Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why shouldn't men have more reproductive rights? Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Right, so it is legitimate to stop a baby being born because you don't want the physical hardship, but it isn't legitimate to refuse to give that baby money on the basis that you don't want the financial hardship?

    What's the logic here?
    Financial burden (particularly as its means tested) is absolutely nothing in comparison to carrying,birthing and physically raising a child. You have the option to pay and never actually do anything that's gonna have any real impact on your life.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    God it's always the same people on these damn threads. I can never tell who's on the offence and defence. I'm just going to be honest, the way this kind of thing works is pretty crappy. But the situation it revolves around one which is a matter of someone is always going to be unhappy. Don't act like either option is 100% right; it's all just compromises.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Not if they can't afford it they can't according to you.
    Whether or not it's sensible to have the baby without the father's support is another matter, and one for the mother to judge according to her circumstances.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Whether or not it's sensible to have the baby without the father's support is another matter, and one for the mother to judge according to her circumstances.
    You make it out like abortion is easy?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    See above.

    Accepting a baby might come of sex and accepting the financial burden of that baby are two separate things. Women can choose whether or not to keep the baby; I do not see why men should not have the choice whether to have anything to do with it.
    So you're basically saying you should be allowed to avoid the consequences of actions that you chose to take. That's just rubbish.

    "Women can choose" you say. But think about the choice!

    a) Have an operation that carries risk to your future fertility, and that carries pain and side effects, not to mention the emotional side of the thought that you've just killed your baby. Because no matter your thoughts about abortion, for a woman that doesn't want one, this is what it would feel like.

    b) Have the baby, go through pregnancy and childbirth alone with no support, then have to dedicate practically every moment of your life to your child at least until s/he is of school age.

    It's a no-win situation if you look at it like that. It's not like the women are having a whale of a time. So why is it that you think men should be able to walk away, when women have to make a difficult, painful and emotional choice either way? Women can't just close their eyes, say "I'm not having anything to do with it" and walk away. The fact is that once she is pregnant, there is something inside her that needs to come out and be dealt with at some point. Whether that's the emotional and physical aftermath of an abortion (because it's very emotional, very painful and inconvenient - you can bleed for ages) or the emotional and physical aftermath of pregnancy and childbirth. They cannot just pretend it never happened and move on. Whatever choice they make will stay with them for the rest of their lives. You say that men have no reproductive rights, but I would say that their options are arguably easier than the options available for a woman.

    At least men have no pain. Men don't have to have the inconvenience of looking after the child (though of course when you have children it's absolutely worth it) and men don't have to spend weeks and months allowing their body to recover after it all. The payments that women have to make are much more complicated than simply financial contributions, but I absolutely believe that, given the horrible choices that the woman has to go through, the fact that you chose to have sex knowing the risk means that you should have to face the consequences should something come of it. It's up to you whether you have anything to do with the child, or whether you simply contribute finances. So yes, you have choices too. You may not think they're very nice or very fair, but as I said above, the choices that the woman has to make aren't fair, either.

    You have sex, you know what might happen. And you know your choices should it happen. It isn't a nice situation either way, but life's life, and you have to deal with the results of your actions. To say that you should be able to walk away while the woman has to go through something horrible and difficult either way is just selfish. If you don't want a baby to the extent that you feel this strongly, then don't put yourself in the position where one might be conceived.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    Financial burden (particularly as its means tested) is absolutely nothing in comparison to carrying,birthing and physically raising a child. You have the option to pay and never actually do anything that's gonna have any real impact on your life.
    Well it does impact on his life, because he's giving away money he'd otherwise keep. Whether or not the impact on the father's life is comparable to the mother's is irrelevant. The reason I drew the parallel was to make the point that if the mother has the choice over whether it lives or dies, it is not unreasonable for the father to choose whether it receives support from him.

    Look, I'm going to set out exactly what I think should happen, because people are going to mistake my position otherwise. I think that fathers-to-be should be given up to 12 weeks* from conception to opt in to supporting the child. If he does, he should be bound to support the child to 18. If he doesn't, he shouldn't.

