I don't know what to do

ElStuardo · 07-01-2009 02:57PM

Mate ,Go to OZ.Keep in cotact with her while there and get a paternity test done at some stage.Dont let a one night stand ruin your life.
It sounds like your being taken for a mug,how many other blokes did she sleep with that week/month and didnt insist on them wearing protection either.Maybe your the only one she knows or could contact?

Just sounds dodgey to me.

iguana · 07-01-2009 04:16PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

Of course not, because it isn't a child at that point of the pregnancy. It's a zygote or a fetus, but it isn't a child. Having an abortion has a detrimental effect on the "potential child" in that it stops it from fulfilling it's potential to be a child. But it it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the child as there is no child.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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".

You are completely twisting my point. When a woman has an abortion she does so in the best interest of herself and that is ok because there is then never a child. When woman decides to put the baby up for adoption that is in both the best interests of her and the child. If she has the baby and then leaves it with the father and never comes back she is acting in her own best interests to the detriment of the child, which exists at this point. The same is true for a father that decides to have no contact with the child. It exists at that point whether he wants it to or not has no bearing on the simple fact that there is a child who exists. That is not the same as aborting or adopting out.

That's unfair, certainly, but it is biology that made it that way, not society. I want to be as strong as a man, I want to pee standing up, and I want to be able to reach the top shelf of my press without climbing on the counter, but I can't because that's just the way biology made me. It's not fair, it just is.

I don't disagree that there should be a means for a man to legally declare he wishes for no present or future claim on the baby. Signed as soon as possible in to the pregnancy which would leave him with no right to ever see the child, but equally no responsibility to pay maintenance. Mainly because an ability to do that would drastically reduce the amount of women who get pregnant on purpose. But I still reserve the right to decline a relationship with a man who had made that choice. And I firmly believe that many women would feel the same way.

The Corinthian wrote: »

He did.

That explanation doesn't actually cover this situation as it's a damn sight more expensive to fly back from Australia than it is to get a pre-natal dna test. And the other aspect of his advice only stands if the OP decides to cut the woman and child out completely, as the only advantage he described of waiting is so you can't be sued for maintenance. In which case the advice should have been, never get a test, rather than wait until the child is born.

The Corinthian · 07-01-2009 04:40PM

iguana wrote: »

Of course not, because it isn't a child at that point of the pregnancy. It's a zygote or a fetus, but it isn't a child. Having an abortion has a detrimental effect on the "potential child" in that it stops it from fulfilling it's potential to be a child. But it it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the child as there is no child.

While this should not devolve into a debate on abortion, the fact remains that a debate does exist and as such your point is only valid if you believe it not to be a child until [insert arbitrary period] weeks. To many others this would simply smack of a definition of convenience that serves the interests of whoever wishes to believe it.

In simpler language, the point is not whether it is a child or a zygote or a foetus, but that you cannot prove a point based upon criteria that have in themselves not been accepted.

You are completely twisting my point. When a woman has an abortion she does so in the best interest of herself and that is ok because there is then never a child. When woman decides to put the baby up for adoption that is in both the best interests of her and the child. If she has the baby and then leaves it with the father and never comes back she is acting in her own best interests to the detriment of the child, which exists at this point. The same is true for a father that decides to have no contact with the child. It exists at that point whether he wants it to or not has no bearing on the simple fact that there is a child who exists. That is not the same as aborting or adopting out.

Other than the fact that you assume that adoption is done in the interests of the child (the fact that Western adoption figures dropped dramatically with the introduction of abortion would point to it being less about the interests of the child and more about those of the mother), you completely failed to address a case where it is in the interests of the child to be adopted, yet the mother does not want to do so.

That's unfair, certainly, but it is biology that made it that way, not society.

Then you'd agree that we should discriminate on the basis of biology? I thought that was the point of equality legislation?

I want to be as strong as a man, I want to pee standing up, and I want to be able to reach the top shelf of my press without climbing on the counter, but I can't because that's just the way biology made me. It's not fair, it just is.

Yet, there are laws there that protect you from being discriminated against in work if you become pregnant? Should we forget them on the basis that it's not fair, it just is?

That explanation doesn't actually cover this situation as it's a damn sight more expensive to fly back from Australia than it is to get a pre-natal dna test. And the other aspect of his advice only stands if the OP decides to cut the woman and child out completely, as the only advantage he described of waiting is so you can't be sued for maintenance. In which case the advice should have been, never get a test, rather than wait until the child is born.

He can answer you himself - I was just pointing out that he had responded.

metrovelvet · 07-01-2009 04:43PM

Single Dad wrote: »

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.

