Do You Think A Man "Not Wanting" The Pregnancy Should Absolve Him Of Any Financial Responsibility?

Question

This question sparked by a recent post where the poster's boyfriend is trying to manipulate her with threats and ultimatums into aborting the pregnancy. And some users saying/thinking that if she has the baby even if he doesn't want it, he should not be made to support the child. The "only" way I would agree with that is if a woman "purposely" gets pregnant knowing the man doesn't want a child...
But if it's two individuals that didn't/don't practice safe sex and a pregnancy occurs, both are responsible and both should be EQUALLY responsible for any child that results...
Some men act like they have no say, but all that can be avoided by
1. Wearing a condom or making sure she is on some form of birth control prior to having sex:
2. Men who claim they trusted the woman and claim she purposely got pregnant... DON'T have sex with someone you can't trust.
Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control...
And just saying you don't want the pregnancy does not absolve you of financial responsibility when there were choices you could of made to avoid that from occurring in the first place!

AdithyaR · Accepted Answer

I agree.
As much as I am pro choice when it comes to abortions, I disagree with people who use it as a late birth control.
Abortion should only be done in a case where the woman is physically or mentally incapable of carrying out the pregnancy, or if she is a rape victim.

If you're having sex with someone, there eil always be a risk of getting pregnant, the very fact that you're having sex means you're willing to take that risk. So if the woman gets pregnant, the guy is equally responsible for the child.
If you don't want that, don't have sex or get a vasectomy.

19vetteman91 · Accepted Answer

Absolutely not he shall pay one way or another end of story! However this is where it isn't always fair if the women then so chooses to abort the baby the father of the child should have the same rights as the women either for or not for the abortion! Plus if the father says no but the mother goes and does it anyway then father should be able to press charges plus should not have to pay anything towards it! That's just my opinion but killing is killing !

kaylaS91 · Answer

Nope.
The only thing that should absolve a man of any financial responsibility would be if he'd been smart and not had sex with a woman who things went wrong with. Or at least took the minute to put a condom on his dick before sticking it in.

So... basically, if it's already after the fact, there's nothing he can really do other than pay child support and not let this happen again.

Hannahm67 · Answer

I think that if abortion is an option and women can abort a baby without any input from the father of that baby then it is only fair if it also goes the other way around if the guy doesn't want it but the women choose to keep it. But this would also mean that the father is removed from all right to see the baby.

MrOracle · Answer

As a rule, I'd say "no, of course not." The exception would be when a woman purposely got pregnant by deception - such as: she stopped taking BC, she sabotaged the condoms, or she stole semen out of a used condom and impregnated herself (and, yes, these are all things that happen more often than you'd probably imagine). Of course, proving that in a legal sense would be nearly impossible, which is why the courts rarely entertain such exceptions, even when they should.

The courts ultimately don't care about the father's rights, and only somewhat care about the mother's rights - their concern is for the CHILD, and for the STATE. The state does NOT want to be paying for that child, and will do everything possible to assign financial responsibility to a man - even if that man is not the biological father - if they can find a way to do so. Men who have knowingly helped raise a child they didn't father - maybe they started dating the woman while pregnant - have been assigned as legally/financially responsible for the child tens or hundreds of thousands of times, even knowing they aren't the biological father - because they had established a pattern of providing for that child in the past.

So, regardless of what's morally right, the courts are going to do everything they can to assign that responsibility, and once assigned, it's nearly impossible to get out of that responsibility, no matter what the situation was regarding impregnation. Men need to understand this - the courts are NOT interested in what's fair to YOU - only what's BEST for the child according to the judge - a judge who is NOT interested in your story.

AmandaYVR · Answer

Wow you are really walking into the fire with this question, BBB.

"1. Wearing a condom or making sure she is on some form of birth control prior to having sex:
2. Men who claim they trusted the woman and claim she purposely got pregnant... DON'T have sex with someone you can't trust."

No, it's not so straight-forward.
Women lie. Quite a few of them. I personally had one in my distant family who did. Women trap men by getting pregnant, while telling them they were protected. And that ain't right.
Men always bring the court system into these discussions, and bitch and wine about how lop-sided and unfair to men it is. But the courts care about the children. They want the children cared for financially. So I can't answer this question, whether the guy should be held liable or not. It is his flesh and blood, and someone's got to take care of it, raise it, give it a decent chance in the world.
But that does not excuse women saying they are on birth control when they are not. Pills, diaphragms, holes in condoms... they've all been done. And that isn't the guys' fault.

Smoke-n-Growls · Answer

There are so many ways to prevent a pregnancy for both sexes.

There's no reason to get pregnant or impregnate someone if you don't want a child.

The only exception to this would be if the woman deceives the man. This could be lying about being on the pill (seriously, dudes, just always wear a condom - your slight increase in sensation is NOT worth you getting baby-trapped), or they could have poked holes in the condom (again, why you ought to make sure you're using both a condom and birth control).

This has happened to a few men in my life and while they stepped up to be there for their child's sake, I certainly don't think they ought to be expected to do so.

If a woman sabotages the birth control that both partners adhered to in an attempt to trap the father, then he ought to be given the opportunity to be absolved.

This said, biologically the child is still his. I could see many men with strong character and loyalty to their own child being motivated to ensure they're present.

At least that's what's happened with the guy I'm closest to who had this happen. And I'm honestly grateful he did stick around for his daughter despite the baby mama being legit insane - his daughter would've probably never survived if he had left her in the hands of the mother alone. She's legitimately batshit insane.

ineedatan · Answer

I wave my wand and deem you to be a lady if brains! I fully agree with you on this. Yes, abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control and unless the man was tricked or forced out of his own will, he shouldn't be a dick and back out from financial responsibility.

NamerOfStars · Answer

Ever hear of Hermesman v Seyer? It was the court case that set the precedent that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as the result of criminal activity- in layman's terms, you're on the hook even if she rapes you. Shane Seyer was made to pay even though he couldn't legally work. Because he was in the country illegally? No, because he was twelve years old. The court hit him up for payments of $20 a month (and even in the 80's, what's that going to cover? Babies are expensive), which is just a fancy way of saying "Here's your penalty for getting raped. Fight harder next time.". Do note that while this particular ruling was specific to Kansas, all fifty states now have laws stating the same thing. You can say that consent to sex is consent to the risk of pregnancy- but consent isn't always given. The fundamental idea is that there should be equal rights between the sexes: if one can choose to opt out of parenthood, the other should have that right as well.

You say that abortion should never be used as a form of birth control. I'm inclined to agree, but that doesn't change that the family court system in this country- hell, this hemisphere- is in desperate need of reform.

Porcelaine · Answer

I think yes, before the baby is born, early in the pregnancy the dad should have a say whether he wants to pay for the child just like mothers have the option for early term pregnancy. But after a certain point if they haven't made up their minds, the baby should not be punished and needs money for diapers and everything else

DizzyDesii · Answer

He should still be responsible Unless he was raped, sexually assaulted or she cut the condoms or used a turkey baster to steal his cum

1Sophisticatedme · Answer

You had sex have a little one on the way, it took 2 to make one, so baby on its way regardless of what the circumstance are.

katiesmuff · Answer

Fortunately that is not a choice men get to make. The courts make those decisions and usually the man looses which is as it should be in most cases. He knows the risk every time he sticks his dick inside a woman's pussy. An exception would be if the woman did something creating the pregnancy like poking a hole in condom.
When I got pregnant (long before I met my husband) I blamed myself as it was my fault and for several reasons never tried to locate the sperm supplier and accepted full responsibility for giving birth and raising my daughter. I'm sure the guy who knocked me up has no idea it happened and for sure know he wouldn't have wanted to know. We didn't even know each other.

PBandJ_Nerd · Answer

I think it always depends on the situation. But to me if you do have sex and it is consensual, then you should already know the risks of making a baby (that's what intercourse is made for). But you can even get pregnant if the condoms break and I've heard it's best to change it every 30 minutes or if you do a different activity. It doesn't matter if there's sperm in the condom or not, it's the friction that can break it. We even have female condoms as well-but you never use both at the same time (for the same reason you don't put a condom on top of another condom). I think another thing is to make sure you're on the right birth control pills as well since each one is different. I never understood why people didn't use anything when they do an activity such as sex.

Lliam · Answer

I fear you're not going to like my answer to this one, my friend.

There are a lot of possible scenarios. I won't try to get into them all. One important factor would be whether or not there was a relationship or if the two even liked each other. Was it a one time encounter, were the two in a committed relationship, or were they in a friends with benefits or open relationship?

First, a guy should always ask if the woman is on some kind of birth control or he should use a condom. All of my girlfriends were on the pill.
Second, I have no problem at all with abortions at an early stage.
Third, if a woman lies about being on birth control and gets pregnant, the guy should be able to sue her for damages as well as be absolved of any future financial responsibility if she decides to have the baby.
Fourth, if the birth control method happens to fail, it gets complicated. I totally support with "my body, my choice" in regards to women (that's a birth control and abortion-rights slogan). But why not "my entire future and my income, my choice" in regards to men? It's a two way street. I'd tell her to get an abortion and find a guy who wants to have a child with her and care for them both. Why would she want to trap a guy and ruin his life?
Fifth, if the guy didn't ask about birth control and didn't take any protective measures, then he is on the hook. I have no problem holding him responsible for financial support. He's an idiot. At the same time, why the fuck did the woman have unprotected sex? She's either a bigger idiot or an evil gold digger. Maybe they should sue each other.

I HATE the idea of men getting trapped and their lives ruined by women who decide to have babies but also want to hook the guy into supporting them. It's like they are getting their cake and eating it too. It's crap like this that makes men reticent to have relationships. It a reason for men distrust and resent women.

Women are the ones who get pregnant, it is they who should take first responsibility for taking precautions to prevent it. There is even a morning after pill. If they want to be liberated and independent, they should act like it. I'll just clarify that I LOVE l liberated and independent women and disdain, weak, selfish, childish behavior.

hellionthesagereborn · Answer

Well that depends, I think both are equally responsible but so long as women have the choice to avoid taking responsiblity (because no matter what you say she is just as guilty of not using birth control as he is so every single argument you can direct at him (and you should) can and should be directed at her as well) then so to should men. You cannot support abortion for women but then not allow men financial abortion otherwise your saying that men are superior to women as unlike women men can be held accountable for their actions while women cannot not unlike children.

As for women sabatoging things and intentionally getting pregnant, that happens all the time. Multiple cases of women poking holes in condoms, taking used condoms and getting pregnant with them, at least one incident of a woman stealing sperm from a sperm bank and successfully sueing the man for child support, then of coures the laws that allow a woman to rape a man or boy with no negative consequence and force them into paying child support, all of this of course being perfectly legal on the womans part plus at least one survey that showed over 30% of women admitting they would lie about being on birth control in order to get pregnant if their significant other did not want a child all shows this is not just a thing that happens but a disturbingly frequent occurence.

Under those circumstances he has every right to walk away because his genetic material was stolen from him and he did not consent (no different then rape, you do not have the right to force your will onto another, it doesn't matter if its a man your doing it to or not.).

Beyond that no, if women were forced to accept responsibility for their actions then it would only be right for men to be forced to accept responsibility as well.

Derekk · Answer

The problem with allowing parents to opt out of child support is the fact that the alternative will result in the state footing the bill. The state already covers health and medical expenses for all sorts of things, so the prospect of allowing a father to opt out isn't out of the question. But I resent the idea of a father creating a child and just leaving and forcing other people to take care of it.

Having said that, I do feel that a lot of female opposition to the idea has more to do with wanting the father to stay with them, rather than an objection to tax payers helping to fund their childcare. It is reckless and irresponsible to assume that a man will be in you and your child's life simply because you made a baby with him. Pressing for child support won't call for a happily ever after.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

1. From a legal perspective, the primary focus in these issues is the rights of the child. A child had a right to have both a mother and father involved in their life, and a child has the right to be supported by both parents.

2. Pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sexual intercourse. If I don't want to get Sally pregnant, there is a foolproof method to make sure I don't get her pregnant:. Keep my Willy out of her Willyhole. If I insert Probe A into receptacle B knowing the potential consequences, then I have knowingly accepted all of the potential risks.

3. Courts will not enforce agreements that a mother waives the right to child support if a father relinquishes his parental rights. If mother married someone else and step dad wants to adopt the child, then natural father's obligation ends. Otherwise, it's not enforceable. Such agreements may make mom and dad happy but who gets screwed by such a deal? The child, who now doesn't have a father and also doesn't have dad's financial support.

Who does end up helping to support that child? Often, the taxpayers do, through the parent of AFDC and Medicaid benefits. If mom applies for assistance, the state will then go after the father to force him to pay child support and the state will grab some of that child support as reimbursement for benefits which have been paid or for the benefit of the child.

I am so tired of seeing fathers whose only concern is avoiding the payment of child support. I wish I had kids!

MCheetah · Answer

If women can have an abortion and opt-out of motherhood, why can't men do the same thing?

Fatherhere901 · Answer

I genuinely believe men are being duped by this simple little ploy by women. Because this was an absolute true story about how one woman was not only caught trying to impregnate herself, tried to sue the guy in court when It didn't happen. This story happened in 2003. And the hero in this story is Tom Leykis, radio and talk show host.

https://blowmeuptom.com/my-fiance-put-hot-sauce-in-his-used-condoms/?unapproved=74181&moderation-hash=4b5573b7c0ee4da53a49751072539413#comment-74181

spartan55 · Answer

Absolutely not. Use a condom if you don't trust the woman you are with. In fact, use a condom anyway.

Apple1996 · Answer

The guy should always step up and take responsibility for his child. If he didn't want one he shouldn't have had sex

Do You Think A Man "Not Wanting" The Pregnancy Should Absolve Him Of Any Financial Responsibility?

Most Helpful Guys

Related Questions

What Girls & Guys Said

Latest Questions