Opting out of fatherhood
Discussion
Sa Calobra said:
bobbylondonuk said:
If we take that argument and allow for equality between males & femals on this topic -
Abortion or morning after pill in case of no contraception or failed contraception should be illegal for females. You cant withold motherhood rights if you participated in sex should you?
If the female is allowed a choice to keep/not keep the result of a sexual act, Then the male should also be allowed the same choice of paying/not paying and be guilt free as it is his right to choose.
Isnt that a fair position for both males & females? Equality?
Alittle narrow minded there.Abortion or morning after pill in case of no contraception or failed contraception should be illegal for females. You cant withold motherhood rights if you participated in sex should you?
If the female is allowed a choice to keep/not keep the result of a sexual act, Then the male should also be allowed the same choice of paying/not paying and be guilt free as it is his right to choose.
Isnt that a fair position for both males & females? Equality?
One has to carry the baby, the hormone changes, the pain, the back ache, struggling alot, then the child birth etc.
Then there's loss of figure, struggling to regain shape, possible hair loss etc.
As far as I remember I was free to go down the pub for the first 9 months after sex. Unfortunately Mrs Calobra wasnt.
If the female chooses to carry the pregnancy through with all the physical hardship it involves, shouldnt the male have the same choice to participate as a full father or decide to legally abort his position?
If the answer is no the male should not stick it in at all, then lets explore that rule the other way around - if the female doesnt want a baby, can the male by law choose to be a father with sole custody of a baby after mandatory full term delivery by the female? She souldnt have taken it in if she didnt want a pregnancy??
Christ this thread is full of some miserable, resentful men.
For those who think men should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood, up to what point should they be allowed too? 24 weeks? What if the woman knows before that and doesn't tell the man?
Quite frankly, you're all missing the point. Its the child's welfare that's important, no matter if mother and/or father have made bad decisions.
For those who think men should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood, up to what point should they be allowed too? 24 weeks? What if the woman knows before that and doesn't tell the man?
Quite frankly, you're all missing the point. Its the child's welfare that's important, no matter if mother and/or father have made bad decisions.
j_4m said:
Antony Moxey said:
The article is saying perhaps the man deserves to have the choice as to whether he wants to be a parent or not - at the moment he doesn't have that choice.
He does absolutely have that choice, it's the point where he asks himself "do I want to stick this in there?".Integroo said:
Christ this thread is full of some miserable, resentful men.
For those who think men should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood, up to what point should they be allowed too? 24 weeks? What if the woman knows before that and doesn't tell the man?
Quite frankly, you're all missing the point. Its the child's welfare that's important, no matter if mother and/or father have made bad decisions.
Actually, I think it's you that's missing the point. The child's welfare is important of course, but part of that discussion is whether there should be a child at all. The article also discusses the time frame and the whole point of the article is about what if the woman knows but doesn't tell the man.For those who think men should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood, up to what point should they be allowed too? 24 weeks? What if the woman knows before that and doesn't tell the man?
Quite frankly, you're all missing the point. Its the child's welfare that's important, no matter if mother and/or father have made bad decisions.
I don't think anyone here is miserable or resentful, more it's a discussion on a point of view some find interesting to debate.
Antony Moxey said:
Actually, I think it's you that's missing the point. The child's welfare is important of course, but part of that discussion is whether there should be a child at all. The article also discusses the time frame and the whole point of the article is about what if the woman knows but doesn't tell the man.
I don't think anyone here is miserable or resentful, more it's a discussion on a point of view some find interesting to debate.
Well, unless you are saying that a man should have a right to order a woman to abort a child he does not want, then what you are saying is that if the woman chooses not to abort the child, the man should be permitted to not accept parental responsibility and should not have to contribute financially to the child's upbringing. This directly impacts the child's welfare. I don't think anyone here is miserable or resentful, more it's a discussion on a point of view some find interesting to debate.
And the man always has a choice. If you genuinely think there is a risk the person you are sleeping with is going to entrap you, stop sleeping with them, or wear protection. Most of us manage to not get so entrapped.
Not keen on the idea of abortion being used as a contraceptive as alluded to in that article. However, if contraception is being used during sex then surely there is no intent for a pregnancy to follow the act so both people who caused the pregnancy should have an equal say in the outcome. Sadly and practically, this isn't the case nor is it possible. You can't force a woman to remain pregnant but should she be able to force a man to be a parent?
It's an unbalanced situation but there isn't really a viable solution.
As for not wanting kids, well no. The one I've got wasn't planned and I don't want any more. My "child" is a very grown up young woman in her mid-twenties and she doesn't need a sibling.
I've never had sex without one of us using contraception which means I've never had sex with the intention of impregnating my partner.
Sex for humans is very much about recreation and not procreation which is why contraception was invented. If only it were 100% reliable. Abstinence is, but where's the fun in that?
It's an unbalanced situation but there isn't really a viable solution.
As for not wanting kids, well no. The one I've got wasn't planned and I don't want any more. My "child" is a very grown up young woman in her mid-twenties and she doesn't need a sibling.
I've never had sex without one of us using contraception which means I've never had sex with the intention of impregnating my partner.
Sex for humans is very much about recreation and not procreation which is why contraception was invented. If only it were 100% reliable. Abstinence is, but where's the fun in that?
Antony Moxey said:
I don't think anyone here is miserable or resentful, more it's a discussion on a point of view some find interesting to debate.
+1I think its been a fairly balanced discussion so far.
I don't think its just about women wanting to trap men - accidents do happen even where contraceptives are being used.
When that arises men have pretty much zero say in proceedings.