No. He has a father. He does not have daddy and I do not have a co-parent. A co-parent suggests there is co-parenting where the two are both pulling their weight.

Single Dad wrote: »

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.

What?

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.

Re read your post, you also said it couldnt be done and have offerred no explanation as to why it shouldnt be done before.

Single Dad wrote: »

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.

What does that have anything to do with what I said?

Single Dad wrote: »

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

Can you back this up?

Single Dad wrote: »

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.

Sure you could conclude that. but its more likely I got bored dealing with it.

Anyhow, everyone here saluting the dna test makes me think we should all go and get swabs one with our named fathers since you know, women cant be trusted.

shellyboo · 07-01-2009 05:03PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Anyhow, everyone here saluting the dna test makes me think we should all go and get swabs one with our named fathers since you know, women cant be trusted.

Metro, you sound awfully bitter. No-one ever said women can't be trusted, but why on god's earth would the OP trust someone he barely knows when the entire course of his whole life is at stake? Obviously it's different in your case, and in many cases where the father is just being a pr*ck... but this guy has no idea what the girl has been up to before or after she slept with him. He has no actions to judge her on, he doesn't know what kind of a person she is at all... the responsible thing to do here, for his own sake, is to get a DNA test.

The blanket assumption from all this is not 'women can't be trusted', but more 'don't have unprotected sex with a woman you don't trust.'

Toots · 07-01-2009 05:50PM

Anyhow, everyone here saluting the dna test makes me think we should all go and get swabs one with our named fathers since you know, women cant be trusted.

The issue of DNA testing needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

If you are in a long term monogamous relationship with someone and your partner becomes pregnant, and you trust that they have not been unfaithful to you, then there shouldn't be a need for a DNA test. This trust is borne out of a well established, loving relationship, and that the couple in question would know each other very well.

Personally, I wouldn't trust someone who I don't know that well. I especially wouldn't trust someone who I had only met once very briefly. In this case the OP doesn't know this girl, and as far as I can see, has no basis to trust her. As far as he's concerned, he already trusted her once, when she told him he didn't need to use a condom and look where that's landed him. (and before I get lynched for saying that, yes, he should have used one anyway, but mistakes happen and that's that). For all he knows, she could be the most honest person, never told a lie in her life, or she could be a completely dishonest person who is always lying, he doesn't know! There's also the possibility that she is an honest person, and there's possibly another guy who could be the father, but she's genuinely sure it's the OP.

Also in this case, her reasoning for the pill failing is a little bit suss. I think she's lying about this, but it could be for a genuine reason, she may have later realised that she missed her pill that morning and is afraid that if she admits this to the OP, he'll want nothing to do with her, it could be any reason at all. If it is true that the pill was out of date, then she'd want to be looking into taking some sort of legal action against the pharmacy that sold her expired pills!! I don't think it'd be a case either that she bought a two year supply or something and simply got caught out on the last pack, I tried to get a year supply when going backpacking and was told that 6 months was the absolute max I could get a prescription for, because you need a check up to make sure blood pressure etc is ok.

Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll say this: the OP does not know this girl. He would be extremely foolish to just take her word for it (trust her) that he is the father, and risk putting himself through huge emotional turmoil, not to mention financial strain helping to bring up a child that might not actually be his.

shellyboo · 07-01-2009 06:27PM

Toots85 wrote: »

In this case the OP doesn't know this girl, and as far as I can see, has no basis to trust her. As far as he's concerned, he already trusted her once, when she told him he didn't need to use a condom and look where that's landed him. (and before I get lynched for saying that, yes, he should have used one anyway, but mistakes happen and that's that). For all he knows, she could be the most honest person, never told a lie in her life, or she could be a completely dishonest person who is always lying, he doesn't know! There's also the possibility that she is an honest person, and there's possibly another guy who could be the father, but she's genuinely sure it's the OP.

Also in this case, her reasoning for the pill failing is a little bit suss. I think she's lying about this, but it could be for a genuine reason, she may have later realised that she missed her pill that morning and is afraid that if she admits this to the OP, he'll want nothing to do with her, it could be any reason at all.

This is an EXCELLENT point. The OP actually knows this girl to be untrustworthy already - because the out of date pill scenario is totally bogus - so there's even more reason for him to insist upon a DNA test.

Pub07 · 07-01-2009 06:41PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Anyhow, everyone here saluting the dna test makes me think we should all go and get swabs one with our named fathers since you know, women cant be trusted.

