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!

I don't think its at all reasonable to let a man keep a pregnant woman hanging for 24 weeks. But a day or a week isn't.

So you think women should wait around to find out if they'll have either an abortion or just get shafted financially for the next 18 years, while a man ponders his future? You can't see the problem with this? You don't think the economy would be very negatively affected? You don't think poverty would rise? You don't think there'd be more strain on NHS services? You think it's fine for a child to enter a world disadvantaged so a man can avoid his responsibilities? You think out of a woman and child seriously suffering vs a man being inconvenienced, the former is the lesser of two evils?

And I really take exception to your suggestion that only abortion after 12 weeks are traumatic.

Actually voyage as someone who'll never give birth or have a termination I don't think you do understand - yes I believe a termination can be more traumatic than a birth. Birth can lead to death, but if you don't actually die, or weren't close to death, you can't claim that side of it was traumatic for you. I had a smooth termination. I had a birth where I nearly died. Giving birth was not more traumatic

So Voyage if you were in this situation and you wanted the woman to have a termination you would offer to pay half of the costs towards a Marie Stopes termination.

A child born to a resentful, disinterested and apathetic father is already profoundly disadvantaged, whether or not the bio-father is forced to pay CSA.

If a woman chooses a man like that to sire her offspring, instead of holding out for a decent relationship and an enthusiastic, willing father for them, then it's on her. Other than rare chained-in-basement scenarios no one can force a woman to bear the child of whatever random loser/user/abandoner/shiftless creep that comes along. Why so many are willing to let themselves get pregnant out of wedlock by these tossers is beyond me.

Lilac - your responses are ridiculous and teeming with misogyny.

In summary you think-

• women should be careful about getting pregnant, but men should not be careful about getting women pregnant
• women should consider the type of contraception they use, men shouldn't
• if a woman bring a child into the world and ends up in poverty, it's perfectly OK to put all the blame on her even though the father fucked off without paying a penny?
• only men's opinion is relevant on what should be done about a child.

And you expect us to take you seriously?

I'll say it again and again - one of many reasons in a feminist is because when a man fucks up its the nearest woman's fault. It astonishes me that so many women support this train of thought

Lilac............what a load of misogynistic bollocks.

jezebel.com/5978759/why-are-some-men-pulling-out-womens-iuds

A child born to a resentful, disinterested and apathetic father is already profoundly disadvantaged, whether or not the bio-father is forced to pay CSA

As I said before, no one can force a father to be emotionally involved. But it's a damn sight easier when they cough up financially.

If a woman chooses a man like that to sire her offspring, instead of holding out for a decent relationship and an enthusiastic, willing father for them, then it's on her

I'm sorry you seem to be suggesting that men have no let to ply in producing offspring? "If a woman chooses" - WTF?! You do know relationships are a two way street? Not just women pissing about the street looking out for poor menz to trap?

Also children are not "profoundly disadvantaged" having only 1 parent involved. Not everyone's world hinges on approval from a man you know.

I'm a woman. Who has been sexually active for 35 years and managed not to bring a child into a disadvantaged situation.

You all want it both ways: The woman gets 100 percent of the choice in the event of an unintended, unplanned or accidental pregnancy - but she doesn't accept 100 percent of the responsibility for that choice. THAT is a load of bollocks.

No man on the planet could make me bear a child against my will. And if I choose to have sex with a man who is not sterilized or wearing a condom, then I am accepting responsibility for contraception or lack thereof.

You all want it to be "heads I win, tails he loses."

Please, answer me why you would be having sex in the first place with a tosser who is uninterested in, or unable to, support, nurture and raise a child, if you are so adamant that every sex act might be open to the creation of a new human being? If you really feel that way, why are you not being super-discriminating about whose sperm you accept, so that if an accident does happen, the resulting human being will have the best possible outcome?

Or is it the guy's fault for seducing you?

Someone said women have more contraception options therefore should have more responsibility.

