If he doesn't want a baby, you shouldn't seek CSA

[NeedACleverNN]

Why the hell is this line still trotted out?

I've even seen it on here. Woman falls pregnant, boyfriend doesn't want it and wants an abortion. She doesn't. People advise her to keep the baby and let him go. Don't bother seeking child maintenance because he didn't want the baby in the first place.

No!! If he didn't want a baby he should take his own precautions to preventing pregnancy. You don't like condoms? You don't have sex!

He assumed that she was still taking the pill after he told her that he did not want children. She stopped taking it the moment he told her. They are both idiots.

Yes Pass, I know that unplanned doesn't necessarily mean unwanted. But I wouldn't personally take the risk of a child being wanted by both parents without having had a clear discussion before stopping 2 forms of contraception. I know there are lots of 'happy surprises' etc but I feel a child's potential wellbeing is far too important a thing to gamble on and hope that it will be wanted if a conception does happen.

As I stated in my 7.29 post, things can and do of course go wrong further down the line, eg death of parents, relationship and marriage breakdown, such is life. But there's little excuse for not trying ones damnedest to ensure that any child conceived in this modern country with abundant free contraception has been planned for and wanted by 2 parents, to stop the very type of situations this thread is all about.

Often the potential child's needs seem to come last of all, it should never have come to the point that they were conceived and CSA battles etc- there should be more emphasis on preventing chikdren ever being born in such situations. My viewpoint is no doubt coloured from working with children who have been affected by such situations though.

Yes, he's an idiot. I am not disputing that. And be should not have carried on sleeping with her, after she had asked him.

In that case user, it's just beyond me why on earth the woman would want or try to conceive a baby with a man she knows doesn't, and risk the heartache for a potential child being rejected by its dad. why don't the child's needs come first?

I guess it is her right to have sex, but still incredibly selfish to put her needs above a child's knowing what is likely to follow after its birth. I think we will have to agree to differ on this.

My ex announced he didn't want children by pissing off for 18 months. Lots of men change their minds and think it's most unfair they have to pay - often the kids are teenagers when this happens not babies !
If I had a pound for every single man in his 40's who's wicked ex wife conned him into kids he didn't want I wouldn't need CSA. I e concluded 9/10 men just do not want their kids really full stop and if they are married they put up with the situation because the wife inists.

Sorry but I still think there should be far fewer women falling pregnant "unexpectedly" in this day and age of abundant (and mostly free) contraception options. It's really sad that so many children are born in the first place that aren't fully wanted and planned for

check out this rather helpful chart that points out the theoretical effectiveness and its actual effectiveness.

Male condoms are meant to be 98% effective but through actual use they are around 85% effective. This is down to - putting the condom on the wrong way first (so there is a chance of sperm being on the outside), not being careful when putting them on so they tear, a man using an incorrect size condom so it is either too loose and falls off or too tight and bursts/tears, people not checking the use by dates of the condoms.

The pill is supposed to be 99.9% effective but in actual use its only around 92% effective.

so even doubling up contraceptive methods there is the possibility of approx 1 in 8 women falling pregnant and it would be unfair to blame either party for that. Completely unfair.

This is why I know abortion should be accessible because even with the best of intentions things do not go to plan.

People always blame the woman for getting pregnant. Never the man. That's whats sad in this day and age. Its still the woman's fault and their life changes but a man, majority of the time its business as usual.

She was being entirely selfish but ultimately he should have wrapped his tackle right up before having sex with a woman who he knew wanted to reproduce. It's common sense.

Its not that simple though. A man might want to have the baby with the woman paying maintenance. But no, the woman can say fuck that and have an abortion.

I think the phrase 'a pound of flesh' is appropriate. In theory the idea of abortion being a joint decision is fine but in reality pregnancy takes a toll on a woman's body, it can literally (but thankfully rarely) kill her.

Id a man want's to have a woman continue a pregnancy then he should be held to the same standard of Shylock - if she develops a single stretch mark, has morning sickness or anything else that is a consequence of pregnancy then he should forfeit all lands, money and property.

He made it clear that he did not want a child with her & she carried on, regardless

Yep and so did he. You have PIV sex without a condom with a woman who wants a child and well you should (also channeling Beyonce ) 'ah ah ah, ah ah ah, if you didn't want a kid then put a thing on it'

anyone else thinking of contacting Beyoncé and see if she will do a parody of her song for public tv to educate the world?

Depressingly, I absolutely believe Eienna88 is for real and a woman. Here in Ireland, many people hold such views. Not as many as in the past, but enough to make me very nervous indeed about the prospect of getting a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment through. I have been astounded by the views of some fairly young women, very close to the bile Einna has spouted. Lurking beneath the layer of militant anti-choicers is a huge swathe of people subscribing to the "good abortion/bad abortion" paradigm. While there is often some degree of good intention there, it really is just another way of judging women and deciding who is "worthy" of accessing a medical treatment that is safe and legal in almost every civilised state.

