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

It's his baby. He has responsibilities. Not wanting the baby is irrelevant.

You're right, men don't have that option so you'd think that they'd be more careful but no they want to reserve the right to control women's bodies so they can have consequence free sex.

Abortion is an invasive procedure that carries risks. It's also a very difficult decision for most women. It's not an easy solution. And even if it were, it doesn't matter. Yes it's unfair that men don't get this option but it's also unfair that they don't get pregnant in the first place, nor have periods, menopause etc. And nobody whines about that. We accept that's how it is.

We can't help that. We can only legislate for and consider people's rights. The rights in question here are a woman's right to bodily autonomy and not to endure a forced pregnancy and labour, a child's right to be supported by their own parents, and a man's "right" to consequence free shagging where everyone but him takes responsibility for his actions.

It's pretty obvious what matters least and isn't even a right at all.

Yes, of course. He was happy to have sex knowing a baby was a possible outcome. Now he has to pay his dues.

A man’s opportunities to stop a pregnancy are as follows:

1. Wear a condom and dispose of it safely afterwards
2. Don’t have sex

Once they have sex, they get no say in whether the woman keeps the baby and have to cough up if she does rather than whining.

Neither are condoms!

This. Every time you have sex there is a small possibility that a child could result from it. If you 100% never want that then you need to take control of your fertility and get a vasectomy. Men have just as much responsibility for their reproductive choices as women.

No contraception is 100% anyway so the whole "she must have lied" thing is BS. If you get someone pregnant you have to pay, tough shit. No tiny violin playing here from me.

Don’t want a baby - don’t have sex. Even with protection, it’s not 100%, so every time you have sex you should be prepared that this could be the end result.

I am 100% in favour of men paying maintenance for their children. I am also 100% pro choice for women.

But I do also feel conflicted reading these answers, because I can’t help but hear them come out of the mouths of anti-abortion campaigners. “If she didn’t want a baby she shouldn’t have had sex.”

It seems like the same logic that people use to argue for abortions bans, with the exceptions of rape, incest and risks to health.

Erm, yes and the law agrees. He would be breaking the law by refusing to financially support any child he fathered and could end up in big trouble (I'd like to see custodial sentences for maintenance refusers). Contraception is easily available or you know he could abstain/have a vasectomy if he really doesn't want children. He has choices.

Just read this reply. An excellent perspective that makes sense. Thank you.

Unless it’s an immaculate conception then yes.

So you think a woman at 20 should get sterilised because she doesn't want a baby with the man she picked up at a nightclub? That is the equivalent and is a nonsense.

Exactly. It's the woman's choice if she has the baby, she's the one who has to carry it and give birth. Therefore she gets the final say. As it should be.

Maybe before slepping with someone talk about being parents first?

@Aussieland "So you think a woman at 20 should get sterilised because she doesn't want a baby with the man she picked up at a nightclub? That is the equivalent and is a nonsense."

No it isn't remotely equivalent. If a woman takes a risk she has to deal with the physical consequences. Men don't.

If I dont want a baby I would use two forms of contraception to make sure, yes.

I'd use condoms (which are sensible for STDs anyway if picking people up from nightclubs) and the pill as well, or have a coil fitted aswell as I did for years.

If I 100% never wanted a child, I'd get sterilised yes. What's so shocking about that? It seems eminently sensible to me.

If man doesn't want a child then he can take some responsibility and wear a condom. If he REALLY doesn't want a child then he can get a vasectomy or abstain.
What a man who really doesnt want a baby shouldn't do, is hand over all responsibility to someone else. That's just daft.

He's an arse and he absolutely should pay.

FYI, I was dumped in similar circumstances, it's shit. In my experience (seen it happen a few times) the men do decide to be an active parent either by birth or in the first few years.

Of course he bloody should! Why do so many women worry about the poor menz not being able to have unprotected consequence free sex?

That's like assuming someone is telling the truth that they have been STD tested.

You don't.

It's personal responsibility and taking steps to ensure you are protected.

If you 100% don't want a baby and don't want to be financially responsible for one don't have sex or wear a condom AND pull out.

Well, let's see - "should" the child be housed, fed, clothed etc?

Wanted or not, if a child exists, it costs money. That's what maintenance is for. It's about what the child needs, not what the father wants or considers fair or whatever.

If you're a fertile man shagging a fertile woman, a pregnancy is a possibility.

Honestly no, my partner was told by his ex that she was taking the pill but she wasn't and wound up pregnant, he had trusted her to be telling the truth. He's never refused maintenance and the courts actually granted him 65% custody, he really stepped up and was never asked to, he just did but if someone else was in that position and refused I wouldn't blame them.
Women are not solely responsible for birth control and I fully believe that if a man doesn't want a baby he can take precautions, however if said man is in a long term relationship and was lied to then I think that the woman should be held accountable for her actions.

Yes the man should pay child maintenance, because no contraception is 100% protective

If a man does not want children, then he has options of no sex, vasectomy, condom, creams etc

He's never refused maintenance and the courts actually granted him 65% custody, he really stepped up and was never asked to

It's his child. He's supposed to support his own child. You seem to think he deserves some sort of medal for it?

however if said man is in a long term relationship and was lied to then I think that the woman should be held accountable for her actions.

She is. She's pregnant and now has to deal with that one way or another. His actions were to handball control of his fertility to her and not take any of the options that he could control, most likely because it would have led to marginally less enjoyable sex. That's the consequence of his actions.

You'd think that given he hasn't got the choice to abort, he'd be more concerned about taking his own control and his own precautions, not less.