If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You are putting the cart before the horse. Did the man take any responsibility in avoiding the "accidental" pregnancy? If he did, he has rights, whether to say what happens in adoption, or if the condom failed, to refuse maintenance, (maybe?).
If he didn't, then he has no rights because he took no responsibility. Tough shit. That's life, either sit back and pay for the child that you took no responsibility to avoid, or sit back and remain silent while he/she is given up for adoption without your consent needed.
Or just maybe, take responsibility to begin with, and use a condom..is it that too much to ask?
What if the man did use one and it broke and the woman got pregnant BUT didn't want an abortion? And then they don't see each other again but 9 months later she gives birth and has it adopted out without him ever knowing int he first place?
There is a world of difference to one person having more rights then the other (like the woman having more rights on whether a baby is aborted) compared to one person having no rights at all.
Your use a condom point isn't very valid if the woman didn't want him to use one or didn't care if he did or not. Especially if she left him with the impression she was already using Birth control.
Oh yes, it is. Who is going to be the father of any child that results from the woman not wanting him to use one, or not caring? Even if she "left him with the impression" whatever that means. Who, exactly? Is the potentially pregnant woman going to become father and mother?
Either men take equal responsibilities in the area of contraception, and stop making such flaccid excuses, or they do not earn equal rights. Tough . That is just life.
The BBC news story begins when a baby is conceived and one party chooses NOT to tell the other .. your story never even gets off the ground because in your scenario no conception has even taken place.
I think it's the idea that it's 'lose lose' for a man.
In the case of a one night stand, if the mother decides that she wants to let you know, you are obligated by law to pay child support.
It's also up to her though whether you have the right to know or not. I would have thought if a one side is consequential enough for a man to be held responsible for a contribution towards the upkeep of the child, then it's consequential enough that the father should have a right to know.
The argument 'it's just a one night stand' so the mother does not need to disclose that he is in fact a father holds no weight when a man withholds child support payments.
I mean, it's all in perspective, obviously if you're not together then it's going to be more of a burden on the mother. But it seems to be, it takes two to make a baby, in circumstances where it benefits the mother, but not when it benefits the father.
That was my his comment though.
Personally I dunno. Think my thinking has matured a bit the past few months, before I'd have come to a conclusion and said duh duh. But I think it's one of those grey areas where there is no definite answer. The father should have rights from the get go just like the mother does. I.e. when that guy fertilised the women's eggs then withdrew consent to use them. But the mother in 99.99% of these cases will be raising the child largely if not exclusively on her own, and that should be recognised by awarding her more protection and a bit of leeway to not tell the father if she decides to.
Still though, it does seem incongruent with other legislature which seems to imply that conception even if it happens on a one night stand is the responsibility of both sides and therefore both sides should have to support the child, even if the guy was a random person the woman barely knew.
Sorry but what a load of crap. It should be equal responsibility on both sides, yet you're saying if the man fails to take responsibility (even if the women did too, but she's blameless?) then he absolves all his rights as a father?? All his rights as a person, actually you're saying, that it should be used as an excuse that the mother should take absolute say in his part of the child's life, regardless of whether he'd make a good dad. I know this is going to be a bit controversial, but a child isn't the property of the mother. You can make all the assumptions you like about men being irresponsible and not being fit to be parents, but at the end of the day men are just as flawed as women (well, I say that, but wait for someone to come with a source saying women do better in a levels! wooo....)
My above post sums it up better. Whilst I do sit on the fence because the needs of the mother and child should be put first, in an idealist society maybe we should strive towards equal rights for the mother and father because they both conceived the child. The mother had to bear the child, of course, but the man had a part to play (which is pretty much universally acknowledge across legislature / logic).
It seems to me you're saying, we should adapt the rights of fathers to when it suits the mother, really. Does this extend also if you're in a long term relationship? You know your girlfriend is pregnant, then she splits. That's your baby you helped create. Ask any father if they'd leave it at that. But you're advocating because the woman got pregnant, it's the man's fault, hence he foregoes all his rights, except his responsibilities if the mother decides she wants financial support.
Again, I just want to re-iterate I think it's a special circumstance because of the needs of the mother and child, but I don't like the idea that we're rationalising it on logical grounds, because it's unjust / unequal, not really two ways about it. (You wouldn't take a child off a mother who didn't take her pill would you?)
Considering that a mans (unless in a relationship with the woman) input into a pregnancy is just an ejaculation then he has a lot less rights, unless hes there with her. I dont think his DNA gives him a right over certain things, although if his DNA was forcibly extracted from him and then used for making a baby somehow then that would be different. If a guy had a one night stand unprotected and then never contacted her again, id pretty much assume he didnt have much of an interest.
Beside the point though, because MY point is that although in an ideal world, this would never have happened, in the REAL world, it did. She could go and have got the morning after pill, an abortion, he would never have need known, but for whatever reason she doesnt want ANYONE to know. Not her parents, not the person who she had sex with. All those people knowing would compromise something in her life that she truly doesnt want or need cmpromising and if you legislated that she would have to tell, all you are going to get is making someone have an abortion when they clearly didnt want to.
This baby has now got a very good chance of being adopted into a loving family. Its a worthy thing this woman is doing. Im very pro-choice when it comes to reproductive choices, and although I think it should be easier to get an early abortion, I also think it should be made easier for someone to get their baby adopted if that is their choice.
