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.

I feel really conflicted about this. Biology is obviously incredibly unequal in the area of reproduction and this creates all kinds of dilemmas in a world where we are trying to get closer to equality between the sexes.

My thoughts basically are that it's unrealistic to expect men to be abstinent, get a vasectomy or be held totally morally responsible for a pregnancy. People (both men and women) don't want to settle down at a crazy young age anymore and it would be a really really tough ask to say to anyone that isn't with a partner that they are 100% willing to have children with that they can't have sex until they are in this position. In this day and age lots of people would have to wait until they are in their 40s which is bonkers! Most women would not accept being in sexless relationship so it's not like women would be willing to facilitate this option for men.

It's equally mad to suggest that a man that wants to have children in the future must have a vasectomy to prevent unwanted pregnancies now. The obvious risk is that he destroys his fertility when the procedure can't be reversed successfully. I'm not sure many women who eventually want children would be keen to start a relationship with a man who has had a precautionary vasectomy that he hopes to reverse when the right lady comes along.

My point is that society isn't really setup in a way that make abstinence or a vasectomy sensible options for most men. The truth is that societal norms have evolved to incorporate contraception working effectively to enable women to have careers, people to get married later, have kids later etc. Women and men's expectations are built upon this. It isn't fair or realistic to expect a man today to step outside this and essentially live as though contraception hasn't been invented. He would be completely out of sync with the rest of society and it would be very hard to find partners.

So I don't think it's as simple as saying to men 'dong have sex or have a vasectomy'. Equally though, contraception fails and the woman is left holding the baby or having an abortion which also isn't fair either. I don't think the state should be picking up the bill so ultimately the father and mother of the baby are the only people left to do this. It's kind of a 'no fault' scenario so morally this is the only fair way of dealing with it.

I do think though that there are women that abuse their biological position to plan a baby when they know the man has no interest in having one. This is morally reprehensible and I do think the man should be able to opt out of this kind of arrangement but it's impossible to prove what has happened.

1, Where did I say women were not in the Ukrainian armed forces?

2, Men apparently having an "entitled attitude" is also completely unrelated to the thread, but you didn't seem bothered about that.

The short answer to that hand wringing is , sex is risky. Deal with it.

No idea what point you're making. Sex carries the risk of making a baby. Men need to deal with that if they want to have sex. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

One way or the other, the woman is facing the consequences of having sex, by either having an abortion or continuing with the pregnancy. You cannot force someone to have an abortion anymore than you force someone to give birth. Women don't get to just passively opt out, and neither should men.

This ^

It’s really depressing that anyone could be so narcissistically selfish as to think they should be able to opt out of supporting their own child.

The focus is the child, not whether they meant the child to exist. So what? The child does exist. Man up.

Men on average earn more so more fair the dad contributes than all people through taxes ( or children grow up in poverty which can lead to sex work etc)

Have you actually seen the comments on social media regarding the legalising/banning of abortions? It is literally full of comments aimed at women stating "fuxk about and find out" and "should have kept you legs closed" and "women stay abstinent"

Obviously the man does need to step up and pay. Though there are women who go looking for one night stands to get pregnant with (and the ensuing 18 years of child support both from man and state) and lying about contraception, and that is of course hugely immoral behaviour. Stupid and irresponsible from the man involved and immoral from the woman, so perhaps not the best start in life for the kid!

@Bertiel33

“As I have said, men have the exact same choice over their reproduction as women do. It just involves them not sticking their penis in someone unless they want to accept the responsibility.”

While clearly they don’t though, as once the sex act is completed, the future of the pregnancy is out of their hands. As is the legal obligation to financially support a child brought to term. Which is the correct way it should be though.

I'm not sure what point you're making here? Mens do not have choice over whether a pregnancy continues or not because it isn't in their body. They do have the choice for the sperm to leave their body though.

Not really because men seldomly get it printed on a t shirt that they wear 24/7.

well given the meagre amounts some men who are compelled to pay actually do pay, I think there are many instances when it doesn’t lift a child out of poverty.

but to be clear the cost of raising a child isn’t just a financial cost, it’s a time cost, effort cost and an opportunity cost. Even with 50% financial maintenance those other costs cannot be divided out, so the real cost of raising a child will fall on the primary care giver/ solo parent

@Bumpitybumper your post has a number so significant flaws:
"total moral responsibility" - no, a 50% share of responsibility. It takes 2 to tango.
"Settling down" - taking a 50% share in financial responsibility for the child you helped create does not require settling down or having a long term relationship with the mother.
"Requiring a vasectomy" - well I don't have perfect recall of every post in this thread - but I think you are misreading these kinds of posts. Laying out the choice that you either acknowledge the risks and accept the consequences or have a vasectomy/be totally abstinent does not mean that every poster mentioning the words vasectomy or abstinence is advocating that these should be the more popular default solutions. The point is that, these options being as drastic as you say, people should understand and accept the risks and possible consequences and should be required to dealwith the financial fallout if things go wrong.

