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

If men are worried about this then why aren't they campaigning for proper medical research into a male contraceptive pill or IUD equivalent? Women are fertile about 20% of the time whereas men are fertile 100% of the time.

It's obviously not great that the only means men have of controlling their fertility and avoiding accidental pregnancy is condoms, but I don't hear any of them complaining about the lack of alternatives or volunteering for clinical trials. They're happy to leave the responsibility for preventing pregnancy up to women.

Indeed!
They prefer to stay intact and not have to inconvenience themselves safe in the knowledge that they can leave that to the women.
Confident that it will always be the women who will take the hit, suffer the medical interventions etc while men skip off to do as they please consequence free.

Any woman sexually assaulting a man should be charged, put on the SO register and then the child would be adopted out so neither would be responsible.

Let's not pretend that its a common occurrence though.

However if these loopholes are drafted into law then you can be named sure the swathes of feckless fathers will be jumping on the excuses to get out of their obligations.

However if these loopholes are drafted into law then you can be named sure the swathes of feckless fathers will be jumping on the excuses to get out of their obligations.

I can practically see the 'huge upturn in number of sexual assaults against men by women' headlines, shortly followed by the 'sexual violence isn't primarily committed by men, look at the latest stats' being used as a stick to beat vulnerable women with.

We cannot have a loophole that allows men to have a legal and financial incentive to falsely accuse women of sexual assault.

I would bet my life that men would be unquestionably listened to as well.

If men started accusing women of sexual assault then women would become even less willing to engage with men. We already have very little need for them now that we have better access to well-paid jobs and can be economically independent.

There is no circumstance under which a man should not financially support his child. Zero. (Or woman for that matter).

It makes NO difference whether the woman lied or if she's a good person. It is about the child and the child's needs ONLY. It is black and white, no grey at all.

@Beezknees ,

Once a child exists, I agree.

But, in the 21st century, in the UK, sex does not have to result in a child. It is a conscious decision of the woman and, medically, going to term is far riskier than termination.

So, yes, once pregnant, a woman has the legal right (and thus full bodily autonomy) to keep the embryo, but that doesn’t make it ethical in cases where both parties have agreed that they don’t want a child. A legal right is not the same as an ethical one.

As I said above, the advances in science and increasing wealth that led to women being able to also enjoy ‘Zipless Fucks’ were about achieving equality, not about transferring the risk of becoming a parent 100% to the man.

As I said above, the advances in science and increasing wealth that led to women being able to also enjoy ‘Zipless Fucks’ were about achieving equality, not about transferring the risk of becoming a parent 100% to the man.

Your last sentence is total horseshit btw. As if having to pay some paltry maintenance is equivalent to the entirety of 'becoming a parent' 🙄

As pointed out upthread, if men are so concerned about the degree they are shouldering this risk, they should be pushing for the development of male contraceptives. Then they have 100% control.

So, yes, once pregnant, a woman has the legal right (and thus full bodily autonomy) to keep the embryo, but that doesn’t make it ethical in cases where both parties have agreed that they don’t want a child. A legal right is not the same as an ethical one.

Bullshit on about how your wish for consequence free shagging must override a child's right to be supported by the parents if you must, but don't start trying to call it ethics. It's sheer entitlement on your part and the only reason you feel it so keenly is because you never have to face any kind of biological "disadvantage" in any other way and you're not used to it.

Your children's right to their parents' support matters far more than your penis.

There's a reason why Viagra is one of the best selling drugs of all time and readily available in every pharmacy, and there still isn't an internal male barrier method or hormonal contraceptive. You can see where male priorities lie.

How could we be so heartless?

"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"

Indeed. It's also depressing that there are those who appear to think that men need special protection from women who sexually assault them to steal their sperm....

The theory of having an abortion and the reality are two completely different things.

Having an abortion isn't just a way to avoid financial responsibility for a child.

Abortion and pregnancy are about a woman's right to choose what happens to their body, not about who takes responsibility for the child after birth.

So if a child is sexually assaulted by someone (maybe a teacher?) and she gets pregnant, the child victim has to be punished financially because he was abused?

The teacher would be on the SO register and not have the child.

The victim could then decide whether to take the child on and pay for it or adopt the child out.

The law shouldn't change to reflect the almost non existent percentage of this happening though.

So if a child is sexually assaulted by someone (maybe a teacher?) and she gets pregnant, the child victim has to be punished financially because he was abused?

Regardless of the circumstances, CMS isn't a punishment. It is a recognition that the child has a right to be supported by both of its parents.

@MrsSunshine2b ,

‘The theory of having an abortion and the reality are two completely different things.

Having an abortion isn't just a way to avoid financial responsibility for a child. ‘

If you are an adult and you choose to have sex, you know that pregnancy may result (as so many have said!). If you have a discussion with the person who you are having sex with and agree that, in the result of pregnancy, you will terminate, then that is the honourable and decent thing to do.

The idea that women are the helpless victims of their hormones just isn’t the case. And that idea is misogynistic and infantilising.

Having an abortion is nothing to do with finances. It is about not bringing an unwanted child into the world. But should a woman change her mind, that is entirely her right and, yes, the father should pay.

But forcing someone into fatherhood (and no, in the real world, abstention isn’t an option for most couples) isn’t decent or honourable.

Men are not forced into fatherhood. If they have sex with a fertile woman they know that a pregnancy may result. If they want to avoid any possibility of that happening then they should have a vasectomy.

@Biggleslefae ,

And round we go…

‘Men are not forced into fatherhood. If they have sex with a fertile woman they know that a pregnancy may result. If they want to avoid any possibility of that happening then they should have a vasectomy.’

What? At 16, or whenever they are first sexually active? You really advocating guys get vasectomies when they first become sexually active?

No I'm advocating that guys take responsibility for children that they create.
They have to accept the consequences of sex just like women do.

There's no "honourable thing to do" about it, it's her body and her choice alone whether she wants to put her body through that procedure or not.

A man has the choice to have sex or not, knowing that doing so carries the risk of pregnancy, albeit, if he uses appropriate protection, a very small one.

A woman, if she falls pregnant, has the choice between two physically demanding and emotionally challenging options, both of which will have an impact on the rest of her life. If she chooses to keep the baby, she's going to have to make huge sacrifices to raise that child.

And yet, you think it's the one having to pay a proportion of his income to child maintenance whilst otherwise continuing life exactly as normal is the one being hard done by.

Yes, but if it's father is also a child, one that is effectively a victim of rape?

If a little girl is raped, finds out very late on, and the baby is born, should she also be legally forced to pay for the baby?

I agree that we need to think of the baby, but forcing victims of sexual crime to pay for nearly mytwo decades for being a victim is abhorrent.

Should sperm donors also pay? At least they wanted to create a baby...

If CMS is SO essential for the wellbeing of a child, that it justifies being being paid for by vulnerable sexually abused children, then maybe there should be a legal requirement to swap contact details before casual sex?

Otherwise why are we saying that poor 13 year old Timmy, who was groomed and abused, but brave enough to testify must pay for 18 years, meanwhile it doesn't matter in the case of Sarah and John who chose to have anonymous sex, and don't even know eachother names, let alone how to ever get in touch.

It's possible for the courts to put a very high bar on when it's not payable, to stop anything other than the strongest causes succeeding.

But it's not about prioritising the child, or there'd be more emphasis on Sarah and John, and not poor Timmy

Have there actually been any cases of a 13 year old boy being sexually assaulted by an adult woman who became pregnant as a result?