Ask Brian: My girlfriend's choosing to remain pregnant-can I opt out of being a dad?

iptba

Ask Brian: My girlfriend's choosing to remain pregnant - can I opt out of being a dad?

Our no-nonsense agony uncle gets straight to the point of your most pressing issues

https://www.independent.ie/style/sex-relationships/ask-brian-my-girlfriends-choosing-to-remain-pregnant-can-i-opt-out-of-being-a-dad-37387419.html


A dilemma a number of men each year must wonder about.

Paddy Cow

He can opt out of raising the child but he has a financial responsibility. The only way for a man to ensure he doesn't father a child is to either abstain from sex or get a vasectomy. You cannot force a woman to have an abortion. That is barbaric.

Avatar MIA

Paddy Cow wrote: »

You cannot force a woman to have an abortion. That is barbaric.

Indeed, but that's not the point.

Collie D

Sounds like the child would be better off without this gob****e in his or her life.

Hitman3000

He doesn't have to raise the child, but he is financially responsible. No birth control is 100 per cent.

ELM327

Paddy Cow wrote: »

He can opt out of raising the child but he has a financial responsibility. The only way for a man to ensure he doesn't father a child is to either abstain from sex or get a vasectomy. You cannot force a woman to have an abortion. That is barbaric.

But you should have the option to have a legal abortion where you sign away any rights and responsibility to the child.
Only women at this moment in time have the option to end a pregnancy - whereas a man is enforced to be a father without the choice that we voted to give women.

Effects

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The only way for a man to ensure he doesn't father a child is to either abstain from sex or get a vasectomy.

When did the results come in that condoms don't actually work at preventing pregnancy?

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

But you should have the option to have a legal abortion where you sign away any rights and responsibility to the child.

So he can shirk his financial responsibility to the child? Shift responsibility onto the taxpayer. Makes sense......

Collie D

Effects wrote: »

When did the results come in that condoms don't actually work at preventing pregnancy?

They've never been 100% effective. It says so on the box

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So he can shirk his financial responsibility to the child? Shift responsibility onto the taxpayer. Makes sense......

No.
You must be trolling here. Who mentioned the taxpayer?


Since a woman has the option to terminate but a man does not, the man should have the option to terminate his interest in the pregnancy, meaning if the woman wishes to continue, she shall do so alone.

Cordell

You had the opportunity to opt it out, but you chose to opt it in, multiple times probably. So now it's a bit late for this particular question.

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

No. You must be trolling here. Who mentioned the taxpayer?

Who do you think picks up the tab if the woman needs support for the child, if as you suggest the father is able to abdicate all responsibility.

ELM327

Cordell wrote: »

You had the opportunity to opt it out, but you chose to opt it in, multiple times probably. So now it's a bit late for this particular question.

Same as the woman, yet she can terminate up to 24 weeks.

Atoms for Peace

Effects wrote: »

When did the results come in that condoms don't actually work at preventing pregnancy?

They prevent pregnancy 82% of the time. If never wanted kids while still wanting to get his hole he should have got the snip.

_Brian

I’d have a special government department just to chase down absent fathers and make them contribute to their child’s up bringing.

Men who dodge responsibility to their children are the lowest form of cowards, no stone should be left unturned in bringing them to their responsibilities, and I expect its cowering under some stone is where they would be found.
.
I disagree with the “equality” mentality that suggests men are somehow left out without a legal opt out option.

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Who do you think picks up the tab if the woman needs support for the child, if as you suggest the father is able to abdicate all responsibility.

The same person who picks up the tab anyway.


You seem to miss the key point here, which I shall illustrate for your comprehension. Picture these scenarios and outcomes, on the result of a positive pregnancy test.

1. Woman wants pregnancy, Man wants pregnancy: Result - Child, and the state picks up the tab (children's allowance, education, etc)
2. Woman doesnt want pregnancy, man doesnt want pregnancy: Result - Termination
3. Woman doesnt want pregnancy, man wants pregnancy: Result - Termination
4. Woman wants pregnancy, man doesn't want pregnancy: Result - Child.

As you can see, #3 and #4 are completely controlled by the woman and enforces her choice on the man. Even if she trapped him by puncturing a condom or lying about the pill.

Effects

Collie D wrote: »

They've never been 100% effective. It says so on the box

I know of only one guy, personally, who has had a baby while saying he was wearing condoms. He's also a complete liar, day to day. They are effective enough.

Hitman3000

ELM327 wrote:

You seem to miss the key point here, which I shall illustrate for your comprehension. Picture these scenarios and outcomes, on the result of a positive pregnancy test.

Not missing any point. He's an adult who engaged in sex, pregnancy is a consequence of sex when contraception fails. He has a responsibility to the child. He can chose to abstain from sex in the future if parenthood is not for him, but he is responsible for the child she is carrying.

brightspark

ELM327 wrote: »

The same person who picks up the tab anyway.

1. Woman wants pregnancy, Man wants pregnancy: Result - Child, and the state picks up the tab (children's allowance, education, etc)
   

Food, clothes, accommodation, education are not paid in full by state (with the exception of those who never work)

This has been a big argument since the abortion referendum question.

