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.

Sex can lead to pregnancy. When a man chooses to have sex, he's accepting that risk.

What podcasts?

This is a weak argument, because the same applies to abortion access

Men should have the same rights as a woman. If the woman doesn’t want the child she can terminate, if the man doesn’t want the child it’s tough if the woman does. So should women be aloud a termination then? Or should they learn to not have sex too!

But this is a nonsense because it’s one persons word against another’s with no legal evidence available either way. You can’t put a legal framework around this situation

Do you not apply this rule to women too?

No. It’s a risk. Deal with it.

I agree with you. But MN is a breeding ground for “I know a friend who told me when she was drunk [it’s ALWAYS when she was drunk] that she got pregnant on purpose and trapped her boyfriend”. One person even said her friend trapped her husband because she “surprised him in the bath” and he couldn’t help himself, he just HAD to have unprotected sex with her.

I don’t where these half wits come from but a misogyny klaxon always seems to sound somewhere

I feel sorry for men in this situation because the woman has the choice to have an abortion so will never be stuck with an unwanted child but the man is at the mercy of the woman’s decision.

It's a strong argument for men to either have a vasectomy or abstain.

For women, however:
Abortion can be a decision if a foetus is found to have a deformity even if the pregnancy was planned and a baby was wanted.
Abortion can be a decision if a mother is diagnosed with cancer or another life threatening condition or a condition develops requiring medication that will harm the foetus after pregnancy is confirmed even if the pregnancy was planned and a baby was wanted.
Abortion can be a decision if the mother's partner becomes abusive or abandons her or she finds out she is in a bigamous marriage or that he has debts that will cripple the family, and she doesn't want to be tied to that man via child access until the teenage child or the courts decide access isn't going to happen any more.

In other words, a woman can change her mind about a wanted pregnancy. A lot can change in nine months.

Women have different considerations around unprotected sex because they control what happens with the pregnancy should it occur. Men should consider that they don’t have that control. It’s different. The same way it’s different for women in that men can just fuck off when the baby is born.

Agree with this ^

When it’s the man’s body gestating the baby he can decide on whether he wants an abortion.

As gestating a baby is not an equal opportunities sport only the woman gets to decide on medical procedures to her body.

He can have equal rights once the baby has been born.

And she would already be facing the consequences of sex by pregnancy and having the baby. The man would face the same consequences of said baby once it’s here (ensuring it is fed and housed, even if that’s only through a paltry monetary contribution).

True. In which case you think far more men would be keen to use protection. But so few are. They have unprotected sex and act all shocked because sex resulted in EXACTLY what sex is supposed to result in. No sympathy from me I’m afraid.

100% agree with you @Anudawan

If he is the biological father, the child is his responsibility.

Does a man get ‘stuck with an unwanted child’ though? Or do you mean he needs to hand over 100-odd pounds a month to ensure his own child is fed but otherwise doesn’t actually need to do anything at all?

But this argument is focusing purely on the adults involved and the choices they made and whether they are being treated fairly. The child is the innocent party and this argument totally ignores their needs.

A girl I went to school with got herself in this situation. Had a one night stand, got pregnant (she says the condom failed AND she was on the pill, but seriously?). The guy flatly refused to go along with it, didn’t want to be a dad (was 19) and has never acknowledged the child. The child is now 13, and she still sprays vitriol all over social media about him being a shit absent father/sperm donor/pathetic excuse of a man, but she chose this, and he didn’t? She repeatedly said they used 2 forms of birth control, yet still expected him to step up for a child she says he actively tried to protect against. It’s a hard one, but it’s always been in my mind that she wanted to get pregnant and basically went looking for it to piss off her parents. Tricky!

Even if he doesn’t pay any maintenance or have any contact, he still has an unwanted child in the world.

Abortion is not a form of contraception and men have no right to treat it as such. If you make a baby, you should take responsibility for supporting the child.

Sounds like your colleagues need a reality check and to stop listening to the Tate brothers

Question: how would that work in practice?

A man doesn’t want a baby - does he lodge an application with the court?
How does he then prove he didn’t want the baby all along? Or that contraception was lied about? How does he prove he’s not a liar? Who pays for all this? The taxpayer?

Also what about if he’s in a relationship or marriage then changes his mind? Is that ok?

And what will you do about all the children plunged into poverty due to this law? Or all the broken hearts of children who find out they are SO unwanted their dad emancipated himself from them while they were still a foetus.

What a shame when men’s wallets matter more than a child’s wellbeing.

Here’s another suggestion: men could just face up to their actions and responsibilities?

And did you know £4billion is owed by men to their children? We already live in a world where men shirk their emotional and financial responsibilities. Why are to that figure?

With this logic you'd have to prohibit abortions though, surely?

As a poster mentioned above, your colleague's opinion is a misunderstanding of what child support it - it's for the child, not for the mother. Regardless of how the child came into being and whether either party wanted it, the child needs to eat and should therefore be supported by both their parents

But, but.. men! They’re the most important! Even when contraception has failed it’s the woman bearing the physically and financial burden because we can’t inconvenience the menz.

If a man doesn’t want to have a child he doesn’t have intercourse or he makes sure he’s wearing good strong protection. He also knows for certain that the person he’s having sex with is using good, reliable, safe, contraception. In short, he needs to be discerning and careful. His choices on whether to have a child or not end at the moment of conception. The woman is taking the risk with pregnancy and raising the child. A man has made his choice - now it’s her turn to make her choice.