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!

And I do love the "ignore at your peril" warning. Is it by any chance from the same safety manual as "Don't wear a short skirt or you might get raped?"

KickAssAngel, I am now tempted to go to my nearest pet shop to check out if they do "man feed". That would be so much easier than cooking dinner every night!

Voyage, do you care to explain how this "accepting of evolutionary instincts" would actually look like in practice and what it will actually mean in practice? Like really specifically. Draw us a picture.

Voyage, I strongly suggest that if you have instincts that may impact negatively on others, your control them yourself as opposed to expecting other people to do it for you. That's what being an adult means.

Voyage, your assertions grow more and more enigmatic. I have not a clue of where you got creationism from.

I can just about see the sense in the argument quoted in the OP.

However, IMO the party (in this case women) that cop the flack and get the lion's share of the pain, effort and general physical involvement when it comes to reproduction must have this reflected in legislation. As has rightly been pointed out, the material impact of a termination on the father is nil, whereas - whilst I accept in one sense that enforced parenthood is deeply undesirable - a woman keeping a baby against the father's wishes does not physically endanger him in any way, and any decision on his part to bugger off has a measurable detrimental impact on at least two parties.

Apples and oranges. Is it fair? In one sense, clearly not. But it's equally unfair-yet-inescapable that men are generally physically stronger than women.

With every good or bad "feature" comes an equal and opposite shadow.

Or in the words of dear old Willy S, "heavy is the head that wears the crown".

I really don't see what evolution has to do with men not wanting to pay for children? Unless the suggestion is that it's in men's instinct to procreate in copious amounts? That may be but as civilised humans in the 21st century, mating instinct does not override or trump the knowledge that if you have babies with someone you should pay for them.

I agree the evolution argument has been done to death and is always to "go to" excuse for men's behaviour, I've seen people use it when men have affairs, slack of with childcare and abuse women.

Slack off*

So - if you combine child benefit and child tax credits, that's over 40 billion per year.
According to this link (read down) over 60% of tax credits are claimed by single parent families. Let's assume that with the new rules, child benefit and tax credits will start to be put together.

that's approx. 24 billion pounds a year. Now, some of those WILL be getting support from a non-resident parent, but probably only a pretty low amount, or they wouldn't be receiving benefits.

24 BILLION pounds a year is a lot of tax money that could be paid by absent parents supporting their children.

(and, yes, I know this is very rough & ready maths, little more than a guesstimate, but it just shows HOW MUCH money is being paid from taxes, that absent parents could be paying instead.)

In comparison, unemployment benefit is 2.4 billion a year.

I haven't included housing benefit. Again, a fair number of people claiming that will be single parent households where a NRP isn't paying, so that bill could be cut as well.

Voyage we understand evolution, we're just saying it's not a good enough excuse

Pinky - exactly. Pretty telling that the sorts that try and use evolutionary arguments to play devil's advocate in discussions about men having affairs/sacking off their kids etc never seem quite willing to accept any evolutionary arguments as to why - for instance - women have had multiple male sexual partners since the dawn of time.

It's meaningless codswallop. Male penguins rear their young. Male sea horses carry and birth them. Equally, mallard ducks reproduce primarily through gang rape, and even the lowliest female hyena ranks higher than the alpha male hyena and erections are a sign of submission. There is no template of "the way things are in nature" - and I'd have thought that the mallards are evidence enough that even were there any such template, adhering to it at the expense of ethics and intellect is not necessarily a good thing.

£24 billion!

Why don't MPs do something?

What's the actual issue- not all non- paying dads leave the country, go self -employed?

Why can't they pay more money than £5?? Who decided that was appropriate and realistic...?

The short skirt comment is unnecessary - no-one said anything like that as you know.

What has been discussed is a range of factors that impact on this question - all of which should be taken into account. Belittling and making personal comments gets us nowhere.

Women and men are responsible for creating children and BOTH should take responsibility.

I think you are talking evo psych bollovks VoD.

However, if you believe in such things, people are required to moderate "cave person" behaviour all the time; there are consequences to assaulting others who are not of our group or to taking something we want from someone else. Laws and education can reduce these; they can certainly explain that fertilising an egg has consequences.

"Because you seem in denial that we are animals, mammals, and described yourself as a 'super being'"

That is the weirdest definition of creationism that I've ever encountered. Voyage, you are clearly grasping at straws.

Then what do you mean, Voyage? How will this paying attention to evolutionary instincts work in practice? I've asked this question several times already.

If Stalin were alive today, he would have been either executed or imprisoned for life (depending on the country where the trial takes place) whatever his reasons were. That's a practical consequence of committing mass murder. What kind of practical consequences do you suggest for deadbeat fathers?