And do you know why men only have condoms? Several variants of the male pill have been found to work perfectly, but there may be side effects like the ones women put up with - ones that sometimes kill women - and we couldn't possibly put men through that.

YY Leisure I saw a piece where the men who tried it complained about bloating so its been put back and this is one of the reasons.

Fair dos Voyage.

Who has been sexually active for 35 years and managed not to bring a child into a disadvantaged situation.

What do you want, a medal?

You all want it both ways: The woman gets 100 percent of the choice in the event of an unintended, unplanned or accidental pregnancy - but she doesn't accept 100 percent of the responsibility for that choice. THAT is a load of bollocks.

Why should she accept 100% of the responsibility when it's 50% someone else's doing? You seem to think a man isn't responsible for any consequences when he has sex?

And when the alternative is women being forced to have either abortions or children they don't want, too right they should choose

No man on the planet could make me bear a child against my will. And if I choose to have sex with a man who is not sterilized or wearing a condom, then I am accepting responsibility for contraception or lack thereof.

But a man has no responsibility to sort contraception or decide to get to know the view of the woman he's sleeping with?

Please, answer me why you would be having sex in the first place with a tosser who is uninterested in, or unable to, support, nurture and raise a child, if you are so adamant that every sex act might be open to the creation of a new human being? If you really feel that way, why are you not being super-discriminating about whose sperm you accept, so that if an accident does happen, the resulting human being will have the best possible outcome?

Why can't you say the same for men and the women they choose to sleep with? I think this is a fair point when asked of both sexes.

With all due respect you're termination was highly unusual, and highly traumatic because of that. It isn't in anyway representative of the 'average' termination which is carried out at a few weeks.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree - I couldn't speak for other women but I'd be very surprised if any termination wasn't traumatic to some degree.

lilac guess what, I have something very shocking to tell you here, so take a seat.
Sometimes a man can be a decent hardworking man. Honest, caring, loving, down to earth family man. So he and his wife/partner decide together to have a baby, but he changes his mind once she's pregnant and fucks off, doesn't pay and isn't all he made himself out to be.
Shit like that happens on a daily basis.
Men can be dick heads. You may think you've found a good one, many women do. But for many women they turn out to be knows so your question as to why women allow themselves to get pregnant? It's because they think they've found someone they can share a life with
They aren't to know he's going to piss off.

Not that you'd believe that

Why should she accept 100% of the responsibility when it's 50% someone else's doing? You seem to think a man isn't responsible for any consequences when he has sex?

Maybe your accusations of misogyny are not fully correct.

Perhaps she thinks that men are stupid, barely even human, and lack the intellectual capacity to take responsibility for who they stick their dick into and whether they use a condom.

There is a kind of woman who has a very low opinion of men in some areas of life, but somehow is still willing to cater to them and be dominated by them in other areas of life.

If I was convinced that men are too stupid to use condoms or get vasectomies, or just not stick their dicks into women, then I would not ever, ever, ever vote for a man at a political election. I mean, why give someone responsibility for something like a town, city, or whole country when he can't even take responsibility for his sex life? It'd be idiotic.

Yep, we will have to agree to disagree, I simply can't get on board with the idea that the average termination in the UK involves more trauma than the average birth.

According to your username, you are a man. You have no clue.

According to my username, I'm a virgin, and I don't know what a termination feels like, or what giving birth feels like, but I listen to women. I know that miscarriages are deeply traumatic for women who want a baby.
A termination that only takes place because a man doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions, and is not wanted has the potential to be just as traumatic.

I therefore agree with Pinky that a termination can be more traumatic than a birth. And that is NOT limited to illegal back alley terminations.

And Vestal, women never, ever, ever, choose to willingly have sex with fertile guys who aren't wearing condoms, right?

