Let’s say I come across the beautiful woman one evening and she invites me into her boudoir. She pleads that she desparately desires for me to take her. As she pulls down my pants, I fumble for my wallet to remove a condom.
“Oh, let me put that on for you” she purrs where upon her sharp fingernail "accidentally pierces the latex.
“Oh, I just want to feel you for real and not some rubber tonight anyway. Its my first time and I’ve been on the pill for three months waiting for just this right moment”
We make hot passionate love.
Afterwords she gets a “cramp”. She curls up by pulling up her knees to her chest.
I start to worry. I go to her ensuite to clean up a bit and take the opportunity to check her medicine cabinet. I can’t find anything that might qualify as birth control pills.
A flash of brilliance enters my mind. I invite her to my home for dinner and she accepts.
I make a wonderful pasta and sprinke a few crushed pills of my ex-wife’sLevonelle into it. We have a wonderful meal, although I declined her offer of hot sex afterward.
Depends on your jurisdiction, certainly, but I’d be interested in the ramifications of administering a controlled substance to someone without their knowledge.
Not in my opinion. Despite her pleas and purrs, it was still your decision to engage in sex without a condom.
…which would also depend on your jurisdiction, as the morning-after pill may or may not be available over the counter, but the concept of medicating someone without their knowledge remains.
I’m fairly certain that medicating someone without their knowledge/consent is illegal, even if it’s an OTC drug. That drug isn’t available in the US so I can’t look up its potential side effects here at work, but I know of at least one case in the US where a 18-year-old California woman died from complications of taking a US FDA-approved “morning after” pill - apparently she had no contraindications for taking it, but died from hemorrhaging and shock. IIRC, her parents are/were trying to sue the clinic she went to.
It’s not that I don’t sympathize with the plight of men who run into women who just want a baby and a guy to pay child support, but face it, you don’t know what health contraindications the woman might have against taking a morning-after pill. Secondly, the teenager in my example knew she was taking such a pill and was - or at least should have been - informed of warning signs that something was wrong and when to seek medical attention. The “wants-a-baby-daddy” gal in your example might think she was unlucky and her period kicked in hard, and put off seeking medical attention as a result.
Dosing anyone with even OTC medications without their knowledge can be disastrous. Think your girlfriend is acting down, and mix some St. John’s wort into the spaghetti sauce? Whoops, that deactivated her birth control pill and now she’s pregnant. There are so many drug interactions out there that it can be hard for people to choose correctly even for themselves at times.
And on preview - like lno said, you chose to engage in sex without a condom, and more pertinent things than pregnancy should have come to mind at the time. The birth control pill does not protect against sexually transmitted disease.
Ferret Herder, I know this wasn’t your point at all, and forgive me for picking nits, but St. John’s Wort has never been found responsible for inactivating birth control pills. There’s a theoretical risk because of how efficient SJW makes your liver, but it has not been found in vivo. It’s been used safely over the counter by millions of German women for 50 years, and their rates of BCP failure are no higher than ours. NIH is doing research on it as we speak, but let’s not slam the poor plant prematurely. Let’s say instead, “Think your girlfriend is acting down, and mix some St. John’s wort into the spaghetti sauce? Whoops, that deactivated her **cyclosporine **and now her body’s rejecting that kidney transplant. There are so many drug interactions out there that it can be hard for people to choose correctly even for themselves at times.” It’ll just make me happier, and there is plenty of evidence that SJW should not be used if you’re on certain HIV or anti-rejection drugs.
For what it’s worth, I’m a trained herbalist and I think it’s unethical to treat even my family without their knowledge and consent. I may mention that I’ve put some calendula in the mashed potatoes because I’ve heard some sniffles and I want to ward off that respiratory virus, and they trust me and eat it, but I would never not tell them.
grienspace, was it wrong for her to “accidentally” rip your condom? Then it’s wrong for you to spike her food. Anything that takes control of a competant person’s body away from them is wrong. Two wrongs in this case very clearly don’t make a right.