    *maybe less, given that the mother will undoubtedly need time after getting his answer in order to consider whether she still wants to carry the baby to term, and the cutoff point for abortion is 12 weeks unless I'm mistaken.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Well it does impact on his life, because he's giving away money he'd otherwise keep. Whether or not the impact on the father's life is comparable to the mother's is irrelevant. The reason I drew the parallel was to make the point that if the mother has the choice over whether it lives or dies, it is not unreasonable for the father to choose whether it receives support from him.

    Look, I'm going to set out exactly what I think should happen, because people are going to mistake my position otherwise. I think that fathers-to-be should be given up to 12 weeks* from conception to opt in to supporting the child. If he does, he should be bound to support the child to 18. If he doesn't, he shouldn't.

    *maybe less, given that the mother will undoubtedly need time after getting his answer in order to consider whether she still wants to carry the baby to term, and the cutoff point for abortion is 12 weeks unless I'm mistaken.
    Regardless the law won't change as it's morally irreprehensable for a father to not contribute to the life he created.

    And it's 26 weeks.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The fact that you didn't know the abortion limit suggests you're young/teenager.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    So you're basically saying you should be allowed to avoid the consequences of actions that you chose to take. That's just rubbish.

    "Women can choose" you say. But think about the choice!

    a) Have an operation that carries risk to your future fertility, and that carries pain and side effects, not to mention the emotional side of the thought that you've just killed your baby. Because no matter your thoughts about abortion, for a woman that doesn't want one, this is what it would feel like.

    b) Have the baby, go through pregnancy and childbirth alone with no support, then have to dedicate practically every moment of your life to your child at least until s/he is of school age.

    It's a no-win situation if you look at it like that. It's not like the women are having a whale of a time. So why is it that you think men should be able to walk away, when women have to make a difficult, painful and emotional choice either way? Women can't just close their eyes, say "I'm not having anything to do with it" and walk away. The fact is that once she is pregnant, there is something inside her that needs to come out and be dealt with at some point. Whether that's the emotional and physical aftermath of an abortion (because it's very emotional, very painful and inconvenient - you can bleed for ages) or the emotional and physical aftermath of pregnancy and childbirth. They cannot just pretend it never happened and move on. Whatever choice they make will stay with them for the rest of their lives. You say that men have no reproductive rights, but I would say that their options are arguably easier than the options available for a woman.

    At least men have no pain. Men don't have to have the inconvenience of looking after the child (though of course when you have children it's absolutely worth it) and men don't have to spend weeks and months allowing their body to recover after it all. The payments that women have to make are much more complicated than simply financial contributions, but I absolutely believe that, given the horrible choices that the woman has to go through, the fact that you chose to have sex knowing the risk means that you should have to face the consequences should something come of it. It's up to you whether you have anything to do with the child, or whether you simply contribute finances. So yes, you have choices too. You may not think they're very nice or very fair, but as I said above, the choices that the woman has to make aren't fair, either.

    You have sex, you know what might happen. And you know your choices should it happen. It isn't a nice situation either way, but life's life, and you have to deal with the results of your actions. To say that you should be able to walk away while the woman has to go through something horrible and difficult either way is just selfish. If you don't want a baby to the extent that you feel this strongly, then don't put yourself in the position where one might be conceived.
    I understand your concerns, but I don't see any of this as strictly relevant to the father's obligations.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I understand your concerns, but I don't see any of this as strictly relevant to the father's obligations.
    Because it was you who released the sperm that made the baby! You cannot do something and then walk away from the consequences.

    Incidentally, I notice that you mentioned the abortion limit as being 12 weeks. It is 24.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh it's not quite as rare as people here are trying to suggest, a women going through with what is (from the males perspective) an unwanted pregnancy. Also most women given the choice will chase for the financial payments. Unplanned pregnancies are actually rather common, around 15-16% with another 29% being ambivalent on whether it was planned or not (and this is all from the females point of view).

