Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    Personally I think it's unfair. If they used contraception properly then it's not like he knew the consequences. He has no say in whether to keep the baby or not yet would be expected to pay regardless of whether he wanted it. Would it not be fairer that father could legally "divorce" themselves from the baby meaning they wouldn't have to pay but forfeiting all rights to see the child from that point?
    I do actually agree with this. I think the "male abortion" concept is a fair one. The woman is wholly in her rights to abort a child she doesn't want, but a man is forced to take responsibility even though he might not want it - his life rests on her decision as to whether she's keeping it or not. I think if a man decides for sure, in writing or whatever, that he doesn't want anything to do with the child from the start - then he shouldn't have to pay maintenance. But that also means he shouldn't have a right to see/get involved with the child if he changes his mind later.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    What if you have sex for money and she gets pregnant, although that was clearly not part of the agreement. And, she gives birth, aren't you still the biological father, hence you MUST pay up?
    Yes I agree
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well if he walks out then hell yeah he should have to pay. I don't know how child maintenance works though, how you go about it without a big court case... From what I've heard it just usually doesn't get paid in these circumstances. If it isn't already, I think it should be like your student loan and come directly out of your wages every month, like tax.

    Having said that, as I said in another post, I'm still in favour of the man being able to say no beforehand.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Children can't pay for themselves, you know. Child maintenance is not about what either parent wants, it's about maintaining a child - a child who did not choose to be born and has no choice but to rely on other people for the things it needs.

    Maybe it's 'unfair' that you have to pay for a child you didn't want, but it's less fair for a child to suffer because its single parent can't afford everything it needs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Take's two to tango, like I have said before, both parents have responsibility.
    An abortion is very hard decision for a female to go through. Very emotional aswell.

    If the male cared for the women, he would stay and support her decision.
    She shouldn't be forced to do something she doesn't want to do. Let alone be blackmailed that she has an abortion or the father will bugger off and take no responsibilty whatsoever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes I agree
    But there was an "agreement" for some brief (5 min?) intercourse...I need to talk to someone who actually hired a sex worker in Amsterdam, or Germany (or, elsewhere, where it is legalized)...

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    Children can't pay for themselves, you know. Child maintenance is not about what either parent wants, it's about maintaining a child - a child who did not choose to be born and has no choice but to rely on other people for the things it needs.

    Maybe it's 'unfair' that you have to pay for a child you didn't want, but it's less fair for a child to suffer because its single parent can't afford everything it needs.
    If the single mother is well-educated and employed (i.e. she is being realistic and responsible at the same time), I don't see a problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    But there was an "agreement" for some brief (5 min?) intercourse...I need to talk to someone who actually hired a sex worker in Amsterdam, or Germany (or, elsewhere, where it is legalized)...

    :rolleyes:
    It's never guaranteed that she won't get pregnant and you can't physically force her to get an abortion hence I don't think that agreement will hold up in legal terms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doodahdoo)
    Most people who plan to have children take into account finances before deciding whether or not to. If you decide that you are going to have a baby (ignoring your sexual partner's choice), you need to take into account that children are expensive - it's part of the responsibility of having a child, which the mother took on by deciding to keep the child against her partner's wishes.
    Once the child's born, it comes first. Who pays for the child isn't about blaming or punishing whoever chose to have it. The child deserves to be provided for more than its parents deserve not to have to pay. It's unfortunate if a man has to pay for a child he doesn't want, but not as unfortunate as it is for the child to have to grow up not having its needs met.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    It's never guaranteed that she won't get pregnant and you can't physically force her to get an abortion hence I don't think that agreement will hold up in legal terms.
    But how would it even be enforced...if she doesn't know the guy's name/ where he is from, etc? Or, who actually got her pregnant for that matter :rolleyes:?

    There were probably a couple of cases like this, but I just don't see how they could be "solved."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    If the single mother is well-educated and employed (i.e. she is being realistic and responsible at the same time), I don't see a problem.
    And if she isn't...?

    I will pre-empt your inevitable answer of 'then she shouldn't have had a child then'. Completely irrelevant here. The rights of a child to quality of life come before your desire to punish women for having babies. No child should ever be punished because of any decision their parents made.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It not about what's best for the father though, it's about what's best for the child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pink Bullets)
    And if she isn't...?

    I will pre-empt your inevitable answer of 'then she shouldn't have had a child then'. Completely irrelevant here. The rights of a child to quality of life come before your desire to punish women for having babies. No child should ever be punished because of any decision their parents made.
    So if both parents are poor teenagers, then their child is probably not going to have a fun up-bringing (unless, the grandparents step in)...the child will still be punished, maybe he/ she will be given up for adoption?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Once the child's born, it comes first. Who pays for the child isn't about blaming or punishing whoever chose to have it. The child deserves to be provided for more than its parents deserve not to have to pay. It's unfortunate if a man has to pay for a child he doesn't want, but not as unfortunate as it is for the child to have to grow up not having its needs met.
    I agree that the child should come first, but (I think that) I also think that if you can't meet a child's basic needs financially, you should put off having children until you can - it's plain irresponsible to decide to bring a child into the world that you can't provide (basic needs) for.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    So if both parents are poor teenagers, then their child is probably not going to have a fun up-bringing (unless, the grandparents step in)...the child will still be punished, maybe he/ she will be given up for adoption?
    I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

    Yes, some children will have worse lives than others. But surely it should be our goal as a society to minimise the amount of suffering children go through as much as possible, no?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doodahdoo)
    I agree that the child should come first, but (I think that) I also think that if you can't meet a child's basic needs financially, you should put off having children until you can - it's plain irresponsible to decide to bring a child into the world that you can't provide (basic needs) for.
    But accidents happen and not everyone can deal with having an abortion (I don't get it, but it's true). In those cases the woman is just doing the best she can in a situation which might not be her first choice either, and I don't think it's too much to ask for a man to do the same when it's concerning a child's well-being. He's not even being asked to look after the kids or put his career on hold which are sacrifices that the woman will probably have to make.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Men should have the right to abort it then?

    At the end the child is his.
    But its not his body. Men can't force a women to have an abortion thats just wrong. But if a man is mature enough to have sex then he should be mature enough to accept his responsibilities.

    Ideally a child should be born into a loving family not this kind of situation but nowadays its not like that.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    That's because biologically she's the one who has to carry it for nine months. I'd say there are more disadvantages than advantages to that. A man walking out on a woman when she's pregnant/has a young child is not usually a woman's choice.

    Heres a knotty one for you.What if an older female had a relationship with a lad under 16 and she got pregnant by him. She had the baby, should he have to pay when he starts work?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    Heres a knotty one for you.What if an older female had a relationship with a lad under 16 and she got pregnant by him. She had the baby, should he have to pay when he starts work?
    Obviously not. Children under 16 are not legally able to consent to sex and therefore can't be held responsible for any consequences of it.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by katierattray)
    But its not his body. Men can't force a women to have an abortion thats just wrong. But if a man is mature enough to have sex then he should be mature enough to accept his responsibilities.

    Ideally a child should be born into a loving family not this kind of situation but nowadays its not like that.
    Killing someones kid without asking them is wrong is it not?

    If someone lies to a guy there using contraception then its their fault for not being safe apparently.

    I presume your opinion is the same for women who are raped, double standards otherwise.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.