**** I'm pregnant

Plans_all_plans

ceridwen wrote: »

I admit to being very surprised at hearing that 1 in 3 British women has had an abortion at some point. I guess what happens is that the statistics are accurate - but a lot of women in that position simply DONT mention it to anyone ever - as they tried telling 1 or 2 people they thought would sympathise and promptly found they'd mentioned to a pro-LIFE member and were shocked to find that they were being "screamed at" - and so didnt mention it to anyone else after that. Well - I have heard that pro-LIFE members can be a bit nasty to say the least about women doing that and try to prevent them doing so..........
(and one wonders how many of the women on threads like these are pro-LIFERS but arent admitting to it).

Well, let me tell you now ceridwen, I am 100% pro-life and if you'd like to read over my posts on this thread, I think you'll find I didn't scream at anyone and nor would I. In fact, the only person who tries comes across as evangelical about their opinions on threads such as these is yourself!

thistledome

marywooyeah wrote: »

It completely destroyed my life, the guilt is unbearable to live with for me and I regret it completely, I didnt want to do it either.

everyone says "if a man forces you to do that they are not worth having" and it's true. my ex dumped me 2 days after, and when i said to him "you said if i went through with it everything would be ok" he actually laughed in my face and said "yeah well if i hadnt of said that you would have kept it"

I wasn't going to post on this thread as I have no experience relevant to the OP. Then I read your post...

Many years ago I worked with a young man who did exactly what you've posted to his newly pregnant girlfriend. He wanted to leave this girl and so he gave her the ultimatum: "get an abortion or I'll leave". She got the abortion and he left anyway, as planned. He just wanted to be sure she'd get it done. He didn't feel any guilt or shame and thought he'd been very clever - he also used to laugh about it with his friends. I was thinking about him whilst reading this thread. I wonder how common this is?

OP, I wish you well whatever you decide to do, but it has to be your decision - nobody else's. Best wishes to you.

Person_one

property.advert wrote: »

Please explain to me how the high percentage of fathers feel when they find out that their partner did not behave properly and in fact became pregnant by another man and yet failed to inform the surrogate ?

http://menshealth.about.com/od/lifestyle/a/paternity.htm

I don't understand what point you're making. Neither gender are perfect and there are very few certainties regarding how people will behave.

pixie76

You have to remove him from the decision making part of the equation and decide what YOU want to do. If you want to have this child then go ahead and do it. I wish you well.x

property.advert

pixie76 wrote: »

You have to remove him from the decision making part of the equation and decide what YOU want to do. If you want to have this child then go ahead and do it. I wish you well.x

Why ? He should not be excluded. It is not about what she wants and only what she wants, that is where the problem is, she thinking only about herself. Their sole form of contraception was compromised and she did not know or did not care to do anything about it. Yet she and the state will want to pin the fault on the guy who assumed his partner was capable of managing their chosen method of contraception.

It is an accident, a preventable one but still an accident. She can make it all go away but she should involve the guy in every decision without issuing ultimatums.

Frugalista

What an excellent post :T. This particular paragraph is so on the nail!

property.advert wrote: »

I stand by my feelings that the benefits culture makes the decision too easy to make. It is not a popular point of view but perhaps without the outstretched hand of free state aid, more women would think things through and come to the right decision, a decision which does need to take into consideration the finances of the prospective parents. It is all too easy to want to keep an unplanned baby, safe in the knowledge that the state will pick up the tab and then go after the father for a slice of his earnings, especially when he may have been tricked into the pregnancy. No moral police or feminist argument will assuage me on that point.

Parenthood should be a joint decision and that applies equally to accidental pregnancies.

And to save anyone looking up my previous posts - No, I don't have (and have never wanted) any children.

I do, however, have a nephew who was trapped into fatherhood by a girl who wanted nothing more in life than to have a baby. She even admitted to tampering with the condoms to ensure they would fail :eek::eek: (he started using them when she admitted that she had stopped taking her pill) - when she very smugly announced that she was pregnant.

He didn't have a job and she was only 17 - he begged her to have a termination as he couldn't take care of himself, never mind a baby - but she refused and went ahead with the pregnancy anyway. They split before the baby was even born - the trust between them was shattered. She moved in with her mother (who had 5 kids by 5 different fathers and 4 taken off her due to neglect) until she got her council flat and benefits package - just as she had always planned :mad:.

My nephew loves his son and is currently trying to get regular access to have him for weekends, etc. He pays regular maintenance. His ex uses the child as a tool to manipulate him at every opportunity. If he has a new relationship she stops access. He used to walk eight miles to see his child - if he was 10 minutes late she would refuse to let him see him. He was recently made redundant and has been offered a job in another part of the country - she says if he moves he can't see his child.

He has made every effort to be a good father to this child - despite the fact that he had no say whatsoever in whether the child should even have been born. To me, the whole situation stinks and I agree there should be some law that if a woman insists on going ahead in these circumstances the father can "sign off". I would also stop the benefits - I bet the pregnancy rates would soon drop if they themselves had to pay to feed what they breed.

ETA: I have to point out that my nephew would never have turned his back on his child - but still resents the circumstances of his birth.

property.advert

I would sterilise people who had to have their children taken into care in situations like you describe. I have no qualms in advocating that. In fact, I would have some of them put down, the parents that is, not the children. We wouldn't let dogs live if they performed like that.

