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

The man gets to make his decision before sex and the woman gets to make the final decision after sex. It's as simple as that and everyone knows how it works and how babies are made.
Why do so many want men to have even less responsibility for paying for their kids than they already do?

When I read threads like this I'm always amazed at just how many women are their own worst enemies.
You'd seriously make other women feel like they had to get an abortion because the man doesn't want to pay and would like to fuck his way around without any consequences.

If you believe that there aren't men out there that would agree to pay and then miraculously change their minds are X weeks, you're naive. How would you be able to prove that they had or hadn't agreed to pay, surely it would be one person's word against the other? How about if the woman doesn't find out she's pregnant until after the abortion cut off limit?

Men should not evade their responsibilities nor force a woman into an abortion.

Even if they are Prime Minister.

Do the people who think that men should be able to opt out think the woman should access money from the tax payer equivent to what that man would contribute or that the child should go without things if the mother is poorer ? I think if men opt out the tax payer would need to cover the child maintainance. You would need to have checks in place where couples claimed the bloke was opting out to claim this benefit.

Abortion isn't always an option. Its not like having a mole removed. Depending on your view, the developing foetus could be a person with rights, or you may have religious objections or whatever. The point is that it ISN'T always an option and the man, unless he was off that day at school, understands the risks.

@getsanta
I feel like I'm in an alternate universe

Ditto. Bloody unbelievable.

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!

Full stop? I had 2 children with my cheating ex. His parting gift was to have sex with me multiple times without contraception. I was in no way able to support a third child on my own. In your world, he had a right to demand abortion? As it happens, he refused to consider an abortion and promised he would support the baby. Said baby is now 12 and he hasn’t paid a penny. Why does he have all the rights and his child has none?

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

Jesus fucking wept. No single parent should ever need to explain to anyone/everyone why it is that they are single so they can be respected/judged accordingly. I’ve met women like you in the playground. It is beyond me why anyone thinks they get to know the finer details of someone’s life just because they are single with children. You would never judge a woman with a ring on her finger, many women with rings on their fingers make utterly shite life choices but do so without anyone questioning their motives.

Don't have any more contact with him if you don't want to, and claim through CSA.
Tough luck if he doesn't want to be a father. His choice in that has ended, and it's about you and the baby now.

Pursue CSA
circumstances change, and he should be supporting his child no matter what.

You can always put it in an account for your child for their future if you don't need it.

@AnotherOneWithNoGoodName yes. Just be very perfunctory about it at this point.

No you could have avoided this by using proper contraception or had the abortion why should he be penalised.

Looks like the MRA are out in force today..ll

I'm in two minds with this one. I know someone who was desperate for a baby and pretended to be on birth control. Got pregnant and the bloke absolutely didn't want the baby and made that v clear even before they had sex. Should he have to then pay 18 years worth of CS? I don't think so (although he is as he had no choice).

That's the thing though isn't it. Why should choice only apply to the woman....

This doesn’t have to be an issue where men or women are the ‘winners’, neither does it need to be black & white.

Men get the shitty stick of rolling the dice every time they have sex, with consequences ranging from nothing to a lifetime of parenting/CMS.

Women get the shitty stick of having to make the decisions & implement them at personal bodily and emotional cost - whether to use hormonal contraception, whether to take the MAP, whether to have a termination, whether to go through with the pregnancy.

I suppose the crux of the matter is that generally women hold all the agency and power should a pregnancy happen, but that isn’t great either - unless it’s a longed for pregnancy in a good relationship, it’s going to be a painful decision with even more lifelong consequences than for the man.

I think the current system is the right one, but unfortunately it’s a blunt instrument that doesn’t (and can’t) take into account personal circumstances.

Basically it’s messy for all involved.

@Sowhatifiam

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!

Full stop? I had 2 children with my cheating ex. His parting gift was to have sex with me multiple times without contraception. I was in no way able to support a third child on my own. In your world, he had a right to demand abortion? As it happens, he refused to consider an abortion and promised he would support the baby. Said baby is now 12 and he hasn’t paid a penny. Why does he have all the rights and his child has none?

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

Jesus fucking wept. No single parent should ever need to explain to anyone/everyone why it is that they are single so they can be respected/judged accordingly. I’ve met women like you in the playground. It is beyond me why anyone thinks they get to know the finer details of someone’s life just because they are single with children. You would never judge a woman with a ring on her finger, many women with rings on their fingers make utterly shite life choices but do so without anyone questioning their motives.

Reading comprehension love. The post you quoted from clearly stated, right above the line above. "We’re considering people with clear positions. People changing their minds and abandoning halfway through not considered."

Of COURSE if a man agrees to support the baby, and changed his mind halfway, baby is already born etc etc yes he 100% should be supporting it and I've said as much. Also if abortion isn't medically possible of course there's no other option.

However if a woman can't raise a baby alone , her partner has stated he doesn't want it and she has the choice of abortion. And she chooses not to exercise the choice. It's 100% her fault.

