Should a father be able to disclaim a child if he doesn't want it?

ibarelycare

Petre wrote: »

To be fair, it's the insufferability of the mothers that's driving these "dead beat dads" away. If women were taught to act like real women and be feminine and conservative, none of these problems would be happening, but instead they're being taught to act like men; the end result: Lots of promiscuous behavior which results in unwanted pregnancies and lots of unfeminine/insufferable behavior which drives the fathers away from their should-be families.

Lol. Tell me more.

Battered Mars Bar

strobe wrote: »

This thing looks quite promising. One to keep an eye on.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056597365

Can't wait.

smash

ash23 wrote: »

What if the womans choice of contraception is a condom?

ibarelycare wrote: »

So, putting this incident aside, if you're in a long-term relationship with a girl and neither of you want a baby, you use condoms AND the birth control pill?

If both parties are serious about not getting pregnant then both should take precautions do you not think?

ash23

dj jarvis wrote: »

i never said anyone was trapping anyone , nor did i implie it
and i never was blaming her

read my post again , i clearly stated i was devil advocate
so please answer the question and stop with the smoke screen

how would women feel if that had been posted , keep your legs closed

becasue im sure as **** smells all hell would have broken lose
but fine to say a bloke should have his balls cut off :eek:

i dont care what other posters have said , focus on what i have said and asked please

Demanding aren't we.
Actually my reponse was in relation to those implying the condom failure was her fault.
I did answer your question by saying both were at fault if neither were sure that their choice of contraception had worked.
Where did anyone say a bloke should have his balls cut off. I'm quite confused by your aggression to be honest.

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

What if the womans choice of contraception is a condom?

...which is tantamount to saying "what if the mans choice of contraception is the woman taking the pill". So be it, but it's fairly reckless.

ash23 wrote: »

Moral, ethical, emotional, physical, financial.

All of these apply to every aspect of abortion, pregnanacy, and child rearing. You make your choices as an adult, and you live by them.
If society deems abortion allowable, then it's allowable. If the woman is against abortion, fair dues to her. However - if she is granted the "right" to abort a child, the man should also be entitled to something similar - namely legal abortion (for want of a better name).

Clearly you don't think men & fathers should be given the same rights as women and mothers.

Similar to the issues a woman faces re: adoption. We are humans with emotions. Not all of us can be as clinical about it as you think we should be.

Well you don't have to be. We are discussing a hypothetical situation. If you want to discuss whats "fair" or how to determine "equal rights" you need to be a little clinical.

lol, how noble of you.

lol how condescending of you.

But it's not about putting a monitary value on life. It's about providing for a child and it's needs. And you think the state should take up where the father leaves off. Nice!

Please don't create positions for me. No, I think the mother should be responsible for her decisions.

As did he when he ejaculated inside her vagina. Why has he no responsibility for his decisions?

Because he'd have chosen to "legally abort". The equivalant as to if she'd chosen to physically abort his child. Why has she no responsibility for her decision to keep the child (in this hypothetical situation where abortion is available)?

ash23

smash wrote: »

If both parties are serious about not getting pregnant then both should take precautions do you not think?

Well seeing as condoms are my precaution of choice and I insist on them being used and used carefully, I am protecting myself. Also, of all the contraceptions available they are one of the highest for protecting against pregnancy. They also protect against stds. They have no side affects and they are relatively inexpensive and they have no hormones.

So that's my well researched, well educated, well thought out contraceptive of choice for the moment. It's not steered me wrong in 10 years whereas I got pregnant on the pill.

hondasam

ash23 wrote: »

Either way, financially the child should have the support of both parents. Having raised my child with no financial support from her father, it is the child who suffers because of it.
So I wouldn't agree that a woman shouldn't expect any financial support from the father because it is practically impossible to support a child alone without state assistance, especially when the child is very young.

A family with only the father working is the same as a single mother working in the fact only one of them is earning.
I don't think it's impossible to support a child without state assistance.
I don't think kids suffer and imo they are better off with one parent who loves them over a father who is made pay for them.

Zulu

Biggins wrote: »

Side issue:
Now if a man was raped by a woman totally against his will and subsequently she became pregnant, certainly he should technically be not be held to account for the outcome.
Morally however, that might be for theological debate.

Interesting point. Sadly no concept of "legal abortion" exists for men, so he'd just have to suck it up and start paying maintence, or be labled a "dead-beat" dad.
That'll learn him for getting raped.

