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!

Good point, heyrobot. After birth or during the pregnancy (and including of course men who commit DV in that period, which is known as high risk for first incidents)

I suspect given many more people use condoms to prevent STIs in casual sex than in relationships, the numbers reflect this in some way.

Maybe a public information campaign is needed about bodily autonomy, in line with the AIDS iceberg that scared the bejesus out of me a couple of decades ago.

The choice of having an abortion is disproportionately consequential for women. Abortion consequences for men are zero.

That is just not true. Abortion can be as straightforward as taking a few pills, that is not disproportionate. It also assumes there are not consequences for men, I have known several men for whom the consequences were devastating.

Not all men are bastards, this thread is about a minority of men. And that brings up a thought that whilst all men are theoretically responsible for their child they do NOT have the same rights over the child as the mother.

Having read the whole read, I am shocked that people are still arguing that somehow men are at a disadvantage.

We know, all of us, that (if we're didcussing unplanned offspring) women start from a point of disadvantage in sexual reproduction. Since the dawn of time, women have been left holding the baby at every stage. Before the advent of modern medicine, women were regularly dying in childbirth. Now that we are some decades into trying to even out the playing field thanks to birth control,, we still have not just men but also women feeling unsettled by the idea that men might have to face up to the harsh realitiesof accidental pregnancy. How utterly depressing.

The very fact that we have a thread that is basically saying 'waaah, poor men having to pay for the children they abandoned' is appalling.

Abortion is a terrible, horrifying last resort for many (most?) women. Ffs.

I agree women should have the decision to have an abortion, it would be ridiculous to think not IMO, and generally when talking about abortion we are talking about a foetus and not a child. A man doesn't have that option so it seems like saying they want literally nothing to do with the child if it were to be carried to term (at least in the period when an abortion is viable) is the closest comparable situation. Of course it's not the same but the its down to the woman if she still wants to give birth, and their are of course still risks abortion or carrying to term but if medical science got to a point there was 0 risk there would probably people that decide either way for personal choice.

Whilst if a woman chooses to carry a foetus to term, there is a physical child, if a man chose to detach himself from the foetus in say an appropriate time frame such as the same or smaller than the abortion time frame it should also be a decision made on the basis of it being a foetus.

I don't see this as finding a way for men to fuck without consequences, or misogynistic, or child hating as some have suggested.

Oh apparently if the actual procedure of abortion is straightforward, then that's ok. Never mind the devastating psychological consequences.

HeyRobot
You might be right that most single mums are the result of relationship break down rather that one night stands. But how many of that group are men who think "well I have to give it a try anyway because the state forces me to pay no matter what?".

Wouldn't it be better to let women have all the info before the birth, ie. *the man doesn't want to be here and isn't really trying to make it work"? So she can make an honest choice?

An abortion at an early stage will surely have all the physical consequences of a miscarriage. Having experienced that I can say that while dp experienced a disappointment and some worry and sadness, it disproportionally affected me - as all the physical effects, appointments etc were experienced by me alone. Had he not wanted the baby there would have been no ill effects for him but I would still have had to go through the pain and suffering.

I'm talking about physical consequences, which are the same as miscarriage (ie. not zero, and can be severe). Mental consequences are also likely to be more severe if it is an abortion the woman did not want.

As for mental consequences on a man who did not want his sexual partner to abort - that would not be helped by the 'both parties must consent to birth' philosophy.

I do not think all men are bad people, I assume I'm debating with majority-women here actually (judging by the rest of MN). However, as a group, they have nowhere near the same levels of consequence and responsibility as women do for pregnancy/birth/children, and some still think they should have less.

But Merchant do you not also think there are possible psychological effects of having a child especially an unwanted child on both men and women?

MerchantofVenice Its just wrong to say all women are psychological harmed by an abortion and all men dont give a shit.

Cross post Keep.

I don't know mathsmum, do you mean that many men are staying in relationships they don't want to be in to have a go at raising children they don't want because they might have to pay £30 a week otherwise?

You talk like £120 isn't a lot, I think it is too many especially if you have to find somewhere else to live etc and start life anew

"And that brings up a thought that whilst all men are theoretically responsible for their child they do NOT have the same rights over the child as the mother."

Once the child is a child (ie once born and no longer inside a woman's body), what is the difference in rights?

A man can apply for PR for any biological child of his (if he's not on the birth certificate). Any judge considering residency will start from what is best for the child, which is usually to have a strong relationship with and significant time with both parents.

"MerchantofVenice Its just wrong to say all women are psychological harmed by an abortion and all men dont give a shit."

Jolly good, as that isn't what MoV said.

You talk like £120 isn't a lot...

