In most countries of the world, a woman’s pregnancy does not oblige her to support a foetus. In most countries, she can have an abortion. Does a man’s responsibility for that pregnancy obligate him to support that resulting child no matter what his wishes are and no matter what his circumstances are? Is it right that he should have absolutely no say whatsoever in the decision?
The man quite rightly should not be allowed to dictate whether or not a woman decides to give birth but should a woman or should the State have the right to compel this man, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and regardless of his own personal circumstances, to remain in many cases exclusively financially responsible for that child for the next 23 years?
Let’s take a hypopthetical example. A woman struggling to get by financially, meets an old college friend who is now doing very well financially. She has no interest in a serious relationship but she wants a child and knows he will be well able to support that child. He however, is very interested in a relationship. She talks about how she always knew they were meant to be together. She deliberately leads him on and following a one night stand, she refuses to return his calls but eventually has his baby and gets her solicitor to write looking for details of his earnings so she can obtain the highest possible child maintenance from him. They end up in Court and she admits she had no relationship intentions and just wanted a baby. He talks about how devastated he was when she wouldn’t return his calls or answer his emails.
Is she entitled to insist that he pay this woman €200 or €300 a week for the maintenance of their child despite the fact that she lied and used deception and manipulation to lull the man into thinking this one night stand was the first step on the road to a serious relationship? The law says the man must pay up. Now and forever – or at least until the child is 23.
Not that it would ever happen.
Kevin Brophy