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

ash23

Snowie wrote: »

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.

You don't need to go to court to "divorce" your child. Just don't bother with it. However even in divorce of a spouse there are financial implications and the same applies to a child.
You can end your relationship with the child, or avoid one from the start. But legally you still have a financial obligation.

Mr.Biscuits

buyer95 wrote: »

@Biggest troll thread ever

Yeah, she signed up four years ago, starting around 60 other threads and all in preparation for today: the day she trolls the fcuk out of AH!

partyatmygaff

Snowie wrote: »

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!

To be quite frank, your "consent" doesn't mean anything. You have no authority to choose who lives and who dies, even if they're your own child.

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

You can hate and resent your child as much as you like. It won't stop them existing and it won't stop you from appearing to be an absolutely terrible person.

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.

That's not worth anything. In Ireland, elective abortion is (rightly) illegal. You can choose to put up the child for adoption if you absolutely cannot raise it but asking the mother to abort the child isn't only unreasonable but illegal in Ireland.

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.....

Yeah "crazy women sh1t" like responsibility and integrity.

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.

He's requested to kill his child. That's not a reasonable or morally sound request. That's akin to saying "I don't want a child. Kill him/her so I don't have to deal with the consequences of my actions.". If he has a good reason for not being able to be a parent to the child, he can put the child up for adoption (Either to his mother or a third party).

gemi

dj jarvis wrote: »

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

If that came off as a rant, that wasn't my intention, nor did I thnk I was being aggressive in my post. Nor do I see how I was ignoring previous posts in the thread, my post was a response to various issues ongoing in this thread. In relation to the cherry picking, I didn't suggest a man should have his balls cut off, nor would I, and I was merely highlighting that a man having his balls cut off, is not the same as your devils advocate suggestion for a woman is to keep her legs closed. One allows a person to still actively participate in sex without the consequence of pregnancy (should their sex drive and erection capabilities still allow for that), the other doesn't. I wasn't saying that was your opinion of what women should do, but it was you that posted it so I quoted your post and made my reply to how I felt (as a woman) should that legs closed comment have been posted. My feeling being that, it's not the same thing.

Nothingbetter2d

men who father kids then have nothing to do with them are cowards imo.

MAN UP and do right by your child regardless of who the mother is.

ntlbell

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

men who father kids then have nothing to do with them are cowards imo.

MAN UP and do right by your child regardless of who the mother is.

I think it's very important for a child to have two parents.

Those who don't tend to turn into complete and utter morons walking around stating things like "man up"

I concur.

Nothingbetter2d

ntlbell wrote: »

I think it's very important for a child to have two parents.

Those who don't tend to turn into complete and utter morons walking around stating things like "man up"

I concur.

my dad and mam are still married ill have you know.

ntlbell

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

my dad and mam are still married ill have you know.

but is he hitting it.

OldNotWIse

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.

No contraception has a 100% success rate, and anyone having sex should be aware of this - that the contraception will most likely work but may not. It's a little naive to think that the protection will be 100% successful tbh. It's not fair to pressure anyone into an abortion. It's her choice.

Though have you suggested that he asks for a paternity test when the child is born? Is it possible she was sleeping with more than one guy? Just a thought.

Borboletinha

:eek:I cant believe this thread!! Of course he should pay for his child!!! The whole mess in ireland with One parent benefits starts with the father not being forced to pay!! In most countries ''dads'' are chased after and forced to pay and rightly so!! If you dont want children dont create them!! And that goes both for men and women. People talk about children as if its like a cancer and just ''happens to them''. Well, its not!! You have a choice not to have children!! A simple one at that. Either dont have sex or protect yourself!!! Men dont only have condoms they have vasectomies. If you strongly dont want children but still must have sex you should have one. Now its too little too late to want to ''divorce'' the child. :mad: He had a choice when he had sex to either do it or not now its HER CHOICE over her body whether to terminate the pregnancy. Anyway, Children are both parents responsibiliy not the state's and not just the mums whos left raising the child!!!




I also believe good dads who pay and care for their kids should have more rights than they do currently in ireland. Dads should pay for their kids and in doing so they should have rights. Period.

iguana

It's not completely unheard of for a woman to place her baby up for adoption and the baby to then be adopted by the father (or members of the the father's family). I don't really see why the reverse should be allowed, the father places his parental rights up for 'adoption' and the mother adopts them. He then has no responsibilities toward the child but has no rights either.