Men cannot be forced to be a father. Yes, they are financially responsible, but plenty get away with that too.
Abortion being legal seems to be used as an excuse for fathers to somehow not be fathers. The thing is, women cannot be forced to be a mother either. In exactly the same way as men, they can walk away if they wish. They can give their child away. So, basically it's the exact same as men.
Neither can be forced to be a parent.
Abortion allows for women to end an unwanted pregnancy, forcing women to be pregnant & give birth against their will is barbaric.
Take the way that a child is brought into the world, out of the argument, men & women have exactly the same responsibility for a child.

Sleeper12

There's no where near as many unplanned pregnancies as men are led to believe

Hitman3000

Sleeper12 wrote:

There's no where near as many unplanned pregnancies as men are led to believe

Interesting claim to make, based on what though?

liamk

Many lone parents are just that in name in my experience

Paddy Cow

Effects wrote: »

When did the results come in that condoms don't actually work at preventing pregnancy?

No contraception is 100% safe. That is the risk you take every time you have sex.

Sleeper12

Hitman3000 wrote:

Interesting claim to make, based on what though?

Women have been using that old chestnut for hundreds of years trying to trap their man

ELM327

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not missing any point. He's an adult who engaged in sex, pregnancy is a consequence of sex when contraception fails. He has a responsibility to the child. He can chose to abstain from sex in the future if parenthood is not for him, but he is responsible for the child she is carrying.

But a woman can make the decision post conception where the man can't.
How can you miss that inequality.

_Brian

ELM327 wrote: »

The same person who picks up the tab anyway.


You seem to miss the key point here, which I shall illustrate for your comprehension. Picture these scenarios and outcomes, on the result of a positive pregnancy test.

1. Woman wants pregnancy, Man wants pregnancy: Result - Child, and the state picks up the tab (children's allowance, education, etc)
2. Woman doesnt want pregnancy, man doesnt want pregnancy: Result - Termination
3. Woman doesnt want pregnancy, man wants pregnancy: Result - Termination
4. Woman wants pregnancy, man doesn't want pregnancy: Result - Child.

As you can see, #3 and #4 are completely controlled by the woman and enforces her choice on the man. Even if she trapped him by puncturing a condom or lying about the pill.

Of course the man isn’t compelled to have sex with the woman, mam knows risks full well and dives on in anyway of his own free will, he is therefor responsible.

Paddy Cow

ELM327 wrote: »

1. Woman wants pregnancy, Man wants pregnancy: Result - Child, and the state picks up the tab (children's allowance, education, etc)
2. Woman doesnt want pregnancy, man doesnt want pregnancy: Result - Termination
3. Woman doesnt want pregnancy, man wants pregnancy: Result - Termination
4. Woman wants pregnancy, man doesn't want pregnancy: Result - Child.

As you can see, #3 and #4 are completely controlled by the woman and enforces her choice on the man. Even if she trapped him by puncturing a condom or lying about the pill.

You forgot option #5 - woman wants pregnancy but man doesn't. He emotionally blackmails her into having an abortion. Result - termination.

That happens just as often as women continuing against their partner's wishes.

Wheety

We didn't vote for forced abortions. It's the woman's body. It's completely up to her.

If you think the man can force an abortion, then in the situation where the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, you must also believe that a man can force a woman to carry the fetus for full term and hand the baby over?

irishgrover

People like the author of this letter (should they actually exist in reality) should do the following...
1. Extract a lot of sperm and have it medically stored AND
2. Get they snip
OR
1. Totally abstain from sex

Debating on a position when
A.) A woman should be forced to have an abortion based on the wishes of the man involved OR
B.) That a man should be able to abdicate all fiscal responsibility for a child he created because "he doesn't want to".....

is just pretty fcuking stupid really...not much else to say on it....

_Brian

ELM327 wrote: »

But a woman can make the decision post conception where the man can't.
How can you miss that inequality.

That’s the way it is, the man still has his chance not to have a child.

There are “inequalities” if you want to view things from that perspective, is the tax payer expected to pick up the tab because the man can’t breastfeed, what am inequality there !!

Paddy Cow

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Women have been using that old chestnut for hundreds of years trying to trap their man

You can't trap a man in this day and age. Getting pregnant doesn't mean a shot gun wedding with no divorce. Men can and do break up with/divorce/abandon their partners. Pregnancy isn't a lifetime trap anymore.

Miose

Sex insurance. Hear me out here. Pay your yearly premium and if you father a child accidentally, the insurance company pays out rather than you.

ELM327

_Brian wrote: »

That’s the way it is, the man still has his chance not to have a child.

And the woman has one more chance.


Here's an interesting article on the subject.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-04/financial-abortion-men-opt-out-parenthood/8049576

Hitman3000

Sleeper12 wrote:

Women have been using that old chestnut for hundreds of years trying to trap their man

So it's just your opinion. Grand so.

Paddy Cow

Miose wrote: »

Sex insurance. Hear me out here. Pay your yearly premium and if you father a child accidentally, the insurance company pays out rather than you.

