Man shocked by girlfriend's baby name choice - but she doesn't see a problem

An expectant mum has picked out the perfect name for her son, including a middle name that means a lot to her, but there's just one problem with it.

The name she wants to use is special because it belonged to her ex-boyfriend who passed away, and it's fair to say her current boyfriend isn't feeling all that good about it.

In a post on Reddit, the dad-to-be, asked the good people of the internet whether he was an "a**hole* for not wanting to name his son after his girlfriend's ex.

He wrote: "My girlfriend and I are expecting our first born son.

"The other night when discussing names, she said she would like his middle name to be that of her ex, who died. Saying further that it would mean a lot to his family who she is still close with."

The unnamed man said the name would make him "really uncomfortable" and he didn't want to do it, but his partner didn't see a problem with it.

He continued: "I don't want to tell people, especially my son, that he is partly named after another man who his mum loved before me.

"She said, 'Why can't you say he is named after my friend who died? We weren't even together when he died'."

To make matters more complicated, the ex died of a drug overdose, and the dad doesn't want to have to tell his child that fact either.

He finished his post by saying he felt it was "pretty s*****" of his girlfriend to ask him to do this in the first place.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:I think that no matter what the baby is named, this guy is going to be paying child support.  

She is displaying zero respect for the man in her life and I seriously doubt that's going to change.

He obviously should pay child support, it's his baby.

He should have noticed the lack of respect she was paying him before she got pregnant, it certainly doesn't bode well for a happy relationship if they cant agree on something like this even before the baby is born

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

He obviously should pay child support, it's his baby.

He should have noticed the lack of respect she was paying him before she got pregnant, it certainly doesn't bode well for a happy relationship if they cant agree on something like this even before the baby is born

I meant he will be paying it because there will be no relationship soon.  

And yeah, he should have figured that out sooner or taken precautions to not impregnate her. 

Of course I was as dumb as him once. Actually twice.  My daughters are beautiful and well adjusted in spite of the fact their parents had a shitty  relationship.  

eddie wrote:And of course, a lot of pregnancies are simply accidents.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:And of course, a lot of pregnancies are simply accidents.

All of mine were. 

Sorta. 

I mean being on the pill only prevents them if you actually take them correctly.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
All of mine were. 

Sorta. 

I mean being on the pill only prevents them if you actually take them correctly.

Missed them on purpose? I hate when women do that.

eddie wrote:And of course, a lot of pregnancies are simply accidents.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

do you know what being cucked is??

its blatantly what is happening in this story, and if ben doesnt see a problem with it.......................................

You seem to have a real problem with women in general. I thought it was about women who get abortions, but it seems to go much further than that.

Original Quill wrote:Since she's making such an issue of it, has the fetus been prenatally DNA tested?  It's imperative anyway, because of so many genetic issues that need to be a part of the child's medical records, but it will tell if the current bf--what the article calls "dad-to-be," perhaps prematurely--is the father.

That should guide his decision as to whether he should accept paternity.  It certainly will explain a lot.  Could be he's completely out of the loop.

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

do you know what being cucked is??

its blatantly what is happening in this story, and if ben doesnt see a problem with it.......................................

You seem to have a real problem with women in general. I thought it was about women who get abortions, but it seems to go much further than that.

Yeah I'm sorry about not supporting murdering babies.

If you're cool with that, that's your burden to bear.

And this isn't about women this is about YOU not batting an eyelid at some bloke getting cucked,even going so far as to say you see the problem.

Did you feel really guilty after watching that Gillette advert??

smelly-b wrote:Yeah I'm sorry about not supporting murdering babies.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-b wrote:Yeah I'm sorry about not supporting murdering babies.

You do it every time you wank-off, Russ.  Though, in your case, I think you might be doing humanity a favor.  

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-b wrote:Yeah I'm sorry about not supporting murdering babies.

You do it every time you wank-off, Russ.  Though, in your case, I think you might be doing humanity a favor.  

thats a shit retort

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

thats a shit retort

Made me chuckle.

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

thats a shit retort

Made me chuckle.

i suppose if i think about it and say "im killing off millions of lefties and liberal sperm" it is kinda funny, i can be my own little hitler

BOOM!!!!! (cumface)

i just murdered a million hillary clintons

youre right eddie, that is funny as fuck  

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:So smelly, do you think you're full of lefty sperm?

And if so, where do you think it all "came" from?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:So smelly, do you think you're full of lefty sperm?

And if so, where do you think it all "came" from?

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:So smelly, do you think you're full of lefty sperm?

And if so, where do you think it all "came" from?

Not any more.

I'm a genocidal maniac

Thor wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:So smelly, do you think you're full of lefty sperm?

And if so, where do you think it all "came" from?

Not any more.

I'm a genocidal maniac

Sound more like a case of cumpulsive masterbating

Have you actually tried talking to women?