MagicSean

Does nobody test the integrity of condoms afterwards? Back when I was single I would always do a water balloon test before disposing of it.

Bullseye1

The Hypocrisy in this thread is incredible. It's okay for a women who gets pregnant to abort even if the father wants the child but if your reverse it the father should pay up even though he doesn't want the child. Hilarious.

grindle

ntlbell wrote: »

I think it's very important for a child to have two parents.

Those who don't tend to turn into complete and utter morons walking around stating things like "man up"

I concur.

Where have I seen something like this before?

ntlbell wrote:

grow some balls.

Oh yeah!

Feeona

Jesus I've heard it all now. Some of the replies in this thread are bordering on deranged. A woman is 'lucky' because she gets to decide if she wants an abortion or not.

A huge possible life threatening decision with a future changing outcome, both physical and emotional. I wouldn't wish the decision of an abortion on my worst enemy.

sebastianlieken

silly wrote: »

everyone knows that no contraception is 100% except of course abstinence.

Abstinance - 99.9999999999% effective

According to the bible that is.

ntlbell

grindle wrote: »

Where have I seen something like this before?

Oh yeah!

It's like you don't even know me.

ntlbell

Feeona wrote: »

Jesus I've heard it all now. Some of the replies in this thread are bordering on deranged. A woman is 'lucky' because she gets to decide if she wants an abortion or not.

A huge possible life threatening decision with a future changing outcome, both physical and emotional. I wouldn't wish the decision of an abortion on my worst enemy.

it's not about being "lucky"

It's about giving an equal right to the father to give ups his rights.

that can be done in many different ways which do not involve abortion.

such over the top daily mail nonsense.

dj jarvis

gemi wrote: »

If that came off as a rant, that wasn't my intention, nor did I thnk I was being aggressive in my post. Nor do I see how I was ignoring previous posts in the thread, my post was a response to various issues ongoing in this thread. In relation to the cherry picking, I didn't suggest a man should have his balls cut off, nor would I, and I was merely highlighting that a man having his balls cut off, is not the same as your devils advocate suggestion for a woman is to keep her legs closed. One allows a person to still actively participate in sex without the consequence of pregnancy (should their sex drive and erection capabilities still allow for that), the other doesn't. I wasn't saying that was your opinion of what women should do, but it was you that posted it so I quoted your post and made my reply to how I felt (as a woman) should that legs closed comment have been posted. My feeling being that, it's not the same thing.

sorry gemi , all my post was not directed entirely at you ,
as usual in AH posters will fire stupid comments at you and quote out of context paragraphs - while avoiding the very simple and direct question
why is it ok for a poster to say " he should have his balls cut off " when another should not muse why she just did not keep her legs closed ??
so cutting balls is fine but abstinence is a no no ?? or going on the pill ? or making sure the condom is on correctly , or morning after service ????

this does not take away from the stupidity of some posters , the guy has responsibility no doubt , but so does she
conterception is not all the guys work , and in fairness seeing it will impact massively on the woman , surely protecting herself is well........ up to her !!!

some lads will put their dick into a hole in a tree , don't wait for him to sort protection - and not doing this makes her AS culpable as him

n900guy

CJC999 wrote: »

I dont think its right that he should get to walk away and so he should take some responsibility but on the other hand what sort of a father is he going to be if he doesnt or never wanted the child.

She's probably better off without him, take nothing from him and cut all contact and never allow him access to the child. If he is wrecked with guilt in later life then tough shít, that was the choice he made.

On the other hand, the sort of potential mother who is willing to get pregnant and have a child without a supportive relationship, should also be under the spotlight.

Piste

I'm not sure if this has been asked because 22 pages is too many pages to read, but should a woman be able to sign off all rights to the child after giving birth to it if the father doesn't want her to have an abortion?

iguana

Piste wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has been asked because 22 pages is too many pages to read, but should a woman be able to sign off all rights to the child after giving birth to it if the father doesn't want her to have an abortion?

