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!

Let's recap that Lilac believes this should be allowed in law -

1. Woman gets pregnant
2. Shortly after the father, be it husband, boyfriend or one night stand, makes the decision based on how he feels on that day, to be involved or not
3. He can sign a declaration absconding him of financial and emotional responsibility
4. Woman goes through pregnancy and birth completely alone
5. Woman raises child on one salary, or probably no salary as can't afford child care. Possibility of being in poverty sky rockets
6. Child goes through life with no right to know its father
7. Father never has to worry about it again

Two people lose out, someone gets their way on the technicality that they have a penis

She believes there should be no exceptions to this rule and should include married couples who were both actively trying for a baby and no doubt those who have been successful in IVF, as well as men who didn't use condoms

Yet, her beliefs are the opposite of misogyny apparently.

Quite possible her comments about "opposite of misogyny" are the most deluded thing I've ever read on MN

I take it said man gets to "rinse and repeat" as many times as he likes under the new law? Maybe they could call it the law of the golden penis, or willy rights, just so we never forget what is really important.

I keep saying, Pinky, but you don't compute: I think men should have the same choice as a woman does, after the sex act that results in an unintended pregnancy. Say, in the first trimester, when she can readily opt for an abortion without his say-so, he should be able to write off parental rights and responsibilities in the same way - regardless of what she wants or decides to do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I would never force someone into parenthood against his will, just as I would never allow a man to force me into parenthood against my will.

I have never advocated allowing men to walk away from existing children. The taxpayers are footing enough of that bill as it is. But if two sexual partners have mutually failed to take sufficient precautions and a pregnancy occurs, they each should have the same right to walk away from the pregnancy in, say, the first 90 days. If he wants an abortion and she doesn't, she can't be forced into it but she can accept the consequences of demanding 100 percent of the decision-making authority at that point.

Dooming a person to decades of parenthood when one was happy enough to jump into the sack with him without sufficient contraception on either side, seems quite hypocritical. Properly used birth control does work, after all, so if a pregnancy results, it's not simply the man's fault. Answer me again, why are women willing to have sex without sufficient contraception each and every time? Why are so many of these surprise pregnancies occurring? Can't they say "no" if he won't don a condom, as a backup for their own preferred method?

I do not have contempt for women I am one but I do have contempt for hypocrites and professional after-the-fact victims. And for women who will sleep with any old loser and then act disingenuously surprised when he isn't interested in the fate of unexpected offspring. Exercise a little discrimination and be vigilant about your own contraception, and demand a condom at every act (for a variety of reasons) and this would be a non-issue.

There is a smelly undercurrent of "men better be prepared to pay up/take their medicine for the privilege of having recreational sex or they can do without" in this thread and it's quite distasteful.

It's not a smelly undercurrent.

It's an acknowledgement of biological reality and bodily autonomy.

*Let's recap that Lilac believes this should be allowed in law -

1. Woman gets pregnant
2. Shortly after the father, be it husband, boyfriend or one night stand, makes the decision based on how he feels on that day, to be involved or not
3. He can sign a declaration absconding him of financial and emotional responsibility
4. Woman behaves like an adult, faces the reality that, with her fully conscious and willing cooperation in careless sex, her egg has been fertilized by an uncommitted and unwilling partner and concludes that this is not an optimal situation for producing a human being, and has an abortion.*

Fixed that for you, Pinky.

Women get to choose what happens to their bodies because they are their bodies. Men do not get to choose as they do not become pregnant.

The man can choose to use contraception, use it correctly, be prepared to deal with any pregnancy resulting from the sex he is about to have.

"I wonder what percent of the 68 percent lie about their wages to ensure they pay the minimum amount. "

Hi lumpy

I clicked through to the data and the question was "whether sends or gives money for child support" - no indication of amount so could be anything from 50%+ of child's costs to the odd fiver.

"Can't they say "no" if he won't don a condom, as a backup for their own preferred method? "

If the man is so keen not to be a parent that he wants to take your mythical opt out, why the hell is he not putting a condom on and if he doesn't, why is that the woman's fault??

