To not pay for an unwanted child?

Does a man get ‘stuck with an unwanted child’ though? Or do you mean he needs to hand over 100-odd pounds a month to ensure his own child is fed but otherwise doesn’t actually need to do anything at all?

100% agree with you @Anudawan

If he is the biological father, the child is his responsibility.

True. In which case you think far more men would be keen to use protection. But so few are. They have unprotected sex and act all shocked because sex resulted in EXACTLY what sex is supposed to result in. No sympathy from me I’m afraid.

When it’s the man’s body gestating the baby he can decide on whether he wants an abortion.

As gestating a baby is not an equal opportunities sport only the woman gets to decide on medical procedures to her body.

He can have equal rights once the baby has been born.

And she would already be facing the consequences of sex by pregnancy and having the baby. The man would face the same consequences of said baby once it’s here (ensuring it is fed and housed, even if that’s only through a paltry monetary contribution).

Agree with this ^

Women have different considerations around unprotected sex because they control what happens with the pregnancy should it occur. Men should consider that they don’t have that control. It’s different. The same way it’s different for women in that men can just fuck off when the baby is born.

It's a strong argument for men to either have a vasectomy or abstain.

For women, however:
Abortion can be a decision if a foetus is found to have a deformity even if the pregnancy was planned and a baby was wanted.
Abortion can be a decision if a mother is diagnosed with cancer or another life threatening condition or a condition develops requiring medication that will harm the foetus after pregnancy is confirmed even if the pregnancy was planned and a baby was wanted.
Abortion can be a decision if the mother's partner becomes abusive or abandons her or she finds out she is in a bigamous marriage or that he has debts that will cripple the family, and she doesn't want to be tied to that man via child access until the teenage child or the courts decide access isn't going to happen any more.

In other words, a woman can change her mind about a wanted pregnancy. A lot can change in nine months.

I feel sorry for men in this situation because the woman has the choice to have an abortion so will never be stuck with an unwanted child but the man is at the mercy of the woman’s decision.

I agree with you. But MN is a breeding ground for “I know a friend who told me when she was drunk [it’s ALWAYS when she was drunk] that she got pregnant on purpose and trapped her boyfriend”. One person even said her friend trapped her husband because she “surprised him in the bath” and he couldn’t help himself, he just HAD to have unprotected sex with her.

I don’t where these half wits come from but a misogyny klaxon always seems to sound somewhere

No. It’s a risk. Deal with it.

Do you not apply this rule to women too?

But this is a nonsense because it’s one persons word against another’s with no legal evidence available either way. You can’t put a legal framework around this situation

Men should have the same rights as a woman. If the woman doesn’t want the child she can terminate, if the man doesn’t want the child it’s tough if the woman does. So should women be aloud a termination then? Or should they learn to not have sex too!

This is a weak argument, because the same applies to abortion access

What podcasts?

Sex can lead to pregnancy. When a man chooses to have sex, he's accepting that risk.

if the pregnancy was a result of a one night stand, regardless of whether precautions were taken

my personal answer is no, he cannot or shouldn’t be able to opt out once the child is born

Would your view change if a condom was used, but failed?

Of course not. This is dangerously misogynistic and ive seen its posed in a few places recently, as a “what if”

the money supports the child not the mother. If you father a child that’s all there is to it. Call it a disadvantage of being a man if you like, they don’t have many so we don’t really care.

My opinion on this is very unpopular.

In cases where contraception has been used but failed (i don't count 'just' pulling out before ejaculation as contraception) or where men have trusted a womans word she's on birth control and been lied to, then i think that legally, if the man doesn't want the baby, but the mother does and chooses to continue with a pregnancy, then he should be legally waived of financial responsibility on the provision he is also not involved in the babies life and waives his parental rights. If he wants to be involved, either from the beginning or later on with mothers agreement, then he becomes liable for child support and parental rights. It's in or out, not best of both worlds being a dad but not paying.

It is completely the womans decision to continue the pregnancy knowing it would be as a single parent without financial help from the father, but also that he has no parental rights and she can block all involvement from him.

In cases where hes not given a shit about using contraception and been happy to risk pregnancy, he doesn't get an out financially, but can choose not to play a part beyond financial.

I look at it as whose body currently contains the genetic material.

sperm in the man’s body = man’s decision.

embryo in the woman’s body = woman’s decision

Child has autonomy, but is vulnerable and must be helped. child must be supported to adulthood by both genetic contributors unless substitute parents are designated by a court.

"but no, he saw a woman wanting more child support and she just had her hair and nails done… "

The very idea that if a woman receives child support she can't get her hair/ nails done and that man has the right to police her spending ffs.

Pregnancy is one of the risks of having sex. It’s a much smaller risk if you practice safe sex but it’s still there. Interestingly, I’ve known a few men who have insisted they were “tricked” into getting a woman pregnant. All of them said she lied to them about being on the pill or said she was infertile. None of them thought to take responsibility for their own bodies just incase and use a condom. I don’t think any of them were in a LTR either that I can think of, so it wasn’t like these women allegedly committed a massive betrayal in a meaningful relationship. I have no sympathy for any of those dipshits.

Well someone has to pay for the child, and many mothers can’t do that on their own. So if it’s a choice between the child living in poverty, the child’s resident family requiring additional state benefits to avoid poverty or the man who actually fathered the child paying, I’ll go with the father paying. Who cares if he wanted it? It’s far more his responsibility and down to his choices than it is the taxpayers and it’s certainly not the child’s fault.

If anything I’d rather child maintenance was considerably tougher.

If you don’t want the risk of child maintenance bag it. That simple.

the options for a woman should not be go it alone or abortion. The man had the option to prevent the pregnancy and did not.

I am so sick of men not being held accountable.