Children

[Shiodome]

yeah, i guess my question was made under the assumption that the father is forced to support the kid (which afaik is the case in the UK?)

[Smuggo]

That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

[Dark Flare]

That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

[Zeekar]

My opinion isnt exclusive with Darks. What I'm saying is that its woman decision if she wants to keep the child and her alone. Contraceptions can and do fail and accidents happen now is it fair for us to force the father to be involved with that child when he clearly doesn't want to be in any way? Now I would say if the child's well being is endangered then he should give the child some sort of financial support but when that is clearly not the case I don't think he should.

[Smuggo]

That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

The chance of contraception failure is small, so you pretty much have to accept there is a minute chance you will end up paying for it anyway.

If you're that concerned by it then keep your cock in your trousers.

[Zeekar]

That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

There is also one other thing to take in consideration, child isnt at fault for being born to a crazy mother. And the current laws are made with childs best well being in mind.

[Lallante]

That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

That's an incredibly selfish point of view. The reason the law works differently is for the kids sake, not the moms.

[Dark Flare]

That would be fine if there wasn't any obligation for the father to support financially. I know the system is there for cases where the father just fucks off because he feels like it, but in situations where the father genuinely didn't want a child, and doesn't want to be in the relationship, he shouldn't have to pay IMO. It's the mother's decision as to whether or not she keeps the kid, it's his decision whether or not he wants to be involved in that financially or personally.

If he doesn't want a child there is contraception available to prevent it.

Like it or not, a human being exists that needs support and that is 50% of the father's DNA and since a woman can't make children on her own then the man should stump up some of the cash to pay for that kid.

And if they were using birth control? And it didn't work/she lied and didn't take it? Or if a condom broke, or any other multitude of things that can go wrong.
If the man doesn't want a kid, and tried to avoid having a kid, and the woman chooses NOT to have an abortion, he should have no legal obligation to pay IMO. It's entirely her choice to keep the kid, and she has knowledge of his position.

That's an incredibly selfish point of view. The reason the law works differently is for the kids sake, not the moms.

Keeping a kid your partner doesn't want is also an incredibly selfish thing to do.

The chance of contraception failure is small, so you pretty much have to accept there is a minute chance you will end up paying for it anyway.

If you're that concerned by it then keep your cock in your trousers.

You rather conveniently ignored the "she lies about taking contraception" scenario there.
I'm not that concerned, my gf would have an abortion if she got pregnant right now. It would be undoubtedly an accident if she became pregnant, and we're in no position to deal with kids.

[Smuggo]

You rather conveniently ignored the "she lies about taking contraception" scenario there.

Again, if you want better certainty then you need to take that responsibility yourself and not leave it to someone else, especially if they are the sort of unhinged woman who would lie about using contraception.

[Dark Flare]

Unfortunately a lot of people only find that out when it's too late. If a man says he'll wear a condom and doesn't it's rape. If a woman says she's taking the pill, then doesn't, it's the man's fault. Go figure.



(I'm not saying it should be classed as rape, but it sure as shit ain't cool)

[KathDougans]

One of the things that annoys me is the idea, that for some reason a lot of women have, that you can neatly remove the child's father from that child's life. It is just not possible, and is actively dangerous to the child in some situations.

I think someone linked a thing a while back, about statistics for fatherless children, and it was disturbing. Drug abuse, sexual abuse, suicide rates etc, were all a lot higher.

Anyway, having a child with someone is intrinsically meaning you will be involved with that person for the rest of your/their life. Don't want that ? then don't have a child with that person.

There is the disturbing possibility, that if you exclude the father from your childs life, that your child may end up involved with a half-sibling, if the man has another child with a different woman. And that's just the tip of the drama iceberg. Saying to your child "you can't marry X, they're your half-sibling", is just going to alienate your child, make them resent you.

[indi]

So many things

Look, I haven't been pregnant and I intend to avoid this. But there's a child growing in your body. I'm pretty sure that it's a huge decision to terminate that life, even if it's just a few weeks along. Factor in that your body is wired not to let you think that type of thought, and yes, in a way I feel it's a woman's decision. Neither a man nor a woman should go back ont heir word about contraception, but accidents happen. The law is there for the kid, not the parents.

Staying together for your child can be a very bad idea. My grandparents stayed together until the very bitter end, generation, blabla. All of their children have their own issues stemming from an unhappy home with a lot of fighting (never physical abuse, just tense atmosphere and fights at night when they thought the kids wouldn't hear/notice). I doubt that was the best decision they could have made, although they probably meant well. But - should you try? Probably.

I grew up without a father. That was nobody's fault except for shitty leukaemia (damn you and diaf). It does have its own problems, although I can happily report I am not a drug addict, have not experienced any type of abuse and so far avoided suicide successfully. You can't stay together for the kid's sake and mess up everyone's life; in that case I don't doubt that the kid would be better off with decent coparenting.

[Dark Flare]

Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

[indi]

Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

Yep. Pro-choice. Woman's choice.

Sorry, that's just the reality of it. I wish it was fairer, but the burden is on the woman as well. Life's not fair and we have to find a way to deal... Luckily I am not whelping.

[KathDougans]

There's a difference between "staying together for kid's sake", and not attempting to remove the father from the childs life.

There's at least 4 different things:
Being in a relationship with the child's father,
Staying together for kid's sake, which has some associated problems,
keeping contact with the child's father, so they at least know how they're doing, what they look like, etc.
Trying to remove any influence of the child's father completely, child may not even know their father's name.

the last one, is the one that annoys me, and for some reason, a lot of people seem to think it's a Great Idea.

[indi]

There's a difference between "staying together for kid's sake", and not attempting to remove the father from the childs life.

There's at least 4 different things:
Being in a relationship with the child's father,
Staying together for kid's sake, which has some associated problems,
keeping contact with the child's father, so they at least know how they're doing, what they look like, etc.
Trying to remove any influence of the child's father completely, child may not even know their father's name.

the last one, is the one that annoys me, and for some reason, a lot of people seem to think it's a Great Idea.

To make it absolutely clear, I agree with you!

[Cue1*]

Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

Yep. Pro-choice. Woman's choice.

Sorry, that's just the reality of it. I wish it was fairer, but the burden is on the woman as well. Life's not fair and we have to find a way to deal... Luckily I am not whelping.

I figure I should start by saying I'm very heavily pro-choice, and that I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

With that said, I feel as man that biology dealt me the shittiest hand ever for this. Seriously, "here's a dick, and a burning desire to stick it in every woman you can find. Oh you wanted the kid? Too bad, no matter what society says, she has physical possession of the child." What if I want the kid and she doesn't? No, I don't think it's right to ask her to carry it to term then give you the kid, but goddamn!

Additionally, what's wrong with being selfish? As a child I was taught sharing is right and what not, and just like everyone else, I caught on and ate it all up. But as an adult, I'm realizing less and less of the lessons I was taught as a child matter. It's my life, and as my life, I think it's important for me to do what makes me happy. If what makes me happy is having a life long relationship with someone and not having children, why am I wrong for being selfish and wanting to not share my theoretically amazing wife/girlfriend with a child? I'm already sharing my most intimate everything with said wife/girlfriend, so why am I wrong for wanting to keep that relationship intact and as is?

[Rudolf Miller]

I had to be the friend to encourage a female to get an abortion because her economic/family/fathering male situation would have been an absolute disaster.

I am not proud of it, but she did the right thing, and I was the backstop to that decision. Believe me, she tried to recant repeatedly.

As for my personal situation, I feel by the rules of Idiocracy, I am bound to father some children for the good of the world. And as an answer to the OP, yes that makes it a narcissistic act.

[Lallante]

Very early term there isn't a child growing in your body. It's just a clump of cells. As is a virus, and we try to get rid of those.
(okay that wasn't a serious comment)

Though this is heading towards pro-life/pro-choice conversation and I think everyone here is pro-choice anyway.

Yep. Pro-choice. Woman's choice.

Sorry, that's just the reality of it. I wish it was fairer, but the burden is on the woman as well. Life's not fair and we have to find a way to deal... Luckily I am not whelping.

I figure I should start by saying I'm very heavily pro-choice, and that I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate here.

With that said, I feel as man that biology dealt me the shittiest hand ever for this. Seriously, "here's a dick, and a burning desire to stick it in every woman you can find. Oh you wanted the kid? Too bad, no matter what society says, she has physical possession of the child." What if I want the kid and she doesn't? No, I don't think it's right to ask her to carry it to term then give you the kid, but goddamn!

Additionally, what's wrong with being selfish? As a child I was taught sharing is right and what not, and just like everyone else, I caught on and ate it all up. But as an adult, I'm realizing less and less of the lessons I was taught as a child matter. It's my life, and as my life, I think it's important for me to do what makes me happy. If what makes me happy is having a life long relationship with someone and not having children, why am I wrong for being selfish and wanting to not share my theoretically amazing wife/girlfriend with a child? I'm already sharing my most intimate everything with said wife/girlfriend, so why am I wrong for wanting to keep that relationship intact and as is?

This is a really good, nuanced post. (I am surprised!)

You are right its totally unfair (but also totally right) a man cant unilaterally decide to have a child. Nature is really unfair, that bitch.

You are also right that on major life decisions like this its almost dumb NOT to be a little selfish.

[Lallante]

I had to be the friend to encourage a female to get an abortion because her economic/family/fathering male situation would have been an absolute disaster.

I am not proud of it, but she did the right thing, and I was the backstop to that decision. Believe me, she tried to recant repeatedly.

As for my personal situation, I feel by the rules of Idiocracy, I am bound to father some children for the good of the world. And as an answer to the OP, yes that makes it a narcissistic act.

This, only by "encourage" you mean "perform" and by "because of her economic/family situation" you mean "because I wanted to see what foetus tastes like".