To not pay for an unwanted child?

[Anudawan]

Hypothetical.

it came up at work today.

if the pregnancy was a result of a one night stand, regardless of whether precautions were taken, if the man doesn’t want the pregnancy and the woman decides to continue, should he be able to opt out of child support?

my personal answer and I’m not sure on the nuance (ie do you have be on the birth certificate and thus can claim parental responsibility in order to be compelled to pay maintenance or a dna test to compel the man) my personal answer is no, he cannot or shouldn’t be able to opt out once the child is born. All sex (with a woman of reproductive age) carries the risk of pregnancy, you can lower the risk but never fully remove it. Abstinence is the only way to do that. To do the action you’ve got to be prepared for the consequences. It’s very easy to flippantly say ‘get an abortion’ but for some women that isn’t viable.

No. If you don’t want to risk having kids then don’t have sex!

Problem is, it would open the door to any man refusing to support his offspring.

Yes. No different to giving a baby up for adoption!

Child maintenance isn't a reward for the mother and a punishment for the father....it's for the child. The circumstances around the conception are irrelevant. Children conceived from one night stands still need to eat.

No of course he can’t. If children came in to bring because they were wanted ivf clinics would be out of business. Wanting a pregnancy and achieving one are two different things.
let me guess- at least some of your male colleagues thought this should be ok?

You couldn’t police it. How would you know it’s a one night stand?

What if the man wants to keep it, can he force the woman to give birth if she gets to be off the birth certificate and forgo maintenance?

It doesn't matter how the child was conceived, like you said, sex even with contraception used can always lead to a pregnancy, men know this, they also know they have no rights over a womans body which by nature also includes a fetus/pregnancy.
If a man does not want to have a baby with someone he should not have vaginal sex with a woman, it's really simple.
If he does get a woman pregnant then he needs to pay to support the child he created.

Of course and I think a consumer of certain podcasts … that was the vibe I got

of course he should support the baby.the baby didn’t ask to be born.

I do think in an ideal world all maintenance should be paid from PAYE though, and at a level which is appropriate, and child related benefits should be split according to residency.

All of that admin wouldn’t be cost efficient though so it’ll never happen.

It’s one part of life that, purely due to biology, only one parent has a say in the matter of the child being born at all. And that parent is the mother. The other parent is the father, and since both parties should be responsible for the child, because they are the child’s parents, “I don’t want to” can’t really come into it. Unless both don’t want to, of course, and then there is adoption.

This^ for me it's really that simple.

Exactly… and what’s the other way compelling a woman to have termination?

men have the choice prior to the action. Sex is an adult action and sometimes adult actions have adult consequences. Child maintenance always seems to be a mere drop in the ocean in terms of the real cost of raising a child.

but no, he saw a woman wanting more child support and she just had her hair and nails done… on the internet, and everything on the internet is true right? (Obvious sarcasm)

Except it’s very different?

I’ve debated this to exhaustion with friends (my opinions have also changed as I got older) and my final conclusion is: no, you can’t just opt out.

All sexual contact carries a risk of pregnancy. If you don’t want to risk it, either get a vasectomy or don’t have sex.

I'd say no. I'd say that the law should be able to compell you to pay child support, out of your wages, but the mother should be able to choose whether she wants the support

This seems 'unfair' to men, but don't have sex then?

If you don’t want the risk of child maintenance bag it. That simple.

the options for a woman should not be go it alone or abortion. The man had the option to prevent the pregnancy and did not.

I am so sick of men not being held accountable.

Well someone has to pay for the child, and many mothers can’t do that on their own. So if it’s a choice between the child living in poverty, the child’s resident family requiring additional state benefits to avoid poverty or the man who actually fathered the child paying, I’ll go with the father paying. Who cares if he wanted it? It’s far more his responsibility and down to his choices than it is the taxpayers and it’s certainly not the child’s fault.

If anything I’d rather child maintenance was considerably tougher.

Pregnancy is one of the risks of having sex. It’s a much smaller risk if you practice safe sex but it’s still there. Interestingly, I’ve known a few men who have insisted they were “tricked” into getting a woman pregnant. All of them said she lied to them about being on the pill or said she was infertile. None of them thought to take responsibility for their own bodies just incase and use a condom. I don’t think any of them were in a LTR either that I can think of, so it wasn’t like these women allegedly committed a massive betrayal in a meaningful relationship. I have no sympathy for any of those dipshits.

"but no, he saw a woman wanting more child support and she just had her hair and nails done… "

The very idea that if a woman receives child support she can't get her hair/ nails done and that man has the right to police her spending ffs.

Exactly, I think the example was from America too where the cost of day care for instance is astronomical, it is only right that father contributes to that, esp if costs have increases, and that doesn’t preclude the woman likely spending her own money on herself here and there …

I look at it as whose body currently contains the genetic material.

sperm in the man’s body = man’s decision.

embryo in the woman’s body = woman’s decision

Child has autonomy, but is vulnerable and must be helped. child must be supported to adulthood by both genetic contributors unless substitute parents are designated by a court.

My opinion on this is very unpopular.

In cases where contraception has been used but failed (i don't count 'just' pulling out before ejaculation as contraception) or where men have trusted a womans word she's on birth control and been lied to, then i think that legally, if the man doesn't want the baby, but the mother does and chooses to continue with a pregnancy, then he should be legally waived of financial responsibility on the provision he is also not involved in the babies life and waives his parental rights. If he wants to be involved, either from the beginning or later on with mothers agreement, then he becomes liable for child support and parental rights. It's in or out, not best of both worlds being a dad but not paying.

It is completely the womans decision to continue the pregnancy knowing it would be as a single parent without financial help from the father, but also that he has no parental rights and she can block all involvement from him.

In cases where hes not given a shit about using contraception and been happy to risk pregnancy, he doesn't get an out financially, but can choose not to play a part beyond financial.

Of course not. This is dangerously misogynistic and ive seen its posed in a few places recently, as a “what if”

the money supports the child not the mother. If you father a child that’s all there is to it. Call it a disadvantage of being a man if you like, they don’t have many so we don’t really care.

if the pregnancy was a result of a one night stand, regardless of whether precautions were taken

my personal answer is no, he cannot or shouldn’t be able to opt out once the child is born

Would your view change if a condom was used, but failed?