In your hypothetical opt out law, Lilac, any man who hadn't worn a condom should instantly be disallowed, don't you think?

Thanks for looking that up Jacquetta. Anecdotally I know of so many cases where the man does everything to avoid paying the full amount. My friend is always dicked about at christmas, at the worse possible time of the year. When she called the CSA they said it was the time they received most of their calls, as so many men had missed payments.

I love the fact that in the above scenario the man is absolved of all responsibility for using contraception, and bears no responsibility for a resulting pregnancy.

Not if the couple were in mutual agreement about the methods of birth control they were using, Jacquetta. Which other than in cases of rape is 100 percent of the time, since no woman is forced to accept a man without a condom.

So if she overtly or tacitly agrees that HER method of birth control, if any, is all they need - by virtue of proceeding with the intercourse - why is he the bad guy after the fact, and she the noble innocent victim of misogyny and irresponsible male shagging? Give me a break.

I think men should have some option, but it's murky waters and I don't see or imagine how it could be done fairly for all parties, and although it's true if they don't have sex then they can't have a child, i think that's fairly impractical as most enjoy and want sex at least occasionally, so it's essentially Condemning men to being lonely until they want children, which they may never want, because I imagine most women wanting sex at some point.

And with men saying they don't want a baby, if it's said early enough in the pregnancy, the foetus is not yet a child, just like it isn't with an early abortion. Like I said I think there should be more options but I can't even imagine a way that it could be done fairly for everybody.

In your scenario, Lilac, you talked about a man who "won't don a condom"

Men can take responsibility for their own contraception. Yet you argue, if they won't, a conception is still not their responsibility.

Wow. Pigeons and chessboards, right there.

"Condemning men to being lonely until they want children,"

Nope. It's noting that they can minimise risk of pregnancy but not eliminate it. If they want to run that risk, fine. If they don't, non-PIV is an option.

There is no other option that allows women bodily autonomy.

Women do have extra choice in terms of pregnancy/abortion because they bear 100% of the physical cost to their bodies for that choice, sometimes with their lives, and certainly many times with physical consequences that last the rest of their lives.

LilacInn You keep saying that women get more choice while seeming to ignore the fact that with that also comes more consequences (for the woman), and that she will face some sort of physical consequences no matter what the outcome of a conception is.

I understand what you are saying about making it fairer for men because as it stands they have less choices. But it is already made fair for them by virtue of the fact that they never, ever have to face any of the physical consequences of pregnancy (however long), childbirth, or abortion.

You seem to rather be arguing in the opposite direction of unfairness, that a man's choices should include the option for him to have ZERO consequences, when for a woman that will never be the case.

Anyone who looks at the current situation and thinks that men need to accept LESS responsibility than they do right now is an idiot. And a misogynist and child-hater. But mainly an idiot.

Jacquetta I don't know your situation but for myself and everybody I know, it varies of course depending on libido, but PIV sex is important to the relationship at some point

*obviously talking about heterosexual relationships

No one is condemning men to being lonely, they just have to accept equal responsibility.

"From memory yes. I'm pretty sure someone will be along soon the quote the 'real' figure."

Sociological studies asking different questions of different groups do come up with different answers, yes.

I don't know what gingerbread research is based on, but this is self reporting from 1000 fathers who don't live with their children ie the NRPs. I assume gingerbread surveys RPs.

Every time I have sex there is a possibility that I will become pregnant, as a woman that is not something I can avoid. Men also need to be accountable for their actions, it's so weird that people are so concerned about a mans right to fuck consequence free.

But saying they shouldn't have sex if they don't want a child, Is in a way isn't it? I can't see many straight women happily entering into a relationship with the possibility of potentially no PIV sex, or a man now declaring he's open to having a child so is willing to have sex.

Sex ever*

Twit

Yessss, PIV is nice. But it comes with a risk, which can be significantly reduced but not eliminated.

PIV is also "the norm" because of contraception, IMO. I'm sure that couples who wanted to limit pregnancies pre-Pill had less PIV, more alternatives.