No insurance company would take that risk. It would just encourage reckless behaviour. Don't have a condom? Feck it, I'll take the chance as it won't be my problem.

Sleeper12

Paddy Cow wrote:

You can't trap a man in this day and age. Getting pregnant doesn't mean a shot gun wedding with no divorce. Men can and do break up with/divorce/abandon their partners. Pregnancy isn't a lifetime trap anymore.

Many women think otherwise. In many cases it speeds up the courtship pace if nothing else

Paddy Cow

ELM327 wrote: »

And the woman has one more chance.


Here's an interesting article on the subject.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-04/financial-abortion-men-opt-out-parenthood/8049576

If a man is adamant he doesn't want children, why doesn't he have a vasectomy, ensuring 100% he won't put himself in the position of being financially responsible for a child?

Sleeper12

Hitman3000 wrote:

So it's just your opinion. Grand so.

How many lone parents with 3 or 4 or more children claim that they were all unplanned while milking the system? The father never seems to be anywhere to be found

Hitman3000

Sleeper12 wrote:

How many lone parents with 3 or 4 or more children claim that they were all unplanned while milking the system? The father never seems to be anywhere to be found

What has the above got to do with your claim women have been using 'that old chestnut ' to trap men?

eagle eye

If the man doesn't want a child and didn't agree to it before sex then he shouldn't be burdened with a financial responsibility be for something he never wanted.
I'm a father btw and my whole life is about my son just in cas somebody thinks I don't understand.

Collie D

Sleeper12 wrote: »

How many lone parents with 3 or 4 or more children claim that they were all unplanned while milking the system? The father never seems to be anywhere to be found

If the father is nowhere to be found the plan to trap him appears to have backfired a bit, doesn't it?

Collie D

eagle eye wrote: »

If the man doesn't want a child and didn't agree to it before sex then he shouldn't be burdened with a financial responsibility be for something he never wanted.
I'm a father btw and my whole life is about my son just in cas somebody thinks I don't understand.

Yes, he should. I'd imagine most car accidents are unwanted too. Should whoever is at fault be free of financial burden because they didn't want to crash?

Sleeper12

Hitman3000 wrote:

What has the above got to do with your claim women have been using 'that old chestnut ' to trap men?

I'm sorry. I thought I read that you don't believe that some women have claimed unplanned pregnancies when they were planned.

Are you honestly saying that you don't believe that this never happens?

Sleeper12

Collie D wrote:

If the father is nowhere to be found the plan to trap him appears to have backfired a bit, doesn't it?

Nope. You do realise that a huge proportion of lone parents are actually with the father of the children. They claim not to be to get lone parents and to get higher on the housing list

Eric Cartman

"We shouldn't have to pay child benefit, women on welfare shouldnt be having sex without contraception if they can't pay for the consequences" A line many consider barbaric / awful etc... I've been called out on it many times before.

yet the double standard appears when the same people say "well if you can't pay for a child a man shouldn't be having sex"

Men should be allowed completely opt out and never have name to paper / no traceability up to 12 weeks if they wish, Its completely unfair to make somebody financially responsible for a possible failed condom / one night stand considering there are now so many options for women who wish to opt out.

Eric Cartman

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There's no where near as many unplanned pregnancies as men are led to believe

unplanned by the men perhaps.

I've never met a man with 3+ children for whom the third and subsequent kids were planned by them. I'd say its about 50/50 on first kids planned or not for most.

Hitman3000

Sleeper12 wrote:

Are you honestly saying that you don't believe that this never happens?

I'm sure it probably does but I tend to avoid making baseless sweeping statements and trying to convince others that they are fact.

Sleeper12

Eric Cartman wrote:

unplanned by the men perhaps.

That was my original point.

Some naive posters seem to think that this never happens.

Collie D

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Nope. You do realise that a huge proportion of lone parents are actually with the father of the children. They claim not to be to get lone parents and to get higher on the housing list

But that wasn't your original point. You made the claim about trapping people and then moved on to something else.

dhaughton99

It’s the indo. They are always making these up.
These bull**** 'agony uncle' pieces are always so over the top or suit what is getting clicks at that moment. "Brian, I blew a homeless lad, does that make me homeless?"

His stories include;
Ask Brian: My social media stalking puts me off every guy I fancy
Ask Brian: My boyfriend got drunk and arrested and then told me he has sex with men
Ask Brian: My friend can't keep it in his pants at music festivals
Ask Brian: I caught my boyfriend performing a sex act on his male friend at a music festival
Ask Brian: My girlfriend's addicted to Love Island and now expects me to get abs

Who really is asking Brian for help with their issues? What gives Brian the skills and ability to solve anyones personnel issues?

"Brian is skilled in social media management, News Writing, Editing, Journalism, and Copy Editing. Strong media and communication professional with a Master of Arts (M.A.) focused in Journalism from Independent College Dublin."


Who is going to email the indo with their personnel problems since they can't be trusted with anything on their email servers.
Is the Indo completely devoid of any kind of editorial ethics?

I call shenanigans. Rant over.