I don't know what to do

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can see your point here, but the difference is that when a child is aborted or given up for adoption the child is no longer accessible. When the child is still in the hands of a biological parent and the other one rejects them or has whatever version of an abortion they can come up with [fleeing]most likely] the child is still accessible and the absent parent is denying the child its access to its parentage. If a mother abandoned her child or never saw the child while the child was in custody of the father, I doubt it would sit comfortably with many men.

Agreed but there are serious double standards and line drawing on both sides of this and in the end it impacts the child ultimately.

As for the consulted onnothing but money matters, in some instances that is really all they have any authority to consult on because its the only thing that is backed up legally. For example, when I informed my sons father he would need surgery I was told there was no point in me telling him these things since he had no say over them. Shrug. What can you do?

True but in your defence, you did inform him. I've seen two situations where the mother didn't because she had no legal imperative to do so on her side.

As for the OP, well, he will have to think about this, does he do the closest thing he can do an abortion and flee, or does he stick around? I dont think he has to worry about this yet until he talks to the girl. I do think you should go to OZ, but also be comfortable that you will not be at the birth, nor have a choice in naming the child.

I agree, but he may not want the child, which throws up another issue of course. I suppose many men have this problem with the simple biology of parenthood. The woman can choose to abort, adopt or have the baby and choose to do so without the input of the man. He has no legal "rights" to the child, but is legally expected to then automatically take responsibility, financial and emotional for said child when it is born. It's a debate beyond the remit of PI, but it's certainly the feelings of many men with this whole area. It increases the feeling of being a meal ticket for one.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Surely if she were confused she would tell him she isnt sure?

Seriously? Eh no, I can think of more than one occasion where confusion was stated as fact when the blood was up. Another where the woman was seeing two guys and picked the better off and more presentable for the daddy role. Turns out he wasn't. OK they're extremes but they happen.

No metrovelvet,A father or possible father running away is not akin to abortion.Thats a ridiculous analogy and totally unnecessary emotiveness in the context of the op's question if I may say so.

Wibbs

To be fair to metrovelvet, she was making the point that that's the only recourse for a man who doesn't want to have a child, IE run. It's the only equivalent he has, to whit she compared it to abortion as a choice for the woman who doesn't want to have a child.(adoption would be another)

LegacyUser

Reading all the replies to the OP's problem I'm amazed or maybe abit naive that there are woman who delibertly go out to get pregnant by having one night stands and giving the guy no say in the matter. I'm in a similar situation myself right now, slept with a guy over xmas who I do know and previously had afew drunken kisses with awhile back. We used a condom 1st time but 2nd time we didn't & he pulled out but I know well that's no guarantee. I'm so pissed off with myself over it. I wasnt on the pill either coz I forgot to get a new pack from chemist (stupid me) and not thinking I'd end up in bed with this guy or anyone for that matter, wasn't too worried.

Well I'm slightly worried now such that I went to the doctor the second morning after (not the morning after ! ) to get the MAP. IMO why would any woman chose on purpose to be a single mother. If and when I have a child (not this year I hope, I'll know soon!) I want it to be a happy occasion between me and the father not a stressful time and worrying whether Dad wants to know his kid. I hope all works out ok for the OP & wish him the best.

iguana

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe I'm taking this up wrong and apologies if I am, but how would a post like that be greeted if a man wrote; "after a bad experience with a single mother I would be extremely reluctant to go out with another and there is no way on earth I would go out with a woman who put her child up for adoption or had an abortion and I think most men would feel that way". He would be rightfully slated. I'm sorry but that smacks of a serious double standard.

I think your taking it up wrong and using a bad analogy to demonstrate your point.

1. I think it's fair for anyone male or female to not want to have a relationship with somebody who is already parent for a variety of reasons.

2. Having an abortion or putting a child up for adoption is completely different to having a child with a woman and deciding to have nothing to do with them. A better comparison would be a man not wanting a relationship with a woman who had walked out on her partner and child.

3. The reason why a woman would be nervous of being with a man who has a child he has chosen not to be in contact with is that it would leave you worried that he would not be there if you get pregnant together in the future.

