently. Her partner was using condoms and she was on contraception too. Very very rare, but it does happen still even with multiple contraception methods. The only way to definitely not get pregnant/get someone pregnant is to never have sex. I was going to say be sterilized, however a man I know got that done and then got his wife pregnant a few years later!

Obviously condoms lessen the risks though, massively.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Sex 100 times a year? :omgno:

Bloody Hell TS this isnt Caligula

[Tom4784]

Well not to do a Livia and jobgasm, but if you understand odds and probability, you also understand that increasing the number of fixed variables doesn't change the fact that more chances = more likelihood. I mean if you want actual figures;

Condom failure is 98% (thus odds of failure are 50/1)

The pill has a "perfect" (lab) rate of 99% but a "real terms" rate of 91%, we'll split the difference and call that 95% or 20/1

The combined odds therefore are 50/1x20/1 = 1000/1, or 99.99% effective.

Which means if a couple is together for 10 years and has sex 100 times per year, using condoms and the pill, it is probable that they will experience one failure. I personally think with the best will in the world perfect usage is unlikely and even that 1000/1 figure is unrealistic, but I suppose with extreme vigilance possible. That doesn't really mean much in real world scenarios, though.

As most are only using one form of contraception the failure rate is 1 or 2 in 100, which means if a couple has sex 100 times a year, they will have 1 or 2 failures a year. If they have sex 200 times a year, they will have 2 to 4 failures. And so on. Again... you literally cannot argue against the maths of probability, it's not possible. If it was the scumbags I work for wouldn't be in business :shrug:.

So ****ing patronising.

[Beso]

What if the man wanted the fetus aborted and the woman refused...would he still be expected to pay for maintenence ?

[user104658]

So ****ing patronising.

Well, I suppose "so ****ing patronising" isn't any worse a counter-argument than "Argh I've been attacked".

[Tom4784]

Well, I suppose "so ****ing patronising" isn't any worse a counter-argument than "Argh I've been attacked".

Because everything you've come at me with has basically been to attack my experiences and launching into an entry level GCSE maths lesson about probability won't change that.

Not everybody in the world will experience a pregnancy scare and vice versa, even the most secure methods will fail very occasionally but neither are guarantees. Probability is not an exact science and you can't try to rubbish my life because I've not experienced a pregnancy scare just because the odds are that it's possible that I would at some point in life.

[user104658]

Because everything you've come at me with has basically been to attack my experiences and launching into an entry level GCSE maths lesson about probability won't change that.

Everything I've been coming at you with has been an attack on your experiences, because experiences aren't universal, and yet your opening to this entire discussion was the pointed comment that;

I've never gotten anyone pregnant because I'm careful.

A statement which is judgemental, attacks the experiences of others by (falsely) implying that those who have gotten pregnant or gotten others pregnant have NOT been careful, and ironically assumes that your own experience that being careful = no pregnancies is universal.

I'd suggest that if you don't want to feel attacked or patronised, you don't enter discussions with statements that are patronising and combative, and then follow it up with aggressive and belittling (or this was the goal, I'm sure) quips about GCSE maths because you're "feeling patronised" and want to aggressively re-assert. I'm well aware of my own posting style and intentions and I'm rarely bothered by yours Dezzy, but I'm not up for the hypocrisy.