To think father should pay csa even if he doesn't want the baby

[Bear45]

As title says!
He wanted me to have an abortion and I've not heard off him for 3 weeks now. I'm 13 weeks, obviously it's a way off but just wondering what peoples opinions are

@Ohsugarhoneyicetea

I'm an ardent feminist but I do think if the sperm donor wants nothing to do with the child there should be some mechanism within the abortion window where they can relinquish parental responsibility and have no financial obligations. The woman can then proceed with the pregnancy knowing this, or at that point have an abortion. I think there are women who would prefer this as well, knowing they have no contact obligations in the future.

I actually agree with this.

I'm in no way an advocate of forced abortion. But part of me thinks that if the man relinquishes all involvement in the first 12 weeks there should be a clean break.

I've had an abortion. I do not want children. My partner at the time was enormously against me having an abortion and did everything to stop me having it. The idea of having the child made me ill.

Men should have zero say over a woman's medical choice, I absolutely believe in that.

But I can see it from the other side also.

@Rabblesthecat

I go against the grain - no they should not.

Everyone (including the mother) has a choice up to 22 weeks. It may be a choice you don’t want to make but you are still making a choice the other way to keep it.

No baby conceived has to be born so I don’t see why they should have to pay if they have no say in its existence.

Men can choose not to have sex. I’ve told my dcs not to have sex with anyone they’re not prepared to be tethered to for 18 years. My dds have more agency (weak cheer) but dss- won’t have sex if you wouldn’t countenance a child.

@Rabblesthecat I found pregnancy intolerable and did not want the child.

Should I never have sex? Or immediately have my tubes tied?

No baby conceived has to be born so I don’t see why they should have to pay if they have no say in its existence

What about the baby? Where are his needs in all of this?

If the mother names him on the birth certificate then yes he should pay. If she doesn't then no he shouldn't

She can’t name him if not married to him. He also can’t be forced to sign the birth register.

FOR girls to value themselves more . If he treats you like shit .. he is not going to behave better or love you more 'if you have his baby' ... he will still leave you. With a baby

Hmm…my ex was an absolute prince right up to the moment he decided he had no more use for me. You can’t educate for that.

Women bringing babies into a world where they know the father won't be around and money will be tight times hard etc and all the disadvantages that brings are incredibly selfish

It’s just ‘othering’, right? You want single parents not to look like you. You want them to be selfish and irresponsible and stupid and utterly to blame for their single parent status precisely because you don’t want to face the possibility that if a single parent looks like you, you might one day be one.

Why aren’t men who abandon pregnant women, who refuse to support their children selfish? Why do they get the opportunity to walk away and be applauded for that decision whilst the person quite literally left holding the baby is treated like a second class citizen?

As contraception was used then no I don’t think he should pay.
If you weren’t on contraception and he didn’t bother using any either then he should pay.

Using contraception shows that you don’t want a baby. He probably assumed that since you were on contraception you would choose not to continue with a pregnancy.

Did you ever have a conversation about what would happen if the pill failed?
I imagine if he knew there was a chance you wanted to keep the baby he would have used extra protection.

[quote ForbiddentoForbid]@Rabblesthecat I found pregnancy intolerable and did not want the child.

Should I never have sex? Or immediately have my tubes tied? [/quote]
I think you meant to tag @Etinoxaurus…

I feel like I'm in an alternate universe.

@WonderfulYou

As contraception was used then no I don’t think he should pay. If you weren’t on contraception and he didn’t bother using any either then he should pay.

Using contraception shows that you don’t want a baby. He probably assumed that since you were on contraception you would choose not to continue with a pregnancy.

Did you ever have a conversation about what would happen if the pill failed?
I imagine if he knew there was a chance you wanted to keep the baby he would have used extra protection.

So who should pay then?

I'm an ardent feminist but I do think if the sperm donor wants nothing to do with the child there should be some mechanism within the abortion window where they can relinquish parental responsibility and have no financial obligations. The woman can then proceed with the pregnancy knowing this, or at that point have an abortion. I think there are women who would prefer this as well, knowing they have no contact obligations in the future.

I agree but this is something you have to think about too OP.