Petre

Child support SHOULD NOT be mandatory unless the mother NEEDS it. In this country the mother DOES NOT NEED it seeing as we have an adequate welfare system which takes care of both the mother and the child. All child support payments go into the pockets of the mother for her own personal spending which is a disgrace. This is my honest opinion: It's the female's responsibility to keep her legs closed.

silly

hondasam wrote: »

A family with only the father working is the same as a single mother working in the fact only one of them is earning.
.

not exactly. In a family where there is only one parent working, the other is at home with the child/kids. A single mother working also has to pay for childcare while she is working.

ibarelycare

smash wrote: »

If both parties are serious about not getting pregnant then both should take precautions do you not think?

Well yeah, perhaps, but I'm just surprised how you think the condom is the man's responsibility and the woman should get her own contraception. As someone else said, what if the woman's choice of birth control is a condom? Plenty of women carry condoms, if one of those women met a man on a night out and had sex with him, using one of her condoms as protection, would that still be the man taking precaution and not the woman?

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

...which is tantamount to saying "what if the mans choice of contraception is the woman taking the pill". So be it, but it's fairly reckless.

If a woman puts a condom on a man and takes it off at the end then she is not being reckless.

You make your choices as an adult, and you live by them.

Exactly. You have sex, you get pregnant, you live with it.

Clearly you don't think men & fathers should be given the same rights as women and mothers.

I don't think it's possible where abortion is concerned.

Please don't create positions for me. No, I think the mother should be responsible for her decisions.

But not the father?

Because he'd have chosen to "legally abort". The equivalant as to if she'd chosen to physically abort his child. Why has she no responsibility for her decision to keep the child (in this hypothetical situation where abortion is available)?

There is no such thing as "legal abortion".
Why has he no responsibility for his part in her getting pregnant?

smash

silly wrote: »

I got pregnant while taking the pill correctly - does that mean that I was "trapped"...?

You're female so you're never trapped. You have options. A man can't force a women to take the morning after pill or get an abortion.

ash23

hondasam wrote: »

A family with only the father working is the same as a single mother working in the fact only one of them is earning.
I don't think it's impossible to support a child without state assistance.
I don't think kids suffer and imo they are better off with one parent who loves them over a father who is made pay for them.

No it's not.

If I was married I would have a partner at home minding my child and wouldn't need to pay childcare.
If he was working then we would be paying childcare but we would have another wage coming in.
So no, it's not the same at all.
It's not impossible but it is very difficult when a child is small and childcare costs the same as a mortgage.

hondasam

silly wrote: »

not exactly. In a family where there is only one parent working, the other is at home with the child/kids. A single mother working also has to pay for childcare while she is working.

True but she might not have to pay for childcare, she could have family helping her. Not all single mothers pay for childcare.

ash23

hondasam wrote: »

True but she might not have to pay for childcare, she could have family helping her. Not all single mothers pay for childcare.

Many single working mothers do though aswell as paying for everything else they and their child needs.
Why should the father of the same child not have to pay something towards the cost of a child he created?

Ellis Dee

The one I feel a bit sorry for here is the poor kid. It is the involuntary offspring of two irresponsible people. Both were irresponsible in failing to take proper precautions, and one of them is now seriously adding to his share of the irresponsibility by refusing to man up and help take care of the child he sired.:(

Someone has pointed out that abortion is legal in the country where they live, but no one - not even the most libertarian pro-choicer like me - would force any woman into having an abortion if it is not what she wants.:)

Therefore he has to pay the price for his ride. I just hope it was worth it.:rolleyes:

If the country is so liberal that abortion is easily available - as it is here in Finland - he will probably also find that he can't disown his child ever. By that I mean that when he croaks, everything he has will be divided equally between all of his offspring, irrespective of whether they were conceived in or out of wedlock.:D

Battered Mars Bar

ibarelycare wrote: »

Plenty of women carry condoms, if one of those women met a man on a night out and had sex with him, using one of her condoms as protection, would that still be the man taking precaution and not the woman?

I would never use a condom a woman gives me on a one night stand, I'd spend hours inspecting to make sure she hadn't pricked it first. Too dodgy to just entrust responsibility with a stranger like that and wreckless if any man agreed to it in my opinion. The condom is male contraception, there's no excuse for a woman to not double the protection in some way in this day and age.