    I honestly think in the case of one night stands financial requirements should be scrapped. Also the MAP really must be advertised more, not as an alternative to contraception but as something you can do without any risk of embarrassment or possibly anonymously.

    Concerning people in relationships it should become stricter. I've know girls who've had kids to prevent the father leaving, which in itself is despicable. The only way you should be 100% able to guarantee child support is with prior consent from both parties that the baby is planned. If not you should still be capable of getting financial support, but on lesser levels.

    Finally the most important thing is, 'if' both parties are presumed to make financial contributions both should be seen as equal parties and parents of the child. Currently the law means the woman is automatically presumed as the primary carer, which if you know anything about any man who struggles to see their child, if often abused by both the mother and the system. It's then up to the man to prove that they are either a fit parent or the mother is an unfit parents and also it's in the child best interests, which usually means hefty, non-refundable legal bills (which legal support has never really covered, even prior to it getting slashed).

    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    I think the point he's making is that if both parents make a mistake, the man doesn't get to decide the fate of himself or the child, whereas the woman gets the right to make all the decisions.

    I personally don't think it's very fair that if we both screw up (or she does), I get roped into anything she chooses, all against my will. I mean, I do acknowledge that as it is the woman who carries it for 9 months, therefore she shouldn't be made to bear the child if she doesn't wish to, but if she chooses to keep it, and the man doesn't want to, then she should assume responsibility from thereon.
    All that really needs to be said tbh....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    Regardless the law won't change as it's morally irreprehensable for a father to not contribute to the life he created.

    And it's 26 weeks.
    They're most safely done before 12 weeks, apparently. I imagine if the choice window under my proposal were extended to 24 weeks, women could end up in a situation of choosing between a child they can't support and serious health risks.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The fact that you didn't know the abortion limit suggests you're young/teenager.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    Because it was you who released the sperm that made the baby! You cannot do something and then walk away from the consequences.

    Incidentally, I notice that you mentioned the abortion limit as being 12 weeks. It is 24.
    Re 12 weeks: see reply to another poster above. I didn't mean the legal limit.

    You seem to be saying that the only answer is celibacy/sterilisation/tough. I don't agree with that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnooFnoo)
    The fact that you didn't know the abortion limit suggests you're young/teenager.
    The legal limit is 24 weeks.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1

    Awkward...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, children need to be born to parents that want them. I don't see the point in having babies if someone is pregnant by accident and only one of the parents want the baby. It's not as if men are asking women to have babies that they don't want.

    This is why when the male contraception pill is made there's going to be reduced number of men having to pay for babies they don't want.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    The legal limit is 24 weeks.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/section/1

    Awkward...
    Apologies. I'm showing my age there. It was 26 in my day. In glad it's been reduced.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Re 12 weeks: see reply to another poster above. I didn't mean the legal limit.

    You seem to be saying that the only answer is celibacy/sterilisation/tough. I don't agree with that.
    Well what other option is there? Other than the man being able to walk away and the woman having to do something horrible, I mean.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox)
    Well what other option is there? Other than the man being able to walk away and the woman having to do something horrible, I mean.
    You seem to be suggesting that the side effects of the abortion are a likelihood. Haemorrhaging, which I think you referred to, occurs in about 1/1000 cases. NHS guidance states that abortions carry few health risks, particularly if carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    You seem to be suggesting that the side effects of the abortion are a likelihood. Haemorrhaging, which I think you referred to, occurs in about 1/1000 cases. NHS guidance states that abortions carry few health risks, particularly if carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
    No, I'm not. An abortion has physical pain and heavy bleeding as a normality - I'm not talking about the unlikely side effects, though again, like the "only have sex if you can deal with the consequences" thing, you should only have an abortion if you understand what COULD happen if you do. Also there is a high emotional effect of it as well.

    It's not just like you click your fingers and it's all over and you never think about it again.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.