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

Is child support for unwanted pregnancies unfair on men Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chuquo2017)
    These might be edge cases but often edge cases are good to be used to demonstrate a point. These are not simply foul play, the commonality is that the courts always disregarded the rights of the man.

    You can look up the newspaper article:

    'Father' ordered to pay £100k for children he never knew he had after ex-wife tricked IVF clinic into using his frozen sperm

    A man who had his sperm frozen in case he became infertile was astonished to learn that his ex-wife had tricked an IVF clinic into twice making her pregnant.

    He then had to pay £100,000 towards the upbringing of the son and daughter he had known nothing about.

    The father, a 57-year-old retired haulier, is now demanding a change in the law to ensure no other parents go through his torment.

    The astonishing story begins in 1999 when the man was about to have drug treatment for crippling arthritis.

    He stored sperm at the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge to ensure that he and his wife, who married in 1979, could have a child if the treatment left him infertile.

    In June 2000 the couple decided to divorce and weeks later she visited the clinic and forged his signature, allowing doctors to create embryos from his frozen sperm and her egg.

    She gave birth to a girl in June 2001, claiming it was the result of a one-night stand, and a boy in September 2003.




    Or this one....


    Gay sperm donor told to pay child maintenance for 'his' two children
    13 years ago Mark Langridge helped a lesbian couple have a family. Now it's costing him £26 a week

    Mark Langridge is being chased by the CSA after donating his sperm. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
    Miles Brignall
    Friday 26 October 2012 18.08 EDT

    Share on LinkedInShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on WhatsAppShare on Messenger
    Agay man from Essex who donated his sperm to enable a lesbian couple to have two children, but who was never named on their birth certificate and had no role in their upbringing, is being forced by the Child Support Agency to pay for their support – 13 years after the first child was born.

    Mark Langridge, who has been with his partner for 16 years (and in a civil partnership for the last five), has called on the government to review the law after the CSA suddenly demanded that he start paying £26 a week for two children he technically fathered over a decade ago.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They sound very "Daily Mail" to me. Without knowing the details of the cases, rather than the sensationalised headlines it is difficult to judge. I can't help but feel there are more to these stories than you have written. The idea that in a court of law, one party is completely ignored is farcical, especially if the penalty to one is £100k. Sorry, but I just don't buy it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoshDawg)
    Also, to the argument that he got her pregnant, it takes TWO to make a baby not one, so let's reverse the logic.

    "She had sex which means there is a chance of pregnancy, it's her own fault. She shouldn't have had sex in the first place"

    Say that at any feminist conference and the room will be more triggered than Article 50 will be this May.
    Finally someone with some common sense. If the man gets no say in abortion or custody then why should he have to pay. Your absolutely right. Women should be responsible for their own actions. If she doesn't want to pay for the child all by herself she shouldn't be a single mother, if she doesn't want to pay at least offer the man full custody
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jane matthews)
    Finally someone with some common sense. If the man gets no say in abortion or custody then why should he have to pay. Your absolutely right. Women should be responsible for their own actions. If she doesn't want to pay for the child all by herself she shouldn't be a single mother, if she doesn't want to pay at least offer the man full custody
    Very few people will admit it or face it but they have been brainwashed by progressivism double standards.

    They will say that if a man is involved in a accidental unwanted pregnancy then he should be a financial hostage for 18 years or practice abstinence.

    But with a woman of course it's unrealistic to expect everyone to practise abstinence so you need to be pro-choice.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its kind of picking up the pieces from the failed liberal experiment. Yes the guy should pay and repair the damage but it would be hella lot easier to just enforce the sanctity of marriage (if need be physically) in our communities and ensure that pre/extra marital copulations arent happening in the first place. Get rid of the pill, social welfare and all the other western deviances and you will be guided to the right path inshallah.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chuquo2017)
    Very few people will admit it or face it but they have been brainwashed by progressivism double standards.

    They will say that if a man is involved in a accidental unwanted pregnancy then he should be a financial hostage for 18 years or practice abstinence.

    But with a woman of course it's unrealistic to expect everyone to practise abstinence so you need to be pro-choice.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I must admit I hadn't thought about this subject too much.

    I accepted it's a woman's choice on abortion and a man can't do anything about it, it's her body.
    I am also pro choice.

    But I have to say this thread has opened my eyes to the lack of rights for men in this area.

    To me it's completely clear a man should have the right to wave his parental responsibility, rights and financial responsibilities to a child.

    Yes this would have to be done early in a pregnancy and it would also have to have some sort of legal mechanism created.

