Opting out of fatherhood

[Bill]

Antony Moxey said:

It’s an interesting article that I think deserves a little more thought than a simple bag up or live with it response.

Not really. It is that simple.

There's no equivalence between the financial responsibility for a child and the emotional and physical trauma of being pushed into an abortion.

Sure, some men get trapped, but no contraception is 100% so how do you tell the mistakes from the "mistakes"?

[Antony Moxey]

Bill said:

Antony Moxey said:

It’s an interesting article that I think deserves a little more thought than a simple bag up or live with it response.

Not really. It is that simple.

There's no equivalence between the financial responsibility for a child and the emotional and physical trauma of being pushed into an abortion.

Sure, some men get trapped, but no contraception is 100% so how do you tell the mistakes from the "mistakes"?

Who’s pushed? The woman always has the final choice, the man has no choice. One of the points in the article raises the question of how long do you get to make the choice - I would assume there’s no-one who would think a man can decide to opt out once the child is born, or even once it’s beyond the cut off point for a woman to abort if she chooses.

So no, I don’t think it’s that simple. The fact you say there’s no equivalence means it’s not simple - it cannot be right to simply boil it down to you did it, you pay for it whether it was your choice or not.

[DuncB7]

Article said:

...as a feminist...

Anyone else stop reading immediately at this point?

[Frimley111R]

desolate said:

bga said:

Fortunately messrs Durex, Skyn, Mates & others provide men with an option that while not perfect, gives them the ability to significantly reduce the likelihood of an unintended pregnancy.

For any of us males that are concerned that breasted ophidians want to ruin our lives through financial entrapment then the solution is simple - bag it up.

This entirely. It's life changing stuff so take responsibility for it.

If it causes your Mrs a problem then probably time for a change.

The problem is that you're in a long term relationship, having fun, she's on the pill, no problem and then all of a sudden it could be 'I've been a bit unwell recently' or 'I forgot to take one' or.... and you're totally stuffed. There you are having a nice time and all of a sudden a life changing event happens. Maybe she was stupid, lazy about taking the pill or simply wanted a baby like she wanted a car, house, handbag, etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but men don't sit in relationships thinking 'At some point she'll try to stitch me up for life'. If their partner says she's on the pill for example you trust her to tell you if she thinks there's any danger of it not working.

[Johnny]

The Moose said:

Isn't that what a vasectomy is for?

Yep, that's what I did.

[Bill]

Antony Moxey said:

Who’s pushed? The woman always has the final choice, the man has no choice. One of the points in the article raises the question of how long do you get to make the choice - I would assume there’s no-one who would think a man can decide to opt out once the child is born, or even once it’s beyond the cut off point for a woman to abort if she chooses.

So no, I don’t think it’s that simple. The fact you say there’s no equivalence means it’s not simple - it cannot be right to simply boil it down to you did it, you pay for it whether it was your choice or not.

It is entirely right, otherwise you're saying that a man's financial responsibility is as important as the woman's choice. Which it simply isn't.

If you feel that strongly about not having children then bag up. It is that simple. If it affects your relationship then perhaps you should look a bit harder at why you and she are in the relationship at all.

[J4CKO]

Loads of blokes do that anyway, seen as the normal almost in some sections of society.

You have control of where your semen ends up, its generally only when its in a lady that can happen.

Like any kind of gambling, pay the tax on the stake or the pay out, that is to say, use contraception and take the penalty then rather than having to pay for the grand prize.

[Antony Moxey]

Bill said:

Antony Moxey said:

Who’s pushed? The woman always has the final choice, the man has no choice. One of the points in the article raises the question of how long do you get to make the choice - I would assume there’s no-one who would think a man can decide to opt out once the child is born, or even once it’s beyond the cut off point for a woman to abort if she chooses.

So no, I don’t think it’s that simple. The fact you say there’s no equivalence means it’s not simple - it cannot be right to simply boil it down to you did it, you pay for it whether it was your choice or not.