To take it to the extreme question:
Why does society say to men ultimately don't put it there if you aren't willing to run the risk of fatherhood, but women have the options of abortion / adoption? (I get that there is the physical aspect of carrying the baby but the impact on a mans life from fatherhood isn't inconsequential also..)
Equality would be an equal risk of parenthood for both parties?
Seeing as the option of abortion will never be taken away from women then the next best option is the financial abortion for men.
As I said in my first post I can ever see it happening but that doesn't mean there isn't some validity in the argument....
It is not trivial to put a child up for adoption in the UK without the father's consent - particularly in the type of situation being discussed here where the couple are in a relationship.
Pregnancy is inherently a one sided affair. Choosing to have sex isn't, though, and when we engage in it we must accept that a child is a potential consequence.
Pregnancy is inherently a one sided affair. Choosing to have sex isn't, though, and when we engage in it we must accept that a child is a potential consequence.
must we accept it?
Sounds like social conditioning to me?
Agreed, pregnancy is a one sided affair, but it is a (non trivial but ultimately voluntary) 9 month part of what is in affect an 18 year circumstance.
Should it be the only factor in determining who has ultimately the decision making ability around the impact of parenthood for both the man and woman?
I'm just throwing some questions out there to provoke discussion
Sounds like social conditioning to me?
Agreed, pregnancy is a one sided affair, but it is a (non trivial but ultimately voluntary) 9 month part of what is in affect an 18 year circumstance.
Should it be the only factor in determining who has ultimately the decision making ability around the impact of parenthood for both the man and woman?
I'm just throwing some questions out there to provoke discussion
Edited by HughiusMaximus on Thursday 24th January 17:45
g3org3y said:
Ari said:
Tin foil hat on, I've often wondered whether the reason a male contraceptive pill has never been invented is due to the realisation that the birth rate would plummet if men were given a discreet easy way of controlling pregnancy.
Much much easier to stop one egg being released per month than millions of sperm every ejaculation.Drug companies LOVE money. If this was a viable/easy option with the potential to make £££, they'd be all over it.
Shame it won't be on the market widely for a few years. I bet a lot of chaps would be all over it. Hell, I'd sign up for a trial if I could.
HughiusMaximus said:
must we accept it?
Sounds like social conditioning to me?
Agreed, pregnancy is a one sided affair, but it is a (non trivial but ultimately voluntary) 9 month part of what is in affect an 18 year circumstance.
Should it be the only factor in determining who has ultimately the decision making ability around the impact of parenthood for both the man and woman?
I'm just throwing some questions out there to provoke discussion
Are you advocating for men having a right to force a woman to have an abortion, or a right for a man to have nothing to do with a child that is his but that the woman chooses not to abort? Sounds like social conditioning to me?
Agreed, pregnancy is a one sided affair, but it is a (non trivial but ultimately voluntary) 9 month part of what is in affect an 18 year circumstance.
Should it be the only factor in determining who has ultimately the decision making ability around the impact of parenthood for both the man and woman?
I'm just throwing some questions out there to provoke discussion
Edited by HughiusMaximus on Thursday 24th January 17:45
I'm not advocating for a man to be able to force a woman to have an abortion at all.
I'm saying that the equivalent of her having the choice whether to abort or not is the man having the choice to recognize the child as his with all ensuing parental responsibilities - that is the most equitable scenario where both have a semblance of fair choice.
I'm saying that the equivalent of her having the choice whether to abort or not is the man having the choice to recognize the child as his with all ensuing parental responsibilities - that is the most equitable scenario where both have a semblance of fair choice.
HughiusMaximus said:
I'm not advocating for a man to be able to force a woman to have an abortion at all.
I'm saying that the equivalent of her having the choice whether to abort or not is the man having the choice to recognize the child as his with all ensuing parental responsibilities - that is the most equitable scenario where both have a semblance of fair choice.
The problem is in the first scenario there is no child to be concerned about post abortion, whereas in the latter scenario there is a child that needs to be cared for and its interest must trump the interests of the mother and/or father. Allowing the father to abdicate his responsibilities would lead to the welfare of the child being diminished. I'm saying that the equivalent of her having the choice whether to abort or not is the man having the choice to recognize the child as his with all ensuing parental responsibilities - that is the most equitable scenario where both have a semblance of fair choice.
Bill said:
Antony Moxey said:
Never said it was wrong for a woman to have a choice, of course it isn't. However the article is asking if it's wrong for men to have a choice too. Were that choice to become statute then I guess women would need the abortion conversation before getting their rocks off too.
I don't see how I could make it simpler. You do have a choice: bag up/abstain/snip. You don't have a choice to try to coerce the mother into an abortion by refusing to pay. (Bear in mind that she makes financial sacrifices too.)I think calling this thing a "financial abortion" is vety unhelpful and encourages confusion.
Integroo said:
Antony Moxey said:
Actually, I think it's you that's missing the point. The child's welfare is important of course, but part of that discussion is whether there should be a child at all. The article also discusses the time frame and the whole point of the article is about what if the woman knows but doesn't tell the man.
I don't think anyone here is miserable or resentful, more it's a discussion on a point of view some find interesting to debate.
Well, unless you are saying that a man should have a right to order a woman to abort a child he does not want, then what you are saying is that if the woman chooses not to abort the child, the man should be permitted to not accept parental responsibility and should not have to contribute financially to the child's upbringing. This directly impacts the child's welfare. I don't think anyone here is miserable or resentful, more it's a discussion on a point of view some find interesting to debate.
And the man always has a choice. If you genuinely think there is a risk the person you are sleeping with is going to entrap you, stop sleeping with them, or wear protection. Most of us manage to not get so entrapped.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff