Should a man that didn't want the baby pay maintenance

We aren't talking about spending time with them. We're talking about financial support. It's not in a child's interests not to be financially supported.

Yes

Because there are a whole set of reasons why a woman might have an unplanned pregnancy, many of which are unpleasant and quite a few are not her responsibility. It isn't always safe to assume it was as simple as "couldn't be bothered to organise/freely chose not to use contraception".

Whereas for a man to create a pregnancy, basically he chose to orgasm without a condom, knowing that doing that is the thing that starts off babies. The chance of it being that rather than a criminal act of sabotage or DNA theft against him is very high (even if "she told him she was on the pill", only condom or snip is actually him taking responsibility for his own gametes).

No, I absolutely agree, which is why I also think men should have to pay child support, for me the child is the priority, but I’m curious about the opinions of those who prioritise ‘fairness’ between men and womens choices during pregnancy.

if she always said she would have an abortion but changed her mind when she actually got pregnant, it could be argued the father shouldn't have to pay anything.

I don't think this holds water. Every day I hear people saying things like, "if I lived in Sudan, I would..." "if I was in an accident, I would..." "if someone spoke to me like this, I would...". It's all cobblers. You don't know until you are in a situation what you would do. I don't think women can be prescient any more than men can be.

Stealthing is the only debatable one. A woman saying she's on the pill but not being. Morally, very wrong. I still flip it and think, 'would I trust any man to take a contraceptive pill?' Would I, buggery? Not in a million years. I have no idea why men do, and they must know there is risk. Also, men have seen me with food poisoning, ill, taking meds, all things that affect the pill. They don't care or change behaviour. They are accepting the risk.

@Naunet

I understand your point, I really do. However, the law is all about the needs of the child, not the parents.

It cannot possibly be in the interests of any child to be spending time with someone who resolutely doesn’t want to be with them/care for them/parent them.

A question for those concerned with fairness, for men who do agree to have a baby, but then later fuck off with another woman or something along those lines, should they be forced to do 50/50 parenting and pay a true 50% of costs, or is it ok for him to force the woman to take on more and absolve himself, like we currently see?

Legally they have to if the mother goes to CMS to get the amount defined. If the mother doesn't do this they're not obliged to pay any maintenance.

Morally/ethically, it depends on your point of view. Many people would say the father is partly responsible for the baby and that's that. It depends on what both parties understood the intention to be if the woman got pregnant - if she always said she would have an abortion but changed her mind when she actually got pregnant, it could be argued the father shouldn't have to pay anything. Likewise if the mother lied about taking contraception the father's liability could be diminished.

In that exact scenario - the person who decided to keep the child should pay for the child. I don't see that the taxpayer should pay more than they pay for any other child.

Thats the exact scenario I was in years ago, and I did feel that he was clear about his situation and his wishes, and it was my choice so my responsibility. I could of course have chosen not to have sex (and yes, we used protection, condom AND pill failure!). In the end my body made the choice for me and I miscarried.

To be completely clear, this is a hypothetical posted before OP explained her situation and I don't think it is the same as OP's situation at all.

Dear god, is it a theme of yours to play victim?

@MrsTerryPratchett ,

The (not so) cleverly disguised personal attack is:

‘And it's all an intellectual debate that women shouldn't take so seriously. Silly, emotional creatures that we are. <giggles>’

You are clearly trying to attack who I am (in your opinion), not what I am saying. And to bring other people on side, which you have achieved. Mazel tov!

I am not a big reporter or personal attacks either, so don’t worry.

Saying what someone said on another thread isn’t a personal attack. However it is against the site guidelines, for obvious reasons which I hope you can see.

Saying what you said on another thread isn't a personal attack. It's a fact. Unless your views on women's rights and sex are so unpleasant that you don't want them spread around. Feel free to report a woman on Mumsnet for arguing for women's rights.

I don't report people I don't agree with because I find it cowardly and weak. But you go ahead if you'd like.

When I read the thread title I automatically thought of a line in a Dave Chappelle gig on Netflix.