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

If a woman puts a condom on a man and takes it off at the end then she is not being reckless.

You can take it off all you like after it's split, but that isn't going to protect you. Condoms split.

Exactly. You have sex, you get pregnant, you live with it.

Indeed.

I don't think it's possible where abortion is concerned.

Legal abortion for the father would be a good starting point.

But not the father?

Sigh, where did I say that?

There is no such thing as "legal abortion".

I know. We are talking in hypotheticals here.

Why has he no responsibility for his part in her getting pregnant?

Who says he doesn't.

...and around, and around we go.

strobe

Zulu wrote: »

Interesting point. Sadly no concept of "legal abortion" exists for men, so he'd just have to suck it up and start paying maintence, or be labled a "dead-beat" dad.
That'll learn him for getting raped.

Wasn't there an instance in the USA where a woman gave a man, who had previously informed her of his wish not to have any children, a blowjob, saved his sperm in her mouth and then impregnated herself with it without his knowledge and then sued him for child support two years after the child was born...

*found it*
http://www.dancehallareaz.com/forum/dhaz-street-journal/46885-man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-pay-child-support.html

...you know just to complicate things even further. :pac:

Awful case btw, on a par with rape IMO.

smash

ibarelycare wrote: »

As someone else said, what if the woman's choice of birth control is a condom? Plenty of women carry condoms, if one of those women met a man on a night out and had sex with him, using one of her condoms as protection, would that still be the man taking precaution and not the woman?

From a man's side, the condom is the only contraception we have. Women have a variety and like I said, we can't force someone to take a morning after pill if something goes wrong either.

gemi

dj jarvis wrote: »

being devils advocate here , but does the same not apply to the woman is this case also?

she could have also taken precautions ( coil ,injection pill ect ect )
(presuming here that she did not )

so i wonder how the female posters would feel if the following was posted

You don't want kids, keep your legs closed


i dont understand the line that ALL responsibility is down to the male
( not saying he has none - he is 50% responsible , but so is she )

Eh I'm open to correction here since I am without that anatomy myself, but couldn't a man still have sex without balls, the penis being the main appendage for intercourse, no? I think it would be more difficult for a woman to continue to do so with legs closed. So women shouldn't have sex if they don't want children, but men can once they cut their balls off?

There is never going to be a full equality on this, not until a way for men to concieve, carry and bear a child in and from their own body is created anyway. There's too many other elements at play biologically, physically, emotionally, etc, to be able to have this cut and tied up in a neat little bow that it is equal for everyone. And the tit for tat attitude, that a man has to have a justifiable opt out clause just because a woman has one through an abortion is just childish really. There is no black and white answer here, every outcome is going affect/hurt/upset someone along the way. It's a sh*tty situation to have to be in, but at the end of the day it's the two of them who have got themselves there as a result of their own actions.

On contraception issue, the coil, pill, injection all play with a woman's hormones, I know a lot of men wouldn't be willing to take that option if it was given to them (there's a thread on it around here somewhere confirming that), and for various reasons plenty of women don't use those methods themselves to protect against falling pregnant. No method of contraception is 100% guaranteed, other than abstinence, so that condom included has a certain % of failure. The pill is easily messed up, and can result in prenancy. The coil is also not 100% effective, ld to a ectopic pregnancy in case of one person I know. The injection has pretty much driven anyone I know who uses it into needing anti-depressants, and in once case being institutionalised for a few months. And the OPs friend's instance being one such failure of the condom. Is not as easy to say, oh she should be using contraception too, presumably she also knew a condom was being used (you don't necessarily know it was his choice to use one, and not hers). It's unfortunate this situation was the outsome, but accidents happen and consequences are part and parcel of a persons actions and failed precautions.

On the point of supporting the child, well he was there to make it happen, the child is half him, and as such he should support it. If he doesn't want to be a part of it's life, that's his decision to make but he should support his child financially. He can't and shouldn't be let, legally or otherwise, to walk away from financially supporting something he helped create, whether he intended to or not.

silly

hondasam wrote: »

True but she might not have to pay for childcare, she could have family helping her. Not all single mothers pay for childcare.

if's and buts....
she could..she might...

so, you are saying a single mother would be the same as a family where one parent is earning 100k a year, because a man could earn that in one year.

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

You can take it off all you like after it's split, but that isn't going to protect you. Condoms split.

