To not pay for an unwanted child?

No. If men choose to ejaculate irresponsibly into a woman who is in her fertile years, then they must take the risk that a pregnancy may result.

Don't want to be responsible, then don't ejaculate into a woman.

To be 100% confident of no unwanted pregnancy this is all they need to do. They can still have sexual intimacy, just don't do the bit that causes pregnancy. They can still orgasm and so can the woman. Loads and loads of fun sexy times can be had. Just don't do that one thing.

Oh, but they do. They do it all the bloody time. Because although orgasm is the goal and it feels great, maybe 8/10 great, it feels just that little bit better 10/10 to ejaculate inside a woman.

Take that risk, that the responsibility.

And if there is an unwanted pregnancy then they have zero part in the decision making on what the woman does with it. Once they leave their sperm inside her their choice on what happens to any resulting fetus ends.

This!!!!

@Bumpitybumper your post has a number so significant flaws:
"total moral responsibility" - no, a 50% share of responsibility. It takes 2 to tango.
"Settling down" - taking a 50% share in financial responsibility for the child you helped create does not require settling down or having a long term relationship with the mother.
"Requiring a vasectomy" - well I don't have perfect recall of every post in this thread - but I think you are misreading these kinds of posts. Laying out the choice that you either acknowledge the risks and accept the consequences or have a vasectomy/be totally abstinent does not mean that every poster mentioning the words vasectomy or abstinence is advocating that these should be the more popular default solutions. The point is that, these options being as drastic as you say, people should understand and accept the risks and possible consequences and should be required to dealwith the financial fallout if things go wrong.

I don't think the state should be picking up the bill, but it would be good to have some kind of system similar to student loans whereby if a woman with a young baby isn't getting a reasonable amount of support from the baby's father, the costs of such support should be temporarily provided by the state but applied as a debt against the father's future earnings - so if he isn't earning much now he might take 60 years to pay the state back for the money outlayed.

I'm not sure what point you're making here? Mens do not have choice over whether a pregnancy continues or not because it isn't in their body. They do have the choice for the sperm to leave their body though.

@Bertiel33

“As I have said, men have the exact same choice over their reproduction as women do. It just involves them not sticking their penis in someone unless they want to accept the responsibility.”

While clearly they don’t though, as once the sex act is completed, the future of the pregnancy is out of their hands. As is the legal obligation to financially support a child brought to term. Which is the correct way it should be though.

Obviously the man does need to step up and pay. Though there are women who go looking for one night stands to get pregnant with (and the ensuing 18 years of child support both from man and state) and lying about contraception, and that is of course hugely immoral behaviour. Stupid and irresponsible from the man involved and immoral from the woman, so perhaps not the best start in life for the kid!

Have you actually seen the comments on social media regarding the legalising/banning of abortions? It is literally full of comments aimed at women stating "fuxk about and find out" and "should have kept you legs closed" and "women stay abstinent"

Men on average earn more so more fair the dad contributes than all people through taxes ( or children grow up in poverty which can lead to sex work etc)

It’s really depressing that anyone could be so narcissistically selfish as to think they should be able to opt out of supporting their own child.

The focus is the child, not whether they meant the child to exist. So what? The child does exist. Man up.

This ^

One way or the other, the woman is facing the consequences of having sex, by either having an abortion or continuing with the pregnancy. You cannot force someone to have an abortion anymore than you force someone to give birth. Women don't get to just passively opt out, and neither should men.

No idea what point you're making. Sex carries the risk of making a baby. Men need to deal with that if they want to have sex. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

The short answer to that hand wringing is , sex is risky. Deal with it.

1, Where did I say women were not in the Ukrainian armed forces?

2, Men apparently having an "entitled attitude" is also completely unrelated to the thread, but you didn't seem bothered about that.

I feel really conflicted about this. Biology is obviously incredibly unequal in the area of reproduction and this creates all kinds of dilemmas in a world where we are trying to get closer to equality between the sexes.

My thoughts basically are that it's unrealistic to expect men to be abstinent, get a vasectomy or be held totally morally responsible for a pregnancy. People (both men and women) don't want to settle down at a crazy young age anymore and it would be a really really tough ask to say to anyone that isn't with a partner that they are 100% willing to have children with that they can't have sex until they are in this position. In this day and age lots of people would have to wait until they are in their 40s which is bonkers! Most women would not accept being in sexless relationship so it's not like women would be willing to facilitate this option for men.

It's equally mad to suggest that a man that wants to have children in the future must have a vasectomy to prevent unwanted pregnancies now. The obvious risk is that he destroys his fertility when the procedure can't be reversed successfully. I'm not sure many women who eventually want children would be keen to start a relationship with a man who has had a precautionary vasectomy that he hopes to reverse when the right lady comes along.

My point is that society isn't really setup in a way that make abstinence or a vasectomy sensible options for most men. The truth is that societal norms have evolved to incorporate contraception working effectively to enable women to have careers, people to get married later, have kids later etc. Women and men's expectations are built upon this. It isn't fair or realistic to expect a man today to step outside this and essentially live as though contraception hasn't been invented. He would be completely out of sync with the rest of society and it would be very hard to find partners.

So I don't think it's as simple as saying to men 'dong have sex or have a vasectomy'. Equally though, contraception fails and the woman is left holding the baby or having an abortion which also isn't fair either. I don't think the state should be picking up the bill so ultimately the father and mother of the baby are the only people left to do this. It's kind of a 'no fault' scenario so morally this is the only fair way of dealing with it.

I do think though that there are women that abuse their biological position to plan a baby when they know the man has no interest in having one. This is morally reprehensible and I do think the man should be able to opt out of this kind of arrangement but it's impossible to prove what has happened.

Maybe there needs to a little phrase that is taught to make people think more. A bit like a pet is for life for not for Christmas. I'm not creative enough to come up with it but along the lines of "OK for a night but would you want to see them every other weekend."

Am I the only woman in the world who, before having sex for the first time, told the guy that if I got pregnant he'd be a father because I wouldn't be having an abortion? At least he couldn't claim he wasn't fully informed.

I feel like that would be ripe for abuse lots of blokes say they want kids too. Then vanish when pregnancy announced. Also how about multiples, I had twins, I’m wondering if it could be argued that you were only trying for one so only paying for one? Cms has a hard enough time getting money out feckless fathers why give them more hurdles?

Honestly if you don’t want kids take responsibility for contraception, condoms or if not wanting kids in future vasectomy.

Once a child is here it’s really about their rights to be supported and have a relationship with parents.

I think that's usually when a man doesn't want children ever, rather than that they don't want them right now. That is a significant issue.

Pregnancy is a risk of having sex. If men want to avoid the risk then don't have sex. I agree with other than the child maintenance needs to be toughened up - why can't it be done through PAYE for example or included on tax returns They can manage student loans that way.

Surprise! Women are in the Ukraine armed forces, including frontline roles, including conscripted personnel. Also, completely unrelated to the topic of children needing support from their parents.

Ooh the big bad right. The one that's growing among young men?

Men have plenty of opportunities to avoid pregnancy. But every pregnancy happens because a man impregnates a woman. Sex has a risk of pregnancy. It’s a no brainer.

if a man doesn’t want a child he must take responsibility for his own fertility and contraception, or abstain.

Well they do teach it in schools don’t they? That’s why 15 years olds are out there having the same debate we are, 30 years older and wiser. You could argue we should’ve matured enough to settle on it?