As long as she isn't married she can. It's called adoption and it's completely her right to terminate her parental rights and responsibilities if she wants to. The father can then apply to adopt the child and as long as there is no good reason not to give him care of a child he should be granted full parental rights.

If a woman has that legal right then a man should too. Getting into a debate about who can choose and can't choose an abortion is pointless. It's a biological issue of bodily integrity rather than a legal one. However the issue of adoption is entirely legal and in that regard mothers have rights that fathers do not, which is a double standard.

Mr.Crinklewood

ntlbell wrote: »

This is fair if he also has a decision in the abortion process but he doesn't.

You can't have the butter and the money for it.

You reap what you sow.

K-9

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The Hypocrisy in this thread is incredible. It's okay for a women who gets pregnant to abort even if the father wants the child but if your reverse it the father should pay up even though he doesn't want the child. Hilarious.

I'm not really fond of abortion at all so I don't like the idea of men having the same option just because.

K-9

iguana wrote: »

As long as she isn't married she can. It's called adoption and it's completely her right to terminate her parental rights and responsibilities if she wants to. The father can then apply to adopt the child and as long as there is no good reason not to give him care of a child he should be granted full parental rights.

If a woman has that legal right then a man should too. Getting into a debate about who can choose and can't choose an abortion is pointless. It's a biological issue of bodily integrity rather than a legal one. However the issue of adoption is entirely legal and in that regard mothers have rights that fathers do not, which is a double standard.

The advantage men have is they walk back in the childs life, not really an option with adoption for women. Though maybe it should be.

Scanlas The 2nd

ntlbell wrote: »

Feeona wrote: »

Jesus I've heard it all now. Some of the replies in this thread are bordering on deranged. A woman is 'lucky' because she gets to decide if she wants an abortion or not.

A huge possible life threatening decision with a future changing outcome, both physical and emotional. I wouldn't wish the decision of an abortion on my worst enemy.

it's not about being "lucky"

It's about giving an equal right to the father to give ups his rights.

that can be done in many different ways which do not involve abortion.

such over the top daily mail nonsense.

But it's not an equal situation, the woman has to go through a lot of physical pain a long the way, the man doesn't, so she should have more say, however the man still should have a significant say in the matter of course.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

Piste wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has been asked because 22 pages is too many pages to read, but should a woman be able to sign off all rights to the child after giving birth to it if the father doesn't want her to have an abortion?

As long as she isn't married she can. It's called adoption and it's completely her right to terminate her parental rights and responsibilities if she wants to. The father can then apply to adopt the child and as long as there is no good reason not to give him care of a child he should be granted full parental rights.

If a woman has that legal right then a man should too. Getting into a debate about who can choose and can't choose an abortion is pointless. It's a biological issue of bodily integrity rather than a legal one. However the issue of adoption is entirely legal and in that regard mothers have rights that fathers do not, which is a double standard.

Are you sure if the man goes to court fights for sole custody and wins surely he would then have the right to put the said child up for adoption ?

Missmiddleton

Some women are against abortion and if she wants to keep the baby it's her right. Surely your friend understands contraception isn't 100% effective? It's the risk you take and now he has to deal with it.

Petre

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

But it's not an equal situation, the woman has to go through a lot of physical pain a long the way, the man doesn't, so she should have more say, however the man still should have a significant say in the matter of course.

What about women in the police force/fire brigade? They go through much less danger/physical effort than men, yet they demand the same pay under the claim that otherwise it would be gender discrimination.

Shouldn't men then demand the exact same parental rights as women, less it be gender discrimination?

iguana

K-9 wrote: »

The advantage men have is they walk back in the childs life, not really an option with adoption for women. Though maybe it should be.

But they wouldn't have that right if they terminated all their rights and responsibilities. As it stands now of course a man can just up and walk away, but he can also be taken to court and have maintenance awarded against him, something he has no choice in. If the law were to be amended to allow him a choice to walk away, then that's it, it's a permanent act. No maintenance, no responsibility but also no changing your mind 7 years down the line and showing up looking to start up a relationship. No say in if the child is adopted by the mother's new partner. No say or even right to information if the child is in hospital. No right to access ever.

It can't work both ways. If you want out you when the child is born you should have that out. But you can't mess with the kid's head or with the decisions of the legal parent.

efb

No.