Yup and if they do, you go and get the MAP.

Legal abortion for the father would be a good starting point.

There's no such thing.

Sigh, where did I say that?

by advocating the right of a father to walk away from a woman he has gotten pregnant. And the child.

I know. We are talking in hypotheticals here.

Well I could wish for a scientific breakthrough where women could transfer an embryo to a man by blinking 3 times and tapping their heels together so that the man has to deal with the pregnancy, but I think that's about as realistic as a "legal abortion".

Who says he doesn't.

You. By allowing him to walk away from his child. Who he created. When he had sex.

...and around, and around we go.

yip!

ibarelycare

Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

I would never use a condom a woman gives me on a one night stand, I'd spend hours inspecting to make sure she hadn't pricked it first. Too dodgy to just entrust responsibility with a stranger like that and wreckless if any man agreed to it in my opinion. The condom is male contraception, there's no excuse for a woman to not double the protection in some way in this day and age.

That's ridiculous. What if the woman and the man buy the condom together, therefore taking joint responsibility?

K-9

Misticles wrote: »

How exactly does that make sense?

I think he should walk away because he has no remote interest in being a father. I think no father is better than a part time one or one who does not want you or resents your existence.

Well if we are arguing for abortion for men and equal rights that means equality with women. In abortion there is no mother as the baby doesn't exist. In this case the father would have to walk away for life, no contact ever, no details, no name, nothing. A child is entitled to know its fathers name and details, its a basic human right, which is taken away.

Zulu wrote: »

Why? We are talking about a hypothetical where abortion is allowed. Is there a reason a "pro-lifer" (I prefer anti-abortion btw) couldn't conceive a hypothetical?

Just strange an anti-abortion poster would look for abortions for all, even hypothetically.

Zulu

I suppose there is another solution, if you aren't going to allow the father to opt out:

Calculate the cost of a childs life.
I'm not sure how you'd do this, but for arguments sake, call it € X where X=(yearly amount of maintence paid to support a child)*(18).
If the woman wan't to abort the fathers child and he's against it, and she chooses to go ahead and kill is child, she compensates him €X for his loss.

So she could choose to have the child, and he supports.
She could choose to have the child and sign it over to him.
She could choose to abort his child if he agrees.
She could choose to abort his child if he disagrees, but she compensates him.

smash

ibarelycare wrote: »

That's ridiculous. What if the woman and the man buy the condom together, therefore taking joint responsibility?

I don't think it matters if women carry condoms or not though. If they don't want to get pregnant they can take the pill and still use condoms to protect against stds and as a backup of course. Condoms are a male contraceptive no matter what way you look at it. Apart from that, how can a woman be sure she's carrying the correct size if she's planning on a one night stand?

Battered Mars Bar

ibarelycare wrote: »

That's ridiculous. What if the woman and the man buy the condom together, therefore taking joint responsibility?

No you specifically said one night stand therefore I'm assuming the scenario of two strangers fornicating.

The situation you now describe is like both people taking 0.5 responsibility, which is fine if both can live with the consequences, I for one can't and would expect a partner to take 1.0 responsibility too.

CruelCoin

ibarelycare wrote: »

My friend has got a girl pregnant. Contraception failed. They're not in a relationship, they only slept together a few times. Girl told him she was pregnant, friend does not want her to have the baby but girl won't have an abortion.

This leads to my question. If necessary precautions against pregnancy were made, yet failed, and if the man is totally against the woman having the baby, is it fair that he should have to take on the responsibilities of being a father, and pay child support?

This is something I've been thinking about for the last few days since I found out. If no contraception had been used I would have said straight away that the man should own up and take responsibility, but since he 100% didn't, and still doesn't, want the baby, yet the choice has been taken out of his hands completely, I wonder whether he really should have to.

The only foolproof precaution is to avoid it altogether.
With sex there is risk. The man had no right, legal or moral, to force a woman to do with her body as he wishes.

If your friend didn't want to be a father, he shouldn't have taken the risk.
'nuff said

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

I suppose there is another solution, if you aren't going to allow the father to opt out:

Calculate the cost of a childs life.
I'm not sure how you'd do this, but for arguments sake, call it € X where X=(yearly amount of maintence paid to support a child)*(18).
If the woman wan't to abort the fathers child and he's against it, and she chooses to go ahead and kill is child, she compensates him €X for his loss.

