Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

My "girlfriend" stopped taking the pill without telling me and now she's pregnant

466 replies

imlookingforadvice · 11/06/2019 15:55

We were seeing each other for 3 months and were having sex.
We didn't use condoms as she didn't like them so she opted to start taking the pill.
I already have 2 kids (4 & 12) and so wasn't ready for more children so was pretty strict on using SOME form of protection!
Long story short she decided because the pill 'wasn't agreeing with her' that she would stop taking it.
4-5 weeks later, still having sex with me that whole time, she sent me a message to tell me that she stopped taking the pill a while back and has done 2 tests and she is pregnant.
Although, at the time she told me this, she kept saying "I'm sorry, I will fix this" that has gone and she has now confirmed to me that shes going to keep it.
What do I do??
I have read as many things as I can but it basically appears that I'm screwed and have no say in this at all and now I can either be a part of the child's life or not yet still pay child support.
Not being a part of the child's life isn't an option for me, its not something I can humanly do.
I suppose this has reached the point now where this is just a rant and I'm just looking for confirmation that i'm well within my rights to be angry\fuming with this or, if not, someone to explain why I shouldn't be angry, because i'm coming up empty.
I realise that when having sex there is always a chance of pregnancy, and that I suppose was the risk I consented to - with contraception. What I did not consent to was sex without protection.
So, AIBU?

OP posts:
Drogosnextwife · 12/06/2019 17:32

I was stupid enough to click on a link in an email once, 3 days later money was taken out my account. Who's fault was that? Mine. People in my bank were sympathetic but I didn't get the money back 🤷‍♀️

DecomposingComposers · 12/06/2019 17:32

OP wasn't conned into having sex, he made the decision to have sex without a condom.

Yes he did. On condition that she was on the pill.

He didn't consent to have totally unprotected sex.

DecomposingComposers · 12/06/2019 17:34

I was stupid enough to click on a link in an email once, 3 days later money was taken out my account. Who's fault was that? Mine. People in my bank were sympathetic but I didn't get the money back 🤷‍♀️

Did they tell you that it was your fault, you were stupid for being so naive and you clearly lacked common sense?

Otherwise known as sticking the boot in which is what many posters here are so gleefully doing?

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 17:37

DecomposingComposers

Giving someone an STD on purpose is a crime. Getting pregnant isn’t. HTH.

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 17:38

Regardless of whether her partner knew he had it, surely she is responsible for her own health?

Because the intention is to damage someone else’s health. Assault. That’s not the intention when you allow yourself to get pregnant. You are just doing what your body was designed to do.

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 17:39

He didn't consent to have totally unprotected sex.

Then he should have protected himself. Protecting him is his job.

Drogosnextwife · 12/06/2019 17:41

Did they tell you that it was your fault, you were stupid for being so naive and you clearly lacked common sense

No because they work in a bank and have to be professional, but they probably thought it. I thought it about myself. This, however is MN and people can be as straight talking as they like.

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 17:42

Just read all your posts, Decomposing. You are very confused about basic legal concepts like assault, rape, mens rea etc. Better go and do some research.

DecomposingComposers · 12/06/2019 17:43

Because the intention is to damage someone else’s health. Assault.

But unless the STI is passed on as a result of rape, the woman has every opportunity not to be infected - she simply insists on the man wearing a condom.

Why do you have such double standards? You seem to hold the man responsible for everything and the woman is some kind of victim regardless of what she has or hasn't done.

What if the man lies and says he's had a vasectomy? Whose fault is it if the woman gets pregnant?

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 17:45

DecomposingComposers

If the man lies and says he has had a vasectomy he is a lying twat. He isn’t a criminal. He hasn’t done anything without consent. That is not true with regards to “stealthing” because he has ejaculated without consent.

The woman, by allowing herself to become pregnant, has done nothing to the man without consent. He took a risk in believing her. If she lied, she is a liar, not a criminal.

Drogosnextwife · 12/06/2019 17:47

Would you trust someone you had known for 3 months if they told you they had a vasectomy? I wouldn't.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 12/06/2019 17:47

Obviously the message re safe sex still isn't reaching everyone. Unless you were tested and exclusive the STI protection was important.

