Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

879 replies

NeedACleverNN · 02/08/2016 19:33

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!

OP posts:
CatsAndCocktails · 02/08/2016 19:55

Seems more get away with it than not

Sadly it isn't just that it seems that way because many more definitely do get away with it than not.

Original poster
NeedACleverNN · 02/08/2016 19:55

Unfortunatly VeryBitchy

It is a valid argument. No contraception is 100% so yes, you shouldn't have sex if you don't want a baby. However if the woman wants an abortion, it's her right to. Her body, her right

OP posts:
OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 02/08/2016 19:56

If the man doesn't want a baby, he can choose to a) use contraception or b) to be extra sure, not have sex with a woman he wouldn't be happy having a baby with.

It's really fucking simple, actually. What don't people understand about that? It is a woman's choice what happens to her body, so forcing an abortion would be wholly ethically and morally wrong. The man's choice to "abort" his parental rights comes before he... well, comes, for want of a better phrase Blush

toptoe · 02/08/2016 19:56

It's neglect a parent not paying towards their child. Sadly, not seen as neglect in eyes of the law. But that is what it is. Child neglect. Of course the selfish people who neglect their children are going to say it's the other parents' fault one way or another, because that's what abusive people do. Neglect is a form of abuse.

FeliciaJollygoodfellow · 02/08/2016 19:57

I think it's because when people say that, they are imagining that the woman has intentionally 'allowed' herself to become pregnant by not using birth control ?other than condoms).

(Not in agreement at all btw).

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 02/08/2016 19:57

What about if it's the woman who objects to condoms and tells her partner not to worry because she is most definitely on the pill?

(Although the chap I know who's girlfriend did that actually married her. Marriage lasted about 12 years!)

toptoe · 02/08/2016 19:59

Not having sex is 100% effective birth control.

Original poster
NeedACleverNN · 02/08/2016 19:59

If the woman rejects the condom because she claims she's on the pill, the man should walk away. All part of taking responsibility for his own contraception

OP posts:
KickAssAngel · 02/08/2016 19:59

I think there's a difference between whether a man gets a say AFTER sex, during pregnancy, and a woman.

Men - 100% need to take responsibility (condoms, abstinence, whatever) up until a woman is pregnant.

Women - 100% responsible up until too late for a termination. Her body, her choice.

BUT - if we made it law, would men just start signing paperwork to put their kids up for adoption, leaving the woman 100% on their own? That's a scary thought, and there are men who would do that (or the normal yadda yadda women do it too, but let's face it, neglecting & abandoning children is primarily a male act).

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 02/08/2016 20:00

Spot on NeedA. Contraception is not solely the woman's responsibility.

toptoe · 02/08/2016 20:01

Still the same even if the woman lied about being on the pill. He has to realise that even if she was, she could still have got pregnant. And it's not the kids' fault their parents screwed up (actually, creating a child is never a screw up as far as I'm concerned - having been brought up as a 'mistake' it's very harmful to the child's psyche and never really leaves you).

Lelloteddy · 02/08/2016 20:02

Top toe exactly. If an NRP failed to provide a child with shelter, food and clothing they'd be neglectful.
An NRP can provide nothing and gets away without scrutiny.

mathsmum314 · 02/08/2016 20:02

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.

Surely their could be an arrangement where both parties consent to birth, then we will have real equality. Or is it only equal when we have the upper hand?

StealthPolarBear · 02/08/2016 20:03

Because op it's not FAAAAAIR on the poor men.
I know, let's get a woman to sort it all out for you by taking responsibility for your actions.
its not FAAAAAIR on her either but hey life's not fair.

mrsfuzzy · 02/08/2016 20:03

sounds like the jeremy kyle show "if you don't want a kid put something on the end of it !"

KickAssAngel · 02/08/2016 20:03

Last time there was a thread like this on MN I checked some figures.

The CSA (data was from a few years back) reported 33% of father they knew about were paying NOTHING even after being ordered to pay.

That's 33% of the ones CSA had been given details of, tracked down, taken to court, and said that they would legally enforce payment.

Who knows how many other non-paying parents there are? Or those who pay under the amount? Or the CSA couldn't find them? Or who lied and said they earn nothing but get cash in hand? etc etc. Those figures would imply that over 50% of non-resident parents pay NOTHING to support their kids.

Yeah, if he had sex, he pays. For the next 18 years.

RichardBucket · 02/08/2016 20:04

mathsmum314 It cannot be equal until a man can carry a foetus to term like a woman. Anyway, equal rights doesn't mean everything being exactly the same.

Original poster
NeedACleverNN · 02/08/2016 20:05

mrsfuzzy

I now have "if you don't want a kid but a thing on it" to the tune of Beyoncé's ring on it Envy

OP posts:
Just5minswithDacre · 02/08/2016 20:05

I've never heard it IRL

KickAssAngel · 02/08/2016 20:06

mathsmum - I think it's fairly obvious that the woman has to go through pregnancy and childbirth. When men have to face the decision of whether they want to put their body through that trauma (and it very nearly killed me, and has left me with a lifelong illness, so can be a big deal) then men get to have a say once they are pregnant.

toptoe · 02/08/2016 20:06

Can people put their kids up for adoption if one of the natural parents still has the child in their care? Genuine question....I've heard of step dads taking on PR and also think that a step parent can adopt children after the father/mother has been asked by them to give up rights, but not heard of them being able to just give up rights by themselves without being asked to do it. Is that legal?

CanadaMoose · 02/08/2016 20:07

I agree with Apple. If a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly and chooses to keep it despite the man saying he does not want it and would prefer to abort, he should be able to walk away. The woman could easily abort a child that a man wants, but nobody here seems to take that into account. If a woman had a baby and the father had sole custody, should the woman pay child support despite not wanting the baby and having no part of its upbringing?

It takes two to make a baby. But there are millions of phenomenal single parents who prove it does not take two to raise and provide for a child.

VoyageOfDad · 02/08/2016 20:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
NeedACleverNN · 02/08/2016 20:10

Canada
Why should be get to walk away? So it's ok for him to go out and create 20 kids because he doesn't want them so therefore should be allowed to do what he wants?

OP posts:
KickAssAngel · 02/08/2016 20:11

If the man has the baby (ie carries it to term and gives birth) then he gets to choose to keep it once he is pregnant. The woman would then be liable for 50% of the cost of upkeep.

Adoption - A couple can put the baby up for adoption if both agree to it, then one adopt the baby back. ie, birth mum & dad put child up for adoption, then birth mum and new partner adopt the baby. I know a family who did this.

Don't know what happens if the birth dad is AWOL completely. Or if it was a sperm donation. Also don't know the legal details where 2 women have a baby and legally they both have PR.