My DDs dad didn’t want to be involved and I didn’t claim maintenance or ask anything from him.
But 10 years later he decided he wanted to get involved which was very frustrating as he made a decision to not be involved.
So he could change his mind later on after you’ve done all of the hard work and there’s nothing you can do about it.

He should pay, yes. However, you're left with the situation you have rather than a morally correct ideal.

In my case, I chose not to pursue child maintenance for various reasons and I think it helped DC's Dad become involved - because he was a twat who would have used any excuse not to be but actually now many years on, DC feels loved by him (because, for all ex's failings he can be loving - not true of everyone of course!) and that is worth a huge amount.

I don't understand why people are comparing the father and the mother's situation in this - it's totally different due to the physicality of the situation for the mother. Nobody should be manipulated into an abortion, not through threats of no CM or anything else - the idea is abhorrent (and I'm pro choice). And the maintenance isn't for the mother, it's for the child. Regardless of tales of women spending it on having their nails done, nights out etc, realistically most CM paid makes a small dent in the costs of raising a child.

@Rabblesthecat @TractorAndHeadphones you're correct, my apologies, I tagged the wrong poster.

Yes men can choose not to have sex but so can women.
If a man wears a condom , that has failed, then it's a tricky situation.

Women are allowed body autonomy.
They can have a coil, the pill, injections, implants, female condom and insert spermicidals.

Women are allowed a morning after pill or , at an extreme, an abortion.

There are far more contraceptives available to women than men.

Unpopular opinion but my kids dad doesn’t see them at all (his choice) for this reason I do not claim cm, I don’t want to take money off someone that doesn’t want to see my children, that’s my choice though and I get others feel differently

There are far more contraceptives available to women than men.

And should they be left holding the bag when it fails?

I think that this idea 100% stems from a deeply ingrained belief that men should not have to do anything they don't want to do, but women are always expected to just cope with whatever. Look at the last 18 months. Studies have shown its been working women who have done the vast majority of homeschooling, isolation childcare and wfh juggling. Men can't possibly compromise their Big Job with such things. So assuming the pregnancy is a genuine error, contraception failure, there is a child. With two parents. Biology dictates in this one small area the woman has both the 'advantage' of the extra option of abortion but also the 'disadvantage' of having to have the abortion, or the pregnancy and birth and postpartum injuries, loss of earnings, pension, career progression etc. And men (and some woman) are complaining that a man in this situation shouldn't have to ring fence 20% of his post - pension contribution pay to support the child. He can't be forced to go on pat leave, work part time, pay for childcare, spend time or emotional energy on the child. Just a pretty minimal financial contribution. But that would be totally unfair apparently.

@Sowhatifiam

No baby conceived has to be born so I don’t see why they should have to pay if they have no say in its existence

What about the baby? Where are his needs in all of this?

If the mother names him on the birth certificate then yes he should pay. If she doesn't then no he shouldn't

She can’t name him if not married to him. He also can’t be forced to sign the birth register.

FOR girls to value themselves more . If he treats you like shit .. he is not going to behave better or love you more 'if you have his baby' ... he will still leave you. With a baby

Hmm…my ex was an absolute prince right up to the moment he decided he had no more use for me. You can’t educate for that.

Women bringing babies into a world where they know the father won't be around and money will be tight times hard etc and all the disadvantages that brings are incredibly selfish

It’s just ‘othering’, right? You want single parents not to look like you. You want them to be selfish and irresponsible and stupid and utterly to blame for their single parent status precisely because you don’t want to face the possibility that if a single parent looks like you, you might one day be one.

Why aren’t men who abandon pregnant women, who refuse to support their children selfish? Why do they get the opportunity to walk away and be applauded for that decision whilst the person quite literally left holding the baby is treated like a second class citizen?

There are two parts to the story. We’re considering people with clear positions. People changing their minds and abandoning halfway through not considered. Part À : Abortion window If a woman can’t raise the baby and her partner doesn’t want it she should abort it. Full stop. Of course you can’t make her do it. And legally she has a choice. But she should. On the sole principle that nobody should have a baby that they can’t afford themselves. Or have to pay for a baby they didn’t want when the option of abortion is easily available!

Part B : Baby is already born
Nothing to be done. It’s here already so father should pay.