So she could choose to have the child, and he supports.
She could choose to have the child and sign it over to him.
She could choose to abort his child if he agrees.
She could choose to abort his child if he disagrees, but she compensates him.

That makes zero sense. There is no financial cost to the father because there is no child to support. Emotionally there is a cost if he was dead set against the abortion but financially your equation makes no sense at all.

Zulu

K-9 wrote: »

Just strange an anti-abortion poster would look for abortions for all, even hypothetically.

I'm not looking for abortion
In this hypothetical, abortion already exists
Did you miss that

ash23 wrote:

There's no such thing.

Ok ash, I realise that. Maybe we can revisit this conversation when we both know what a hypothetical sistuation is.

strobe

gemi wrote: »

Eh I'm open to correction here since I am without that anatomy myself, but couldn't a man still have sex without balls, the penis being the main appendage for intercourse, no? I think it would be more difficult for a woman to continue to do so with legs closed. So women shouldn't have sex if they don't want children, but men can once they cut their balls off?

Men technically can still have sex with their 'balls cut off' but often have a much lower sex drive and far more difficulty getting or maintaining erections.

I believe an Oophorectomy (surgical removal of the ovaries) would be the female equivalent of a man 'cutting his balls off' but still being able to have sex without the ability to reproduce.

Zulu

ash23 wrote: »

Emotionally there is a cost if he was dead set against the abortion...

Thats my point Ash: providing compensation for emotional damages.

K-9

ibarelycare wrote: »

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by fathers having "their own type of abortions against the mother's choice"

Well if men want to have their own type of abortion it probably will be against the mothers wishes as ideally they'd like to have the father around, which assumes the mother has chosen to keep the baby.

Woman have a choice on abortion, even here in Ireland even if it is "illegal". So what people are arguing is if a woman can have an abortion against his wishes, he should be able to "abort" even if she wishes he'd stay around.

Men often do change their minds after a birth or a couple of years later. Would be a shame to lose that advantage. Maybe women should get that right too! Equality and all that.

ash23

Zulu wrote: »

Thats my point Ash: providing compensation for emotional damages.

But he can leave her with the child, where she suffers financially and emotionally but not pay anything?
If we are going on emotional damages, then in the case of a father not wanting a child, he should pay the emotional damages for the mother, the emotional damages for the child plus half the cost of raising the child.
Yeah, that seems fair.
I'd be all for emotional damages for the father in the event you described IF the above was also true for a man who abandoned his child.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not looking for abortion
In this hypothetical, abortion already exists
Did you miss that

So hypothetically you wouldn't be anti-abortion?

That is very hypothetical!

hondasam

silly wrote: »

if's and buts....
she could..she might...

so, you are saying a single mother would be the same as a family where one parent is earning 100k a year, because a man could earn that in one year.

I'm saying women are capable of supporting and rearing children without a man.
Are you saying a woman could not earn a 100K?

littlewagonX

Legally, if his name is on the Birt Cert he'll be liable to pay child maintenance. Doesn't matter if he never wants to see the child, or never wanted it in the first place. If you can't do the time...don't do the crime. Otherwise he'll have more to cry about.

If I was advising the woman, I'll tell her to Run away from him. He's no interest in being a daddy, she'd be better off just walking away, with the baby. The fact that he has 2 other unwanted kids, according to what's been said, speaks for itself. Wanting to 'screw' him for money will only drag her down. The child would be happier with one parent who wants it than looking for the approval and love of a parent who didn't want it. If he walked away for good, he'd be doing the kid a favour in the long run.

And BY THE WAY I know plenty of single parents, women & men, who raise their kids with no state support, and do a great jobs. They work hard to do it, I'm one of them. Plenty of single parents can't get work and NEED state support. That's really not the point of this thread thou.

As for your friend...tell him 'stop whinging...make a decision either to be a dad...or not...and next time...THINK BEFORE YOU SHAG...AND WEAR TWO...JUST TO BE EXTRA SAFE!!'

buyer95

@Biggest troll thread ever

ash23

hondasam wrote: »

I'm saying women are capable of supporting and rearing children without a man.
Are you saying a woman could not earn a 100K?

I think what you originally said was that a single parent was the same as a couple. And it was pointed out that was not the case.
All things being equal (salary) a single parent has childcare expenses that a couple does not.