Kittens, the work you are doing is so important. Thank you

Sorry for going somewhat off topic!

Absolutely agree with this thread. Men always have the choice not to have sex, to use contraception, and to be certain that the woman they are sleeping with has the same views about whether they would keep a child or not. Ultimately men need to understand that if they have sex, they risk creating a child who they will need to support financially during childhood.

A slightly more grey area for me, however, is the position of men who would choose not to have a baby and then don't want to be part of the child's life when it is born. While I believe that financially they should be forced to support the child, I do have quite a lot of sympathy with a man who in that situation would not want to take on the emotional role of father. So I think the flip side of a woman choosing not to have an abortion is that she needs to be prepared to do 100% of childcare and parenting herself.

I really don't think that's an issue. There are plenty of men who are finding opting out of being a father easy enough - and many of these were happy when the woman was pregnant. Many also get away without paying anything too.
I really don't think there is a group of put upon reluctant fathers that are forced to share parenting that you need to feel sorry for. Women tend to take on most of the burden, but then that is what they're for.

StealthPolarBear Yes - I think you're right. It probably is a non-issue in reality (and as you point out, most men who opt out were perfectly happy to be a father during pregnancy and at the birth - it's only when the reality hits later that they decide they prefer being single!)

My sisters on the pill never wears condoms refuses to but then is terrible at remembering to take her pill but tells guys she's on it if I was a guy with a long term girlfriend I would feel inclined to believe her about being properly on the pill

User whatever, no sympathy for the poor man who insisted upon condom-free ejaculation without any thought for the consequences of this, pill or not. The pill is not 100 per cent effective anyway. Surely any mature adult knows this? Anyway, all he has to do us hand over the bare minimum financially and has otherwise washed his hands of their child. How is this shit? I feel sorry for mum and child not him.
Some of the views of women on this thread are repulsive. I agree with a pp, we need a children's rights centred approach to maintenance and support. NRPs should not get to abandon their children without consequence and if they do, the penalties should be similar to cases of child neglect.

Totally agree Fleurs, if women took the stance most men take after divorce the country would be in chaos.

Smartieskid the pill is not foolproof even if taken correctly. The men your sister sleeps with should accept the consequences of sex including pregnancy and STDs if they do not wear condoms. It's very simple, even in a ltr.

How about "contraception fails"??

you know whats most frustrating. We have all heard of or have experience of a guy who claims to be allergic, not like the feel of or refuse to wear a condom for whatever reason. We have heard of or been on the receiving end of male entitlement when we refuse to have sex with them because they don't want to wear a condom. The last time I refused to have sex with a man who refused to wear a condom I was called frigid and a cock tease.

The problem isn't women trapping men or women failing to protect themselves adequately. Many of us have used many contraceptive methods or have been on the pill since our teens. We know what we need to do to stop ourselves getting pregnant and we do it pretty damn well for most of our lives. We are far more aware than the average bloke.

The issue is the attitudes of men who think they can have risk free, unprotected sex and that whatever the outcome they can blame the woman for not using contraceptives, apparently lying about using the pill demand she get an abortion then run off if she refuses lumping everything on the woman including all emotional, physical and financial responsibilities.

and with the new system it actually rewards a non-resident parent if they go on to have more children because they then have to pay less for the children they don't bother with.

Which bit of the system needs changing first? How contraceptives and pregnancy prevention is taught or the maintenance system that does little to ensure a non resident parent pays their fair share and takes half of the burden?

'Lurking beneath the layer of militant anti-choicers is a huge swathe of people subscribing to the "good abortion/bad abortion" paradigm'. So, so true SoftDay. I have a relative who is heavily involved with the Iona Institute, who are, of course, utterly repugnant. But at least they, and the likes of Youth Defence, are upfront about their hideous anti-choice misogyny. What's worse are the people who are ostensibly pro-choice, but only with 'conditions'. The woman must meet the required standard of shame and remorse, or be somehow tragic or helpless. They are 'pro-choice', but only if you're weeping and regretful, you can have your abortion but your punishment should be a lifetime of regret. I know some such people and it's actually much more damaging than the militant pro forced birthers.

Thanks for the . It's an issue that's very important to me.

kittens I have never for one moment regretted my abortion because it was the right thing to do at the time for me an my health.

i think the 'all women must love and want children' view many have really struggle when a woman has no emotional connection to a pregnancy and this is where a lot of the militant views come in and why they want to punish a woman for making an informed choice.