Trusting some one you barely know with contraception and going along with it was insane and now you are paying the price.

I've always told mine to be responsible for themselves and never trust another when it comes to contraception whether a short term or long term partner. People do deceive so being responsible for your own choices is the right thing to do rather than trust others.

JacquesHammer · 12/06/2019 17:48

herculepoirot2

It’s almost like there’s a direct correlation between brain power and being a handmaiden Wink

Drogosnextwife · 12/06/2019 17:50

Also if a man deliberately tries to impregnate a woman without her consent, an succeeds, she either has to go through with a pregnancy or have an abortion. Both a risk to the womans health. If a woman gets pregnant without the consent of a man, his physical health is not at risk.

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 17:50

JacquesHammer

I suspect that’s true!

boobirdblue · 12/06/2019 17:53

Not read all the posts but the upshot is that you can't do a thing, she was morally very wrong but that's all that can be said.

I'm sure many previous posts say take care of your own protection, not helpful now I know.

DecomposingComposers · 12/06/2019 17:53

The woman, by allowing herself to become pregnant, has done nothing to the man without consent.

Of course she has. The consent was conditional. She did not comply with those conditions. If she didn't want to abide by the conditions she should have said.

You can give conditional consent - and then it's up to the other party to decide if they can meet those conditions. What she shouldn't have done is unilaterally decided that she no longer wanted to comply with the conditions but not told him.

QuinnMovesOn · 12/06/2019 17:55

I have a friend who was in basically the exact same position. The little girl resulting from the original deception is wonderful and my friend is very glad to have her in his life. But he has never trusted the mother since. Please try to make the best of this situation but also be careful with this woman who you now know is absolutely untrustworthy. There could be worse things like accusations of abuse or failure to pay support down the road.

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 17:56

DecomposingComposers

“Conditional consent” is not a legal concept.

“I’ll only have sex with you if you have more than £50,000 in the bank.”

“Yep.”

“Oh shit - he has £4.42. Better say it was non-consensual.”

It doesn’t work like that.

boobirdblue · 12/06/2019 17:58

@QuinnMovesOn can I ask did they stay together and are they together now? I'm just being nosy so feel free to not answer.

I just wondered if they did stay together how they could without trust?

DecomposingComposers · 12/06/2019 17:59

herculepoirot2

I don't care if it's a legal concept or not. It is a moral concept - you know, the sign of being a decent human being and not a selfish, immoral one out only for what they can get.

herculepoirot2 · 12/06/2019 18:00

DecomposingComposers

And I didn’t say she wasn’t a cow. She’s not a rapist, though. She hasn’t done anything she wasn’t entitled to do.

DecomposingComposers · 12/06/2019 18:05

She’s not a rapist, though. She hasn’t done anything she wasn’t entitled to do.

I have never said she was a rapist.

And curious turn of phrase " she hasn't done anything she wasn't entitled to do*

Really? You think someone is entitled to deceive another person? You think someone is entitled to trick a man into becoming a father? You think someone is entitled to lie about being on contraception?

I don't think anyone is entitled to those things.

And if you think she's entitled to do those then OP is definitely entitled to walk away from her as long as he meets his financial obligations to the child.

Pumperthepumper · 12/06/2019 18:09

And if you think she's entitled to do those then OP is definitely entitled to walk away from her as long as he meets his financial obligations to the child.

He absolutely is. I don’t think anyone is arguing with that. Your annoyance seems to be more with the idea than men and women aren’t treated exactly the same in relation to sex-resulting-in-pregnancy without ever acknowledging the reasons why.

QuinnMovesOn · 12/06/2019 18:14

boobirdblue, definitely not. She was just like what the OP described, very untrustworthy.

It is also clear she was only interested in the child support payments. Later she tried to restart the relationship, but when my friend told her he had had a vasectomy, she immediately dropped him.

For the OP, a vasectomy might be worth considering.

Swipe left for the next trending thread