And uh, why would you be carrying only one condom anyway? The only time I’ve had the suckers rip is when taking them out of the package - always carry at least two if you’re serious. Or say, “Oh sweetie, that really stinks. But since I respect you and myself so much, I’ll run to the drugstore and get some more. You keep yourself warmed up for me, OK?” Really. Conquer your hormones.
And what was with the cramping part? You don’t cramp when you concieve! You might feel something twingy at implantation - two weeks later! Sounds like you need a remedial biology course before you put yourself in unneccesary danger or worry.
Yup, it’s supposed to help pool the semen in the spot where the uterus will “lay back down” inside the body, putting the cervix right into the pool. You’re basically trying to give the sperm every chance at getting inside the uterus.
Well, it was intended as an off-the-cuff remark to provide a plausible and more likely example about drug interactions, not an analysis of the current literature. Physicians will typically (at the very least) strongly recommend against using the two concurrently, and I think it’s wise, considering the alternative - an unplanned pregnancy will almost certainly deepen any depression that’s ongoing.
I think “cramp” was in quotes because the hypothetical lady in these circumstances was bringing her knees to her chest (her purpose: to conceive) and trying to mislead Our Hero (by saying she was cramping and needed to relieve the pain).
Oh, I know, I know, and I hope I didn’t come off as too pedantic. The thing I worry about is statements like that being repeated until everyone “knows” it’s true when it really isn’t. Just trying to clear things up before they get too far. It’s a lonely, lonely fight, but I gotta start somewhere.
And :smack: to me for not getting the positioning thing to increase conception. Not that it works, but I can see why many women try it. Cause everyone “knows” it works.
To the OP; yes, probably illegal to administer drugs without consent, perhaps illegal even with consent, if the item was prescribed for someone else (may vary by locality). Yeah, and the whole ‘two wrongs’ thing.
The receptionist at a sperm donor facility decides she’ll help herself to the product after hours, in an effort to get pregnant. She does, and then quits.
Some time later, panicked at the financial situation she’s in, she files a paternity action against the donor whose sperm she stole - having been the receptionist, of course, she had access to the guy’s name and address. She alleges that they had sex and that she became pregnant. The guy, who doesn’t know her at all, denies the charge, but is amazed when the DNA test comes back identifying him as the father.
Should he be on the hook for child support? He is, after all, the child’s father.
I would say that the man in your hypothetical, Bricker, should not be responsible. I firmly believe that a man who donates sperm to a sperm bank should not be responsible for child support in any way, and even if the laws of the state say that such a man is still accountable, since the sperm was not routed through proper channels (my lord, did I just say that?) it invalidates any claim the woman may have on the man.
Furthermore, she could possibly have run afoul of data privacy laws, which opens up another can of sperms. Er, worms.
Possibly the man would be able to demonstrably prove that he provided sperm to the sperm bank, and that the sperm bank’s records would indicate that his selection disappeared from inventory during the woman’s tenure at the bank, and that would cast a little doubt on the woman’s claims of sexual relations with him. (This is, of course, pulled out of thin air, as I have no idea of how stock is taken at sperm banks or how many pregnancies can be caused from one donated sample.)
On the other hand, if a man donates sperm to a bank and then impregnates a woman who works there in the normal manner, he could then claim that she stole a sample from the stockroom and should not be responsible for child support.
That being said, my initial reaction remains that he is not responsible, but it’s a cloudy enough issue to warrant further thought and discussion.
should he? absolutely not. That’s like a rapist demanding visitation rights.
will he? Unless he can prove that he didn’t have consensual sex with her, I think there would b a pretty strong presumption that he did.
I would say, off the top of my head, that the guy should pay child support, but sue the fertility clinic for the full amount of support. It was their breach of security that enabled the mess.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to conceive.
Regards,
Shodan
