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.

My apologies I thought you were saying both sides of the coin were dumb

So the taxpayer should pay for the child? Taxpayers who had no part in the child's conception, while the man who is the father, who willingly had sex and who impregnated the mother, walks away?

If you are old enough to have sex, you should be old enough to understand than sex can lead to conception. And that no form of contraception is 100% reliable.

The child support is not for the mother it's to pay for the child's needs. The child's needs don't go away just because man doesn't feel he should contribute.

There’s all kinds of shitty people doing shitty things.
Some women do try to get pregnant for reasons - I know of 2. One because the guy was a catch & she saw an income opportunity - hugely ££ successful lawyer & she told him she was on pill because she wanted a baby and this guy had £££. She got nice child support, flat, private school & maintenance even tho they were literally never dating. The other, a professional woman wanted baby and she didn’t want to do IVF, got pregnant on a business conference w nice man from other side of the world & he doesn’t know. Never asked for support.

Guys need to know these ladies are out there.

Many people are careless with birth control which I find shocking - because everyone knows the outcome of pregnancy. And you get this “one night” guy in your life - forever!!!

For condom fails-
There is morning after pill - it’s not an abortion as conception wouldn’t have happened yet (most likely)

Anyway, yes I think he has to pay child support & should have opportunity to shared parenting.
Both parents should support the child, I don’t think third-party tax payers should pay for the baby.

In both those cases the men made their choices and the consequences are theirs to deal with.

I've educated my sons about risks and responsibilities. Any sex = potential baby and they have no say over what happens next.

No because

1. Anything other than celibacy is an acceptance of pregnancy risk. It's informed consent. He doesn't get to insist on a woman taking a proactive step toward abortion to mitigate for him losing a gamble.

1. If a child is born, we are talking about a real person being let down by a man shrugging their shoulders.

I'd love to see a split of the 17% who think it's acceptable for fathers to opt out of responsibility between men vs women...

Yes. If the woman gets the final say to keeping an unwanted pregnancy, then it follows it is her responsibility to raise the child alone and let the man leave her and the baby behind to move on with his life. That’s the only way both parties get what they want. The woman gets to keep her baby; the man gets to not have a child.

The right to financial support belongs to the baby and isn't something that parents should be able to opt out of.
The fact is though, all these people saying men should be able to walk away, well the fact is, they can and do walk away. Regardless of what the law says about it, it doesn't actually force men to support their children.

I notice your response didn't give any consideration to what was best for the innocent child created. Just the wants of the parents who created it.

@AlmostAJillSandwich - are you kidding?

Any time people have sex (during childbearing years) they are taking the risk of having a child. If they can't accept that, go off and have a vasectomy.

Otherwise, use all birth control available to them, never rely on a partner doing so, and accept the risk as part of the deal.

And he just doesn't pay for his child because the woman won't be frogmarched in to an abortion? That's a really low bar you are setting for all men.

All those people saying go and have a vasectomy - the odds are small but even they can fail. Sex still = chance of pregnancy no matter what contraception.

It could be the way the question is viewed. I was responding to the title, therefore yabu.

I’d exclude the very small number of cases where a boy was sexually assaulted and a child resulted. I really don’t think that’s the scenario most men are thinking of when they try and argue for the ability to walk away.

I don’t think it’s reasonable for it to be the woman’s responsibility to consider if she can pay for the child alone - it’s not about her, it’s about the needs of the child being as well met as possible by the people who made them. Because let’s say she does decide that she can go it alone and then she discovers that actually she can’t fully independently support herself and her child. Is it then ok for the child to pay the price for that poor decision and live in poverty? Or does the taxpayer have to step in? I’d say it’s the primary responsibility of the man willingly chanced creating the child when he chose to have sex.

Yes, historically, it's ALWAYS been the woman's fault. They've beein the ones shamed and shunned with men just absolved of any responsibility. Why wouldn't you want to keep the 'poor menz' narrative going 🙄

There are very few real 'accidents' when contraception is used correctly. A man who does not want to have a child should be protecting himself.
I mean, the grown woman on MN who 'suddenly' find themselves pregnant to someone after 5 minutes or to the loser you know is alway going to be a loser...It's hard not to roll your eyes at the stupid men who don't protect themselves but equally, what woman has unprotected sex with someone they barely know. For their own health. Crazy and stooopid and sometimes calculated.
So no, if a man is stupid enough to have unprotected sex with someone they do not want a baby with, then they've made a conscious decision to roll the dice. The buck really does stop with them. They should not be an 'opt out' clause for supporting the human being they created who now needs financial support.
Stops being about the selfish humans, both of them, and becomes about the child.

There was a post on Reddit. He persuaded ex to go through with the pregnancy she wanted and abortion. But he told her he would raise the child himself. She wanted no part bringing him up. She pays maintenance but that’s it. At the time he posted his son was a toddler and he’s now saying he wants her involved bringing their child up.🙄

If this was an option for men,it would probably result in ALL men saying the child was unwanted by him in order to avoid paying maintenance.

perfectly written

The bloke's choice happens when he puts his dick in the vicinity of a woman's fanny. Once his sperm leaves his body there's a chance he'll be contributing to creating a new life and yes he'll have to share responsibility, including financial responsibility, if that chance happens.

Don't want the risk, keep your dick stowed.

You would never be able to enforce it otherwise. Every father that doesn’t want to pay would claim that it was an accident. The money is for the child not the parent and I wouldn’t support anything that led to more children living in poverty.

I'm childfree and female. I'm so glad the choice is in my hands. I was sterilised at 25 but it was a battle to get.

I think in this day and age the choice should fall to the woman who made the final decision. I do think some accommodation should be made eg if married it's basically a contract and if you want to have a kid outside of marriage then a separate legal thing could be made. I certainly wouldn't want to spend any money let alone 18 years plus for what is effectively one night of often drunken passion on somebody else's choice. Abstinence is an option but let's face it, it's a human desire for sex (not kids) and there's no way when half baked you can commit to making a decision that will cost you potentially thousands of pounds for the best part of your life.

Imo it's out dated and if you're religious or have strong beliefs about abortion you should not be willing to get pregnant knowing you will have to raise a child alone.

Of course in talking about accidental pregnancy here or failed contraception etc I'm not talking for men who just can't be arsed to think about it/have no care for consequences in general or for men who agree to a family then back out.

It's such an out dated idea and everybody saying 'how would you regulate it etc' well child maintenance agency are pretty much useless and constantly cock up. Nobody cares when somebody is docked/over paying etc and is owed money back that is 'spent'. There's no recourse.

The entire thing needs an overhaul. We don't live in a world where women are forced to carry children they don't want or can't afford to take care of. That world has ended.

The irony for us being that it was after having the kids that our sex life ground to a halt!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't..... 😂

For those on Twitter/X - the best thread ever on “Why Men are 100% Responsible for Unwanted Pregnancies”.

Anticipating and expertly demolishing every “Yeah, but what if blah blah blah…” comment. Enjoy!

x.com/designmom/status/1040363431893725184?s=61