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 not very difficult for men to avoid being in this position. Just don't have sex with a woman you could not, if necessary, contemplate raising a child with.

When Erica Jong wrote ‘Fear of Flying’ in 1973, it was a celebration of the emancipation of women and how the pill, antibiotics, and cheap and freely available abortion could enable women to enjoy ‘The Zipless Fuck’ just as much as men had always been able to, as opposed to fearing pregnancy and disease, as historically had been the case.

What it wasn’t was a charter to transfer the risk of having a child from the woman to the man. It was about equality.

Now I can see that you can (quite laboriously) argue that all sex can lead to pregnancy, no woman should ever have to have an abortion, and that once the baby is born both parents have to take responsibility, ergo the man should have to pay. All true.

However, in the same sense as a man refusing to pay should rightly be judged, so should a woman who has a baby with a man and gets him to pay, when it was clearly neither of their prior intentions to create a baby, and abortion was easily available. They both had mutually enjoyable sex, both took the risk of pregnancy, and should both beat the consequences. However the man should pay for the abortion, not be forced to be a father.

It takes two to tango and a live child is not an inevitable consequence of sex in the uk in the 21st century.

Reading some of these answers is surprising,
he had his options wear a condom/abstain, biology dictates choice ends at ejaculation, don’t put your penis in a vagina, etc….

If the same reasoning was applied to abortion rights I don’t think this conversation would be going the same way… then it’s then accidents happen, contraceptions not foolproof, you can’t expect people to abstain- etc etc,…

Because women can get abortions and men can't. It's not about what's fair or equal, it's nature. Women have the final choice.

Im pointing out almost every argument presented her could be a pro-life argument - for example

It's not very difficult for a women to avoid being in this position. Just don't have sex with a man you could not, if necessary, contemplate raising a child with.

Agreed. Men should be able to legally opt out of any/all responsibilities to do with a child, before it's born.

Thank goodness the law disagrees.

It's so depressing, but sadly unsurprising, that so many women are putting the wants of a man over the needs and rights of a child.

Yes. Maintenance is for the needs of the baby. Whether you want the baby or not, if you made it, you have to pay towards its welfare.

For what it’s worth, men should pay towards the upkeep of their children- but I’m playing devils advocate because I think the reasoning offered here is hypocritical since women would not held to same same standard- ie we wouldn’t say you took the ride you pay the consequences.
what I read from redpony1 comment, is prior to birth should a man be able to opt out of financial obligations if the women chooses to go ahead with a pregnancy against his wishes and to his detriment, by a contractual means, which I think is an interesting point.

prior to birth should a man be able to opt out of financial obligations if the women chooses to go ahead with a pregnancy against his wishes and to his detriment, by a contractual means, which I think is an interesting point.

Absolutely not. A man shouldn't be able to shirk his financial responsibilities because a woman doesn't want to have a medical procedure. A woman shouldn't be forced into an abortion of a wanted child for financial reasons because he thinks it's 'no big deal' for her to have an abortion, and isn't willing to support the child he helped create.

Once a baby is conceived, his ability to opt out has gone. The baby has a right to be supported, and that's what matters. It isn't punishment, it's ensuring his child is provided for.

There is never a moral opt out for a man even if there could be a legal one. Even if the woman says she wants nothing from him, the child will one day grow up and want to know who their father is.

If the same reasoning was applied to abortion rights I don’t think this conversation would be going the same way… then it’s then accidents happen, contraceptions not foolproof, you can’t expect people to abstain- etc etc,…

Abortion rights are to do with a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body. Women should not be forced to go through the physical and psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy and birth as some sort of punishment for sex. It's completely different from a parent's financial obligations and it's nothing at all to do with 'accidents happen'.

The only person that benefits from men being able to opt out of financial supporting their children, is feckless men, while women and children lose out in a very real way. That is not a benefit to society.

So either the child suffers due to lack of support from their parent. Or the woman suffers as they no longer have full agency over their own body.

What sort of person would prioritise a man's 'right' to a consequence free shag ahead of the above? I would have some choice words let me tell you.

@TheKeatingFive ,

‘So either the child suffers due to lack of support from their parent. Or the woman suffers as they no longer have full agency over their own body.’

This is a logically false argument.

You haven’t lost agency if the consequence of not having a (previously agreed) abortion is to take sole responsibility for the child. You still have 100% agency.

And suffering totally depends upon the circumstances. Surely you shouldn’t choose to have a baby that you don’t feel you can adequately support without the contribution of a parent who never desired parenthood. And, if you can support it, suffering is not involved.

Imagine a woman being forced to financially contribute to someone who has adopted their child. Would that be fair?

Not the same thing at all regarding adoption. You have to go through extremely stringent checks to adopt.

Essentially you keep talking about what's "fair" but it's not about what's fair! If you think that men shouldn't be made to pay for children they created then you're fine with seeing lots more children in poverty. Regardless of the failings of the adults involved, the children do not deserve to suffer.

