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.

getting pregnant without men’s explicit consent

Getting pregnant is not something you can just choose to do, it’s not an act, it’s a biological process. Having sex without contraception IS a choice, and any man who doesn’t want kids yet doesn’t use a condom is a fool and can only blame himself.

You’re voting is confusing OP, because the title of your first post doesn’t match its content.
So do I vote YABU to match the title or YANBU to match what you say under it? 🤔

Hoping you read my original post of friend seeking to get pregnant by man with significant financial resources. Told him on pill when she wasn’t because she wanted baby with him (she didn’t do this with previous boyfriends who were not financially successful). She told us, I’ll get pregnant if we marry I’m set for life, if he doesn’t then I’m still set. They did not marry, she & baby got a city flat, private school, generous support so she did not work. He has moved on to other relationships, no other children that we know about.

And the other who thought her clock was running out and schemed potential to get pregnant at a professional conference. She researched participants SM, linked in for those who were intelligent (good uni), sporty and single and lived in another country. She got pregnant and never told him. She just wanted a free donor. She told him don’t worry I’m on the Pill when she knew 100% she was in ovulation phase.

Tell me to eff-off if you want, but these ladies exist.

It bears repeating

any man who doesn’t want kids yet doesn’t use a condom is a fool and can only blame himself.

Both parents are responsible and should pay.
If you don’t want to risk unwanted pregnancy with a one night stand, then stop having sex with strangers.

I accidentally voted yabu but you definitely are not! So many men forget they have the power to stop themselves from being fathers, if they want to!

I can see that my wording made it sound like it was really life threatening. Sorry. The WHO halted the trial for safety reasons due to the number of adverse side effects. Side affects seemed, from what I read, to be more severe than current side effects for the female pill, but not outrageously so, and not worse than the effects of the pill when it was first available.

I think it sums up my argument, tbh. Doctors seemed to think that because men aren’t actually left pregnant, the risks to them aren’t enough to justify anything adverse for them. And men seem to agree.

So this argument that they should be able to walk away from a pregnancy, when they aren’t prepared to put the same effort into avoiding it as women do, holds no water for me. It just puts even more of the risks of sex onto women.

I'm sure they exist, just like I've heard stories of men lying about vasectomies/being infertile due to cancer treatment so no condom needed.

Both are totally and completely wrong - but, and particularly with a one night stand, a. why would you take their word for it and b. there are reasons other than the risk of pregnancy to use a condom.

Why would I tell you to eff off?

I’m not saying there aren’t women who will try to get pregnant on purpose when the man doesn’t want to. But the men in those circumstances you describe weren’t without agency. They could’ve avoided those pregnancies if they’d worn a condom but they were happy to risk it.

So any man who didn’t want pay for their child could just do the same as give them up for adoption 🧐

No different? How is it remotely similar? A baby matched with an approved adoptive couple will be provided for and is planned within that family. Leaving a woman to give birth and raise a child while she is supporting them both is a totally different scenario. Ethically and practically, it's so different.

If the man took precautions, the chance of a pregnancy resulting is tiny. Reduce the chances further to account for the women who wouldn't go ahead with an unplanned pregnancy, and the number of men impacted would be so few I'm not sure it warrants a discussion on whether the law should be changed. However, for what it's worth, yes, the man is still responsible. He pays for his child. The fact he didn't want the child is irrelevant it's still a person he created by his actions.

Not all babies are matched and raised for by nice loving families.....

In both situations a parent decides they aren't able to /interested in raising a child and so relinquish the rights and responsibilities of parenting.

The law is clear on this - both parents are liable for the financial support of their biological children, and even if the father has no interest in a relationship with the mother or child, never wanted the child, didn't know about the pregnancy, even if conception was the result of contraception failure etc., he is liable for child support. Enforcement may be another matter - the father could deny paternity, refuse to co-operate in DNA testing to establish it (though a judge would be entitled to draw inferences from that) and then fail to cough up what the court decides he owes. He is breaking the law in that case, though the law isn't particularly good at pursuing and remedying breaches of that kind in good time; however, it is likely to catch up with him in the end.

It takes two to tango and both parents (even if the male considers he is merely an unwitting sperm donor) share responsibility for supporting an innocent baby who did not ask to be born.
If men want to opt out of this possibility, they can take action in the same way as a woman. It's called contraception.

One parent can't unilaterally give up a baby for adoption.

Where did anyone say they support women having abortions against their will?

I don't think you can really expect men to do that. It's not their bodies, they don't get a say in any of that. And I doubt most women would want them micromanaging them to that level either, it'd be controlling. We just need better alternatives for men. Some men wouldn't want to take a male pill but the ones that are really against having children most likely would. And they'd never be able to complain they were tricked into getting someone pregnant.

I think the inescapable fact that causes division on this is that a woman is never going to be in the situation of paying for a child she doesn't want due to the decisions of a man made outside of control.

That doesn't necessarily mean that men should be able to walk away scot free, but it is pretty shit in some situations. Condoms, vasectomies, blah blah, but the fact is that we can still give up a child for adoption whilst the man has no option but to pay up if that's what we want.

We can never be forced into motherhood through failed contraception.

No doubt there are lots of deadbeat dads out there and men that would try and game the system and go back on their word if they were able to shrug off all financial responsibility. And certainly some men could be a bit more proactive about contraception.

But I do think a lot of women are very dismissive of this area. It's not women's fault, it's just biology. However, I do wonder if the people that say "if he doesn't want to risk being a father then he shouldn't have sex" would be so quick to agree with the sentiment that "if she doesn't want to impact her career then she shouldn't have children"?

Plenty of people seem to think that women should be compensated for their biological disadvantages whilst men should just suck it up.

It is a biological disadvantage to be able to jizz in someone without consent?

I don't think I've once suggested abortion is a good form of birth control. It's an option open to women who don't want to be pregnant.
Some women do not want an abortion but also do not want to be pregnant or have a child. What would you suggest they do?

Use one or more of the multiple contraception options open to women?

Um, yes, you hit the nail on the head. Exactly that.