Or is pictures on a screen as far as you go?

eddie wrote:

Thor wrote:


Sound more like a case of cumpulsive masterbating

Have you actually tried talking to women?

Or is pictures on a screen as far as you go?

He watches LeftyLesbiansPorn.com

eddie wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26428-answer-the-post-not-the-poster

smelly-bandit wrote:

eddie wrote:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26428-answer-the-post-not-the-poster

eddie wrote:

An expectant mum has picked out the perfect name for her son, including a middle name that means a lot to her, but there's just one problem with it.

The name she wants to use is special because it belonged to her ex-boyfriend who passed away, and it's fair to say her current boyfriend isn't feeling all that good about it.

In a post on Reddit, the dad-to-be, asked the good people of the internet whether he was an "a**hole* for not wanting to name his son after his girlfriend's ex.

He wrote: "My girlfriend and I are expecting our first born son.

"The other night when discussing names, she said she would like his middle name to be that of her ex, who died. Saying further that it would mean a lot to his family who she is still close with."

The unnamed man said the name would make him "really uncomfortable" and he didn't want to do it, but his partner didn't see a problem with it.

He continued: "I don't want to tell people, especially my son, that he is partly named after another man who his mum loved before me.

"She said, 'Why can't you say he is named after my friend who died? We weren't even together when he died'."

To make matters more complicated, the ex died of a drug overdose, and the dad doesn't want to have to tell his child that fact either.

He finished his post by saying he felt it was "pretty s*****" of his girlfriend to ask him to do this in the first place.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/man-shocked-girlfriends-baby-name-14037941


What do you all think? Bit of a tough one.

Syl wrote:Why put an unborn baby at risk by testing it's DNA for goodness sake.
IF....there was cause to doubt the paternity he could have that done after the baby is born when there is no risk to it's health.
Nowhere does this man imply his girlfriend has been unfaithful anyway....that's just your assumption.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Why put an unborn baby at risk by testing it's DNA for goodness sake.
IF....there was cause to doubt the paternity he could have that done after the baby is born when there is no risk to it's health.
Nowhere does this man imply his girlfriend has been unfaithful anyway....that's just your assumption.

There is more than paternity at issue.  You DNA test so that physicians can know the genetic health of the child, and any unsuspected genetic anomalies.  To fail to do so is malpractice.

Prenatal testing is as harmless as post-natal.  Testing can be done as early as 7 weeks’ gestation.  You get a baby’s DNA from the mother’s blood sample,  The fetal DNA combines with the mother’s DNA by passing through the placenta into the mother’s bloodstream.

There are many purposes to DNA test, and it is not done merely to determine paternity.  But, while you're at it, why go to pains to avoid it?  Truth never hurts, except those who would try to benefit from a lie.

Original Quill wrote:Prenatal testing is as harmless as post-natal.  Testing can be done as early as 7 weeks’ gestation.  You get a baby’s DNA from the mother’s blood sample.  The fetal DNA combines with the mother’s DNA by passing through the placenta into the mother’s bloodstream.

Nothing invasive about it.  A simple finger prick, and it's done.  Besides, as this couple is not married, it doesn't have to be prenatal.  Don't know about UK, but in California one can contest paternity for purposes of child support, inheritance, etc., within six (6) months.

And, paternal testing is not offensive in the US.  It is required in many states, as the father has as little as six (6) months to contest paternity.  Gone are the days when someone could hide the fact, if they were so devious.

Regardless of reason, DNA testing is mandatory for medical reasons.  It is so significant as to be labeled irresponsible not to test.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Prenatal testing is as harmless as post-natal.  Testing can be done as early as 7 weeks’ gestation.  You get a baby’s DNA from the mother’s blood sample.  The fetal DNA combines with the mother’s DNA by passing through the placenta into the mother’s bloodstream.

Nothing invasive about it.  A simple finger prick, and it's done.  Besides, as this couple is not married, it doesn't have to be prenatal.  Don't know about UK, but in California one can contest paternity for purposes of child support, inheritance, etc., within six (6) months.

And, paternal testing is not offensive in the US.  It is required in many states, as the father has as little as six (6) months to contest paternity.  Gone are the days when someone could hide the fact, if they were so devious.

Regardless of reason, DNA testing is mandatory for medical reasons.  It is so significant as to be labeled irresponsible not to test.

There is a risk Quill, as shown in the NHS advice link I posted, so if the test is to be done simply to establish paternity why not wait till after the baby is born?

Syl wrote:Why would it be considered irresponsible not to carry out DNA testing in the US?
Do that many men doubt they are the father?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

There is a risk Quill, as shown in the NHS advice link I posted, so if the test is to be done simply to establish paternity why not wait till after the baby is born?

You could do that.  But there's no risk to a finger prick.

Syl wrote:Why would it be considered irresponsible not to carry out DNA testing in the US?
Do that many men doubt they are the father?

