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 each and every time.

Im sick of men thinking that abortion is an easy option. For a lot of women it’s not. Baby hormones are already affecting a pregnant woman, it can be an extremely emotional time. And it can have an impact for years. There are studies linking it to depression and poor mental health. There’s also many outside influences that can impact that decision.

Men need to take responsibility for their own fertility. As well as using condoms every time, there’s nothing to stop them in being more selective about who they have sex with.

The alternative is that you have a lot more children growing up in poverty. That’s not fair on the kids who had absolutely no say in this.

Men who don’t want to pay maintenance should be vilified by the community in the same way that drunk drivers are. They know the risks. Abstinence is an option.

This. If you go horse-riding, you accept the risk that you might fall off and break your neck. If you ride bareback, the risk is much greater.

The natural consequences of sex is a baby don't want the consequences? Don't have sex

That’s his tough darts.
You are equally responsible for the child and if he wants to get really nasty about it, the courts will be forced to take child support from him whether he likes it or not.
What a dude.

As I've taught my sons, never ever accept a woman's word for it. She might forget to take her next pill, or she might be unaware that she has an STD. Always wear a fucking condom, dudes!

For me its the word "just" that is the problem.

Its attached to so many things to make them appear easy and consequence free when they are anything but. "Just have an abortion". How come its never "Just put a condom on"?

I fell pregnant accidently whilst on pill.... he was aware I had been very sick it was during a long weekend getaway.
He ignored me for most of pregnancy then decided to see child then changed his mind around 4/,5 months... he says he doesn't work and now claims benefits and will do for 18 years.

Whether or not he decides not to see the child and gives up parental rights the child still exists. He still has financial responsibility for the child.

Sex = babies, thats the whole point of it. Whoever did or didn't want the baby, once it arrives it needs to be fed and clothed.

If a man doesn't want a baby, nobody is forcing him to have sex, and if he feels he really must have sex, he needs to wear a condom.

Yes a man who fathers a child has to pay maintenance. FFS. And no, he can't force the woman to have an abortion.

!00% the bastard should!

Absolutely yes, next!

Yes because if he wanted to make sure he didn't procreate it's on him to wear a condom or have a vasectomy and not just rely on the woman to prevent a pregnancy.

Because if you roll the rice then you play the game. Any time a fertile couple has sex a pregnancy is possible whether you want that or not. If you have sex you accept the consequences.

If, OP neither of you discussed the consequences and you were both irresponsible in not using precautions then it’s on you both. However you should both have discussed MAP and abortions…….did you?

Yes. He should wear a condom and make absolutely sure to use it properly if he doesn’t want a baby.

He definitely shouldn’t take a woman’s word for it she’s on the pill! He has to take responsibility for contraception himself if he feels that strongly.

The pill isn't 100% effective anyway. If he is so adamant he doesn't want a child he should put something on the end of it. Can't moan if he didn't take precautions. As my guidance teacher used to say wear belts and braces. Both need to take precautions.

In your scenario @WiddlinDiddlin I agree.
If someone changes their mind it’s their choice but not one to be forced on another

If he helped make it, he helps to pay for it.

I agree that it's not fair that men have fewer choices than women do. But that is just how nature works.

100%

Refusing to support your own child is forcing your choice and your half of responsibility on to the other parent and the taxpayer. The state does not exist to protect men from the consequences of their shagging.

It's his child; whether he wanted it after he came is beside the point. It's his child. If parents don't have a duty to their child, who has?

Explain to him that the pregnancy will be resulting in a baby, not
a) a dog - if you wanted to get a dog and he lived elsewhere and wasn't going to see it, he is correct that it would be cheeky to ask him to chip in for dogfood
or
b) a new hobby for you - if you wanted to take up scuba diving and he didn't, he is correct that it would be cheeky of you to ask him to chip in for the wetsuit etc.

Unfortunately, as this is a child, he has already signed up for the full 50% genetic input of "new child" even if he wishes to pretend he hasn't, so he is now liable for 50% of the work and 50% of the costs. He is also entitled to 50% of the pleasure and joy.
Our current society bizarrely won't really do anything beyond tut a bit if he runs away and hides to try to avoid the work and the reward, but money remains a legal obligation - the child's needs exist even if he doesn't and the child is a person with their own persistent human dignity, not pay-per-view.

No they shouldn't.