    But surely this must be done.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would say that they're both taking the risk when they have sex so they both have to bear the responsibility equally.

    The world is an unfair place and it unfortunate that sometimes people, through no fault of their own, end up with a baby they need to care and pay support for, but as a lot of conservatives like to say the only 100% safe method of contraception is abstinence.

    You also seem to be interpreting this situation as the woman has kept the baby for no other reason to inconvenience the man, which I doubt has ever happened, except in the most extreme cases and in that case yes that's unfair on the man, but I also doubt you'll find many women who are willing to have a baby just to get back at someone.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elinh)
    I would say that they're both taking the risk when they have sex so they both have to bear the responsibility equally.

    The world is an unfair place and it unfortunate that sometimes people, through no fault of their own, end up with a baby they need to care and pay support for, but as a lot of conservatives like to say the only 100% safe method of contraception is abstinence.

    You also seem to be interpreting this situation as the woman has kept the baby for no other reason to inconvenience the man, which I doubt has ever happened, except in the most extreme cases and in that case yes that's unfair on the man, but I also doubt you'll find many women who are willing to have a baby just to get back at someone.
    It however simply a fact she can have an abortion and of course in most cases of accidental pregnancy she has the option of taking the pill.

    If she has a choice then so should a man.

    That choice is simple, I don't want a baby with you so if you want to keep it then I have the legal right to wave my rights and responsibilities to it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    It's a risk he takes imo. If he really doesn't want to risk being a father, why sleep with her in the first place?
    ...and surely it's a risk SHE takes. so why allow her to have an abortion if he's not allowed to at least withdraw consent at an early stage when abortion can be performed?! why is she free of risk and not him?! "it's her body"? well surely it's his ****ing sperm. but now suddenly she owns them both? it's like saying "I dropped my wallet in your garden, but seeing as it's your garden, you now own my wallet". um, how about no. that's ridiculous, unreasonable and massively disproportional.
    I mean, what do you take the dignity of men for? 18 years of child support payments for what might have either been an accident or something based on deception on the woman's part (i.e. lying about birth control)? "risk he takes"?? how ****ing LOW is your threshold of "risk"? it's like saying "a man fell over and slipped on a wet floor which had no hazard sign? a risk he takes innit!"
    **** that. you really ought to do some serious self-reflection if you really think the rights of men are honestly *this* negligible. jesus christ. this is just creepy. it's like listening to somebody saying women shouldn't have the right to vote.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    ...and surely it's a risk SHE takes. so why allow her to have an abortion if he's not allowed to at least withdraw consent at an early stage when abortion can be performed?! why is she free of risk and not him?! "it's her body"? well surely it's his ****ing sperm. but now suddenly she owns them both? it's like saying "I dropped my wallet in your garden, but seeing as it's your garden, you now own my wallet". um, how about no. that's ridiculous,
    It's not about who "owns" it, that's a daft analogy. If you drop your wallet in someone's garden, they can easily return it to you with little to no impact on either wallet or garden. We can't remotely say the same thing about sperm and an impregnated woman.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It however simply a fact she can have an abortion and of course in most cases of accidental pregnancy she has the option of taking the pill.

    If she has a choice then so should a man.

    That choice is simple, I don't want a baby with you so if you want to keep it then I have the legal right to wave my rights and responsibilities to it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The man does have a choice. He has all the same rights of bodily autonomy as a woman. Having an abortion, taking the pill, using contraception, or getting a vasectomy/tubal ligation are all exercises of such rights. None of them are about legal or financial obligations to another person, which is the kind of right you are demanding. They are categorically different things.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It's not about who "owns" it, that's a daft analogy. If you drop your wallet in someone's garden, they can easily return it to you with little to no impact on either wallet or garden. We can't remotely say the same thing about sperm and an impregnated woman.
    it's not a matter of literalism regarding the "dropping of sperm somewhere", it's the principle I was establishing
    his sperm + her egg = their baby, not "her" baby. it's half the male's and half the female's, because the sperm is the man's and the egg is the woman's. the fact that both of these things form a baby within the woman is irrelevant because the man is also paying for it (in the current legal situation). his part ownership of the child derives from his ownership of his sperm, or else why are we making the male pay for the baby in any kind of way?
    so if the male, at a point where an abortion can happen, changes his mind, or more importantly, affirms that he never even intended to make the woman pregnant (i.e. if the woman lied about birth control, or her female condom broke), then this relinquishes his responsibility over the payment of that baby if it is conceived. this is because his sperm was within HIS jurisdiction as his own genetic material. if the woman chooses to ignore this, then she is necessarily choosing to take on full responsibility. not only should the man be able to stop her from creating life from his sperm if he doesn't consent, but at the VERY least he shouldn't have to be forced to pay for it simply because she disagrees. it's partially his embryo, not absolutely hers, and, like I said, the fact that it is growing inside her is irrelevant. the foetus itself is partially his, whether the womb is fully hers.