Daisy M

I think that sometimes the dad rejects the child because he cant handle the enforced relationship he has to have with the mother. Op ask your friend if it was someone different who was the mother of his child and he liked and respected this person, would his feelings towards his unborn baby be different. I think (and I am not condoning it) your friend is running scared of the thoughts of a lifetime connected with someone he deems to be a psyco.

K-9

iguana wrote: »

But they wouldn't have that right if they terminated all their rights and responsibilities. As it stands now of course a man can just up and walk away, but he can also be taken to court and have maintenance awarded against him, something he has no choice in. If the law were to be amended to allow him a choice to walk away, then that's it, it's a permanent act. No maintenance, no responsibility but also no changing your mind 7 years down the line and showing up looking to start up a relationship. No say in if the child is adopted by the mother's new partner. No say or even right to information if the child is in hospital. No right to access ever.

It can't work both ways. If you want out you when the child is born you should have that out. But you can't mess with the kid's head or with the decisions of the legal parent.

I think it is a nice advantage to have, and sure maintenance is only money to raise your seed! We all have to pay for our pleasures in life in someway! So men may be at a disadvantage in legally walking away but they we have a massive advantage over women this way.

We can basically abort the child now and change our minds down the road. Not bad at all.

iguana

K-9 wrote: »

I think it is a nice advantage to have, and sure maintenance is only money to raise your seed! We all have to pay for our pleasures in life in someway! So men may be at a disadvantage in legally walking away but they we have a massive advantage over women this way.

We can basically abort the child now and change our minds down the road. Not bad at all.

The mother can do that too, she can go to the child's grandparents, her parents or his, ask them to babysit for the night and then up and disappear just like he can. Or if the dad is still around she can leave the child in his care and bugger off. She can then most likely come back years down the line and decide to be in the child's life then. This is not some 'right' men have that women don't anyone can walk away and have a reasonable expectation of coming back one day of they change their mind. Women do that all the time too.

Scanlas The 2nd

Petre wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

But it's not an equal situation, the woman has to go through a lot of physical pain a long the way, the man doesn't, so she should have more say, however the man still should have a significant say in the matter of course.

What about women in the police force/fire brigade? They go through much less danger/physical effort than men, yet they demand the same pay under the claim that otherwise it would be gender discrimination.

Shouldn't men then demand the exact same parental rights as women, less it be gender discrimination?

If the women aren't doing as much work they should be paid less. Simple. Fukc equality. Sick of the word.

There is no way a man should have as much say whether the woman aborts. The woman has to go through the pain, not the man.

xsiborg

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.

i dont usually comment on individual circumstances, but your friends situation seems to me to be an all too common unfortunate occurence nowadays.

there are too many variables in this story and im sure your friend isnt telling you all the facts either. for instance it's fairly common in my experience that when a guy gets a girl pregnant by accident and is then looking for sympathy and a "get out" option, he'll often say "oh she turned out to be a psycho afterwards", while at the same time trying to imply that he's being "mature" somehow because he wants to forget he ever made a mistake in the first place.

it comes across like "yeah she was a little freak in bed and it was great fun, but now its not fun any more because somehow she got pregnant! now i can see she's just a psycho", tbh it's an all too often trotted out excuse the very same as "its not you, its me!", it's become a cliche really.

in an ideal world, yes he should have to accept the consequences of his actions, the same as he would in any other situation, be it if he fúcked up in work or whatever. he wouldnt just be able to walk out of his workplace and say "somebody else will clean up the mess, im not taking any responsibility for it!". that is precisely what he seems to want to do here- he had his funtime, now he has a baby on the way and suddenly, she aint fun no more and im having a DNA test done 'cause god only knows who else she might have been sleeping with!

the thing here is that im assuming they both had basic knowledge of biology, and knew the risks involved in having casual sex. they were unfortunate enough that they got caught as such, it was an unfortunate accident when they chose to have sex, with the full knowledge of the consequences. they just chose to disregard them!

now that she wants to have the child, she is being the mature and responsible one, yet your friend has chosen after he's had his fun, to dismiss her as a psycho. it DOES make me wonder about his maturity levels tbh, at least he recognises he isn't mature enough to be ready for fatherhood. he has absolutely every right to abdicate the responsibility of fatherhood, but he should at least be mature enough to accept that he should at least contribute financially to the child's upbringing.

it's all well and good lauding the sexual freedom we have in a modern society, but some people want all the freedom, with none of the responsibility. to these people i would say grow the fúck up, you cant walk away from everything all your life just because it doesn't suit you or things aren't going your way. that's something we make allowances for in children, but if you think you're an adult and you're mature enough and old enough and bold enough to have sex, then you should be mature enough and old enough and bold enough to be responsible for the consequences of your decisions!