You seem obsessed with the paternity portion of the test.  The child must be tested anyway.  If the child comes up with some irreversible congenital disease or defect that might have been caught with early DNA testing, the mother has only herself to blame.

I don't think it is the men who doubt they are the father.

Syl wrote:Quill, this was your first post in the thread...

"And what if the kid was sired by the dead bf? Someone should be counting fingers, here."...and you have stuck to your theme throughout.
YOU are the one who is doubting the mans paternity not me, I was just countering your opinions.

Expectant mothers have the usual screening and ultra sound tests done here, they dont automatically have the more invasive tests that you keep mentioning unless there is reason to think the baby could have some sort of congenital defect?

Syl wrote:1......A DNA test is only done here on request if it's simply to establish paternity.. it wont normally be done on the NHS.
It wont usually be performed prenatally either.

Syl wrote:2...If there are worries that the baby may have certain genetic defects the test will be available prenatally, for obvious reasons.

You keep insisting the test MUST be done....that's not the case here....it's normally only done for the two reasons given.

eddie wrote:I’m not understanding why a DNA test is even being mentioned?

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I’m not understanding why a DNA test is even being mentioned?

Quill seems to think it's a necessity.

I only know of one couple who had DNA tests AFTER the baby was born, it's certainly not standard practice in the UK.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Quill seems to think it's a necessity.

I only know of one couple who had DNA tests AFTER the baby was born, it's certainly not standard practice in the UK.

It is a standard practice in the US, and I understand in some states mandatory.

It augments the baby's medical records by identifying the parents, and then goes on to incorporate their medical and health history into his or hers.  If you have a father and grandfather who died of prostate and testicular cancer, you know there is an issue to look for in the male reproductive system--obviously, if the child is a boy.  You don't need to know why, it's sufficient to know where and at what age to look.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It is a standard practice in the US, and I understand in some states mandatory.

It augments the baby's medical records by identifying the parents, and then goes on to incorporate their medical and health history into his or hers.  If you have a father and grandfather who died of prostate and testicular cancer, you know there is an issue to look for in the male reproductive system--obviously, if the child is a boy.  You don't need to know why, it's sufficient to know where and at what age to look.

If you have a father and grandfather who died of prostrate cancer I doubt those conditions would show up by amnioecentesis.

Original Quill wrote:Prenatal testing is as harmless as post-natal.  Testing can be done as early as 7 weeks’ gestation.  You get a baby’s DNA from the mother’s blood sample.  The fetal DNA combines with the mother’s DNA by passing through the placenta into the mother’s bloodstream.

Nothing invasive about it.  A simple finger prick, and it's done.  Besides, as this couple is not married, it doesn't have to be prenatal.  Don't know about UK, but in California one can contest paternity for purposes of child support, inheritance, etc., within six (6) months.

And, paternal testing is not offensive in the US.  It is required in many states, as the father has as little as six (6) months to contest paternity.  Gone are the days when someone could hide the fact, if they were so devious.

Regardless of reason, DNA testing is mandatory for medical reasons.  It is so significant as to be labeled irresponsible not to test.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Prenatal testing is as harmless as post-natal.  Testing can be done as early as 7 weeks’ gestation.  You get a baby’s DNA from the mother’s blood sample.  The fetal DNA combines with the mother’s DNA by passing through the placenta into the mother’s bloodstream.

Nothing invasive about it.  A simple finger prick, and it's done.  Besides, as this couple is not married, it doesn't have to be prenatal.  Don't know about UK, but in California one can contest paternity for purposes of child support, inheritance, etc., within six (6) months.

And, paternal testing is not offensive in the US.  It is required in many states, as the father has as little as six (6) months to contest paternity.  Gone are the days when someone could hide the fact, if they were so devious.

Regardless of reason, DNA testing is mandatory for medical reasons.  It is so significant as to be labeled irresponsible not to test.

Can you provide some links to back that up? I've never heard of such a thing and it sounds illegal (unconstitutional invasion of privacy) to me.

DNA Diagnostic Center wrote:Is it really possible to get a baby’s DNA from the mother’s blood sample?

Yes! As shown in the illustration below, the fetal DNA combines with the mother’s DNA by passing through the placenta into the mother’s bloodstream.



https://dnacenter.com/dna-paternity-test/non-invasive-prenatal-paternity-test/?gphone=1-877-232-0288&gdnis=0288&gclid=bingads&msclkid=cdb7ebcd1a74103f5983b7b0b73741c4

eddie wrote:But it isn’t mandatory!

eddie wrote:But it isn’t mandatory!

Syl wrote:Prenatal paternity testing is a sensitive subject because of the ethical and moral issues involved, including the risks of an invasive test (see below). Many doctors are unwilling to carry out a prenatal paternity test, especially if confirming the baby's father's identity is the only reason for the test.