Ellis Dee

littlewagonX wrote: »

As for your friend...tell him 'stop whinging...make a decision either to be a dad...or not...and next time...THINK BEFORE YOU SHAG...AND WEAR TWO...JUST TO BE EXTRA SAFE!!'

Or get a vasectomy. Tell the eejit it doesn't hurt and he'll still be able to shag any woman (or man) stupid enough to let him.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ibarelycare

littlewagonX wrote: »

Legally, if his name is on the Birt Cert he'll be liable to pay child maintenance. Doesn't matter if he never wants to see the child, or never wanted it in the first place. If you can't do the time...don't do the crime. Otherwise he'll have more to cry about.

If I was advising the woman, I'll tell her to Run away from him. He's no interest in being a daddy, she'd be better off just walking away, with the baby. The fact that he has 2 other unwanted kids, according to what's been said, speaks for itself. Wanting to 'screw' him for money will only drag her down. The child would be happier with one parent who wants it than looking for the approval and love of a parent who didn't want it. If he walked away for good, he'd be doing the kid a favour in the long run.

And BY THE WAY I know plenty of single parents, women & men, who raise their kids with no state support, and do a great jobs. They work hard to do it, I'm one of them. Plenty of single parents can't get work and NEED state support. That's really not the point of this thread thou.

As for your friend...tell him 'stop whinging...make a decision either to be a dad...or not...and next time...THINK BEFORE YOU SHAG...AND WEAR TWO...JUST TO BE EXTRA SAFE!!'

He has no other children

silly

hondasam wrote: »

I'm saying women are capable of supporting and rearing children without a man.
Are you saying a woman could not earn a 100K?

of course she could! but you are really making some major if's and but's here.
I am a single mother, working full time, not getting any maintenance from my ex, and not receiving a penny from the social welfare. I have a family member minding my child, but they still have to be paid. I'm doing it, and its not easy, i am broke most of the time. And for you to say that my situation is the same as a 2 parent family with only one working..is ridiculus!
this is gone so off topic anyway.

littlewagonX

I don't have the interest to go back trawling through every little thing that's been said, but I thought....he'd shagged someone, a work colleague a few times....but no... just twice...but no... he was drunk...and wait... she's not even liked by him...so why should he support 'HER BABY' and wasn't there something in there about other kids....or did the conversation wander. Anyway 1, 2, 3 kids doesn't matter...if he doesn't want to be a dad he can't be forced. It'd be bad for everyone...nobody, him, her or the child would gain. He needs to grow up. Take a stand. Even if other people have a go at. Fuk them, it's not their lives. But stop expecting someone else to provide answers. Did he ask ur advice before he shagged her? What would you have said?

Mr.Biscuits

ibarelycare wrote: »

If necessary precautions against pregnancy were made, yet failed, and if the man is totally against the woman having the baby, is it fair that he should have to take on the responsibilities of being a father, and pay child support?

Yes, it is fair.

It's natural your friend is stunned OP, but it's for the best that he can't, as there are too many 'ifs', 'ands', 'but's' and 'maybes' had men the option of just abdicating from all responsibilities when a child is born . Not to mention the fact that, should he one day have a change of heart, this regretted choice could be used against him.

If men have any hope of ever reaching a standard in the courts were they are seen as being on an equal footing to women, then there can simply be no other way but: same level of responsibility from the moment of conception.

Of course, that also means same level of 'say' on whether an abortion can be had or not (within reason) and that's a whole other can of worms.

Snowie

way i see it..

Id send her a headed letter signed bye some one out side the company bye registered post saying, my true feelings for the child and that I have not consented to its birth!

so there is proof that I made my feeling quite clear to wards the unborn child.

when the child was born I'd request a DNA test, await results if, I was 100% the father I would then bring her to court with the said proof saying i requested no part of the childs life and that I would request to abort the child from life and have nothing to do with me.


I think it should be a right of a father under certain grounds. That he can devorce his child.. Women can be as crazy as men and it unfair too expect a man to put up with crazy women sh1t.....

