[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Indiana

I am unsure how clear he was with his wife that should she get pregnant on contraception, he would expect her to have an abortion, but if he was serious about not wanting to have children, he should have been. I don't think that there should be any presumption that because a woman is happy to take contraception to avoid pregnancy that she would also be happy to have an abortion in the event of contraceptive failure. Those are two very different things.

Granted.

Originally Posted by Indiana

If he wasn't clear, it's his tough luck that nobody gets to tell a woman to have an abortion once she's pregnant, and regard that as a sufficient dismissal of parental responsibilities.

Um, actually that's pretty standard, worldwide? I must know literally hundreds of women who announced they were pregnant to the expectant father, were asked by their lovers not to have his baby when they became pregnant, decided to anyway, and were summarily abandoned.

The majority of single mothers did not opt to be single mothers before they became pregnant - they became pregnant and the male progenitor of her impending offspring was either unwilling, unsuited, or unable to take on a partnership paternal role. (I'm not including 'shared custody' situations in defining "single motherhood".)

Originally Posted by Indiana

Particularly not TWICE. I believe your response to that was 'Ooops!' A child is not an 'oooops'.

First of all, you're misquoting me:

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Of course, I agree with you. A vasectomy would have been a perfectly reasonable choice, and would have avoided all this - but like so many others, he presumed that hormonal contraception would be sufficient. Ooops.

I never said a child was an "oooops" (or even an "ooops" ) - What I did say was an "ooops" was his confidence that birth-control pills, taken as directed (as one would expect a medical professional to do!) should be 99.7% effective, as advertised.

Please bear in mind: Elias had his first child with his girlfriend, despite his directly communicating that he did not want her to bring the child to term, and not only stayed with her, he MARRIED HER.

This is not the action of a person trying to evade responsibilities.

His then-wife, no longer comfortable relying upon oral contraceptives, switched to the Nuvaring, which is again advertised as 99.7% effective.

Since she is a medical doctor, one must presume that she was reasonably confident that she would not become pregnant while using this method of birth control. There was therefore no justification for Elias to second-guess her wisdom, and have a vasectomy - particularly since he had already been explicitly clear to his wife that he didn't want her to have even a first child.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Elias wasn't 'unfairly burdened'. His children came about as a direct result of his unwillingness to be responsible for his own choices.

You're completely off-side here.

Elias has NEVER forsworn his responsibilities as their father, despite his initial reticence during their gestation. He has also never attempted to evade any of his responsibilities to them, or to their mother.

Was his mistake in believing that his then-girlfriend, a MEDICAL DOCTOR, was taking the Pill as directed?

Was he a fool for believing that the Pill would prevent pregnancy? OF COURSE NOT! And neither was his wife, who also believed it was sufficient.

MOST ADULTS BELIEVE THIS, and for most of them, it's generally true.

Originally Posted by Indiana

I am firmly of the opinion that you CREATE a happy home. Every single day people have to do things they don't want to, and yes, childcare can be exhausting and frustrating but nobody suggests parents just palm their kids off to someone else because they don't feel like dealing with that.

I disagree with you on every point.

Most people don't even remember what happiness feels like, much less how to engender and maintain a happy relationship, and virtually none know how to create a happy home. That said, many people can create a comfortable-enough home, in which they can complacently accept that theirs is a constant struggle in which they must do things they do not want to do, in order to maintain the creature comforts and security they feel they need.

I can't remember the last time I did ANYTHING I didn't want to do. Seriously.

As for raising children, I believe that anyone for whom the PROJECT of raising children is not overwhelmingly important to them should not be involved at all.

Infants and small children need attention, appreciation, acceptance, affection, and approval from their parents, in order to thrive. Affirmation and acknowledgement are also very significant as they mature into individuals, and begin forming their egos and their self-schema. (I go into much greater detail on each, in my book "The Seven As" which I'll be publishing in February, under my professional name)

"Nannies" exist explicitly to take on responsibility for ensuring that children are given those things they need when their parents are unable or unavailable to do so themselves.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Offering children sufficient attention (particularly on a part-time schedule) is not 'unrealistic'.

That is unfortunately simply not true for many people.

If one actually does not enjoy children, or is driven-to-distraction constantly, as most ADD/ADHD people are, then giving constant attention to kids is an insurmountable burden.

I suspect both are true for Elias - and I am very impressed by his dedication to do the right thing, and prevent his inattentiveness from damaging his kids self-esteem.

Originally Posted by Indiana

His children are not stopping him from earning money - nowhere has he said that he has had to give up his job. He has to spend time with them outside of work hours and on weekends every second week.

With whom do you presume the kids spend time while he's working, during the two weeks each month where he has sole custody? Or is that not important?

Originally Posted by Indiana

You think his kids are going to grow up being grateful that he handed them off to a nanny because he didn't like spending time with them?

I'm absolutely certain of it! When the kids are old enough to appreciate and understand their father, and they are able to communicate with him openly (as they become young adults, around 8-10 years old) they will never reflect negatively on their having been so well-attended as youngsters.

Originally Posted by Indiana

That they're going to respect him for that, and not feel damaged? I doubt it.

I recommend you contact some professional child-care providing outfits, or child psychologists, and see what they have to say. I can tell you that I know what I'm talking about, and that I've been dealing with these issues professionally for well-over a decade, but that won't carry nearly as much weight as if you simply do your own research.

Originally Posted by Indiana

I think it would mean more to them if he 'sucks it up', just like he suggested, and sits down in front of a Disney film, or goes out and throws a ball around or builds a Lego castle with them, even if he doesn't 'feel' like it.

Children are incredibly more attuned to the emotions of their parents than you seem to appreciate. If your kids don't sense positive enthusiasm, it is destructive to their sense-of-self. I with more people understood this, and instead of pretending they are "grown ups" to their kids (thereby demonstrating to their kids "how grown up behave", which is to do things they don't wish to, out of a sense of grudging duty) they were PEOPLE to their kids.

Originally Posted by Indiana

That's what being a grown-up is about.

BINGO! Being a 'Grown Up' is about pretending you aren't a person - you're now operating as a shadow of your parental role-models, who were parroting (poorly) their own distorted view of what adult life was like.

I am adamantly against "grown up" behavior, as it DENIES MATURITY, and prevents honest communication between adults and kids, thereby perpetuating a distinction which need not exist, and serves to ensure that kids skip the maturation processes of experiencing and contemplating their lives, in favour of assuming roles they have had displayed to them by people who were obviously unhappy in those roles!

UGH! Sorry, you touched a nerve

Originally Posted by Indiana

He knows what he needs to do to be a parent. He's obviously not stupid. He's not beating or abusing the kids or mistreating them in any way.

Yes, and that's why I'm completely on-side with his following the advice I have given, and working something out whereby his kids do not suffer for his lack of enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by Indiana

He just doesn't want to put the time in, and he wants to be able to blame someone else for the situation that he got into fair and square.

Again you're missing the KEY element here:

Elias's attempting to tend to his kids AGAINST HIS WILL will do much more harm than good. The ONLY appropriate action is to find them an appropriate attendee in his stead. Full stop.

Johnny Soporno
Manumissionary