I'm pro choice, but I've noticed that some people think that an abortion is nothing and as easily done as going for a hair cut, so if a woman can't bring herself to have one she should be punished by being fully financially responsible, as well as responsible in all other ways. Thankfully the law doesn't back people with such views up and hopefully never will.

Yes.
If he was happy to have sex then he was happy to take the risk.
Everyone knows that contraception isn't 100% guaranteed to work every time.

@Beezknees ,

I think we are trying to have a black and white conversation about something that has plenty of shades of grey.

There are feckless men, whom I would judge as harshly as you. But there are also dishonourable and dishonest women who, morally, should either decide to be solo parents, in every sense of the word, or better, have an abortion that they have previously agreed to.

For example, on the one extreme, a married couple who have separate finances and already have children. The woman gets pregnant accidentally and she decides she wants the child even though they have always agreed to only having two children. I don’t think anyone could dispute the father morally has to pay.

OTOH, two uni students who are both going their separate ways agree to have a short fun relationship. She is on the pill, he uses condoms but they have agreed, if the worst happens, she will have an abortion. The worst does happen and she changes her mind. I don’t think, in these circumstances, particularly if there is no danger of the child suffering (maybe she has a large trust fund), it would be fair to ask the father to pay.

I am sure we could both think of even more extreme examples (a female teacher seducing a male minor, or even a 32 year old lecturer with an 18 year old boy).

Moral issues are rarely black and white.

No it isn't.

If the woman (with full agency) has the baby - then the child doesn't get support from their parents. So why should either of those rights be compromised for men's 'consequence free shags'. Listen to yourself.

The adoption point is a total non sequitur. It's a totally different process. The adoptive parents take on full responsibility for the child's welfare so that the child doesn't lose out.

People keep conflating different things - having an abortion and financially supporting a child you created aren’t comparable and have to be assessed as the completely separate thing they are.

An abortion is a medical procedure. It is entirely up to the pregnant woman whether she has one, because she has bodily autonomy. There is absolutely no moral or legal basis for asserting that the father of the baby’s attitude towards child support should have any impact whatsoever on a pregnant woman’s decision about a medical procedure on her own body.

Men paying child support is a consequence of fathering a child that is ultimately born. It is for the benefit of the child, who didn’t ask to be fathered and has to be supported by those responsible for its existence (unless it is adopted). The fact that women can choose to end a pregnancy doesn’t impact on the responsibility to pay child support in any way, because they’re completely separate things. One is a decision about whether a pregnancy continues. The other is a responsibility arising in respect of a child once born.

A man’s opportunity to opt out of child support comes before he has sex. He can have a vasectomy, use condoms, abstain or accept the chance that despite precautions he may still end up fathering a child. It doesn’t matter whether it’s ‘fair’; children are a potential consequence of sex and there’s no avoiding that. It’s not unfair that he can’t have an abortion, it’s a fact of life.

There is no logic or equality in suggesting that the solution to men not being able to have abortions is that babies should sometimes not be provided with necessary financial support from the people responsible for their existence.

A man’s opportunity to opt out of child support comes before he has sex. He can have a vasectomy, use condoms, abstain or accept the chance that despite precautions he may still end up fathering a child. It doesn’t matter whether it’s ‘fair’; children are a potential consequence of sex and there’s no avoiding that. It’s not unfair that he can’t have an abortion, it’s a fact of life
👏🏻😊
Very well said@ScrunchyHippie

It's also unfair that women get periods and a more definite window on their fertility than men, but I've never heard any woman demand that men, or children, somehow make a lifelong sacrifice because it isn't "fair". Because that would be ridiculous. Yes it's unfair, but there's nothing we can do about it.

This is literally the one biological fact that doesn't advantage men (if you can call pregnancy, childbirth, abortion and all the associated risks and consequences an advantage) and they're on here whinging like the babies they want to abandon at will and demanding that the children they sired live in poverty because it's not "fair" on them to make a minor contribution to supporting them financially.

This is literally the one biological fact that doesn't advantage men (if you can call pregnancy, childbirth, abortion and all the associated risks and consequences an advantage) and they're on here whinging like the babies they want to abandon at will and demanding that the children they sired live in poverty because it's not "fair" on them to make a minor contribution to supporting them financially.

I know right? How absolutely pathetic.

Not at all. It's more that some people on here don't seem to have the imagination to think of scenarios where there is an absolute justification for the man not having responsibility

The sexual assault of an underage boy by an older woman. Beit teacher or other adult.

The sexual assault of a man who is too drunk to give consent.

A man who is deemed unable to be held accountable for his actions due to some disability or mental health.

There are circumstances where the man in question is not able to be deemed to be responsible for the actions that created a baby and just as with a sperm donor, they shouldn't be financially responsible for the child that they didn't want, didn't plan for and weren't in a position to choose