Opting out of fatherhood

[g3org3y]

amare32 said:

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.

Governmental conspiracy? Seems legit.

As I mentioned earlier, it's logistically a more difficult task so that's why it has taken so much longer than the development of female contraception methods. Trials are currently taking place.

[foreright]

rfisher said:

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

They've been saying this for as long as I can remember.

[j_4m]

I'm in the 100% do not want children camp, however if the worst happened and my girlfriend got pregnant I'd have to grit my teeth and get on with being a good parent.

Sex can equal babies, even with contraception. If you're having the sex prepare for the chance of babies.

[R4PID]

The Moose said:

Isn't that what a vasectomy is for?

and pearl necklaces

[Roger Irrelevant]

This thread reads like a country & western song - a load of jilted men resentful and mistrustful of women and moaning about how unfair life is. Am I the only person here who has never had any particular trouble with the women I've been in long-term relationships with, bar the occasional tiff, and who doesn't automatically assume that their overriding goal in life is to stitch a man up?

[Cotty]

Roger Irrelevant said:

and who doesn't automatically assume that their overriding goal in life is to stitch a man up?

Trouble is a few bad eggs screw it up for everyone.

[Antony Moxey]

Oakey said:

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?

Yes of course, but if you wanted kids you wouldn't be using a johnny would you?

[Rawwr]

Cotty said:

Roger Irrelevant said:

and who doesn't automatically assume that their overriding goal in life is to stitch a man up?

Trouble is a few bad eggs screw it up for everyone.

Surely its the good eggs that screw it up?

[Antony Moxey]

Bill said:

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.

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.

[Sa Calobra]

HughiusMaximus said:

Its an interesting concept that I have discussed with others previously.

Simplistically boils to if women have the choice on whether to continue with the pregnancy or not, why should men not have the same choice as to whether they want to recognize the child as theirs with all that goes along with that.

As things stand women have all the options, and men are basically running the risk of unintended fatherhood every time they engage in certain bedroom activities....

I'd support it - but it has zero chance of going anywhere as:

If you are being charitable the US courts are set up to look after the best interest of the child which will be better served if the Dad is on the hook for financial support
If you are being cynical the US courts are trying to make the Dads pay because if they don't in a lot of cases the requirement for support will then fall on the Govt to support via social welfare.

If you cant get the Govt to do anything about paternity fraud in the USA then do we really thing they will do anything about a situation where the man actually is the biological father?...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/problems-with-pater...


I get that this isn't just a US issue but a lot of movements seem to sweep outwards from there.

I disagree with one part, if you don't want the possibility of becoming a father wear protection. If you are worried about it not working don't have sex. Yes you can be tricked with 'its ok I am on the pill' but be wise.

You can't espouse withholding fatherhood rights if you dallied in the act.

No sex is consequence-free.

[Shuvi McTupya]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You probably don't want kids then.

Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Thursday 24th January 15:35

[bobbylondonuk]

Sa Calobra said:

I disagree with one part, if you don't want the possibility of becoming a father wear protection. If you are worried about it not working don't have sex. Yes you can be tricked with 'its ok I am on the pill' but be wise.

You can't espouse withholding fatherhood rights if you dallied in the act.

No sex is consequence-free.

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?

[anonymous-user]

I worked with a guy who much opted out of parenthood. He didnt see his kids and boasted about his creative accountancy skills to ensure the money grabbing CSA could never get a penny out of him to raise his kid. Last I heard he had boosted his brood to 4.

He thinks of himself as a Player, in reality he is a scumbag.

It really is simple, Bag it, Snip it or Pay for it.

[Bill]

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.)

[Antony Moxey]

Vandenberg said:

I worked with a guy who much opted out of parenthood. He didnt see his kids and boasted about his creative accountancy skills to ensure the money grabbing CSA could never get a penny out of him to raise his kid. Last I heard he had boosted his brood to 4.

He thinks of himself as a Player, in reality he is a scumbag.

It really is simple, Bag it, Snip it or Pay for it.

I think the point is that in the scenario you describe the father opted out of parenthood after the fact. I wouldn't think anyone would think it reasonable that once a pregnancy had gone beyond an abortion time limit the father could simply walk away with no responsibilities.

[Sa Calobra]

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.

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.

[Antony Moxey]

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.)

But the point of the article is that perhaps it's not up to you to declare the simplicity of the situation. 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. Perhaps if it was declared before the act that one of the two didn't want to be a parent then a discussion could take place regarding possible outcomes. Not the most romantic thing I grant you, and it might mean - horror of horrors - that you don't get your leg over, but if you're adamant you don't want kids and the other person is fully aware of that then maybe you have the right to opt out should a pregnancy occur.

This doesn't mean, of course, that you've got a get out of jail free card forever as the article does mention introducing a cut off date, but as I said earlier, simply saying bag it and suffer the consequences may just be a little too simplistic an approach.

[j_4m]

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?".

[gregs656]

j_4m said:

He does absolutely have that choice, it's the point where he asks himself "do I want to stick this in there?".

Indeed.

I read a series of fictional books recently in which it was common, in society generally but, particularly in royal families for individuals to engage solely in homosexual relationships unless they were married in a heterosexual relationship - to protect the royal bloodlines.

Perhaps some of you folks worried about kids could start exercising your curious side.

I don't agree with the idea that only a minority of men want kids, either.

[anonymous-user]

Antony Moxey said:

I think the point is that in the scenario you describe the father opted out of parenthood after the fact. I wouldn't think anyone would think it reasonable that once a pregnancy had gone beyond an abortion time limit the father could simply walk away with no responsibilities.

In his case am not sure of the timings.

But I don't think a woman right to choose an abortion trumps the right of men to opt out if they dont fancy the responsibilities.
The balance of reproductive rights is rightly tipped toward women, it might not be fair but it is biology, and therefore men have a choice to be responsible for their fertility or not.