Plus, what about if she is unsure of the fathers identity. Will she then be made by law to face an embarrasssing enquiry into which one is the father with DNA tests etc before she can offer the child for adoption?
Its unrealistic and just makes adoption the hardest route of all when it should be just as easy and straightforward as any other way of dealing with a pregnancy.
I didnt mean to imply that ALL adopted kids are messed up because they're adopted, but a lot are. Don't tell me I'm wrong because I'm one of them. Yes, adoption has been around for god-knows-how-long but that doesn't make it any easier on the kid who's adopted by strangers (I love my adoptive family, they're my family, but they were once strangers).
I think the father has a right to know because he may want to bring the kid up himself & I think as a biological parent of the child he has the right to do that.
Women have fought for centuries to get equal rights, but now the law favours us over men. How is that equal?
You should go to America. Many states still have closed records, so many adoptees are unable to find their birth families. You'd love it. But you haven't seen the people it messes up.
Sometimes it's for medical reasons (in which case sometimes records can be opened) but sometimes dying of a possibly inherited disease or risking the death of your children is dangerous.
But many adoptees want to know their birth families because they want to know their origins. My adoptive family is my family. My birth family are strangers, but I like them and I want them to be part of my life. I want to see my half-brothers and sister grow up, because they're important to me. I want to hang out with my birth parents and find out about them and where I come from.
Its difficult to explain to a non-adoptee and I think its difficult for you to understand how much a person's origins can mean to that person.
Condoms arn't 100% safe.
I wasn't calling all women bitches you fool.
:yes:
(inless the father is a psycho or something)
Not very often I agree with you, but spot on :thumb:
Ideally she would be on good enough terms with the person that it wouldnt be an issue, but that isnt always the way - not by a long shot.
Ah, but when you're looking for consistancy in morality in a person, then you need to apply logic. Otherwise I could quite easily say it's immoral for you to kill me, but moral for me to kill you, and you couldn't call me a hypocrite. If you think one thing is immoral, then logic should tell you what else is immoral on that basis.
In the vast majority of cases the father should be let known he has a child coming on the way. I can't believe some people are saying he shouldn't, makes me feel sick actually.
Ok, I'm not just picking on Melian here, a lot of people have made this point. Please for god's sake read the damned story.
:shocking: SHE IS PUTTING THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION AND SO WONT BE CLAIMING CHILD SUPPORT!!! :shocking:
If she wasnt putting the kid up for adoption and was claiming child support, then obviously the dad might just figure out that he has a kid no one told him about!
In this particular case she's giving the child up for adoption right away - from the sounds of it she's keeping the entire matter secret from friends and family + the father ... child support won't be an issue in this case since she wants to basically giveaway the child and I assume cut all ties to it ASAP - which I think is fine if she wants to cut her own personal ties to the child - it doesn't sound like she'd make a very good mother anyway .. but I don't see why she gets to cut the father's ties to the child and the child's ties to it's father by keeping the entire matter secret from him.
I think he should be told - even if it's through a 3rd party - you have fathered a child - that child is due to be given up for adoption - do you have any interest in either one of the following options?
a) raising the child yourself
b) not raising the child but playing some part in it's life
c) having the child adopted and having nothing further to do with it
If he doesn't want the child as well then the matter is closed and that child can be put up for adoption without any doubts, if he wants to raise the child himself - then why not - the mother doesn't want it.
It was an analogy, 'argue' would be a more approriate word than 'prove' but it's the concept I was getting at.
I presumed that the father of the child was a family member, as I could see no other reason why the LA would be trying to get permission to tell the family of a grown woman.
Yes that would complicated matters but as long as it wasn't rape and both parties consented then they knew what they were both doing and thus I think both parties should be kept out of the dark.
I wasn't just talking about the story posted; I was talking more about this happening in general.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, and luckily for me the law is on my side.
Eh? If she doesn't want him to know then how can she claim child support?
That's a bit harsh I feel, but anyway.
I just wanted to say I agree with SCC, the mother and child's interests must come first. But, when there is no conflict of interests and the mother just doesn't want the father to be in the baby's life, we can't dismiss the father's rights to know. Because they are always there, just in extreme cases they can be overriden by the need for protection of the mother.
I hate to be presumptios, but I can think of circumstances where someone from an ethnic background might be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Abortion goes against their morals, but if the child is conceived out of wedlock then obviously she wouldn't want her family or the father to know for fear of being disowned. After the child has been adopted she can go back to her family and the child will have a happy life with loving parents. Win win.
In the Eastenders situation, where it's a 16 year old girl and a 16 year old boy, and she doesn't want to tell the father because they've fallen out, she should be obligated to because it's unfair to strip the father of his rights to be a father based on the relationship of the father/mother. In this case it would not be detrimental to the child's interests (or the mother's in any significant sense) and so there is no reason to intervene.
As I said in my first post, it's all about grey areas, there's not really a 'yes' or a 'no' answer, because we need to look at who is actually being affected.
i agree at the end of the day that child is a part of them...they helped to create it and should have the right to see it grow up...
That actually makes the whole situation worse IMHO and even more reason that he should be told.
But as in my example, in some circumstances it is more beneficial for the wellbeing of the mother and child to keep the father in the dark. I'll quote: