MODS - please delete thread

GracieP

Purbeck wrote: »

Most women who gave up their baby for adoption, now and then, did it so the child could have security and a loving family when for various reasons that was something they could not offer, usually because a man didn't want any commitment or to take responsibility for his part in the conception...in other words the women often took the hard choice of adoption out of love for the child. That is why the two circumstances can't be compared.

The OPs husband wants nothing to do with this child, not for the child's benefit but for his own. That is his choice.

And there are no women who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy but could/would not have an abortion for religious/moral reasons so chose adoption as they didn't want any commitment or responsibility for her part in the conception? Those are some rose-tinted glasses. Which goes back to my earlier point that women who make that choice are considered selfless, while men are castigated.

Hell I live in, and am from, a country where any child I have can never be up for adoption if it is born while I am a married woman, regardless of who the father of that child might be. Even if I was the world's most awful and cruel mother my child could only ever be fostered and never adopted while I or my husband are alive. If the child had a different father he could never even gain permanent custody while we live. Law≠right.

System

GracieP wrote: »

And there are no women who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy but could/would not have an abortion for religious/moral reasons so chose adoption as they didn't want any commitment or responsibility for her part in the conception? Those are some rose-tinted glasses. Which goes back to my earlier point that women who make that choice are considered selfless, while men are castigated.

Hell I live in, and am from, a country where any child I have can never be up for adoption if it is born while I am a married woman, regardless of who the father of that child might be. Even if I was the world's most awful and cruel mother my child could only ever be fostered and never adopted while I or my husband are alive. If the child had a different father he could never even gain permanent custody while we live. Law≠right.

Please read it properly! I did not say there were 'no' women I said "most". And it is nothing to do with 'rose coloured glasses' it is some understanding of the number of women who break their hearts wondering what became of the child they did not have the means to look after as a single parent.

I really don't see what the legal position on adoption has to do with this?

FBaby

Going back to the issue of the OW's child and bashing of husband's decision to have nothing to do with her, I think one of the reason posters have reacted strongly to it is because although OP husband did have an affair, from what OP has said, the child is NOT the result of the affair. The OW felt pregnant when hubby had left OP and started a relationship with the OW. Ok, he was still married, but I think that makes a big difference. A man who is having an affair behind his wife's back and during that time gets another woman pregnant is very different situation to a man who separates from his wife as a result of an affair, sets up with the OW, has a child with her, then stays with her through the pregnancy for 7 months before deciding to walk away. This child might not have been conceived through choice of both parents, but she was concieved whilst they were in a relationship -or did I get it completely wrong?

*max*

GracieP wrote: »

Which might be a point except that there are numerous men who have taken full custody of their biological child after the mother has placed the child for adoption. Which is the exact same but with opposite genders.

The fact is the law should allow men to choose to allow the mother to adopt full custody, if allows the same right to women. If it did then a lot more women would probably think twice about getting pregnant by a man who is not likely to choose responsibility.

I would really like to know who those "numerous men" who adopt their biological children after the mother has put them up for adoption are! I think you're pulling facts out of thin air here.

I really don't understand the second highlighted bit....Again, putting a child up for adoption is NOT the same as abandonning it to the other parent's care. Adoption is there to allow children the chance of a better life through being cared for by willing and loving parents who CHOSE to adopt the child. Abandoning the child to the sole care of the other parent (who has no choice in the matter) is NOT done to benefit the child!

DeeDee74

alias*alibi wrote: »

Really??? Well that's your opinion isn't it? Did you miss the post where I said i worked for social services? Probably not; too busy just reading the bits you wanted to read and comment, sorry bash me over the head, about.

:eek::eek:well i hope u help protect children put in your care...

DeeDee74

alias*alibi wrote: »

Yawn. So what?

what a vile woman u r....

MoreOn

GracieP wrote: »

I'm wondering if everyone here who is castigating the man for not wanting to have a relationship with the baby girl feel the same way toward women who put their child forward for a closed adoption? Because in terms of the rights of the child to know their parents there is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

The only difference at all here is that there exists no legal right for men to rescind all rights and responsibilities to the children they biologically father. Something which is highly inequitable, especially as it isn't unheard of for a woman to put her child up for adoption and the biological father to then be given full custody.

There are thousands and thousands of women who chose for their children to be adopted because it suited them best at the time. Many go on with their lives not wanting to know anything about the child and preferring to never know anything more about them, not considering them a part of their family and never wanting their existence to jeopardise their relationship with those who they do consider family. That may be hard for most people to fully understand, tbh it is for me too, but almost nobody considers those women to be lowlife scumbags of the type the OP's husband is being called repeatedly here.

It's not nice, the OP's husband has behaved badly and while I sympathise with the baby (and even her mother) I also believe that a man should have the same ability to relinquish his parental rights as a woman does. And in the long run it will only devastate the child disproportionately to the "devastation" felt by any adopted child if the child's mother allows her own disappointment and hurt to influence her daughter's feelings about her upbringing.

It always is about power, while men have some power so do women... As i've mentioned before the biases and behaviour that exist throught this thread are awful. Even with the quotes below some will deny it.....

I think many of us believe that you should, quite literally, cut your losses

I do feel sorry for you that he tried suicide threats on you

I see a whole heap of people giving up their time to help the OP to see more clearly

If a man doesn't want any more kids then he should be taking responsibility for contraception

you and your husband should grow up and get over yourselves

our the one being negative and defensive because you havent been given the answers you wanted to hear

Not being funny Op - but other than the fact that if you're not on contraception the result is likely to be pregnancy,

He should be a father to both his children

Shame on your husband for abandoning his daughter

it also seems that he's not going to live up to his responsibilities....which is pretty abhorrent

DVardysShadow

alias*alibi wrote: »

Really??? Well that's your opinion isn't it? Did you miss the post where I said i worked for social services? Probably not; too busy just reading the bits you wanted to read and comment, sorry bash me over the head, about.

You need to be so very careful here. OW has already called the police on you. If you are leading your emotional defence of yourself with being CRB 'approved' and working for Social Services, you need a rethink. If OW ever cottons on to this, she could ruin you very easily. And you are angry enough to be ruined easily.

alias*alibi

DVardysShadow wrote: »

You need to be so very careful here. OW has already called the police on you. If you are leading your emotional defence of yourself with being CRB 'approved' and working for Social Services, you need a rethink. If OW ever cottons on to this, she could ruin you very easily. And you are angry enough to be ruined easily.

I think YOU need to read my other posts where I clearly say I have no intention of letting her ruin my job. The CRB comment was made to show o am no threat; not to use against her !!!!!!!!!!!! But thanks for yet another vote in favour of a tart who already 'ruined' my life once. The vitorol on this thread towards me never ceases to amaze me.

alias*alibi

DeeDee74 wrote: »

what a vile woman u r....[/QUOTE

So is the tart who opened her legs to a married man and spawned an unwanted child... You're comments shows how one dimensional you are. Does this all hit a nerve with you or something DeeDee?????