OT- i also think it was unfair of your friend to lump this on you and involve you in his mess! i understand OP that you would care about your friend, but you weren't in the room holding his hand when he decided he was mature enough to have sex, but not mature enough to deal with the consequences. he sounds like he has a hell of a lot of growing up to do, and tbh imho- this girl sounds like she'll be far better off without him, so i say in this instance, by all means let him off, money isnt everything, and i know plenty of single mothers that manage quite admirably without any financial assistance from either the state, or the child's biological father.

maybe this is the wake up call your friend needed to make him realise the consequences of his indiscriminate sexual endeavours, and maybe now he'll think twice before he jumps into bed with a girl he later labels a "psycho". i imagine the next few months in work are going to be torture for this girl with all the sneery comments and judgemental looks, i think she'll have learned her lesson too, and i hope that she meets a guy who isnt as immature and irresponsible as this chap.

K-9

iguana wrote: »

The mother can do that too, she can go to the child's grandparents, her parents or his, ask them to babysit for the night and then up and disappear just like he can. Or if the dad is still around she can leave the child in his care and bugger off. She can then most likely come back years down the line and decide to be in the child's life then. This is not some 'right' men have that women don't anyone can walk away and have a reasonable expectation of coming back one day of they change their mind. Women do that all the time too.

Not if she has an abortion or adoption she can't, which is what the thread is about!

That's one hell of an advantage for men. Not worth the monetary value for some though.

token101

K-9 wrote: »

She did regard his feelings. Choice? What choice? To not have an abortion and parent alone or to have an abortion, against her will?

That's a bit of a Hobson's choice to me. Either have a forced abortion or I'm walking.



She is. He isn't.



Indeed, sadly rarely used these days.



It is. I'm just saying just as even protected sex has consequences, so has just walking away. He could always get the snip if he wants to be sure, to be sure!



But how has she inflicted anything? I assume they both had sex thinking no pregnancy would result. She is in a situation that she doesn't want I'd say as well. There is another option and many men use it. Walk away now and given time, come back when you are ready. That's a good choice to have, rather than introducing abortion for men just because women can physically have one.

She can decide to keep the kid or abort, and the father hasn't any option. So in this case, she's inflicted fatherhood upon him, willingly or not. She's chosen to keep the child, and now he's an unwilling father. So he should be allowed to have the choice to walk away legally. I definitely don't think anyone should have abortion imposed upon them by anyone, in fact I think a father should be allowed petition the court and make the mother carry the child and then she can walk away too if she likes. It's a horrible way to have to be, but a single, loving parent or adopted parents are better than an unwillingly parent. The mother seems to hold all the cards, it's her choice either way. And you can't will yourself to feel love, or 'man up' yourself into it either. It doesn't work like that.

Walk away and come back when ready? You mean during the pregnancy or in 2, 3, 4, or 10 years? Because if you mean in 10 years, I'm not sure a single parent or a child would be happy to see an absent parent when he feels like sauntering back, and rightfully so. If you walk away from your responsibilities, my attitude would be don't come back for your 'rights'.

K-9

token101 wrote: »

She can decide to keep the kid or abort, and the father hasn't any option. So in this case, she's inflicted fatherhood upon him, willingly or not. She's chosen to keep the child, and now he's an unwilling father. So he should be allowed to have the choice to walk away legally. I definitely don't think anyone should have abortion imposed upon them by anyone, in fact I think a father should be allowed petition the court and make the mother carry the child and then she can walk away too if she likes.

Yeah, its a tough situation, so many conflicting concerns, mens/fathers/womens/mothers/childs rights.

