Paying maintenance

[throwaway005]

Just putting it on here to see others thoughts

chatting with some friends earlier about child support and a father being involved with the kids. I kind of think I know how this will go but here goes

So I agree with abortion, many women get pregnant and keeping the baby for a variety of reasons doesn’t suit her. Contraception fails, rape, financial the list is endless and a woman should decide what is right for her and her body. Which is her right but what about the father’s right to choose whether to be a parent or not? I’m not talking about men that have planned pregnancies with a partner or have agreed to be a dad due to an unplanned pregnancy. I’m talking about the men who say right from the start they don’t want to be a dad or be involved in anyway. On the other hand a man can’t force a woman to carry the baby the take full responsibility when the child is born and the mother to pay support.

as it is right now whether they want to be involved or not and if they say straight off that they don’t want to be a dad should why should they have to pay child support? A woman has the choice to keep or end the pregnancy but a man is forced to go along with the woman’s wishes.

for the record I’m a female and I had an unplanned pregnancy (2 types of contraception failed) I spoke to the father and said I was happy to go it alone and didn’t want or need anything from him. I was late 30s and child free.

im not sure how it could be policed or what the options would be but something like the man legally signing away parental rights from the start of the pregnancy and the mother signing to agree she won’t chase it etc

so my question is AIBU to think that if a mother chooses to go ahead with a pregnancy and the father says right from the off that he doesn’t want to be involved should he then be free to walk away with consequences?

There would be no way to prove though that the man had bothered with contraception and that it was a truly tried to be prevented mistake. Men would lie all day long and say they wore a condom to get out of 18 years of child support. And I can tell you from my single days, there’s a VERY large majority of men who don’t care about putting on a condom unless you insist on it.

Like you, I had a pregnancy which was the result of a multiple contraception failure. Condom that split, MAP taken next morning didn’t work, and shouldn’t have even been close to my fertile days according to period tracking app. This was in a new relationship. It was absolutely not ideal timing a couple months into a relationship, but I couldn’t bear the thought of an abortion as a lady in my mid 30’s who wanted children and was financially stable. We had both tried to prevent this pregnancy. Should I have had to shoulder the whole burden of this because I wouldn’t have been able to go through with an abortion? (Fully support abortion and the right to choose, but it wasn’t something I could do myself in the particular situation I had found myself in).

There can always be contraception failures despite everyone’s best efforts, as I well know. But the large majority will be purely a case of man not bothering to put on a condom (“cause it doesn’t feel as good”). So, just like for women, the only way to truly protect yourself from an unplanned pregnancy is to abstain from sex.
Even if a man has to pay child support, he still gets off extremely lightly compared to the mum who has to carry and birth the baby, work around the child’s needs, pay the majority towards the child and childcare. The man can decide to not see his kid, or see them once a month or so. The mother (in most cases - I appreciate there are cases where dad takes the load and mum is barely involved) mostly has an all or nothing decision. So it’s not going to be a decision she ever takes lightly.

The only scenario where a man should be able to opt out of the pregnancy/fatherhood is if he was raped. Other than that he has his opt out clause when he chose to have sex

Nothing is foolproof aside from abstinence.

Any man who thinks otherwise is a total idiot.

If a man has sex with a fertile woman, he is accepting the possibility of a pregnancy.

But that scenario is such a tiny proportion of the population and such a low chance of happening that there's no point to enshrine this scenario into law surely? Like a previous poster says, a man can exercise his right to choose by wearing a condom.

There is a way to 100% avoid the responsibility of a lifetime of child maintenance.

Not having sex. Its the only guaranteed way for men (and women) to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

I kind of get where you are coming from but don’t think it could ever work.

I do think that women need to take more responsibility though. There are so many ‘accidents’ and I know some who say they are on contraception but they aren’t. That should be classed as rape imo. You see on here time and time again those who have more than one child with a feckless dad - because they wanted children/siblings etc.

Overall it’s the child that suffers. The focus should always be on the child.

Removing a condom without consent (Aka stealthing) is rape. Of course, this also has an STI risk.

But I don’t believe that lying about a vasectomy is (legally) rape, nor lying about being on an IUD/the Pill (legally) sexual assault.

It is entirely up to the man to continue using condoms, if he chooses, if he feels he wants his own protection from STI or becoming a father.

The guy’s penis didn’t fall into the woman’s vagina and impregnate her by accident. Sex carries a risk of pregnancy. Why should society put up with all these dads not contributing? If they contributed the mums might reduce their UC or tax credits or whatever; or the mums might be able to afford better quality childcare and return ato a more productive career.

The best form of contraception is abstinence. If you don’t abstain, you carry the consequences.

There are many things in life we don’t choose, but we just have to put up with.

lol plenty of people don’t just have sex to create babies they have sex for intimacy closeness enjoyment and i know for a fact it relaxes me so im going to have sex when i want because it isn’t just about making babies which you all who spout that nonsense seem to forget.

I said what I said a man should get to walk away with 0 responsibilities including financial if he says from the off he doesn’t want said child. It’s on the mother if she brings a baby into the world or not so it’s on her also to make the decision whether she’ll do it alone or not. See if it was me I’d keep it and let the man walk.