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

No metrovelvet,A father or possible father running away is not akin to abortion.Thats a ridiculous analogy and totally unnecessary emotiveness in the context of the op's question if I may say so.

That wasn't her analogy, it was bitter_exp who first drew that comparison.

metrovelvet

Unregistered wrote: »

Reading all the replies to the OP's problem I'm amazed or maybe abit naive that there are woman who delibertly go out to get pregnant by having one night stands and giving the guy no say in the matter. I'm in a similar situation myself right now, slept with a guy over xmas who I do know and previously had afew drunken kisses with awhile back. We used a condom 1st time but 2nd time we didn't & he pulled out but I know well that's no guarantee. I'm so pissed off with myself over it. I wasnt on the pill either coz I forgot to get a new pack from chemist (stupid me) and not thinking I'd end up in bed with this guy or anyone for that matter, wasn't too worried.

Well I'm slightly worried now such that I went to the doctor the second morning after (not the morning after ! ) to get the MAP. IMO why would any woman chose on purpose to be a single mother. If and when I have a child (not this year I hope, I'll know soon!) I want it to be a happy occasion between me and the father not a stressful time and worrying whether Dad wants to know his kid. I hope all works out ok for the OP & wish him the best.

I have to agree with you that saying you're on the pill when you arent is really shameful.

Choosing to be a single mother? Right, in this case it doesnt make anysense why she would go out of her way to get pregnant with a one night stand. Seriously, why would you do that? It doesnt make sense that this girl would, so I would give her the benefit of the doubt. A lot of the time single mothers are not choosing to be a single mother as you are single after the baby is born or later in the pregnancy. Everyone wants it to be a happy occassion not worrying about the dad's involvement, sometimes dads change their minds you know.

dade

Unregistered wrote: »

IMO why would any woman chose on purpose to be a single mother. If .

a few years ago when myself and then GF (now wife) where looking for a house, a friend of mine's GF said to us "would you not get pregnant to get on the housing list, just tell them you don't know who the father is. once you have teh place look to buy it from them" . now i don't know if this is possible to do but if one twisted bint can think like that why can't another?

morrowa64

Wait until the child is born and get a paternity test, the out of date pill is a new one to me and does sound a bit dodgy. Go to Oz, have a blast and dont let it take away from your time there

LegacyUser

I'm a single father. I got custody of my daughter after thirteen years of legal wrangling with her crazy bitch of a mother.
She too lied about using contraception when she got pregnant. In the past, she's moved house without informing me, even though I had access and guardianship, and on one memorable occasion, she emigrated to Europe and I had to get an investigator to track her down.
I did all this because a) I love my kid and b) I knew my kid needed me, so mental is her mother.
My child resides with me, but sees her mother, maternal grandparents and extended family all the time, at my expense and often with me doing the transporting. When she lived with her mother, I often had to travel across the country or indeed to another country only to be refused my legal right of access (which is perhaps better described as my daughter's moral and legal entitlement to her father.)
I think some of the statements being made by metrovelvet are well out of order, both in terms of the OP's predicament and in general.
It is absolutely essential that the OP ensures his paternity is confirmed by genetic testing, given the circumstances of this pregnancy. He would hardly be the first man on Earth to be trapped into parenthood by an unstable or conniving woman. As the mod said, a third of all DNA tests prove to be negative. I suspect it is higher again among cases arising from one night stands.
I don't regret any of my actions, though it took me 13 long hard years, god knows how much money and heartbreak, to get where we are today.
But I wouldn't recommend the same actions to anyone else in the same situation. Parenthood changes everyone, but it's fair to say that it absolutely changed my life prospects and opportunities. I turned down great jobs abroad to be near my kid, I couldn't buy a house or car because of paying punitive amounts of maintenance and I had to put up with no end of craziness and unreasonable behaviour from my kid's mum, who's unstable at the best of times and was able to act in too many occasions with the blessing of the ridiculous and unfair Irish legal system.
The OP should go to Oz and let that be an end to it. If the child's mother really wishes to pursue him as a father for her child, let her take him to court for maintenance, in his absence if necessary. He can answer that when he returns from Oz. And his answer should be 'Prove I'm the daddy with a DNA test.'
Then, if he actually is the daddy, he needs to decide if he wishes to be an active part of the child's life or not.
I chose to be an active part of my child's life and it worked out. But for others it hasn't. Women can be extremely vindictive, sometimes, especially with the legal system behind them.
We need equitable parenting laws in this country. Until we get those, it frankly is probably not in the OP's interest to stick around to bankroll some one night stand's lifestyle while she simultaneously denies him access to his kid (IF it is proven to be his.)
Sorry for banging on and remaining anon.