As it says in the link I posted earlier, 1 in 3 paternity tests in Ireland comes back negative and studies in the USA and Australia show it to be the same there - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud ...so I suppose you're right women can't be trusted when it comes to questions over paternity.

Wibbs · 07-01-2009 06:42PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Anyhow, everyone here saluting the dna test makes me think we should all go and get swabs one with our named fathers since you know, women cant be trusted.

I agree with Toots85 on this one. In an average relationship, the trust issue would be considerably lessened. This was a one night stand. He doesn't know her from a hole in the wall, so he is dead right if he wants a DNA test to establish paternity. One of the links to a VHI page on the matter suggested one in three cases were paternity was suspect, the man was right and the woman was less than forward with the truth or was oblivious to it(dunno which is worse tbh). Yes two out of three weren't and that's cool and that's a point in the mothers favour, but how many fessed up when the DNA test was mooted and before it was carried out?

If I got a longterm partner pregnant then unless I had serious reasons there's no way in hell I would ask for a paternity test. A one nighter with someone I met hours before? Damn right I would. I know women who've had only one or two one nighters in their lives, but I also know others who make this a regular occurrence. I have no issue with either. Fair play t them. I also know women who are decidedly unsafe when the bloods up and would trust their judgement as far as I would throw them. The OP's one nighter could be one of these(I know men like that too and if they could get pregnant I wouldn't trust them either). I would be polite about it, but there's no way I would fork out money and time and the rest of my life for a kid that wasn't mine in that circumstance.

IMHO Basically the guy needs to establish paternity as this person is flicking some major suspicion switches. He should go to OZ and then see what the results say.

0utshined · 07-01-2009 07:57PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. He has a father. He does not have daddy and I do not have a co-parent. A co-parent suggests there is co-parenting where the two are both pulling their weight.

What?

Re read your post, you also said it couldnt be done and have offerred no explanation as to why it shouldnt be done before.

What does that have anything to do with what I said?

Can you back this up?

Sure you could conclude that. but its more likely I got bored dealing with it.

Anyhow, everyone here saluting the dna test makes me think we should all go and get swabs one with our named fathers since you know, women cant be trusted.

Metrovelvet, I suggest you reread the post you dissected here as it seemed quite straightforward and clear. It's apparant that your own experiences have left you averse to DNA testing. That's your opinion. However it also seems that your situation is vastly different from the OPs.

OP, I would take this girls claims with a pinch of salt. I suggest you go to OZ, return and arrange arrange paternity testing after the birth of the child (if it occurs) and then decide if you can spend the next couple of years in Australia. Best of luck.

Lollipops23 · 07-01-2009 08:34PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree the out of date bit sounds fishy to me. I mean what chemist is going to sell out of date contraceptives(if the pill can even go out of date that fast? Dunno). Maybe she meant she got her dates mixed up?

i just checked a pack of pills i bought last year and they're not out of date till end of next year!!i think it's incredibly unlikely that that is the reason she's pregnant....or that you're the dad!!i'd be asking for some seriously straight answers from her if she really wants your support.

metrovelvet · 08-01-2009 02:02AM

shellyboo wrote: »

Metro, you sound awfully bitter. No-one ever said women can't be trusted, but why on god's earth would the OP trust someone he barely knows when the entire course of his whole life is at stake? Obviously it's different in your case, and in many cases where the father is just being a pr*ck... but this guy has no idea what the girl has been up to before or after she slept with him. He has no actions to judge her on, he doesn't know what kind of a person she is at all... the responsible thing to do here, for his own sake, is to get a DNA test.

The blanket assumption from all this is not 'women can't be trusted', but more 'don't have unprotected sex with a woman you don't trust.'

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Ask for the dna test but apoligise when your suspicions are proven wrong. I dont know why so many people have a problem with that.

Pub07 · 08-01-2009 03:17AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Ask for the dna test but apoligise when your suspicions are proven wrong. I dont know why so many people have a problem with that.

I, and I imagine everyone else is the same, apologise if I'm out of order, asking for a DNA test in this situation is not out of order.

Chinafoot · 08-01-2009 03:52AM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

i just checked a pack of pills i bought last year and they're not out of date till end of next year!!i think it's incredibly unlikely that that is the reason she's pregnant....or that you're the dad!!i'd be asking for some seriously straight answers from her if she really wants your support.

Just a comment on the "out of date" issue. I went to school with a girl who decided to stop taking her pill because she had gained weight and felt rotten, that was in 4th year.