It's a horrible way to have to be, but a single, loving parent or adopted parents are better than an unwillingly parent. The mother seems to hold all the cards, it's her choice either way. And you can't will yourself to feel love, or 'man up' yourself into it either. It doesn't work like that.

I wouldn't exactly term it as holding the cards.

Walk away and come back when ready? You mean during the pregnancy or in 2, 3, 4, or 10 years? Because if you mean in 10 years, I'm not sure a single parent or a child would be happy to see an absent parent when he feels like sauntering back, and rightfully so. If you walk away from your responsibilities, my attitude would be don't come back for your 'rights'.

She doesn't have a say in it. The man applies to the court and the judge decides. Happened many times. He'll have a hell of a lot of making up to do.

Barnardos has a programme reuniting kids and their fathers and it was successful. Many were just young, ignorant or carefree. I don't think they were in the right mind to make a decision like this. With abortion no child exists, it does in this case, important difference.

Still nice advantage to have if we abort, not as final as the womens choice. We can say "I don't want that one" and then change our minds.

Petre

If a man does not want to see an unintended pregnancy through, why should he have to take responsibility for the mother's choice if she does? Women are the ones who are legally required to give clear consent to sexual intercourse, so shouldn't the responsibility be on them to be the ones taking the risk when they do give consent?

Zulu

Your trolling skills are very poor

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

Your trolling skills are very poor

God loves a trier though, 10/10 for effort.

ntlbell

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

You reap what you sow.

i agree 100% so if she decided to bring the child up alone...

she will reap what she sows.

ntlbell

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

But it's not an equal situation, the woman has to go through a lot of physical pain a long the way, the man doesn't, so she should have more say, however the man still should have a significant say in the matter of course.

so lets shove a turnip up the mans arse and then give him the option to walk away?

please...

stoneill

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.

Your mate should take on his responsibility - doesn't matter that contraception was used, even the condom box tells you it's not 100% effective. There is a new person, a new human being created, and your mate did it. He needs to man up now and be part of his childs life.

enda1

I'm a bit confused. Can the lad not just say its not his kid and that he refuses a paternity test? Surely it has to be proven that it is his for him to be he legal father??

Napper Hawkins

Man up, everyone. That's what we need to do. Man up.

Did you not hear? You gotta man up. Man.

Man up, y'hear?

Man. Up.

Man up, just the men though.
Women are absolved of all responsibility (of course!)

They don't need to man up! It's all on the men! Didn't you get the memo?

MAN UP!

MAN UP!

smileyj1987

stoneill wrote: »

Your mate should take on his responsibility - doesn't matter that contraception was used, even the condom box tells you it's not 100% effective. There is a new person, a new human being created, and your mate did it. He needs to man up now and be part of his childs life.

I couldn't agree more with your saying , but if thats his attitude maybe she would be better off on her own raising the child .

Dyr

Missmiddleton wrote: »

Some women are against abortion and if she wants to keep the baby it's her right. Surely your friend understands contraception isn't 100% effective? It's the risk you take and now he has to deal with it.

Um, except it's not a risk he took, it's a risk she took, nature did not put the same stakes up for both sexes in that gamble.

There are methods to deal with a fertilized egg before abortion comes into play. She's decided she wants a baby and he doesn't want any part of it. Him being be roped into dealing with her decision in this day and age is nonsensical. it's her right, her decision and her consequences.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

Um, except it's not a risk he took, it's a risk she took, nature did not put the same stakes up for both sexes in that gamble.

There are methods to deal with a fertilized egg before abortion comes into play. She's decided she wants a baby and he doesn't want any part of it. Him being be roped into dealing with her decision in this day and age is nonsensical. it's her right, her decision and her consequences.

He did take a risk, condoms aren't 100%, he did take a risk, she took the same risk.

If he cares that much, get the snip, as near as 100% you get, just wait a month or so.

I'd love for this conversation to take place before copulation every night throughout Ireland, it doesn't. We all know the risks.

If they don't know the risks, well they will have difficulty with the idea of aborting a child, forever.

Step 1 is you have sex, even with a condom, she can still get pregnant.

Step 2. You as a man can walk away. If you don't understand or mentally grasp step 1, you don't have a hope in hell of grasping step 2.