How many of the "DP and I have been together 7 weeks and I fell prregnant and now I can't believe how unspportive he is being" or "I have a four month DC who is the result of a fling at Uni and he has never bought it anything but one pack of nappies and only been to see it twice and how can I convince him to be a real da to his son?" laments right here on Mumsnet are by women who were rigorously using their own form of contraception AND refusing to have sex with anyone not wearing a condom?

Give me a break! I have said earlier in this thread that in a perfect world everyone would be scrupulous about birth control. But when women are going to accept any old sperm without being vigilant about birth control, and then turn around and play the victim when said sperm reaches its target, they are simply being illogical. You keep saying that men are 50 percent responsible but it is by definition impossible for them influence the outcomes when the women insist on 100 percent of the decision-making authority over the outcome. It's pretty axiomatic that you cannot assign responsibility without authority.

If I were sure I would not have an abortion, whether in a casual hookup, ONS, a few weeks into a "relationship" or five years into cohabitation, I sure as hell would make that clear up front and frequently remind him of it, so that he could remember that each time he was rolling the dice with his future. And I would be clear that in no way shape or form would my decision be swayed by his preference or opinion, and that is final. And that I would vigorously pursue maintenance and equal sharing of child rearing resposibilities for the next 18 years. How many of the women-wronged that you so vociferously defend have made it a point to have that conversation and reinforce it often?

And if I felt as some of you do that he must always be 50 percent responsible I would never, ever, ever get into the sack with a man who wasn't sterilized or wearing a condom, each and every time. As well as using my own form of contraception, or even two.

What you all in your righteous indignation are overlooking is the hundreds of thousands, if not more, pregnancies that result each year from women being just as careless and cavalier with contraception as the men you decry and malign. But somehow they end up as noble victims instead of being called out for irresponsible procreation. And it's the poor offspring who pay the price for the next seven or eight decades.

Lilac why are you so hell bent on insisting that men near zero responsibility when it comes to having produced an offspring?

We get your point: you think women shouldn't just "accept any old sperm" in fact it seems to make you quite angry.

But where's your "men shouldn't just be ejaculating into any old uterus" outrage? A PP pointed out that it's not all ONS that result in men doing a runner. Do you think it's fine for a happily married couple trying for a baby, falling pregnant, and then the bloke getting cold feet and signing the Penis Exemption Form you so desperately want? Would that be acceptable? even thought he woman was lead to believe this was a joint decision?

And you haven't said if you think women should be forced into abortions or having children they don't want?

You all want it both ways: The woman gets 100 percent of the choice in the event of an unintended, unplanned or accidental pregnancy - but she doesn't accept 100 percent of the responsibility for that choice. THAT is a load of bollocks.

She gets 100 percent of the choice because she does bear 100 percent of the responsibility - for the PREGNANCY. Her body, her risk, her giving birth, her undergoing a termination, her risking tears, reaction to drugs, blood loss, infertility etc. She bears all of this responsibility. The father undergoes absolutely no physical change or risk whatsoever. That is why a woman gets 100 percent of the choice.

Once a child is born, there is a whole new human being in the room - one which has rights that are independent of the circumstances of its conception and birth.

It is astounding to me that anyone can happily deny a child the right to be supported by both his parents. It is literally creating 2 classes of children. Those whose fathers are obliged to support them, and second-class ones who have no such right. How cruel to think this is a good idea.

Well it certainly isn't the men who pay. The women generally raise those "offspring". It's not sure if they leave them in the first to be raised by wolves. Women, generally end up having to be responsible. Perhaps if men took responsibility the children wouldn't end up having to 'pay the price' (whatever that means). A massive factor in how children with single parents fare is down to wealth.

And men not wearing condoms are being even more careless. They are making zero effort and taking zero responsibility. Not just less than 50% like you seem to be implying should be the case.

But I suspect we are banging our head against a brick wall here. Men just don't have to take 50% of the responsibility. They are supported in that by society as amply demonstrated on this thread. Where we aren't even asking them to take 50% of the responsibility - just stump up some money for the children they have helped bring into this world.