    but most importantly I'm talking about how if a man inseminates a woman without his intention, it would be remarkably stupid to suggest that it would be proportionate to expect the potentiality of 18 years of child support payments from that. especially when it is through the deception or mistake on the WOMAN's part. it is simply wildly out of proportion and spectacularly unethical/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The man does have a choice. He has all the same rights of bodily autonomy as a woman. Having an abortion, taking the pill, using contraception, or getting a vasectomy/tubal ligation are all exercises of such rights. None of them are about legal or financial obligations to another person, which is the kind of right you are demanding. They are categorically different things.
    No I'm not demanding the right that a man can stop an abortion or force an abortion.

    I'm pointing out the fact that is then100% choice of a woman yet men have 0% choice to to waive their rights and responsibilities for an unwanted pregnancy of which they have no control over once conceived.

    It's a horrible double standard of which the only response is. Get a vasectomy. Don't have sex.

    It's not on


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    it's not a matter of literalism regarding the "dropping of sperm somewhere", it's the principle I was establishing
    his sperm + her egg = their baby, not "her" baby. it's half the male's and half the female's, because the sperm is the man's and the egg is the woman's. the fact that both of these things form a baby within the woman is irrelevant
    It's hugely relevant. Sure, you can say that the foetus is jointly of both parents, but it's in the mother's body, and as such she has the right of body autonomy to say she doesn't want it there.

    Besides which, until viability the foetus is not so much "in" the mother's body but part of it, unable to survive without it.

    because the man is also paying for it (in the current legal situation). his part ownership of the child derives from his ownership of his sperm
    Foetuses/Children aren't "owned". Until viability they are effectively part of the mother's body, and from there on they are separate persons with rights.

    so if the male, at a point where an abortion can happen, changes his mind, or more importantly, affirms that he never even intended to make the woman pregnant (i.e. if the woman lied about birth control, or her female condom broke), then this relinquishes his responsibility over the payment of that baby if it is conceived. this is because his sperm was within HIS jurisdiction as his own genetic material.
    Whose genetic material it is is irrelevant. It's inside and part of the mother's body and as such, she has the right to determine what happens to her body. This remains true if it's a surrogate mother who is carrying a foetus completely unrelated to her genetically - whether or not she has an abortion remains her choice.

    it's partially his embryo, not absolutely hers, and, like I said, the fact that it is growing inside her is irrelevant. the foetus itself is partially his, whether the womb is fully hers.
    Whether or not it can be described as partially his, he doesn't have a right to determine the use of her body. If the father wants to assert his rights to the expelled embryo and fetal material after the abortion, then I would agree that he has such rights, but I can't think why anyone would care about that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It's hugely relevant. Sure, you can say that the foetus is jointly of both parents, but it's in the mother's body, and as such she has the right of body autonomy to say she doesn't want it there.
    what is the justification of that "bodily autonomy" in such a context? if it means that she might force a man to necessarily have a child he does not want and never intended to create, then what is the moral origin of that right? sounds like it's justified via nothing but tradition. there's a right to abortion when merely one person (the mother, particularly) doesn't want the child - I'm not arguing with that - but if a man is essentially misled into being a father, then why should a woman be allowed to force him into that situation? I don't put so much emphasis on that< though. my bigger problem is the problem of child support (the legal relations) - there's no ****ing way a man ought to pay for a child they never intended on having. it's not a matter of risk, it's a matter of agreement/intention.

    Besides which, until viability the foetus is not so much "in" the mother's body but part of it, unable to survive without it.

    Foetuses/Children aren't "owned". Until viability they are effectively part of the mother's body, and from there on they are separate persons with rights.

    Whose genetic material it is is irrelevant. It's inside and part of the mother's body and as such, she has the right to determine what happens to her body. This remains true if it's a surrogate mother who is carrying a foetus completely unrelated to her genetically - whether or not she has an abortion remains her choice.
    it's not her body though. it might be attached to her body, but so what? if I attach something to me, does that thing then *becomes* me? if it is unable to develop* (not "survive" as it isn't alive), so what?

