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

Well that’s a very interesting take. You seem to be saying that women have to suck up the consequences when they’re lied to, because nature, but men don’t?

Ultimately we are all responsible for our own fertility, and when we have sex, we ALL have to accept there is a chance of pregnancy. Your boyfriend should have taken responsibility for his own fertility and not put his sperm in a fertile woman’s vagina if he was 100% sure he didn’t want children. Sorry, but personal responsibility doesn’t just apply to women.

.

Also, can we please stop pretending that men don’t have the option to walk away when so many do? I remember reading about ten years ago now that 4 BILLION was owed in unpaid child support, and the government was writing off half of it because they knew it would never be paid. I don’t know what the figure is now, but I’m going to go see if I can find it.

Sugar?! I see, you’re that kind of woman….

This.

He's a fool for believing her. Women lie about it same as men. It's an offence for a man to remove his condom during sex, it should also be an offence to lie about contraception. If he can show she was lying then she should be prosecuted, still leaves him with an unwanted child.

What a stupid, stupid comment.

Why? Lying removes the idea of consent. If you have sex on the understanding that your using contraception and deliberately don't then there is no consent. For a man doing it to a woman its rape, for a woman doing it with a man it should be sexual assault (as women can't rape men).

Nature doesn’t care under what circumstances life was conceived, if life is created regardless of contraception or intentions the 2 people involved in creating that life a responsible for it!

So if you engaged in any sexual activity that resulted in a child being born you of course should bear the very minimum consequences of being at least financially responsible for that child.

Yes men can walk away and women can have terminations BUT the resulting child has none of those options, it is born anyway and in an ideal world should have 2 fully engaged and loving parents but at the very minimum should have 2 parents who at least contribute financially to upbringing.

Why should a child lack that financial contribution because it was deemed one party baby trapped the other, or whatever the circumstances, to me that’s just ridiculous to suggest that completely innocent child go without for this reason.

Because, for the last time, children need supporting. If they are here, if they exist, if they are half yours, you share half of the responsibility. A baby shouldn't be punished if its parent's relationship is a shit show, it has NOTHING to do with that child or the fact that it needs money to support its existence.

It's not vacuous to say don't have sex if you don't want a baby, it's a fact! If you think it is unacceptable to go without sex but also unacceptable to support any child that results, the problem is YOU. You know how babies are made, don't play the victim if one is created as a direct result of your actions.

What has any baby ever done wrong that it doesn't deserve to be supported by both parents?

Because that's what it comes down to. Some people are suggesting visiting the "sins" of the parents (mother?) on the baby.

Honestly? No not in every circumstance. If a woman deliberately “accidentally” gets pregnant, where a man has worn a condom and it’s failed and the discussion was previously had that neither want kids, etc.

But how do you prove any of that? In those cases the woman is the one taking choice away from someone else.

Allowing men to say they never wanted a child and won’t pay would mean all the men who are dickheads and irresponsible ones who DIDN’T take precautions or changed their minds to get out of it. This includes all those “self employed” ones, the financially abusive ones (even still in a relationship), the ones who promise the world and “definitely” want a child until you are 12 weeks or until you mention a late period.

i know people will say “oh he should get a vasectomy” but in the same way as a woman, he may want a child in the future just not now or with this person. Once a man has ejaculated they lose any control (and condoms are not 100%) while women have options.

We don’t ask a sperm donor to pay so in the same way if you could hand on heart say that’s what you used them as (very keen to be a mum, last option, one night stand lied about being on the pill and knew the condom tore) then I think it is unfair to them. If not, then yes he pays up.

Going against the grain.

If, before sex, the male made it absolutely clear he didn't want children and a pregnancy resulted and the female wanted to keep the baby, then no. That is her choice.

Many men are trapped by women. Told they're on the pill in long term relationships, they're not and the woman wants to keep the man in her life.

The UK are one of the few countries where men don't have a say.

@krustykittens ,

That is a weirdly personal post. It has nothing to do with me. The one time it happened to me in a short term relationship (which turned into a long term relationship) I made totally clear that I would take full responsibility regardless of the decision, and I ended up paying in full for a private abortion (her choice, zero pressure) despite the fact she told me that she medically couldn’t become pregnant and didn’t like condoms.

‘Because, for the last time, children need supporting. If they are here, if they exist, if they are half yours, you share half of the responsibility. A baby shouldn't be punished if its parent's relationship is a shit show, it has NOTHING to do with that child or the fact that it needs money to support its existence.’

Would that also apply in the case of a woman putting a baby up for adoption? Should she pay because she is biologically linked to the baby? Should 50/50 custody automatically apply to all babies, should the fathers want it and be capable?

As to the baby being ‘punished’ this only applies in certain cases. What if the woman has plenty of funds to give the baby a nice life?

‘It's not vacuous to say don't have sex if you don't want a baby, it's a fact! If you think it is unacceptable to go without sex but also unacceptable to support any child that results, the problem is YOU. You know how babies are made, don't play the victim if one is created as a direct result of your actions.’

It is totally vacuous as it is not a real world choice. Do you know of a single woman or a single man who has ever made this choice in a relationship? If not, it is just a silly hypothetical.

Yes.

Is it fair? maybe not. But biology and reproduction isn't fair. Neither is society towards women.

Suck it up and cough up, buttercup

This

Ah yes, that magical form of contraception only available to men, just say you don’t want a baby and that’s enough…

And again, what about men who trap/lie to women? Where’s the ‘fairness’ then?

Don't engage with his nasty talk just keep it all as evidence. Let the cms deal with it all xxx

@Newbutoldfather

"That is a weirdly personal post. It has nothing to do with me. The one time it happened to me in a short term relationship (which turned into a long term relationship) I made totally clear that I would take full responsibility regardless of the decision, and I ended up paying in full for a private abortion (her choice, zero pressure) despite the fact she told me that she medically couldn’t become pregnant and didn’t like condoms."

It wasn't intended to be personal. I was taking issue with your notion that it is unacceptable to go without PIV sex in a heterosexual relationship but also unacceptable to take 50 per cent of the responsibility of a child that results from the sex. If you know where babies come from, you cannot say it was a surprise.

"Would that also apply in the case of a woman putting a baby up for adoption? Should she pay because she is biologically linked to the baby? Should 50/50 custody automatically apply to all babies, should the fathers want it and be capable?"

Obviously not, because she is giving up her parental rights and responsibilities and someone else is assuming them, of their own free will. That's a strawman argument. Yes, I do agree with 50/50 custody if fathers want it and prove to be capable, it is after all, about the best interests of the child.

"It is totally vacuous as it is not a real world choice. Do you know of a single woman or a single man who has ever made this choice in a relationship? If not, it is just a silly hypothetical."

I do, actually. I have Catholic friends who decided to stay virgins until their wedding day, although they did have some sexual contact. Just not PIV. I also have a friend who is a Messianic Jew who didn't so much as kiss her fiancé until her wedding day. Lots of people abstain, for many different reasons. Just because you do not know any, doesn't mean they don't exist. It certainly isn't a silly hypothetical.

It's still the responsibility of both parties to proceed knowing that a child could be the result. If someone doesn't want children, they take personal responsibility for making that as unlikely as possible and not relying on the morality or biology of someone else.

If you're a man who can't accept the 1% risk of becoming a parent...then don't have sex with a woman! (and vice versa)

Why in the ever living fuck should a man have control over whether a woman continues with pregnancy - that's absolute barbarism and should be illegal worldwide!

@krustykittens ,

‘Obviously not, because she is giving up her parental rights and responsibilities and someone else is assuming them, of their own free will. That's a strawman argument. Yes, I do agree with 50/50 custody if fathers want it and prove to be capable, it is after all, about the best interests of the child. ‘

It really isn’t a straw man. Clearly the father couldn’t keep parental rights and not pay, but if he gave them up it is very similar.

‘I do, actually. I have Catholic friends who decided to stay virgins until their wedding day, although they did have some sexual contact. Just not PIV. I also have a friend who is a Messianic Jew who didn't so much as kiss her fiancé until her wedding day. Lots of people abstain, for many different reasons. Just because you do not know any, doesn't mean they don't exist. It certainly isn't a silly hypothetical.’

This is a straw man, though. Religion is completely different! I am talking about non religious people who would accept their partner saying no PIV sex because I don’t want a baby? How many would stay in the relationship if a guy said that (or a woman)? I don’t think many (any?) would just consider it a mature and considered decision and accept it.

How many would stay in the relationship if a guy said that (or a woman)? I don’t think many (any?) would just consider it a mature and considered decision and accept it

Then you be a grown up and accept the tiny risk, just like women have to.

@Newbutoldfather

"It really isn’t a straw man. Clearly the father couldn’t keep parental rights and not pay, but if he gave them up it is very similar."

No, it really is the definition of strawman, which is, "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

"This is a straw man, though. Religion is completely different! I am talking about non religious people who would accept their partner saying no PIV sex because I don’t want a baby? How many would stay in the relationship if a guy said that (or a woman)? I don’t think many (any?) would just consider it a mature and considered decision and accept it."

You didn't say that, though, did you? Again, one more time, "It is totally vacuous as it is not a real world choice. Do you know of a single woman or a single man who has ever made this choice in a relationship? If not, it is just a silly hypothetical."

Abstaining IS a real world choice. I do know people who have abstained, so I know it is not a silly hypothetical (as an aside - how patronising). I can only answer your arguments as you frame them. It is not my fault you do not know how to frame them. So not a strawman as I answered your argument.

Would I be happy to abstain? No. I wouldn't enter into a relationship with someone who wanted to abstain either, but I think it is a valid choice. I also accept that any resulting pregnancy from a relationship that involves PIV will be my responsibility to deal with. But then, as a women, I have to, as it is my body it is happening in. We don't have get out clauses.

What I find 'silly' about your argument is that is completely unreasonable to expect someone (men) to go without PIV sex in a relationship, but not completely unreasonable to have circumstances where they do not support a resulting child.

@Naunet ,

‘Then you be a grown up and accept the tiny risk, just like women have to.’

Why are people unable to have a conversation without turning it personal? However, I am glad you accept the idea that not having sex in order to not have a baby is trite and unrealistic for virtually all adults in relationships.

But the risk is asymmetric. Women who don’t want a baby don’t accept the risk of a baby, just the risk of a short term pregnancy which can be dealt with pharmaceutically .N.B I am not trivialising this, but it isn’t the same as an obligation that lasts at least 18 years.

This conversation won’t be resolved and, hopefully most men will just automatically offer to pay as they are decent, and hopefully few women will deliberately deceive men in order to get them to pay for a baby that they know is a unilateral decision.

But the baby doesn’t exist at the beginning of pregnancy, and if you have both agreed that you don’t want one and accepted the risk of an abortion, it is pretty bad to change your mind and ask the father to pay, unless you really need the money to look after the baby to a basic but decent standard.

How is that personal?! It’s literally the case for everyone, it’s a fact of life. Every time you cross the road, you take a risk, you could be hit by a car and killed or badly damaged, but it’s still a risk you take, and if it doesn’t pay off, you live with the consequences. This is exactly the same. Pregnancy is a risk you take when it comes to sex, it’s just a fact of life.

Lots of risks are not the same for men and women, you don’t have to take the risk of child birth, you don’t face the same risk of rape or domestic abuse when you get involved in a relationship. Again, that’s just life, it’s not always fair.