Should a man that didn't want the baby pay maintenance

[dillydallybub]

So as the title says, should a man that didn't want a baby pay maintenance?
Please give me your thoughts and opinions

Yes, it's still his baby.

Depending on if the man has been coerced into the situation.

He should definitely contribute towards his baby in this situation.

Yes.
Sperm costs.

Yes. It is the baby that comes first.

Everytime you have sex, it might, just might, result in a baby.

Contraception is never 100% effective, only abstinence is. (Unless vasectomy / hysterectomy) But even with vasectomy there is a margin of error?

Are boys taught this?

Keep all the abusive messages. Cease contact. Talk to woman's aid so there is a record he is abusive just in case he goes for custody in the future. Don't give your child his surname. Don't let him back in your life. Contact CMS.

if he didn't want a baby be celeibate.
Every time you have that contact with all the preotextion in the world there is always a chance. So yes he ahould pay 100% and be responsible as a parent 100%.

Maybe castration is an option?

yep, he opted to have sex with you, he could have opted not to. He cannot force a woman to use abortion as a contraceptive. Abortion is an emotive issue for many women, the fall out can stay with a woman for years.

As they say it takes two to tango.

Both parties should be using contraception.

Yes a man can abstain or wear a condom.if he does not want to be a father.

If the couple have discussed that neither wants a child it is obvious that if an accident does happen one would use the MAP.

If they have discussed children and male is adamant he doesn’t want a child he should refrain.

Also, if a woman knows a man doesn't want a child why would she take the risk of sex with such a man.??

He didn’t have can’t say over whether the baby was born? Did the stork bring it?

To all those saying a guy should still be responsible if the condom split in that scenario why wouldn't you get the morning after pill? Women do have more options as to whether or not they get pregnant.

Of course, he’s the father.

@RustyNails presumably in most circumstances that's what would happen. But it is up to a woman what she does with her body. As I said- it's not fair to men that they have fewer choices than women- but that's just how nature works.

It is the joint responsibility of the people who had sex to pay for the baby. I think too many men think it is the tax payers responsibility.

I took it and she is 24 now MAP doesn't always work

My choice not to get an abortion

His choice to stick around his choice to fuck off and not pay a couple of years on

Her choice to not bother with him now

His choice to whine and cry about it when all he had to do was pay pennies and visit

Whilst i agree that a man should pay towards the life he created, I woukd be more worried about retaliation. In the OPs case the man us vehemently against having the child. If you go the CMS route, which you are entitled to he might feel he wants to see the baby, demand time with the baby out of spite. To me, having involvement from a father that is doing it to hurt you would not be worth the paltry sum the CMS will decide you are worth.

No

Yes, they can actually do something about not getting someone pregnant. There are various male contraceptives being looked at and I look forward to the day when men have even more options to control their own fertility. But in the meantime use a condom. I would never trust someone saying they are on the pill only because it doesn’t always work.

There are young men in the USA getting vasectomies because they 100% don’t want kids and are making sure they won’t get anyone pregnant. I’d say thats quite responsible.

Or the type of women that are independent and don’t try and force a man in a child’s life who will cause psychological harm to the child all for what?? Money!!

some women see men as a free meal ticket for 18 years and I suppose you must be one of those women. Non independent.

two people have sex, both should have a say. If the woman wants to raise the baby alone and the man is clear he doesn’t want it then that’s his choice. What if the man wanted to keep the child and the woman said no, then he still doesn’t have much input. Every child born should have a dna test at birth also because to many men are raising kids that are not there own, women are not the victim always just because they had sex!

I mean if they don’t want to be involved in a child’s life you can’t really force them, I would say a financial contribution should be the very minimum expected. And lets be honest for most people CM doesn’t even touch the sides of how much it costs to raise a child.

At the end of the day if the man didn't want a baby he should have worn protection that would save being in this predicament in the first place.

100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men. So…. Yes.

'@utumnFroglets
Yes he should. He had options. Condom. Vasectomy. Abstaining.'

This!

So who should pay in your opinion? The tax payer I presume rather than the man who created the life. Two people created a life - two people should bear the responsibility for that life.