    Whether or not it can be described as partially his, he doesn't have a right to determine the use of her body. If the father wants to assert his rights to the expelled embryo and fetal material after the abortion, then I would agree that he has such rights, but I can't think why anyone would care about that.
    "morally" he does
    that's why I said "at the very least" he ought to not be legally forced to pay for a child he never intended HER to have via her omission from birth control, effective female condoms, abortions, etc. because that would mean "legally" he would.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    No I'm not demanding the right that a man can stop an abortion or force an abortion.

    I'm pointing out the fact that is then100% choice of a woman yet men have 0% choice to to waive their rights and responsibilities for an unwanted pregnancy of which they have no control over once conceived.

    It's a horrible double standard of which the only response is. Get a vasectomy. Don't have sex.

    It's not on


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not a "double standard", it's simply the fact that women carry the foetus inside them for 9 months and men don't. At present, there's nothing we can do about that.

    You're trying to look for some sort of legal "correction" for this and subsequently blurring out all the obvious differences between the two rights that you are trying to present of the same.

    As I said previously, a father's parental rights and responsibilities are a legal relationship with another, separate person. A woman's right to an abortion is not a legal relationship to another person, but an individual right to bodily autonomy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    No I'm not demanding the right that a man can stop an abortion or force an abortion.

    I'm pointing out the fact that is then100% choice of a woman yet men have 0% choice to to waive their rights and responsibilities for an unwanted pregnancy of which they have no control over once conceived.

    It's a horrible double standard of which the only response is. Get a vasectomy. Don't have sex.

    It's not on


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What do you want exactly? Force abortions or the state to pick up the slack so the guy can just get off the hook scot free?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    yes it is. It's just another excuse for unemployed women to get money and live off men whilst still claiming to be oppressed by the patriarchy.

    feminism is a regressive movement in recent years.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What do you want exactly? Force abortions or the state to pick up the slack so the guy can just get off the hook scot free?
    It's clear what I want.

    I want men to be legally able to remove their rights and responsibilities to an unborn child if done in the early stages of pregnancy.

    That's it.

    Women can then make there own decision on if to keep it or not.

    If that means the state picks up the tab for the woman's choice to keep it once a man has exercised his rights in this scenario then so be it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A mother's decision whether to continue on in their pregnancy or termination can't be compared to a father withdrawing his parental obligations. If a mother 'withdraws' her obligations at the beginning of the pregnancy, the baby ceases to exist. There is no human that needs feeding, clothing, educating etc. The responsibility no longer exists for either parent. If a male decides to 'withdraw' his obligations, the baby is still born and is immediately reliant on others. This human needs feeding, clothing, educating, housing etc. and that responsibility will now only fall on one person. Both parents should step up to the plate. This is not a case of female rights matter more than male rights or vice versa imo.

    Unwanted or not, once a baby has been born both parents have a responsibility for that child. They should do the best they can and give the most they can as this is their financial duty due to the decision they made to have sex (assuming it was indeed a decision they made.) Whether or not they fulfil the emotional fatherly role, they should still fulfil the role of the provider.

    If you're old enough to know the possible results of having sex then you should understand the risks you take when you decide to do it. "But just because I'm ready to have sex doesn't mean I'm ready to have a child!" - tough mate. The state should get involved to hold these fathers accountable because if these father's aren't decent enough to provide for their children then that means the state has to step in, which means tax payers have to step in - talk about paying for unwanted children, they don't even belong to them!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeeceLondon)
    A mother's decision whether to continue on in their pregnancy or termination can't be compared to a father withdrawing his parental obligations. If a mother 'withdraws' her obligations at the beginning of the pregnancy, the baby ceases to exist. There is no human that needs feeding, clothing, educating etc. The responsibility no longer exists for either parent. If a male decides to 'withdraw' his obligations, the baby is still born and is immediately reliant on others. This human needs feeding, clothing, educating, housing etc. and that responsibility will now only fall on one person. Both parents should step up to the plate. This is not a case of female rights matter more than male rights or vice versa imo.
    So what if the baby ceases to exist? That's the woman's choice, that's the point.
    If the woman decides to have a baby and the man exercises his rights in this hypothetical he has nothing to do with the child the woman took full responsibility.

    If she does that without having the method or means to take care of the child the state will pick up the tab like it does for all sorts of issues.

    The woman could be a person who chooses to smoke gets cancer and the state picks up the bill to treat her benson and hedges doesn't as it was her choice



    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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