It is entirely right, otherwise you're saying that a man's financial responsibility is as important as the woman's choice. Which it simply isn't.

If you feel that strongly about not having children then bag up. It is that simple. If it affects your relationship then perhaps you should look a bit harder at why you and she are in the relationship at all.

Well if you bag up it’s obvious you don’t want children. If bagging up fails - contraceptives aren’t foolproof - you are entirely and utterly at the mercy of the woman’s choice regardless of what you want. So it’s not that simple - and who says there’s a relationship going on, or do you believe only couples in long term loving relationships have sex?

[xeny]

Frimley111R said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but men don't sit in relationships thinking 'At some point she'll try to stitch me up for life'.

Not all of them perhaps, but it's certainly at the back of my mind.

[Oakey]

Antony Moxey said:

Well if you bag up it’s obvious you don’t want children. If bagging up fails - contraceptives aren’t foolproof - you are entirely and utterly at the mercy of the woman’s choice regardless of what you want. So it’s not that simple - and who says there’s a relationship going on, or do you believe only couples in long term loving relationships have sex?

Is it? Is that the only reason to bag it up? No other reasons you might be able to think of?

[bobtail4x4]

Johnny said:

The Moose said:

Isn't that what a vasectomy is for?

Yep, that's what I did.

me 2

[PAULJ5555]

https://www.smoothradio.com/news/music/tom-jones-s...

Tom Jones,

[SCEtoAUX]

I'd be astonished if more than 10% of men actually wanted children.

[amare32]

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.

Yes there's an opportunity to makes lots of money but the Government won't allow it as most guys would just take the pill and go on a pump and dump spree even more. The STDs rate will skyrocket and many £billions more will be spent on welfare as mothers cannot exploit the system for their own gain.

[Bill]

Antony Moxey said:

Well if you bag up it’s obvious you don’t want children. If bagging up fails - contraceptives aren’t foolproof - you are entirely and utterly at the mercy of the woman’s choice regardless of what you want.

Rightly. It's her body and mind that will be affected.

If that's not enough of a guarantee for you then you need to have the abortion conversation before you get your rocks off.

[skinnyman]

Surprises in longer term relationships 110% happen, that's how my son came to be. Luckily for the both of us, it was a happy surprise, but for others, it might not have been, and I don't see why men being given that choice is a bad thing.

No contraception is 100% safe, so if everyone involved is doing all they can to avoid pregnancy, but it happens anyway, then at that point why shouldn't the man be given the same choices as the women?

[SpeckledJim]

Johnny said:

The Moose said:

Isn't that what a vasectomy is for?

Yep, that's what I did.

You should change your username then.

[rfisher]

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.

A male contraceptive is being developed, and should be available within 10 years at the most.

It will be interesting to see how the ladies respond to this.

I predict not well.

[The Moose]

bloomen said:

In my entire life I have met one male who vocally desired them before they arrived. I'm sure plenty fell in love once they arrived.

Another couple of others said they did it because 'you're supposed to do it' before doing so. Great reasoning.

My father was one of those and then informed my mother to not bring us anywhere near him until we were several years old.

I have wanted children for as long as I can remember. For the avoidance of doubt, I am male

Yes, the thought has concerned me in a number of different ways through the process.

I have had girlfriends that I definitely didn't want to have children with, however that is due to not wanting to be tied to those people.

My wife and I are now expecting our first and both of us are excited about it.

[Cotty]

Ari said:

Unsustainable in a longer term relationship with a woman who claims to have taken care of birth control. You're basically saying to her 'I think you might be a scheming bh looking to get pregnant so I'm taking my own precautions just in case'. Good luck with that one.

Catch 22 because so many woman have schemed and alleged the pregnancy got past the pill, they has raised questions as to the whether the pill is 100% affective. A valid argument to always welly up if you don't want kids.