No, just because men can’t carry a baby, doesn’t mean they can wave goodbye to their responsibility for the child. Even if they don’t want to be directly involved, they need to provide financial support for the child that they created.

If a man doesn’t want children, he’s responsible for taking charge of his contraception including having a vasectomy!

As others have pointed out, it’s child support - to support the child. The financial burden to support the child sits equally on both parents - it just so happens that normally it’s the mother who sticks around and the father has to cough up. However, both parents are held liable to pay the financial support towards the child by virtue of the fact it took two to tango and that’s the only fair way to divvy it out. If both parents split the custody 50/50 then neither has to pay to the other any child support - the amount paid is dependent on who isn’t pulling their weight in looking after the result of the liaison. If you choose to have sex with someone and a child results, that child must be supported by both parents and you cannot/should not have a situation where the child is not represented and supported from both sides.
This is entirely separate from the discussion of contraception/abortion. And I suppose this is where the question of custody and physical presence comes in. Men may not have any say in whether the mother carries to term, but they can relinquish their parental rights and have nothing to do with that child if they want. They cannot force an abortion (whole other issue of women’s rights over their own body) but they can choose not to be a father. This is separate from the obligation to provide financial support (because the law doesn’t want women and children left destitute!) - but it is a right to not be a father if they choose.
it is the only fair way to do all of this - when two people have sex and a third person results, there are so many conflicting rights at play for all 3 - this is therefore where the law has landed.

If the man doesn’t want to be a dad;

1. dont have sex
2. get a vasectomy
3. wear a condom

As long as you don’t expect the state to support you, therefore ending in the absent father being chased for money.
Getting pregnant is the easy part, supporting your child for the next 18 years is the expense and most rely on the state and all the benefits the taxpayer funds.

If a man doesn't want a child he takes control of contraception and accepts it comes with a risk that is his responsibility to take care of or he abstains or is snipped. You are 50% responsible for any outcome of the choice to have sex

Because the law says that both parents are responsible for paying towards the child.

Absolutely crazy, the woman doesn’t have a ‘choice’ unless she has absolutely no moral qualms about abortion?? It’s not as clear cut as that for most women and thankful I am for that personally as I would not have the beautiful amazing grown up daughter I have today if it had been for me, would I be devastated and disturbed if a family member of mine had an abortion and disgusted at a recent celebrity’s attitude regarding her abortions but would I insist another woman be criminalised for ending her pregnancy, no

I don't really see the point of the thread OP. The possibilities are vast.

A) You could have a single parent, meets new man and falls pregnant 6 months into the relationship. New man might say from the off he doesn't want the child. New woman has always wanted 3 DC.

B) A woman could fall pregnant at 35 and it could be her first baby. New man could say he doesn't want the baby. Woman feels she would keep the baby as it could be her last chance.

Men don't get to decide because ultimately despite it taking 2 people make a baby its the woman who who be having to have the termination or face being a single parent.

Lots of men on here who were in relationship view CMS as optional or a "favour" to the mother!

No of course we don't but it is the risk you take whem you have sex and a mam knows this. I am not a reckless driver I haven't had a crash i don't intend to crash i do my utmost to ensure I domt crash and i sure as shit don't want to crash but I am insured for that possibility so financially liable for taking that risk and am aware it is a risk I choose to take . The choice to have sex has responsibility attached to it. Just because some loser doesn't give a shit about his responsibility and you're ok with that it doesn't mean it is ok, and more often than not state benefits pick up the slack these losers leave (reciever of benfits not maintenance when mine we small not judgment just truth and my kids went without because of it ). Perhaps children's needs before some loser ex is the best approach

Absolutely not, how simple is it it to say if you don’t want to risk having a baby then don’t have sex, it’s not anyone’s right to have sex without that risk

I agree with your 1st paragraph.

Your 2nd paragraph you have failed to mention a guy actively trying to stop a pregnancy! He would need to use a condom ect unfortunately most accidents are not a result of the man wearing a condom. All too often the regret of the man not wanting a baby is a lame excuse! Well it's too late after the deed! This is the main issue. Until men take responsibility on this front nothing will change.

I dont think men should be able to opt out of child maintenance in any circumstances. But of course the women are free not to claim any. Personally I think it's mad not to claim, unless there's been abuse of course.

The risk of having sex is pregnancy. And STDs. The only way to make sure neither of those happen is abstinence. Which isn't realistic for most people. So we are left with unplanned babies either due to insufficient/incorrectly used contraception, or a genuine failure.

And this is probably the only place in which women have the upper hand. I can see how that's 'unfair' on the men, but it's biology. Once the baby is conceived, the only one who can make a choice about what happens next is the woman. Yes we effectively have an extra "choice" that men don't have, but as I said, that's biology.

And how would we ever apply a rule that men could "opt out" of maintenance? Make both parties sign an agreement before having sex? How often? Every time? Or just the first time with review date?

So either have an abortion or accept full financial and physical responsibility of the child you both created.

Do you hear yourself?

Yes, women have the option of abortion, but some will never choose it because of religious or moral reasons.

You think it's OK for the woman and child to suffer because it's not fair that men don't have the option to abort?

You may as well just advocate for women to be dragged unwillingly to the abortion table at the behest of a man who doesn't want a baby.

It's tough! He should of had that conversation before lying down....

you make em, you pay for em. The end.