In 6th year, she was heading off on one of those mad holidays people go on when they finish the Leaving Cert. She worked out that her period was due on that holiday so she decided to start taking the pill again and go straight into the second packet without taking a break so she wouldn't have her period. Instead of going to the doctor to get a prescription she decided to use the pill she had been on in 4th year. She had gotten 3 months worth when she decided to stop taking it. She still had it at home. Thats about 18 months of it sitting in her bedroom.

How do any of us know that the girl in question here didn't do something similar? We don't. Maybe she wasn't on the pill at all, but like I said further up the thread, the OP could have easily worn a condom because even if he thought she was on the pill it's not 100% effective. The tone of some of the replies here really annoys me. The OP should go and enjoy himself??....he was stupid and didn't use a condom, why should she be the only one to suffer the consequences?

Yes he should have a paternity test done. Absolutely. I'm sure the girl in question will see that when she calms down. What would probably help in her calming down is knowing whether or not the OP is disappearing off to the other side of the world or not. Why not postpone the trip to Oz until the baby is born and paternity can be determined?

metrovelvet · 08-01-2009 04:16AM

Chinafoot wrote: »

. The tone of some of the replies here really annoys me. The OP should go and enjoy himself??....he was stupid and didn't use a condom, why should she be the only one to suffer the consequences?

Because that is the way the biological cookie crumbles. If he cancels his trip and it turns out its not his, he will be sorely angry and will have missed out. I think the people advising him to go however, are kind of glib in their attitudes about this. Facing a pregnancy alone is pretty harrowing, lonely, terrifying. He can and perhaps should go, but no one is preparing him for the price he may pay for this, which is well, very likely a mother who wants nothing to do with him and for him to have nothing to do with the child. Pretty good deal if he doesnt want the child, but oh boy, bad bad bad news if he does. Sucks for her though and likely the child.

Chinafoot wrote: »

Yes he should have a paternity test done. Absolutely. I'm sure the girl in question will see that when she calms down. What would probably help in her calming down is knowing whether or not the OP is disappearing off to the other side of the world or not. Why not postpone the trip to Oz until the baby is born and paternity can be determined?

It makes far more sense to me to have it done before the birth with blood samples [not amnio] so that this can be resolved as quickly as possible, decisions can be made, and people can move on in whatever direction.

Toots · 08-01-2009 01:31PM

Chinafoot wrote: »

Just a comment on the "out of date" issue. I went to school with a girl who decided to stop taking her pill because she had gained weight and felt rotten, that was in 4th year.

In 6th year, she was heading off on one of those mad holidays people go on when they finish the Leaving Cert. She worked out that her period was due on that holiday so she decided to start taking the pill again and go straight into the second packet without taking a break so she wouldn't have her period. Instead of going to the doctor to get a prescription she decided to use the pill she had been on in 4th year. She had gotten 3 months worth when she decided to stop taking it. She still had it at home. Thats about 18 months of it sitting in her bedroom.

How do any of us know that the girl in question here didn't do something similar? We don't. Maybe she wasn't on the pill at all, but like I said further up the thread, the OP could have easily worn a condom because even if he thought she was on the pill it's not 100% effective.

In that case though, the girl seems to be simply using it to delay her period, not as a method of contraception. If this is what our OP's girl did, then it seems incredibly careless relying on some pack of pills that's been lying around your house for close to two years!! Obviously the OP should have worn a condom, even if pregnancy wasn't an issue.

Yes he should have a paternity test done. Absolutely. I'm sure the girl in question will see that when she calms down. What would probably help in her calming down is knowing whether or not the OP is disappearing off to the other side of the world or not. Why not postpone the trip to Oz until the baby is born and paternity can be determined?

I agree, I had to change my flights before I went to Oz because the date we originally booked clashed with a family wedding (we'd booked our tickets about 8 months in advance), so we went into USIT or whatever it was called, and changed the flights, it only cost us about €50.

A cousin of mine was in a similar situation (ex found out she was pregnant about 3 weeks after they split up, but didn't tell him she was pregnant until she was about 5 months along) now the identity of the father wasn't an issue, he never had any doubts that the child was his, however he was due to go on a 6 month trip to Africa working with charity about 2 months before the child was born. He and the mother were not on good terms, and she told him that she was not going to let him have anything to do with the child, said she didn't want him around and the only reason she told him she was pregnant was because her mother said he had a right to know. So after much thought, he decided to do the trip to africa, and returned when his daughter was around 4 months old. In the meantime, his ex had a change of heart and they worked out a schedule where they both had access to the child. The little girl is now 12, and he told me recently that he really regrets going away and missing the first 4 months of her life, and his biggest fear is that she'll resent him for it when she's older.

