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!

LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF I really hope women are given more dignity and privacy now but I doubt it. I really do.

I must add i still don't regret my choice. Not for one second. I just wish I felt like a was decent Person when making that choice not just another statistic.

lilac I didn't have a crystal ball. I could not 'see' four and a half years into the future. What is your real issue here?

Twat I went through the those horrors and that process in my termination but I have to say that all the staff and nurses were amazing and non-judgemental which is not what I expected, so there are some good eggs in the system!

Sunshineonacloudyday I didn't say that and if anyone read my post that way I'm really sorry if I gave that impression. I think people that walk about on their children are selfish shits. I think that abortions are a totally private matter, should be available without moralising if and when needed and that women who have abortions should be supported and not condoned.

I haven't had to have one myself but would if needed (I absolutely didn't want to have any more children after dd, and until dh had the snip worried that I might get pregnant and would have taken action if I had done so). I've told both my children that if they or any of their friends need help to access an abortion if needed I would do the driving to get them to a clinic. But I don't think anyone should ever be pressured into having an abortion just because the prospective father didn't want to step up to the plate.

Personally I think lilac has her own personal hang ups about parental rejection. Because let's face it, the most loving and decent parents in the world would reject anything that turned out like that.

So pleased she (or more likely he) isn't in a parenting role.

lambrini and a high rise is too high class, more 4 cans of skol and a 'ban the csa' protest outside the local off licence.

I'm sorry I completely read it wrong.

pinky most of them were but there were a couple of staff who were very abrupt. Not so much with what was said but pitying looks and not given privacy when having pads checked post anaesthetic. One comment 'you can't keep doing this' that particular nurse assumed my previous D&C was an abortion when it wasn't. That certainly didn't help how I felt.

lurked having done a quick search i do believe that lilac has an axe to grind. I don't know what exactly but seeing as not long ago she posted on a thread that men often conceive simply to prove their manliness (yes really!) and that women should take this into account before conception, I'm gonna take a punt that she has ishoos, and that her opinion on the subject is about as relevant as Donald Trump's toupee

Twat that's awful in sorry you had to experience that.

Sorry Pinkie but I was conceived in wedlock and my parents were happily married for 40-plus years till dad's death.

I'm sitting in the lounge of a lakeside cottage my grandfather built mortgage-free in 1938 but feel free to think otherwise if that floats your boat.

My only hang up is overpopulation and a disdain for people who care so little for their offspring that they produce them in undesirable circumstances rather than exercise some due diligence and self control.

I'm sorry to derail a very serious thread. I just started reading and got to the bit about men having babies and I just had to say before I read on;

If men are ever able to get pregnant, I am totally getting back with my ex. Imma screw him senseless until he's with child. I'll then spend the next 40 weeks shit faced, while whinging about the state of the house and asking what he's done all day. Whilst he's in labour, I'll be hungover and as such I'll be about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Once the baby arrives, I will complain about helping with night feeds because I am a precious flower who needs my beauty sleep. I'll continue being shit faced 90% of the time.

Eventually I'll trade him in for a younger, fitter model on acount of him having let himself go. I'll take the baby of course. I'm not that much of a prick

That would be completely worth having to put up with the tosser for a couple of years.

People change

Some great fathers have walked away from their children and never looked back

Some fathers have become great fathers when they never thought they would

A women should only have an abortion when she feels it is the right thing to do. A man not supporting her is not a reason for her it is a reason for him.

My only hang up is overpopulation and a disdain for people who care so little for their offspring that they produce them in undesirable circumstances rather than exercise some due diligence and self control

Ah so you care about the environment I see. silly me! Not sure how you relate that to your misogyny though as you only seem to be pissed off at women re reproducing.

"Of course someone with an out of wedlock child by an indifferent and resentful sex partner is going to beat the drum that women are blameless, men are bad and must be made to pay for life. Not much you can say to people with such an obsession."

Wrong again! Two kids, conceived "in wedlock" (yikes, is it the 1400s?), both financially and emotionally supported by DH (who is committed and enthusiastic, not indifferent and resentful) and I.

"My only hang up is overpopulation and a disdain for people who care so little for their offspring that they produce them in undesirable circumstances rather than exercise some due diligence and self control"

Then why aren't you castigating men who "won't don a condom"?

Then why aren't you castigating men who "won't don a condom"?

Exactly. Women are only capable of having one, rarely 2 or 3, children in a year.

Men on the other hand, a single unprotected man could easily get 100, 200 women pregnant in that year.

Who is it that really needs to look at their contraceptive choices? The woman who will only produce one dependant child or the man who could produce even more?

Honestly, if an opt out rule was introduced or the law removed that forces all parents to support their children what do you think would happen?

Men already get away with Only paying the bare minimum and it's hardly a deterrent and they still complain they were trapped, sperm was stolen and whatever excuse they can think of to dodge responsibility.

Ideally the law would be toughened up to protect children and their rights to know who both parents are.

As a society we need to shift our attitudes to make it shameful for any parent to not contribute towards their children's welfare. If a family's income increases then the children benefit. It's really disgraceful for any parent to hide income so as to not pay anything or more than they currently do to their children.

Benefit fraud has been demonised by the government and they could do the same about non payment of maintenance if they were inclined.

The amount payable takes into account how much time the children spend with their nrp. The nrp often fights for as much access as they can get, but then let's the children down. Theoretically they are paying that set amount because they are shouldering the cost for every other weekend for example. If they miss a weekend and it's not a swap of days or something reasonable then they aren't keeping the child fed and sheltered for that time so need to pay the rp extra.

Let's is one of the most annoying autocorrects!

Pity this has got personal - it stops a debate.

Sex is basic biology. It is a drive. V rare and not healthy to have no sex.

At the moment contraceptive for men v limited. Not 100% sure so really he shouldn't have piv sex unless he wants a baby.

Women can use a diaphragm, plus a coil, plus a pill with an abortion back up if they really don't want a child. (Not saying they should). If men had more options there wouldn't be such a problem. Many men would not choose to have a child.

We should educate men and women to enjoy non-penetrative sex - it gives them a bit more control over their fertility. Harder for women to get pregnant accidentally so avoids her having to do things to her body that she is unhappy about.

We should also put more money into male contraception - it is long overdue. Most men I know would use a pill or a patch for peace of mind.

There is more contraception available for women as it is the woman who always bears more responsibility, twas ever thus. The fact that people are arguing that men should have more rights and more control over a women's body is quite disgusting.

I also agree that educating that their are other ways to enjoy sex other than piv is a great idea. Unfortunately most of the porn industry promotes that hugely, and that is what young men digest and think is normal.

there obviously, not their, sigh.

I don't think large pharmaceutical companies aren't bothering with the male pill because they favour women. If they're not investing it's because they don't think men would take a hormonal contraceptive so no money in it.

There would be money in it if men knew that a child meant real inescapable financial responsibility and if governments took seriously the costs of raising "fatherless" children. At the moment the state pays and we allow that because we do not want to penalise either a child or a mother. There are indications that "The State" is finding this too expensive - hence the benefits cap at 2 children and threads like these discussing the issue.