If my daughter was in this position of course I can't force her either to abort, or give birth. But I can encourage or influence her choice. And said encouragement/influence would be to abort. Not to keep the baby and go after the father.
Similarly if my son was in a similar position and his partner chose to keep the baby I would of course make him pay. However I wouldn't expect him to change his life plans for a baby he didn't want when there were other options available.
Again assuming both parties were in agreement and this was a contraception failure.

Yeah all those women through the ages who've been left pregnant by men who disowned them.. They definitely had all the power. Men do have a choice. The ppwho just said she knows someone who lied about the pill... The man is an idiot not to take responsibility himself. No woman would trust a man to take a pill with so much at stake. No man should trust a woman too either if he is so absolutely dead set on avoiding fatherhood.

Yes he should pay. If you have sex you risk pregnancy. If you don't want a baby use multiple forms of contraception but also remember that they can fail and you are still risking pregnancy.

Women have the added option of abortion because they are the ones risking their physical and mental health by having a baby.

And to the PPs who are blathering on about "who's going to pick up the tab if men don't pay?" You are aware that CM isn't taken into account for benefits aren't you? So don't worry. You aren't paying to cover the maintenance that those shitty men aren't paying (although you seem to be using it as a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to continue the pregnancy) because they could claim the same amount of 'your' hard earned taxes regardless.

This topic always brings all the misogyny out in the open. How depressing.

Many, many women would never consider abortion. That includes a whopping percent of those on birth control. I'm damned glad that abortion is an option for any woman who chooses it, but it should not be considered the obvious default if the man wants no part. He should know that any woman might feel very differently about an abortion when actually faced with the choice, than she did when it was theoretical.

That doesn't absolve the father of responsibility for the child.

Someone upthread wondered why should the poor man pay for 18 years just for having sex. Did you skip biology at school? Jesus wept.

Yes he should pay. The nature of sex and bodily autonomy means that the choice to continue a pregnancy lies with the pregnant woman. I don't doubt there's a lot of so called 'happy accidents' or women who want a baby so are maybe not very good at remembering their pill, but if a man is sleeping with a woman and isn't insisting on barrier protection then that's the risk he is taking (and I'm in no way defending those women who do lie to orchestrate so called unplanned pregnancies).

Whether it would be wise for a woman to continue with a pregnancy on the assumption that the the father (who has openly said he doesn't want to be involved with & would prefer an abortion to being a parent) stumps up the tiniest amount of CSA is another matter.

However if a woman can't raise a baby alone , her partner has stated he doesn't want it and she has the choice of abortion. And she chooses not to exercise the choice. It's 100% her fault.

This is shocking.

A man's right to choose ends when he decides to have sex with a woman, any contraceptive can fail.

@CiaoForDiNiaoSaur

Yes he should pay. If you have sex you risk pregnancy. If you don't want a baby use multiple forms of contraception but also remember that they can fail and you are still risking pregnancy.

Women have the added option of abortion because they are the ones risking their physical and mental health by having a baby.

And to the PPs who are blathering on about "who's going to pick up the tab if men don't pay?" You are aware that CM isn't taken into account for benefits aren't you? So don't worry. You aren't paying to cover the maintenance that those shitty men aren't paying (although you seem to be using it as a reason for why women shouldn't be allowed to continue the pregnancy) because they could claim the same amount of 'your' hard earned taxes regardless.

Not all single parents claim benefits

@Theunamedcat yes I'm aware of that. But the implication in previous posts isn't that it's unfair on the woman because she'll shoulder the cost alone is it. It's implied that the tax payer is 'picking up the tab'
Unless I'm reading it wrong. And 15 years on MN makes me think I'm not.

[quote CiaoForDiNiaoSaur]@Theunamedcat yes I'm aware of that. But the implication in previous posts isn't that it's unfair on the woman because she'll shoulder the cost alone is it. It's implied that the tax payer is 'picking up the tab'
Unless I'm reading it wrong. And 15 years on MN makes me think I'm not.[/quote]
The tax payer is picking up the difference between what the father should be paying and what the mother is paying. Absolutely outrageous that any father should be able to walk away from his obligations and expect the mother and tax payer to cover his obligations.

So, basically, people are saying that if a woman has sex, she deserves to be pregnant/a mother without financial support? The underlying principle here being that women are not entitled to full and happy sex lives unless they are married? And what about those of us who become single parents through divorce? I remember reading a comment (not here, in the press in the '80s) that our children should be boiled and eaten - hopefully a classical reference rather than an actual suggestion!

Well, that's a load of bollocks. Invented by the patriarchy to keep their 'saleable' daughters and potentially unfaithful wives under control, so that said patriarchs don't end up raising some other man's children. And, guttingly, the idea is supported, maintained and policed by women, who are happy to condemn any woman who steps out of line.

I actually agree in principle with those who say the woman has the control and if she chooses to go ahead as a single mum, that's on her.

But ultimately it's the child who loses out by that approach. None of it is their fault. If a man takes the risk and it results in a baby he didn't want it's unlucky, but better the bloke suffers financially than the child, who gets the least say of all!