Paying maintenance

I kind of get where you are coming from but don’t think it could ever work.

I do think that women need to take more responsibility though. There are so many ‘accidents’ and I know some who say they are on contraception but they aren’t. That should be classed as rape imo. You see on here time and time again those who have more than one child with a feckless dad - because they wanted children/siblings etc.

Overall it’s the child that suffers. The focus should always be on the child.

There is a way to 100% avoid the responsibility of a lifetime of child maintenance.

Not having sex. Its the only guaranteed way for men (and women) to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

But that scenario is such a tiny proportion of the population and such a low chance of happening that there's no point to enshrine this scenario into law surely? Like a previous poster says, a man can exercise his right to choose by wearing a condom.

Nothing is foolproof aside from abstinence.

Any man who thinks otherwise is a total idiot.

If a man has sex with a fertile woman, he is accepting the possibility of a pregnancy.

The only scenario where a man should be able to opt out of the pregnancy/fatherhood is if he was raped. Other than that he has his opt out clause when he chose to have sex

There would be no way to prove though that the man had bothered with contraception and that it was a truly tried to be prevented mistake. Men would lie all day long and say they wore a condom to get out of 18 years of child support. And I can tell you from my single days, there’s a VERY large majority of men who don’t care about putting on a condom unless you insist on it.

Like you, I had a pregnancy which was the result of a multiple contraception failure. Condom that split, MAP taken next morning didn’t work, and shouldn’t have even been close to my fertile days according to period tracking app. This was in a new relationship. It was absolutely not ideal timing a couple months into a relationship, but I couldn’t bear the thought of an abortion as a lady in my mid 30’s who wanted children and was financially stable. We had both tried to prevent this pregnancy. Should I have had to shoulder the whole burden of this because I wouldn’t have been able to go through with an abortion? (Fully support abortion and the right to choose, but it wasn’t something I could do myself in the particular situation I had found myself in).

There can always be contraception failures despite everyone’s best efforts, as I well know. But the large majority will be purely a case of man not bothering to put on a condom (“cause it doesn’t feel as good”). So, just like for women, the only way to truly protect yourself from an unplanned pregnancy is to abstain from sex.
Even if a man has to pay child support, he still gets off extremely lightly compared to the mum who has to carry and birth the baby, work around the child’s needs, pay the majority towards the child and childcare. The man can decide to not see his kid, or see them once a month or so. The mother (in most cases - I appreciate there are cases where dad takes the load and mum is barely involved) mostly has an all or nothing decision. So it’s not going to be a decision she ever takes lightly.

as it is right now whether they want to be involved or not and if they say straight off that they don’t want to be a dad should why should they have to pay child support?

Because words are not a form of contraception. Why exactly are you so keen for men to have consequence free unprotected sex? Is it fair that women get the final say? No, but that's nature. Rape isn't fair, men being stronger isn't fair, men being paid more isn't fair, women living longer isn't fair - that's life.

Although I understand your point OP, what happens when 5 years down the line the father changes his mind and realises he would like to meet and try and form a relationship with his child? Is he not allowed to because of the contract he’s signed?

Do you get any financial support from the state for your children?

In an ideal world I agree - either your both in it you're both out. If the woman can opt out so should the father be able to. The alternate argument 'if you doesn't want a baby he shouldn't have sex' just naturally leads to an anti abortion stance as that is true also for the mother, which people always conveniently sidestep.

However, that logic really only applies in an ideal when the woman has made a completely free will decision to have sex. That's of course not always the case.

Congratulations on being financially secure enough to be able to do this. You do know that not everyone else is, don’t you?

And presumably for having support around you - or not feeling you need it. Again this isn’t true for everyone.

Choosing to have or abort a baby is not an easy decision. It’s not like choosing whether or not to have a kebab. For lots of woman being pregnant means having a baby, for lots of reasons.

Men do need to pay for any child they bring into the world. Only shit men do not do this.

The bloke who did mine told me the effectiveness of vasectomies was over 99%, which seems pretty near 100%. Was I told a lie?

I understand where you're coming from but it seems very transactional and not focused on what's best for the child, just what's practical and "fair" for the adults. I've put "fair" in quotations because it's never going to be fair whilst women are the ones carrying the pregnancy - given the extra risks this attracts, I think it is fair that women get more say on how/if the pregnancy proceeds!

Any maintenance paid is to benefit the child surely? I feel that as a minimum both parents should be paying to feed and clothe thier child.

Abortion for me is a woman’s right to choose. A foetus is not an independent entity capable of survival. So it’s up to a woman to decide if she wants to carry that child. A man has the choice whether or not to have sex with a (consenting) woman and risk pregnancy. Whilst any resulting pregnancy is in her body he doesn’t have a say when it becomes it’s own entity (legally speaking) then he is 50% responsible.

A contraception fail, then, to you OP, means these two things:-

1. the female must either be prepared to raise a child alone, changing her career prospects, financial position, social situation and, in fact, her entire life; or she has an abortion, which some will find very difficult and traumatising.
2. The male does nothing and his life isn't at all affected.

Your post is internalised misogyny.

If a man has sex with a woman, there is a chance, however small, of a baby resulting.

The bloke's choice point is there - have sex or don't have sex. This is commensurate with the level of risk a pregnancy puts him under (none) and the level of responsibility he's forced to take for that child (financial only - and even then poorly enforced)

If a man doesn't want to have to support a baby, he shouldn't have sex.

If a man feels so strongly about this then he can choose to not have sex before marriage, which many many men, in many many cultures are religions do. So it is not impossible ;)

Men can’t be raped by women, legally. It’s classed as sexual assault instead.

My partner had one child when he was very young. Was v clear he would never want another. I have two. After some years I said I wanted to come off the pill as it was causing issues. We talked about condoms and I said that's fine but advised him I would probably not abort if an accident occurred, just not for me. He booked in for a snip the same week. It's called taking responsibility. In the end a child is created by two parents.

And to the pp who mentioned including this in sex ed, first we absolutely do teach this at my school and second, stop putting everything on teachers. Parents, social circle, society needs to be loud and clear about this. Men down the pub and on Reddit should not be swapping tips on how to avoid paying, the CMS should use the powers it has and be linked to HMRC. Until we stop blaming women for mens' feckless, reckless behaviour nothing will change.

One is the choice to end a pregnancy.
One is deciding to be a deadbeat.

It is not cheap to raise a child and if both parents are not taking financial responsibility for that then someone else will have to and I’m not sure that your plan would make financial sense to society in general

The man/father could sign away any obligations at the point of birth or before only to turn up years later to find the child and “put things right” having not supported them in any way throughout their childhood - I expect that would cause a lot of distress all round

But if the dad won't pay who should? The tax payer? Of course men should pay for children they help create!

No way, men know that sex can lead to parenthood. The rest of society should not have to support his actions because he doesn't fancy paying for what he created. Too many men fiddle their numbers so they don't have to pay much or anything as it is, we don't need more excuses. The child needs to be fed, housed and clothed and that costs money.

Hang on, so you are actually now in a relationship with your baby's father? So is he making a voluntary financial contribution? If not, why not?