Am I being unreasonable to give birth away from the child’s father because he doesn’t want to get married?

Pretty sure no one forced the OP to move to the other side of the world and TTC with a man who had already told her he wasn't interested in sharing his assets with her.

If she's not a gold digger, why does she not have any plan for how to support the child she wanted, other than, "make someone else pay for it"?

I don’t think that, I agree she should stay where she is. The man and his children are better off without her if she doesn’t love them enough to want to stay, but it’s an incredibly sad situation for everyone involved. And when that is a situation that has been deliberately created by a women who changed the goalposts after getting pregnant, I don’t believe she needs your sympathy.

That’s the thinking you do before getting pregnant. He thought she was happy living together where he would provide. She decided after conception that she was no longer happy with this and wanted financial security and expecting him to provide it at his expense. She has taken no responsibility. As women we are equal until it doesn’t suit.
I don’t disagree at all about wanting financial security but you are honest and not sly and also take steps yourself to achieve this.

He probably had no intention of the relationship breaking down though and wanted to provide a home for his partner and child. The only reason that hasn’t worked is because it’s not enough for the OP and she’s thrown a tantrum because she can’t have rights to half his house. Thats not a risk he can afford to take when he already has children he has a responsibility for.

You say that he shouldn’t expect OP to be put in a potentially vulnerable position, but you think it’s ok for her to do that to him and his children.

Where is her responsibility to provide for herself and her child?

that’s what she’s doing by staying in her home country . it’s bizarre that you think she should live as an isolated immigrant in a foreign country , away from family. with a man , in an unstable relationship, who is choosing to provide her no commitment and security and could make her and her baby homeless at any moment? Why would any one do that?

Not everything is misogyny.

Your idea that a woman should live as an immigrant in a country where she has no support and have a baby with a man who is providing no security for her , could toss her out at any moment , leaving her homeless, otherwise she’s a gold digger and a man trap, is flagrant misogyny.

She literally admitted that she is blackmailing him and that what she has done is not in the best interests of any of the children concerned. Have you read her posts?

I genuinely don’t understand your line of thinking. You believe that a woman gets pregnant and that automatically means that she is owed financial security from the man?

Where is her responsibility to provide for herself and her child? It is not misogyny to suggest that women do not need to be completely dependent on men for their security.

The man in this situation is already doing exactly the same job as a mother in terms of caring and providing for his children so I’m sure he could include his youngest child into that and continue to be a good father. No one is owed half a house just for birthing their own child.

It’s got nothing to do with blackmail. he Made the decision to have more children with OP, and of course he can’t expect her to live in a situation where she has no support and he could toss them both out and make them homeless on a whim.
In terms of a cost to his existing children, well you could say that about any parent who decides to have more than one child 🤷🏼‍♀️

If the OP fucks off with half their father's house, how is he supposed to provide for them?

Not everything is misogyny, Tandora.

The OP played a stupid game and has won a stupid prize, but her poor baby will pay the price.

All the children you have are "at the expense of the existing children". Not clear why you think the existing children would suffer if he were to marry the OP.

Immature? It was immature and selfish to conceive a child in a situation she knew she wasn’t happy with but he didn’t.

At the expense of his existing children.

Why should they suffer because the OP has blackmailed their father?

His choice was to marry or hand over half his house. He was honest. She changed the goal posts.
As an adult what has she done to secure her financial future? Or was she always planning on relying on a man?

OP shouldn't be sourcing maintenance, she has engineered the situation for her own agenda. Selfish in the extreme

Nope, it’s irrelevant because what matters now is that OP needs to make choices in the best interests of herself and her baby. It’s patently ridiculous to expect her to be an immigrant in a country where she has no support and no security, living with a partner in an unstable relationship, who won’t commit to her and could turf her out and make her and baby homeless on a whim.

Looking at the situation any other way is just immature. And just misogyny,

removing her child from the only parent who actually has any security

Bullshit. It’s his choices that have led to this. If he wants to provide security for his child and have OP return he’s more than able to do so.

Why is it irrelevant? Because it doesn’t suit the OP narrative?

He was honest - she wasn’t. She has played games and now we have another child whose father won’t get a relationship with his child because she played games and lost.
Just because you can carry a child does not mean you get to control and dictate everything.

She has put her child's security at risk by removing her child from the only parent who actually has any security.

Obviously she shouldn't have got pregnant because she is incapable of providing for her own child, but it's too late to turn the clock back.

He doesn’t need to provide her half the house there are plenty of different arrangements you can make.

No he is not providing his baby security by placing their mother in a vulnerable position where she is at risk of homelessness. This is just misogynistic bullshit.

I doubt OP ever listens to anyone who tells her anything she doesn't want to hear.

There's nothing to suggest that he isn't willing to provide security for his third child.

If he is to provide for all of his children equally, he cannot give half his house to the OP, because if she decides to leave him and take her half, he will no longer be able to house his other two children. Whereas if he retains ownership of his house he can provide for all three of his children.

Why do you think the OP should be given half a house for free when she has apparently done nothing to secure her own financial future despite apparently being an adult who is capable of working?

Absolute bullshit. The baby and its mother are a package deal. It’s not providing the baby security to place its mother in a vulnerable position at risk of homelessness. No mother should be expected to place herself in a situation where her partner could throw her and her baby out without a moments notice, or what if he became abusive? She’s not on the deeds, they are not married, she’d be entitled to nothing . Furthermore the relationship isn’t stable. Of course OP needs to stay in her home country where she has family and do what’s best for her and her child.

Calling her a “gold digger” is just misogynistic vitriol. I doubt OP is listening to this nonsense.

Irrelevant.