Pub07

metrovelvet wrote: »

Beruthial, I am not saying he is outside of his philosophical rights or that he shouldnt ask for one, Im just saying he should ask nicely and then apologise. The alternative is pissing her off, she doesnt consent, he refuses maintenance, it goes to court, he demands the dna test, the court orders it through official labs which cost a lot of money, and the court makes him pay for it. It is in HIS interest to be nice about this.

Surely if she were confused she would tell him she isnt sure?

No one said anything about trying to piss her off. The alternative is he asks for a DNA test and she gets one, he turns out to be the father, fair enough. Or he turns out not to be the father, also fair enough. It is nothing to apologise over, it is a completely reasonable request, in fact he would have to be beyond thick not to demand one, have a look at this - http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13318

And there is no set rule over who pays for the test if it goes to court- http://www.treoir.ie/pdfs/DNA2.pdf

The bottom line is apologising is out of the question in this case, in your case where your partner at the time for the test well then I can see an apology being justified...but this is a completely different situation.

Wibbs

My attitude is simply this; if it comes to a paternity test, then simple manners come into this. If he is the father then a simple apology for doubting her costs nothing, if he's not, a simple apology for putting her through it costs nothing either. If ones ego is such that an apology to try and smooth the path of another, whomever they may be, causes said ego to be damaged, then there are other issues at play. When someone hands me my change in a shop, it's a reasonable thing that they should do so. It doesn't stop me saying thank you.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

My attitude is simply this; if it comes to a paternity test, then simple manners come into this. If he is the father then a simple apology for doubting her costs nothing, if he's not, a simple apology for putting her through it costs nothing either. If ones ego is such that an apology to try and smooth the path of another, whomever they may be, causes said ego to be damaged, then there are other issues at play. When someone hands me my change in a shop, it's a reasonable thing that they should do so. It doesn't stop me saying thank you.

Thank you Wibbs, that is all I was trying to say. You said it much better as usual.

I'd imagine myself that an apology depends on the situation,the people involved.
It's not going to be requisite in all situations even in many.
In some it will be understandably impossible.

LegacyUser

Will she apologise to the OP if a DNA test proves negative, for putting him through hell for a matter of months?
How many women would?
The whole apology thing is nonsense. It's entirely irrelevant to the main issue - which is that the OP should establish beyond doubt that he is indeed responsible for this pregnancy and any child that follows before deciding what to do next.
And since that cannot be done before the birth (at least, it shouldn't be done before the birth nor need it be done before the birth), he should go off to Oz and enjoy himself as much as he can with this hanging over him.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd imagine myself that an apology depends on the situation,the people involved.
It's not going to be requisite in all situations even in many.
In some it will be understandably impossible.

No I agree, but manners cost nothing in any circumstance. That's my take on it anyway.

Single Dad wrote:

Will she apologise to the OP if a DNA test proves negative, for putting him through hell for a matter of months?

So what if she doesn't. I don't extend respect and manners expecting a reciprocal consideration. I extend such, because it's the right thing to do. For me at least. I can't control their responses, I can only control mine.

How many women would?

So? Even if that was true (and I've met as many boorish twattish men as I have reactionary twattish women) I consider my conduct first and in that case I would try to make the best of an emotionally charged situation by simply not adding to it.

It's entirely irrelevant to the main issue - which is that the OP should establish beyond doubt that he is indeed responsible for this pregnancy and any child that follows before deciding what to do next.
And since that cannot be done before the birth (at least, it shouldn't be done before the birth nor need it be done before the birth), he should go off to Oz and enjoy himself as much as he can with this hanging over him.

Although I've set my stall by saying that manners are never irrelevant, I do agree that the OP should establish beyond doubt the potential child is his. I also agree that he should not turn down Oz as an option. We're in full agreement there.

Chinafoot

Kold wrote: »

Yes he messed up by not wearing a johnny but she'd led him to believe that there was no chance of having a child.

I'm sorry, what? Has he absolutely no sexual education? Saying "I'm on the pill" doesn't mean "there is absolutely zero chance for me to get pregnant because as we all know the pill is 100% effective". The pill doesn't always work, condoms don't always work. He could have easily worn a condom to further decrease the risk. If he had used a condom and she still got pregnant would we all say "nah, she's a liar! You used a condom, there's no way in hell you could have got her pregnant!"? I know I wouldn't, but then again I know that contraception isn't 100%. If you have no sexual education, don't have sex.

If he's going to have sex with someone he needs to be aware of and take responsibilty for any consequences. He should meet her and speak face to face. Maybe she is lying about the pill. Maybe she's freaking out. The only way he'll know is if they have a paternity test.

If he's still going to go to Oz he should come back when the baby is due, have the test and decide from there what they want to do.

He could always delay his trip for a few months and decide after he knows for sure.

Toots

I'm not sure an apology is even necessary in this instance, providing of course that the OP is polite and civil to the girl at all times, and doesn't resort to petty accusations and name calling etc. In this circumstance, it's not a case of calling the girl's morality or whatever into question, it's just making sure.

If I was in this girl's position - had a one night stand with a guy (possibly with both of us having the beer goggles on), for some reason took leave of my senses and told him he needn't use a condom as I was sure not to get pregnant, then a couple of months later found myself pregnant and called him to tell him it was his - I'd be stunned if he didn't ask for a paternity test. I'd nearly be offering to have one done just to prove to him that the child was his!

Looking at it objectively, the OP had a one night stand with this girl, that is he spent one night in her company, then didn't see her for a few months (at least this is the impression I got), and all of a sudden she tells him out of nowhere that she is having his child. Now he doesn't know what she's been up to for the one or two weeks prior to and after their encounter(and vice versa, but that's not really the issue). She could have been with twenty guys, or he could have been the only guy she'd been with for months, in which case it's fairly likely he's the dad.

The point is, he's only got her word for this, the word of a woman who he barely knows. This is something that would completely change his life, whether for the better or otherwise only time would tell, but IMO he'd be a fool not to do a test. It'd be a different kettle of fish altogether if she was someone who he'd been in a relationship with, they split up, and a month later she discovered she was 8 weeks pregnant. If the conception had occurred during the relationship, then I can understand why the mother would be upset if asked for a DNA test, because the guy is basically accusing her of infidelity, and if it was a case then that the paternity test was positive, then yes, I think an apology and a slice of humble pie would most definitely be in order.

TBH, something just doesn't sit right about this whole scenario. If the girl is so certain that he is the father, then I don't see why she's getting so pissed about the issue of confirming that the OP is the father. Surely it'd be in her best interests, as regards the possibility of getting financial assistance in raising the child, which she is completely entitled to if the child is his. And more importantly, so that the child will know for certain who his/her father is.

metrovelvet

First of all if a dna test came out not confirming the paternity, I would be hugely embarrassed and most certainly would apologise, but if I were confused in the first place I would have said so.

Secondly, people say sorry for a lot less all the time.

To put it in another perspective: lets say someone you were about to start sleeping with, whether you knew them before hand or you didnt, demanded an sti/hiv clearance cert from you after you told them you were clean. Their attitude is "you just expect me to take your word for it?" And lets say, you oblige them and allow them to take samples from your body and send it to a lab and they get satisfactory answers. Surely, it would not go amiss for them to say, 'hey thanks for that, I know it was a little neurotic, but I appreciate you helping me out and I'm sorry I didnt trust you" despite it being their right to have certainty in such matters. If you 4 weeks later got a phone call with "right the results are in. it has been confirmed you are clean" wouldnt you just want to hang up?

That is the thing about rights, is that they can at times violate someone else's inner realities, when carried out, negate their feelings, and thereby invalidate their identities. So when practised and this does happen, some sensitivity is the right way to go, whatever your rights are.

And single dad you are wrong about the dna test, among a few things you are wrong about -it can be done before birth as I have already pointed out and not by amnio.

Chinafoot

Toots85 wrote: »

TBH, something just doesn't sit right about this whole scenario. If the girl is so certain that he is the father, then I don't see why she's getting so pissed about the issue of confirming that the OP is the father. Surely it'd be in her best interests, as regards the possibility of getting financial assistance in raising the child, which she is completely entitled to if the child is his. And more importantly, so that the child will know for certain who his/her father is.

I agree to a certain extent. I don't think you can discount the rollercoaster of emotions this girl could be going through. Lets assume she's telling the truth. It was a one night stand, a guy she barely knows but does know is disappearing off to the other side of the world very soon. She's probably freaking out. She's probably incredibly emotional, not entirely rational, wondering if he's going to disappear or stick around and help support their baby.

You are correct in that logically she should be happy to have the paternity test to get everything settled. Then again, she could be unhappy about the whole situation and feels that he's calling her a liar and a slut by asking for the test. It's a tough situation for all concerned, but I do think it's incredibly unfair to assume she's a lying tramp who either doesn't know who the dad is, or some mental case that set out to get pregnant and is now looking at the OP as some sort of meal ticket.

She probably will calm down and see that a paternity test is the way to go, but a face to face conversation needs to be had. They both need to start acting like adults, because unless the OP knows 100% otherwise, this girl could be telling the truth.

LegacyUser

metrovelvet wrote: »

First of all if a dna test blah blah blah etc...

You're clearly still very angry that you got asked for a DNA test to confirm paternity. That's up to you. But harbouring that sort of anger probably isn't very healthy. Especially since the person you're quietly seething about is your co-parent.
As I said, people saying sorry is of next to no importance alongside the substantive issue, which is whose child is it, will the pregnancy be seen through to term and will the OP be involved as a parent if the child transpires to be his.
Those are the issues he should be focusing on. It is absolutely essential he establish beyond doubt whether he is the father. Everything else follows from that. If the mother considers that to be a slight on her honour, then perhaps she might want to consider having fewer unsafe one night stands in the future.

metrovelvet wrote: »

And single dad you are wrong about the dna test, among a few things you are wrong about -it can be done before birth as I have already pointed out and not by amnio.

I said the test oughtn't be done prior to the birth, and needn't be done prior to the birth. What's wrong about that?
In Irish law, there is no legal claim on a father of an unborn child, despite the constitutional protection of the unborn. She can't claim against him for maintenance or indeed demand his involvement prior to the child being born (unless he freely offers those things), so there is absolutely no need or point in having a DNA test prior to the birth. In any case, it is a damn sight cheaper and easier to do such a test following the birth for obvious reasons.
For what it's worth, I have never sought to DNA test on my daughter. She looks the spit of me, and the circumstances of the pregnancy were such that I didn't put the likelihood of her not being mine very high.
Care to point out any other things I got wrong, Metro? I'll be happy to clarify them likewise.

Toots

Chinafoot wrote: »

I agree to a certain extent. I don't think you can discount the rollercoaster of emotions this girl could be going through. Lets assume she's telling the truth. It was a one night stand, a guy she barely knows but does know is disappearing off to the other side of the world very soon. She's probably freaking out. She's probably incredibly emotional, not entirely rational, wondering if he's going to disappear or stick around and help support their baby.

You are correct in that logically she should be happy to have the paternity test to get everything settled. Then again, she could be unhappy about the whole situation and feels that he's calling her a liar and a slut by asking for the test. It's a tough situation for all concerned, but I do think it's incredibly unfair to assume she's a lying tramp who either doesn't know who the dad is, or some mental case that set out to get pregnant and is now looking at the OP as some sort of meal ticket.

I agree with you there, I don't think anyone should assume that she's either a lying tramp or some sort of gold digger, but I think that in this case, because of the lack of a relationship between the OP and this girl, the paternity needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. For both their sakes, and the sake of the child.

She probably will calm down and see that a paternity test is the way to go, but a face to face conversation needs to be had. They both need to start acting like adults, because unless the OP knows 100% otherwise, this girl could be telling the truth.

QFT.