I don't think the state should be picking up the bill, but it would be good to have some kind of system similar to student loans whereby if a woman with a young baby isn't getting a reasonable amount of support from the baby's father, the costs of such support should be temporarily provided by the state but applied as a debt against the father's future earnings - so if he isn't earning much now he might take 60 years to pay the state back for the money outlayed.

This!!!!

No. If men choose to ejaculate irresponsibly into a woman who is in her fertile years, then they must take the risk that a pregnancy may result.

Don't want to be responsible, then don't ejaculate into a woman.

To be 100% confident of no unwanted pregnancy this is all they need to do. They can still have sexual intimacy, just don't do the bit that causes pregnancy. They can still orgasm and so can the woman. Loads and loads of fun sexy times can be had. Just don't do that one thing.

Oh, but they do. They do it all the bloody time. Because although orgasm is the goal and it feels great, maybe 8/10 great, it feels just that little bit better 10/10 to ejaculate inside a woman.

Take that risk, that the responsibility.

And if there is an unwanted pregnancy then they have zero part in the decision making on what the woman does with it. Once they leave their sperm inside her their choice on what happens to any resulting fetus ends.

"would be the fair way to let BOTH genders have some say in becoming a parent or not"

men have every opportunity to be 100% sure they do not create a pregnancy if they do not want to become a father

do not ejaculate into a woman who is in her fertile years

they can still have loads of sex, just don't do that one thing

easy

no birth control, no vasectomy required, just don't ejaculate inside a woman

but women can have all the sex and all the orgasms they like

lesbians do it all the time

it's just that one bit, ejaculation inside a woman by a man, that causes pregnancy

there's so much more to sex than that one bit

and that one bit for a great many women is pretty ho hum and not the bit that gives us the orgasm anyway

No. The reason the woman gets final say is because to forcibly perform a medical procedure on a human is illegal and abhorrent.

The moment men agree to assist with the accidental culmination of sex with a fertile woman is when they have sex.

Women get more of a choice because it’s their body at risk. They also risk death when carrying a mutually planned baby. Men take no risks when choosing to have a baby - women take all. Equally men take a greater risk when having sex with strangers.

Are there though, are there really?
Or is this an urban misogynistic myth, In the real world, how many women are looking to get pregnant for an extra £200 a month from someone who’s not going to give it willingly

Motherhood is a career choice for some women. When education is finished, or not of interest, the next step many women choose is a job and then motherhood. Having a baby means independence from parents and joining a community of mums.

That board game Life, demonstrates this idea … the little cars that don’t pursue higher education get the babies first. When education is complete, for many this is at 16. How long does a young woman then wait to get that baby? And £200 is a lot if you are on very first rung of employment and have a baby, and you have graduated right into adult life with a baby, and baby-daddy to prove it.

People make different choices.

Doesn’t education finish at 18?

£200 that you have to fight for with a court order mandating a dna test, it’s hardly handed to you on a silver platter. And that’s assuming that the person this 18 year old had a meticulously planned one nighter with is earning enough to pay £200. If she’s slept with someone her own age then I think it’s pretty unlikely that said baby is the meal ticket you seem to think it is. And if she’s sleeping with a 25+ year old who has the finances to pay that rather meagre £200, isn’t there a larger question as to why a 25 yr old is having a one night stand with an 18 year old and not using contraceptives.

(if they were using them, then probably blows up the argument of that devious woman looking to ensnare the unwitting poor man)

My ex says he didn't want our children and I made him, so by that logic would argue he shouldn't have to pay.

In reality "I made him" was him saying that he wanted kids from the start of the relationship, him not saying he'd changed his mind over 8 years while we did the thing we agreed to do before having kids (established careers, buy house), him not saying he'd changed his mind while we looked up schools and catchment areas to buy in, him continuing to say he wanted kids while we (mostly me) saved for two years to cover maternity leave & childcare, then again saying he was ready for kids when we had the conversation about stopping contraception and ttc.

You can't opt out of the other risks that having sex brings. If someone had a one night stand, took precautions but ended up with a sexually transmitted disease they can't just say "well, I didnt want it so I dont have to think about it or take responsibility for it or adjust my life in any way"

Why should you opt out of the responsibility of parenthood and carry on with business as usual?

And what about women who for a variety of very valid reasons feel abortion is not an option for them? What about women who may be forced/coerced into an abortion by a man refusing to pay for the child he co- created because shes worried about affording things alone? What about the impact on the child who has less available income than children with two providing parents?

This stance again forces women into unfair situations where they end up taking on a care giver role, makes it even easier for men to negate their responsibilities, creates a vacuum of solid male role models which we know affects children, makes it more likely that children will grow up in poverty, will put increased pressure on statutory services and ultimately overall reinforces the concept that women should be the default caregiver while men continue on life as normal.

You do grown up things, you face grown up consequences - women have known this for millennia but this actually applies to men as well. Something some seem to forget.