I have previously posted about the stupid and bloated benefits system in the UK. As a single person, the state would give me around £65 per week if I were unemployed. Add a baby and that goes up to around £150 a week and you are allowed a larger property. The actual cost of a new baby is perhaps £20 per week, perhaps the child benefit amount, not this bloated tax credits extra.

So it is no wonder many of the underclass and the great unwashed and unemployable just breed for pleasure. It means more money for luxuries, like Sky TV, fags, booze and drugs.

Not long ago there was some test case in court in the UK where the woman said she would keep the baby and the father did not want to. I don't remember seeing the conclusion but perhaps someone else did and can post a link. I think the basis of the case was his rights, of which he had none and yet he would be forced to pay for her decision. Interesting I thought.

Unrealistic to have a walk away option as it seems many blokes in the UK now are just cowards and beyond contempt (then again, so are their female counterparts). There would be too many lies and few would own up if they knew the state would step into the breach. What has to happen is to remove the benefits trap of giving too much and then that amount being too great for them to get a job.

The courts have to also move away from the idea of mother is best. It isn't true in many cases.

ceridwen

property.advert

Errr....I guess you don't really mean the bit about "having them put down":eek:. I don't know what the answer is myself to people who have children and then neglect them to the extent where they are taken into care or perhaps should be. I struggle to get my head round why anyone would have a child unless they actually want it....whilst the evidence would seem to indicate that some people do do that....and I don't know what the answer is to that.

I do think people shouldnt be able to go ahead and set themselves up as a single parent at the outset - and then expect the State (ie the rest of us) to pay for it. So - something does have to be done to remove the financial incentive to lead that sort of lifestyle. So - from that POV at any rate - then I think it might be a good idea for Frank Field to become that Poverty Czar that it is mooted he might be...Somebody really does need to "grasp the nettle" of people choosing to have children on their own.

The "never darken my door" attitude towards unmarried mothers of a few decades ago was unduly harsh one way - and the "Let them do what they want - and the rest of us will pay - it's Liberty Hall here" attitude of the last few years goes too far in the other direction. The pendulum has swung from one undesirable extreme to an equally undesirable extreme - somewhere in the middle must lie a Commonsense/Fair Equilibrium Point. Perhaps that Equilibrium Point is not to condemn unmarried mothers on the one hand - but not to pay ones who set themselves up to be that on the other hand?

Person_one

property.advert wrote: »

I would sterilise people who had to have their children taken into care in situations like you describe. I have no qualms in advocating that. In fact, I would have some of them put down, the parents that is, not the children. We wouldn't let dogs live if they performed like that.

I have previously posted about the stupid and bloated benefits system in the UK. As a single person, the state would give me around £65 per week if I were unemployed. Add a baby and that goes up to around £150 a week and you are allowed a larger property. The actual cost of a new baby is perhaps £20 per week, perhaps the child benefit amount, not this bloated tax credits extra.

So it is no wonder many of the underclass and the great unwashed and unemployable just breed for pleasure. It means more money for luxuries, like Sky TV, fags, booze and drugs.

Not long ago there was some test case in court in the UK where the woman said she would keep the baby and the father did not want to. I don't remember seeing the conclusion but perhaps someone else did and can post a link. I think the basis of the case was his rights, of which he had none and yet he would be forced to pay for her decision. Interesting I thought.

Unrealistic to have a walk away option as it seems many blokes in the UK now are just cowards and beyond contempt (then again, so are their female counterparts). There would be too many lies and few would own up if they knew the state would step into the breach. What has to happen is to remove the benefits trap of giving too much and then that amount being too great for them to get a job.

The courts have to also move away from the idea of mother is best. It isn't true in many cases.

Such contempt for other human beings makes me so sad.

You situation appears to have made you very bitter, have you considered counselling at all? I'm completely serious.

ceridwen

Person_one wrote: »

You situation appears to have made you very bitter, have you considered counselling at all? I'm completely serious.

Well - I certainly thought "Whew - that woman who trapped him has made him extremely bitter!!! I'm not surprised and I thoroughly sympathise with him - but I think he needs to resolve this internal fight going on because he went along with being trapped by her."

Property.advert - I think it might be wise to think through thoroughly whether you are going to stay "trapped" in this relationship until the child grows up (and don't forget to bear in mind she might decide to have another child - and that would "tie those chains even tighter") or whether it might be best to leave her now.

You have tried to do your best by the child - even though you didn't choose to have it - but it doesn't look like it's "worked" and it may be time for you to consider leaving this woman now. As you clearly feel obligated to the child (even though you are only a "biological" father to it - rather than having decided on it jointly) - then I think you could maybe resolve that issue in your mind by paying maintenance for it and having contact visits. At least you wouldnt be living with the resentment of "being locked into" a relationship that isn't of your choosing. I have the feeling you aren't going to be able to "sit on" this anger for long enough for the child to grow up - so you do need to think what to do now, as you haven't accepted the situation that woman has put you in at all and I suspect you won't ever. I am worried about this....

(Your situation really does enforce the point I keep making - ie that women must be sure their partner agrees before getting pregnant. I think it has been valuable for women contemplating getting pregnant on their own regardless of their partners' wishes to see what the effect might be of their actions. This is precisely what tends to happen some years later...)