In that case maybe we should change it so that resident parents pay £120/month toward the costs of raising the child, while the non-resident partner picks up the entire rest of the bill. I wonder how many would think it a favourable swap!

Except that's the whole point isn't it, the woman can choose whether have an abortion and incur the psychological, physical, and financial costs that a child brings after conception, be it planned or accidental, men don't have that option and after an often unplanned mishap are somewhat burdened for the rest of their life, I feel like we're back to the start, gone full circle

What sort of man would walk away from their child, there are lots of them out there but why would they do that? Who would argue for their right to do that?

Not if the couple were in mutual agreement about the methods of birth control they were using

What if both agreed not to use birth control? The woman shoulders everything and the man gets away Scot free?

If a woman doesn't want an abortion, she should avoid PIV sex.

Why won't you extend this principle to men? If they don't want a baby they should avoid PIV sex

Also, if a woman doesn't want an abortion then she shouldn't get an abortion - not "she shouldn't have sex"

I'm going to pretend for a moment that the law you so desperately want lilac is in force. Do you think re a married couple who were actively trying, a man should be able to sign the paper and the woman just put up with it? As you seem to be focussing your view on the belief that only men who piss off are men who had one night stands and no one else? Despite people telling you otherwise that husbands do it as well.

And say there were a 'criteria' for a man signing the get-out clause. For example, a "friends with benefits" fling. How would you expect people to prove? What if man says "it's just casual sex" and the woman says "actually we were in a committed relationship and trying for a baby". Or a ONS, the man says they used a condom, the woman says they didn't. Who would you believe? Would you want proof? Would there have to be a court case? That's a good waste of taxpayers money!

As a pp said there'd be 2 classes of children - those officially with dads and those without. Poverty would rise. You've mentioned how taxpayer foots the bill for single parents, this bill would absolutely sky rocket. There'd be more pressures on the NHS. There'd be more children suffering (because despite your smugness about never getting pregnant and blase attitudes to abortion, the fact is babies still would be born wether you think they should or not).

Still waiting to hear how your views are the "opposite of misogyny". That is insanely deluded!

Your arguments are unbelievably ill thought through and you come across as not only a woman hater (yes women can be misogynists too) but really quite dim.

It's at odds to say we want to live in a society that condones 'recreational' sex ( for want of a better term ) and then say to men 'actually it's not like that' because I'm pregnant and you should have considered the very real consiquences of putting your penis inside me

Bollocks is it. Men aren't walking dicks, they all know sex may lead to a baby. Shrugging your shoulders afterwards and saying "but I only had sex for fun" is ridiculous

Abortion can be as straightforward as taking a few pills

You clearly know nothing about abortion if you think it's the same as treating a headache.

Although I agree abortion doesn't have zero consequences for men, many can be affected mentally as many don't want their partners or pregnantees to abort their child. For which I have sympathy for them, my BIL's DP aborted the baby that he wanted and he was heartbroken. however I will never support any change in a man having a say in abortion because that means men having bodily autonomy over women, which should never happen. And I think if a woman wants an abortion and the man doesn't, she should go ahead with it as its her body. As upset as my BIL was, his DP did the right thing

Both men and women have completely equal choices over their own body's input into creation of a child.

The choices that women have for the duration of gestation reflect the fact that all outcomes involve what happens to their own physical body, and not their male partner's.

Once a child is born, it has its own needs and rights which are independent of what each parent might want.

Both parents are theoretically back to equal rights/equal responsiblity (although paying CSA in no way covers anywhere near 50% responsibility, and a not insignificant percentage of men will pay nothing at all).

In short, yes men have fewer choices. They also take on nowhere near the level of consequences that women do, whatever the outcome.

carry a foetus to term, there is a physical child, if a man chose to detach himself from the foetus in say an appropriate time frame such as the same or smaller than the abortion time frame it should also be a decision made on the basis of it being a foetus.

This makes no sense. Foetuses carried to full term turn into babies wether men want them or not.

Wouldn't it be better to let women have all the info before the birth, ie. the man doesn't want to be here and isn't really trying to make it work"? So she can make an honest choice?*

Sorry who would be giving a woman this info??

I'm not saying that £120 isn't a lot of money to a lot of people. I'm asking if that is the decision non resident parents - either men or women - are taking. Are they honestly giving a relationship they know has no future a go, because they can't afford £120. I just think that isn't particularly realistic.

men don't have that option and after an often unplanned mishap are somewhat burdened for the rest of their life, I feel like we're back to the start, gone full circle

So for women it's a choice but for men it's a burden?

Jesus the misogyny in this thread is depressing. Can we all for a moment stop being insulting to men by treating them like they're some sort of dimwit species who are so driven by their dicks that they can't figure out sex may lead to a baby, and that thereafter they're just too stupid and delicate to take on the 'burden' of their actions.