LegacyUser

As a matter of interest OP, What age are you??? What age is she??? I know she probably lied to you about being on the Pill, but still when you have sex with a stranger you should accept the possible consequences of it all.

Just so you know as well, most places no longer do Pre-natal Paternity tests, due to risk of miscarriage. I was in a similar situation until a yesterday, but it was with an ex GF, (see the thread on the front page of this, Ex GF Pregnant one)

Don't stress there is nothing it can do for you, If I were you though, I would not go to Oz Until this is all cleared up. If it is your child, while the mother may have lied to you, there are still responsibilities.

metrovelvet

Single Dad wrote: »

You're clearly still very angry that you got asked for a DNA test to confirm paternity. That's up to you. But harbouring that sort of anger probably isn't very healthy. Especially since the person you're quietly seething about is your co-parent.

Not relevent. I don't have a co-parent.

Single Dad wrote: »

As I said, people saying sorry is of next to no importance alongside the substantive issue, which is whose child is it, will the pregnancy be seen through to term and will the OP be involved as a parent if the child transpires to be his.
Those are the issues he should be focusing on. It is absolutely essential he establish beyond doubt whether he is the father. Everything else follows from that. If the mother considers that to be a slight on her honour, then perhaps she might want to consider having fewer unsafe one night stands in the future..

Maybe she only had one. Why do you assume she had many? It doesnt cost anything to be a bit mannerly.

Single Dad wrote: »

I said the test oughtn't be done prior to the birth, and needn't be done prior to the birth. What's wrong about that? .

You said it could not be done before the birth. Out of interest why shouldnt it?

Single Dad wrote: »

In Irish law, there is no legal claim on a father of an unborn child, despite the constitutional protection of the unborn. She can't claim against him for maintenance or indeed demand his involvement prior to the child being born (unless he freely offers those things), so there is absolutely no need or point in having a DNA test prior to the birth. In any case, it is a damn sight cheaper and easier to do such a test following the birth for obvious reasons.

He may want to be involved if he knows he's the father. And it makes the paper work and legal documents a whole lot easier at the birth. DNA test results can take a while to get.

Single Dad wrote: »

For what it's worth, I have never sought to DNA test on my daughter. She looks the spit of me, and the circumstances of the pregnancy were such that I didn't put the likelihood of her not being mine very high.
Care to point out any other things I got wrong, Metro? I'll be happy to clarify them likewise.

Well, anyone will tell you not to go by looks. And you go on and on about getting a dna test to someone else? Ha. That's funny, especially considering all the unsavory, nasty things you said about your co-parent. Not very healthy now is it? Dr, heal thyself.

No I dont care to point out the things you got wrong. It's not interesting enough.

LegacyUser

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not relevent. I don't have a co-parent.

Virgin birth, huh?
The father may not be involved in your child's life. But your child most definitely has two parents. That's how these things work.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe she only had one. Why do you assume she had many? It doesnt cost anything to be a bit mannerly.

I didn't assume anything. If it only took one to get her pregnant this time, she still needs to have fewer than one to be sure of no similar scenario recurring in future.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You said it could not be done before the birth. Out of interest why shouldnt it?

I said it oughtn't be done before the birth and needn't be done before the birth. This is the third time I've said that actually. And I've already explained the whys of that.

metrovelvet wrote: »

He may want to be involved if he knows he's the father.

Which can be found out as easily, in fact more easily, following the birth.

metrovelvet wrote: »

And it makes the paper work and legal documents a whole lot easier at the birth.

That's not true unless he marries her before she goes into labour. A tad unlikely under these particular circumstances.
Unmarried fathers cannot even get themselves automatically named on a child's birth cert, and have absolutely no rights to their children without court proceedings in Ireland. It doesn't matter whether he knows for sure he's the father prior or after the birth.
He'd still be required to drop down to a health office and fill in the forms, with the mother's agreement. And if she were to refuse to identify him as the father, then he'd have to go to court to ask them to do so. Which would lead in turn to a court-ordered DNA test.
And there would still be the formalities (or court battles) over access and guardianship and custody.
So unless he marries her in a shotgun wedding before the child is born, you're quite wrong about this.

metrovelvet wrote: »

DNA test results can take a while to get.

