To understand not wanting to be involved

[CandyApplePie]

In this situation.....Probably get flamed for this but anyway

I am on another site where a woman has had a baby from a one night stand (this is what he has referred to her as) they met once and she fell pregnant and kept the baby, he doesn't want to be involved and expressed that to her from the beginning. She kept the baby and is now pursuing him for child maintenance. The man is angry and telling her she was just a one night stand and to go away and that he wants nothing to do with the baby, he is saying he used a condom (she says they didn't) so it's not his baby, they are going to be doing a dna test but he is insisting the child is nothing to do with him. All the comments are along the lines of "how can he just walk away" "how can he want nothing to do with the child" "babies are a blessing" "having a child is the most amazing experience" but aibu to understand why someone wouldn't want to be tied to a stranger for the rest of their lives? Maintenance is a separate issue but I can understand why a man wouldn't want to be involved in raising the child, he is insisting he did use a condom she says they didn't so no one really knows the truth their apart from the two of them.

Its not about "blame" its about consequences. Blame is an emotional term, consequences are simply cause and effect and have no bearing whatsoever on anyone's intentions or good character, they just happen. You have sex with someone- there is a chance a baby will result, even when contraception is used.

And yes, its the same for women and abortions. The only difference being, women have no choice but to live with the consequences of their decision to have sex because its happening to their body, they HAVE to deal with it one way or the other. They dont have the luxury of just not dealing with it or running away like men do in this scenario.

If it is his he should pay maintenance, but if he doesn't want to be involved I understand.
If he did use a condom I feel sad for both or them, maybe it was faulty, but this baby was not made from love.
I'm sure her mum adores her and it was her choice to carry on with the pregnancy, but I don't think the dad should be forced to be involved. X

I do understand that but the woman (in this case) is a willing participant, any adult woman knows the consequences of unprotected sex and should therefore ensure that she doesn’t get pregnant whatever protection she chooses to use

The man is also a willing participant. If the women needs to use contraception then so does he and he should always wear a condom then

The poor man firing spunk into a vagina and then having to face the consequences of his irresponsible ejaculation. How could we destroy his life due to his 10 seconds of pulsing pleasure that he could easily have produced by hand into a tissue… those nasty nasty women not aborting and putting themselves through a traumatic experience just to appease said man and his 10 seconds of spunky pleasure.

it does take two to make a baby and when you enter into that consensual contract to bump uglies you’re taking on any and all associated risks including failure of contraceptive and possible pregnancy. It’s a gamble. He gets his 10 seconds of pulsating pleasure and goes or he’s stuck with a biological child for life. Randy roulette

why shouldn’t a man be held responsible for his ejaculate? Why is it that he can walk away without any repercussions and the woman has to take on the full burden of his need to cum inside of her instead of on her or in a sock/on the curtains? Even if her choice is to abort, she is the one dealing with the potentially dangerous and traumatic experience while he lives to fuck another woman another evening without any consequences.

if you out your cock inside a vagina, you do so knowing there are potentially unwanted outcomes. You can mitigate but you cannot fully eliminate these outcomes. So don’t put your cock inside someone’s vagina unless you’re prepared for any and all potential consequences. It really is that simple.

There is huge difference between fathering a child and being a father, just ask any woman who has remarried who had a child with a deadbeat Ex. The deadbeat might have fathered her DC but it is the man who raises them and loves them who is the child’s father, regardless of biology and DNA.

EXACTLY. I agree.

Also, I am lol at randy roulette

That’s just semantics though.

Absolutely I don’t disagree but he claims he did in this case

But so did he. And knowing, as he surely does, that no contraception is 100% reliable, he has two choices:

vasectomy plus condoms
Abstain from intercourse

Yes I can understand why someone doesn't want to be a dad, obviously.

Yes, children are a blessing but if you don't want to be one, guess what, you're going to be an awful one who damages the child.

Pursuing him for maintenance I really don't get. I think it's unfair and risky, what if he decides to then pursue for contact and gets it? What's the point. Just provide for her child, time to put big girl pants on now.

He’s entitled to contact though, it’s his kid.

She should also abstain then if she’s taking no precautions

The misogyny on this thread.

Sex always runs the risk of pregnancy. Women bear this risk in terms of their physical and emotional health. They always have. If men create a child, they should pay towards the cost of that child - and let's be honest, child maintenance is bugger all.

If a man makes it clear they don't want the child, I would judge them for walking away but kind of get it. So long as they bear the financial contribution.

It is as okay to walk away from a child conceived on a one night stand, as it is okay to walk away from children conceived in marriage after a 10 year relationship because honestly I don’t see society drawing any differentiators between the two ? Neither appear to be is frowned upon as they ought to.

He doesnt want it and nobody can/will think any less of him because of that

Women always bear a cost, whether it's financial and emotional and physical ( bringing up a child) or emotional and physical (termination). All these defenders of irresponsible men saying "what about the woman, she knew the risk too" - well great, yes, she always pays it.

It's really about time that a male contraceptive pill was common practice

... because he can then use it if he doesn't want children.

Equally, I wouldn't trust a man who says he is on the pill, so would be using my own too!

You can't argue for both he's entitled to contact and he shouldn't have to pay. You're either entitled to both or liable for neither.

Why? Maybe she wants a kid.

No contact with a kid you created? I’d definitely think less of him for that.

No, I don't understand anyone not wanting to raise their own child (adoption/fostering different scenario).

However, if someone feels strongly they don't have the capacity to spend time with a child who is 50% from their dna, they are are a fucking dead loss and should be excluded as such.

Not really because SHE is the one who wants to keep the baby so she IS accepting the consequences and the responsibility of having sex knowing it could result in a baby

He should definitely pay.

Irrelevant if contraception was used or not, no contraception is 100% reliable.

The women is the pregnant one, so she gets to decide if the pregnancy continues. She might not have wanted a child anymore than him. Women are judged far more than men for having an abortion or giving up a child for adoption.

He can't be forced to have a part in the child's life. However, I would judge him for not stepping up and rethinking things, now an actual child is on the way. It doesn't matter if he feels bonded with the child, he should want to develop that bond regardless of who the mother is or how the child came about. Life can't be planned to every extent and how someone reacts to adverse or unplanned circumstances says a lot about them. I would think of him as a deadbeat loser.