If the blood test metrovelvet mentioned is available here, then it might be a good idea to go for that, at least he wouldn't have to wait months to find out if he's going to be a father. However if relations with the mother are still not on friendly terms, this may not be an option. I'd again suggest that you speak to a GP or medical professional who can outline your options regarding paternity testing and how feasible they are.

Chinafoot · 08-01-2009 07:59PM

Toots85 wrote: »

In that case though, the girl seems to be simply using it to delay her period, not as a method of contraception. If this is what our OP's girl did, then it seems incredibly careless relying on some pack of pills that's been lying around your house for close to two years!! Obviously the OP should have worn a condom, even if pregnancy wasn't an issue.

She was still using the pill though (which was more than likely out of date), regardless of whether it was as contraception or as a cycle regulator. Maybe she did use it as contraception too, I don't know. I'm just trying to point out that it is possible that this girl was foolish and was using an out of date pack when she got caught out. Yeah, it sounds ridiculous to people who have some level of sexual education but this girl and the OP seem to be lacking in that department. Stupid thing to do, absolutely. Entirely impossible explanation for her situation, nope.

Toots85 wrote: »

I agree, I had to change my flights before I went to Oz because the date we originally booked clashed with a family wedding (we'd booked our tickets about 8 months in advance), so we went into USIT or whatever it was called, and changed the flights, it only cost us about €50.

Yup, not exactly an impossible amount of money. And of course the Australia visa doesn't begin until the OP arrives in Oz so it's not like his time has to be cut short, merely postponed, if the child isn't his.

Toots85 wrote: »

he told me recently that he really regrets going away and missing the first 4 months of her life, and his biggest fear is that she'll resent him for it when she's older.

This is what has been in my mind reading this thread. Say the OP goes to Oz in two weeks. Comes home after his 2 years are up and finds out the baby is his. He'll never get those 2 years back and he'll have missed an enormous amount of the baby's development. Of course, this is assuming the OP would be interested in being involved if the child is his. I'm guessing not, tbh.

Toots85 wrote: »

If the blood test metrovelvet mentioned is available here, then it might be a good idea to go for that, at least he wouldn't have to wait months to find out if he's going to be a father. However if relations with the mother are still not on friendly terms, this may not be an option. I'd again suggest that you speak to a GP or medical professional who can outline your options regarding paternity testing and how feasible they are.

Completely agree with you.

LegacyUser · 09-01-2009 05:09PM

A few things here, I know you know but having sex with a stranger you just met without a condom is pretty silly, just hope a kid is not all you have got.

Do you think your the first guy she just met and shagged without a condom? Certainly not, sounds to me like your being taken for a ride here. Head to Oz get a DNA test done when the child is born, if its yours live up to your responsibility.

The out of date thing is a load of rubbish, think she just wanted it raw if you know what I mean, its usually the guy that lies about these sort of things!

Hope it works out, let those reading learn from your lesson.

LegacyUser · 10-01-2009 11:44PM

Hi OP,
Just want to say that I'm divorcing my exH and we have kids, now don't want to scare you but legally there are lots of ways I could block my ex from seeing his kids if I was a sick enough person to use a kid for revenge(I'm not btw)..believe you me I have met plenty of divorced women who do just that to an ex who has loved and provided for a child..

So my point is if you're not married to this girl you have VERY little legal rights to this kid in this country..if you are not supportive now whatever few rights and access will disappear in a flash, ask around if you don't believe me.

Yes, you have a right to be suspicious but what if the kid IS yours? It will be too late after the birth to get on good terms with the mother, DNA test or not. You could spent the next 18 years (23years if the child goes to college) paying maintenance through the bank or the clerk of court...and never ever get to see your kid.

The bottom line is GROW UP! If you had unprotected sex then accept the consequences.
Tell her you will support her decision to have the baby, you have the right to ask for a DNA test but tread carefully in how you ask for it cos if it turns out to be yours you will want to see your son or daughter that you are gonna be paying for anyway.

And if you decide to bail remember once she applies for One Parent Allowance the state will
track you by you PPS number, summons you for a DNA test and collect it off you at payroll and reimburse the taxpayers for your responsiblity.

As for going to Oz well gee I guess now you have a possible son or daughter you'll have to put on your Big Boy Pants and act like a responsible man and not a little boy.

The Corinthian · 11-01-2009 12:14PM

Unregistered wrote: »

If you had unprotected sex then accept the consequences.

When women renounce the right to not accept the consequences of unprotected sex, I'll take this statement seriously.

I don't know what to do

Comments