"If she has the right to murder it, I can at least abandon it!"

But yes in almsot all cases he should always pay maintenance.

Yes third person, but from a personal point of view, I have actually lived by those words, I could claim I was tricked into getting pregnant by a man. He told me he was infertile, I stupidly agreed to no condom (I was 17 and an idiot) and unsurprisingly got pregnant. So he ‘trapped/tricked’ me, but I still had to deal with the consequences. So I’ve been there, and I still accept my responsibility in it all. I didn’t insist on a condom, I trusted him, that’s on me. We all have to take personal responsibility and we all should now by now, life isn’t always fair.

@MrsTerryPratchett ,

Morally, if you are in a relationship and you have both agreed on an abortion in the case of pregnancy, I think you have a choice.

Have the abortion or have the baby and support it yourself.

And personal attacks and bringing other threads into a thread are against guidelines. Surely you know this by now? Or does your ethical code make an exception for male posters?

I see three basic cases...
They didn't care about contraception,
Contraception failed, or
One or other lied 'I've had the snip' 'I'm on the pill'.

First two cases then they suck it up and raise their child.
Third case there is no consent to sex so the liar goes to jail. (trouble proving it).

What a Prince!

'You' is a perfectly acceptable third person argument.

My argument is starkly put, isn't it? That is because no one knows how they are going to deal with the huge, life changing consequences a pregnancy will bring, until it happens. I would argue that any woman who makes a pact with a partner on how to deal with a pregnancy, when they have never experienced it, is not giving informed consent. And yes, women do have the right to change their minds, because it is their body.

Do you get to renege on your agreement as a couple, morally (clearly legally you have that right) just because you change your mind (cos hormones)?

The agreement as a couple is that you wouldn't have a baby, not that the man wouldn't have to pay. In your world, morally, the woman should have an unwanted abortion. Do you want women to have unwanted abortions, morally?

The personal bit is the ‘you’. Maybe you are using ‘you’ as the third person, but ‘one’ or ‘the man’ works a lot better if you aren’t implying something about the poster.

I don’t think I ever use ‘you’ for that reason…..hope not, anyway! If I have slipped up very occasionally, it is an error.

@krustykittens ,

‘It all comes down to who has the greater right. A baby to be supported by both parents? A woman to choose what actions she will take with her own body? Or a man to have PIV sex and have a get out clause for taking any responsibility for a subsequent pregnancy.’

Agreed, that is the question although it is a bit starkly put. Do you get to renege on your agreement as a couple, morally (clearly legally you have that right) just because you change your mind (cos hormones)?

ahhh, what a guy, I wonder if he thinks the risk the prostitutes take to do their ‘job’ are fair and that the men face just as much risk, or maybe he forgets just how much fairness matters to him in that situation…

Or a man to have PIV sex and have a get out clause for taking any responsibility for a subsequent pregnancy.

He also vociferously argues for men's right to use prostituted women so it seems that consequence-free sex for men, no matter what the consequences for women and children, is really important to him.

And it's all an intellectual debate that women shouldn't take so seriously. Silly, emotional creatures that we are. <giggles>

Disagreeing with this guy seems to be personal! As you say, as a few of us have said, it's life, it is not always fair. It all comes down to who has the greater right. A baby to be supported by both parents? A woman to choose what actions she will take with her own body? Or a man to have PIV sex and have a get out clause for taking any responsibility for a subsequent pregnancy.

Plus, don’t underestimate how powerful hormones can be once you’re pregnant and how that can impact your choice - again, something you will never have to feel or deal with, lucky you.

How is that personal?! It’s literally the case for everyone, it’s a fact of life. Every time you cross the road, you take a risk, you could be hit by a car and killed or badly damaged, but it’s still a risk you take, and if it doesn’t pay off, you live with the consequences. This is exactly the same. Pregnancy is a risk you take when it comes to sex, it’s just a fact of life.

Lots of risks are not the same for men and women, you don’t have to take the risk of child birth, you don’t face the same risk of rape or domestic abuse when you get involved in a relationship. Again, that’s just life, it’s not always fair.