Its all to easy to say, oo take responsibility for your actions.... he has he's requested an abortion... its just as much his child as it is her if she happy to ignore it well then why shouldn't he eject the child from his life if thats what he really wants.

ibarelycare

littlewagonX wrote: »

I don't have the interest to go back trawling through every little thing that's been said, but I thought....he'd shagged someone, a work colleague a few times....but no... just twice...but no... he was drunk...and wait... she's not even liked by him...so why should he support 'HER BABY' and wasn't there something in there about other kids....or did the conversation wander. Anyway 1, 2, 3 kids doesn't matter...if he doesn't want to be a dad he can't be forced. It'd be bad for everyone...nobody, him, her or the child would gain. He needs to grow up. Take a stand. Even if other people have a go at. Fuk them, it's not their lives. But stop expecting someone else to provide answers. Did he ask ur advice before he shagged her? What would you have said?

No, I think the conversation must have gone off on a tangent. He doesn't have any other kids!

Um no he didn't ask my advice before he shagged her!?! I would have just told him to enjoy himself...

Misticles

littlewagonX wrote: »

I don't have the interest to go back trawling through every little thing that's been said, but I thought....he'd shagged someone, a work colleague a few times....but no... just twice...but no... he was drunk...and wait... she's not even liked by him...so why should he support 'HER BABY' and wasn't there something in there about other kids....or did the conversation wander. Anyway 1, 2, 3 kids doesn't matter...if he doesn't want to be a dad he can't be forced. It'd be bad for everyone...nobody, him, her or the child would gain. He needs to grow up. Take a stand. Even if other people have a go at. Fuk them, it's not their lives. But stop expecting someone else to provide answers. Did he ask ur advice before he shagged her? What would you have said?

Friend: Hello "Advice Giver", I'm about to shag this bird, done it a few times, I'm a bit drunk!
"Advice Giver": Eh ok... use protection and be on your merry way!

But who calls their mates to get advice about engaging in a drunken shag? Nobody! Your point is lost there.

dj jarvis

gemi wrote: »

Eh I'm open to correction here since I am without that anatomy myself, but couldn't a man still have sex without balls, the penis being the main appendage for intercourse, no? I think it would be more difficult for a woman to continue to do so with legs closed. So women shouldn't have sex if they don't want children, but men can once they cut their balls off?

There is never going to be a full equality on this, not until a way for men to concieve, carry and bear a child in and from their own body is created anyway. There's too many other elements at play biologically, physically, emotionally, etc, to be able to have this cut and tied up in a neat little bow that it is equal for everyone. And the tit for tat attitude, that a man has to have a justifiable opt out clause just because a woman has one through an abortion is just childish really. There is no black and white answer here, every outcome is going affect/hurt/upset someone along the way. It's a sh*tty situation to have to be in, but at the end of the day it's the two of them who have got themselves there as a result of their own actions.

On contraception issue, the coil, pill, injection all play with a woman's hormones, I know a lot of men wouldn't be willing to take that option if it was given to them (there's a thread on it around here somewhere confirming that), and for various reasons plenty of women don't use those methods themselves to protect against falling pregnant. No method of contraception is 100% guaranteed, other than abstinence, so that condom included has a certain % of failure. The pill is easily messed up, and can result in prenancy. The coil is also not 100% effective, ld to a ectopic pregnancy in case of one person I know. The injection has pretty much driven anyone I know who uses it into needing anti-depressants, and in once case being institutionalised for a few months. And the OPs friend's instance being one such failure of the condom. Is not as easy to say, oh she should be using contraception too, presumably she also knew a condom was being used (you don't necessarily know it was his choice to use one, and not hers). It's unfortunate this situation was the outsome, but accidents happen and consequences are part and parcel of a persons actions and failed precautions.

On the point of supporting the child, well he was there to make it happen, the child is half him, and as such he should support it. If he doesn't want to be a part of it's life, that's his decision to make but he should support his child financially. He can't and shouldn't be let, legally or otherwise, to walk away from financially supporting something he helped create, whether he intended to or not.

indeed he could , but he could not get anyone pregnant now could he,
as for the "keep her legs closed " comment was in relation to some one else posting along the lines of cutting his balls off

i also stated in asking the question i was being devil advocate seeing it was no problem saying that for a man should my comment not be used for a woman ????

if people are going to keep ignoring previous posts and dodging questions fine ,
but stop cherry picking my comments out of context please
and it was not aggression towards anyone , it was asking a direct question and looking for a direct answer

and it looks like i was right , so please go back to my first post ( no 237 , where haminka stated that balls should be cut )
i asked a SIMPLE question , how would the female posters feel if " she should have kept her legs closed " was posted

but ignore away - sorry for getting in the way of your rant