If my son were in the above scenario and his partner chose to keep the baby I would tell him that he had to pay. I wouldn’t think very highly of her however for keeping it if she had no means to support it.

Thé precedent for a woman supporting a baby alone has already been established the moment we let single women have babies via sperm donation.

@HugeAckmansWife

I think that this idea 100% stems from a deeply ingrained belief that men should not have to do anything they don't want to do, but women are always expected to just cope with whatever. Look at the last 18 months. Studies have shown its been working women who have done the vast majority of homeschooling, isolation childcare and wfh juggling. Men can't possibly compromise their Big Job with such things. So assuming the pregnancy is a genuine error, contraception failure, there is a child. With two parents. Biology dictates in this one small area the woman has both the 'advantage' of the extra option of abortion but also the 'disadvantage' of having to have the abortion, or the pregnancy and birth and postpartum injuries, loss of earnings, pension, career progression etc. And men (and some woman) are complaining that a man in this situation shouldn't have to ring fence 20% of his post - pension contribution pay to support the child. He can't be forced to go on pat leave, work part time, pay for childcare, spend time or emotional energy on the child. Just a pretty minimal financial contribution. But that would be totally unfair apparently.

NOBODY should have to do something they don’t want to do. A woman should not have to give birth to a baby she doesn’t want even if the man does!

@sowhatifiam no it's not, I won't ever be one, there has never been any possibility I would.

Single parents through choice are different to those who become single parents in my view

@HugeAckmansWife

I think that this idea 100% stems from a deeply ingrained belief that men should not have to do anything they don't want to do, but women are always expected to just cope with whatever. Look at the last 18 months. Studies have shown its been working women who have done the vast majority of homeschooling, isolation childcare and wfh juggling. Men can't possibly compromise their Big Job with such things. So assuming the pregnancy is a genuine error, contraception failure, there is a child. With two parents. Biology dictates in this one small area the woman has both the 'advantage' of the extra option of abortion but also the 'disadvantage' of having to have the abortion, or the pregnancy and birth and postpartum injuries, loss of earnings, pension, career progression etc. And men (and some woman) are complaining that a man in this situation shouldn't have to ring fence 20% of his post - pension contribution pay to support the child. He can't be forced to go on pat leave, work part time, pay for childcare, spend time or emotional energy on the child. Just a pretty minimal financial contribution. But that would be totally unfair apparently.

Spot on.

I think that this idea 100% stems from a deeply ingrained belief that men should not have to do anything they don't want to do, but women are always expected to just cope with whatever.

I disagree.

OP took contraception as she did not want a baby.
She has now changed her mind and decided she does want a baby.
Both have been completely her choice.

Bit confused by some of these comments.... No contraceptive is 100% so by having sex there is always a risk......

Also @HugeAckmansWife why are you ignoring the fact that the woman can abort the baby?
She’s making a choice to keep it. A choice that the man doesn’t have.
If she keeps it 100% her choice, nobody is forcing her.

All other Inequalties while true and make a nice emotional argument have sweet FA to do with the point of dicussion

OP took contraception as she did not want a baby.
She has now changed her mind and decided she does want a baby.
Both have been completely her choice.

Yup. One area of reality where women have a semblance of control in this country at least.

tractor and headphones oh good. I don't really want to do 99% of the parenting since my ex fucked off and pay about 90% of their costs. Can I stop then? Yay. Sorry kids, no tea tonight. I don't want to do anything I don't want to. Like millions of other single parents, I wasn't given a choice about it when ex upped and left. Maybe a man who finds himself an unwilling father to a baby in utero is similar. He has no choice at that point so has to suck it up. His choice was at the point of sex. Mine was at the point of having kids with someone who turned out later to be a cheating twat but the 'damage' is done. Of course I love my kids, wouldn't be without them etc (before someone accuses me of terrible mothering) but I didn't choose single parenthood. How is that different to a man not choosing fatherhood and being given an opt out?

@CombatBarbie

Bit confused by some of these comments.... No contraceptive is 100% so by having sex there is always a risk......

Yep. People going all ‘well have your tubes tied them’ so you’re saying women should never have sex until they want a baby? Vasectomies aren’t reversible as well over the long term.