But they can be obtained more quickly if taken from a born rather than unborn child.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, anyone will tell you not to go by looks. And you go on and on about getting a dna test to someone else? Ha.

The OP's circumstances demand a DNA test. My circumstances did not.

metrovelvet wrote: »

That's funny, especially considering all the unsavory, nasty things you said about your co-parent. Not very healthy now is it? Dr, heal thyself.

Of course it's not healthy. I was speaking to you from personal experience. For me, it was extremely healing when my child's mother accepted that I would do a better job than her of raising our daughter.
I thought it was very brave of her to give up full time custodial care to me when she did so. It was the right thing to do, but many women in that situation might not have been strong enough and smart enough to take the emotional hit for their child's better welfare.
I admire her for that, and she admires me for the parenting job I'm doing. In other words, she remains all of the things I said, and she can't undo all the things she did. But even if I don't forget them, I've certainly forgiven her for them at this point.
My main parenting job remains largely to mitigate the mistakes her mother made previously while still trying to ensure the best, healthiest relationship possible between my daughter and her mother. That's not always easy. But things are much better for my child now she resides primarily with me, and even her mother accepts that.

metrovelvet wrote: »

No I dont care to point out the things you got wrong. It's not interesting enough.

Equally, one might reasonably conclude that I didn't get anything wrong since you can't point to anything.
Good luck to the OP. Go to Oz, remain in contact with the girl you slept with while abroad and return if possible in time for the birth. Have a DNA test on the child and when you get the results, take things from there.

The Corinthian

iguana wrote: »

2. Having an abortion or putting a child up for adoption is completely different to having a child with a woman and deciding to have nothing to do with them.

How so? Outside of the former two being more socially acceptable and catered to in society?

A better comparison would be a man not wanting a relationship with a woman who had walked out on her partner and child.

No, because the woman will be walking out after having made a choice (by right) to keep the child in the first place. A man does not have this choice (by right) - walking out is all he has.

Your position still smacks of double standards, as Wibbs noted.

OP; go to OZ and get a DNA test if you choose to be involved (or if not and she comes looking for money). There's no reason to assume this woman intentionally got pregnant, but I would certainly be very suspicions of your paternity - perhaps you are simply the ONS that she would most like to be the father (or that she has a number for). Or you could be the father.

iguana

Single Dad wrote: »

I said it oughtn't be done before the birth and needn't be done before the birth. This is the third time I've said that actually. And I've already explained the whys of that.

I'm sorry, but you have in no way explained why it should not be done before the birth. If you are going to make such a strange blanket statement in advice to the OP you should at least explain why.

iguana

The Corinthian wrote: »

How so? Outside of the former two being more socially acceptable and catered to in society?

No, because the woman will be walking out after having made a choice (by right) to keep the child in the first place. A man does not have this choice (by right) - walking out is all he has.

The difference is that when the woman has an abortion there is no baby. And when it is put up for adoption the baby has been given into a secure family environment. When either parent walks away they have made a decision which will have in most cases a detrimental effect on the child. That is different.

I do however respect that a man has a right to question the circumstances under which a woman he is considering getting involved with had an abortion. And if she had it against the wishes of the father or behind his back he is within his rights to worry the same thing would happen again and end the relationship. The same would apply if she chose to have the baby adopted without the knowledge of the father. Or if she was a single parent raising a child which the father had no knowledge of.

The Corinthian

iguana wrote: »

The difference is that when the woman has an abortion there is no baby. And when it is put up for adoption the baby has been given into a secure family environment. When either parent walks away they have made a decision which will have in most cases a detrimental effect on the child. That is different.

So abortion has no detrimental effect on the child? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that logic.

Or by your logic a mother keeping a child she cannot support rather than putting up for adoption would also fall into this category of detrimental effect. After all, being kept by the biological parent(s) is not always in the child's "best interests".

All of which ignores the fact that in such cases it is the only option open to men, while women have a choice - I take it this has no baring upon things in your eyes?

There appears to be a serious case of "do as I say, don't do as I do" in your reasoning.

iguana wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you have in no way explained why it should not be done before the birth. If you are going to make such a strange blanket statement in advice to the OP you should at least explain why.

He did.