The right to choose to become a parent

I think TillyMint has it.

It's not fair, but there is no other option that is more fair.

I wonder if in the future another option will be to remove the embryo/s and freeze them, meaning either the woman could access them later or the man could later have them implanted into his new partner /a surrogate/some kind of space age artificial womb environment. That would bring a whole load more ethical arguments with it. Maybe we have it pretty easy :o

I've just thought of another point as well. If you are a reluctant father, you can stop paying maintenance at any time. If you are finding motherhood hard, you cannot go back and say "I change my mind, I don't want this child." Equally, you can't undo an abortion yet a previously reluctant father can arrive back into the child's life at any time following a simple court procedure.

It's a totally different decision and that's why the question is different.

"does the same not apply to a woman, in that she should not have PIV sex if she is not prepared to become a mother?"

No it doesn't, because a woman has the power to ensure that she doesn't become a mother if she isn't prepared to, now that we have legal safe abortion.

A man has no power to ensure that he doesn't become a father, without using coercive control over a woman. Whcih men have done throughout history and which of course, lots of men still do. You only have to look at the femicide of Asian babies and the one child policy in China, to see how women are forced to have abortions they don't necessarily want.

There is another aspect to this. In our legal system, the birth of a child is treated as a boon for its parents. That is why you can't (I think I'm right in saying) bring a 'wrongful life' action-I, or my child, ought never to have been born, compensate me. If you sue for a negligently performed sterilisation, you can get damages to compensate you for the cost of bringing up a child, but no damages for the mere fact of having one, as that's a blessing not a tragedy.

Overall, I think that is the right way to approach it. And it is part of why fathers do not get to argue that their child born against their wishes is a tragedy for them that they don't want to pay for.

A woman's choice doesn't extend to having a child free of the father. Going through with a pregnancy when the father doesn't want the child isn't exactly a happy option.

To know that you are going to be bringing up that child with an angry resentful XP constantly in the background isn't a picnic. Or that whilst you are putting all the work in whilst someone else gets the nice weekendy bits, and gets to keep their career.

There's no entirely fair scenario, but ultimately the last word must lay with the mother because, as radiatorlady says, it is her body.

does the same not apply to a woman, in that she should not have PIV sex if she is not prepared to become a mother?

It would be more accurate to say: she should not have PIV sex if she is not prepared to become a mother or prepared to weigh the risks against a not consequence-free abortion, or any other consequence of the PIV sex

I think there are some circumstances where the situation is unfair, though I would say that the majority of the time it isn't, but I agree that unfair or not what we have is the only workable solution

I just can't think of any other way that would work or would be in any way fairer. It's unthinkable that a man would get an equal say in the case of abortion, if both partners had a 'vote' it could still be a split decision and who's opinion should count the most? Can you imagine if the 'father' could force an abortion on the mother or force her to carry a child to term?

And if a child is conceived but the father says he shouldn't have to pay or have responsibility because he used contraception, how could that be verified? Wouldn't unscrupulous men use that as a get out clause, true or not? It would come down to one persons word against another

The way things are now is a fair as I believe things can be

I think OP means, well then if the woman doesn't want the risk of pregnancy how come she is not responsible for having PIV sex with a fertile man? Which of course she is (unless it's rape) - if you absolutely don't want to become pregnant then abstinence is the only thing guaranteed to work.

NOT "how come the woman isn't responsible for the man becoming a father".

Have been thinking about this as reflects my situation. I don't receive any money from XP, and friends say I should resent it, but I don't, because of reasons similar to the OP's description.

I think the situation can never be totally fair, because the roles that men and women play in sex and pregnancy are set by biology.

In the "olden" days, men had all the freedom and the consequences lay on the women. It was the woman who was forced to go ahead with the pregnancy or face a potentially life threatening abortion, it was the woman who was forced to give up her child, it was the woman whose future was ruined by the stigma of being an unwed mother. No one ever called a man a slut for sleeping around.

Today, it is slightly unfair to the man, in that women can have (almost) consequence free sex whilst the man cannot because he has no control over the outcome of the pregnancy. But the alternative is to go back, in the same way that the US is going back, where the man has control over the woman's body and that is unthinkable and way more unfair that what we have now.

On the other hand, women still bear the consequences of terminating the pregnancy or the embarrassment of a morning after trip. We also ruin our bodies in childbirth and so it seems a bit churlish to complain that men don't have enough say.

They are simply now in the position where they should choose their partners carefully and only have sex with women who they are happy to mother their child. To have men really properly think about the consequences of having sex before having it can only be a good thing....

Does the child (any child) have a right to more wealth than another simply by virtue of an accident?

This is an irrelevent diversion. This thread is about the child's right to expect parental support from both parents not a comparison of one child against another. Otherwise you could get tight, negligent parents saying they can hoard their wealth for themselves and have their children living in poverty because "well there are other poor kids too you know".

Parents have parental responsibility to share what they have with their offspring irrespective of what the fate of other children might be.

I am very surprised to see the suggestion that a woman is responsible for not having sex with a man who doesn't want a child. How on earth does that come under any notion of fairness?

I agree with FoodUnit.

Abortion rights and financial responsibility to a child are two different things imv. I suppose abortion could be considered a man vs woman issue, only women can become pregnant but giving a man a voice in whether his partner has an abortion would give him greater rights over her body than she has.

Financial responsibility involves the mother, the father and the child. If anything, it's man vs child and it's not the man getting rid of his rights to the child, it's the man trying to block the child's rights to him. I think in most cases it would negatively impact the child to lose the right to be financially supported by it's father.

(I guess if you do believe it is about the child, that's where the anti-abortion argument comes into it.)

No it looks similar but isn't - abortion rights is about a potential child and whether someone other than the person with the womb it grows in and who carries all the risks of pregnancy, birth or abortion has a say in how she chooses to proceed.

The OPs scenario is about an actual(not potential) child.

I have always tended towards the opinion that a man should be given the option of walking away (if the conception was unplanned/result of contraceptive failure), except for the fact that men still have custody of most of the money, and tend to be happy with the idea that men generally earn more than women and that it's fine for their careers to be prioritized.

I agree with the others - it's not really about choosing to become a parent or not, the abortion issue is a woman having control over what happens to her body. It is not about the child. (I guess if you do believe it is about the child, that's where the anti-abortion argument comes into it.)

Secondly, I think that in our current society it is vitally important that women have this choice, because realistically men do have the choice to walk away. Although it's considered morally right to support your offspring, many many men just don't, and they aren't judged, they aren't made to support, people don't even register it. It has no impact on their lives at all.

ecclesvat I think only a minority of uncivilised people would take that view.

As others are saying, the consequence for women of having an unwanted baby and the consequences for men of the same, are totally and completely different and most people understand and accept that.

For a start, men don't risk death and ongoing long term health risks. That's just the physical.

And AFAICS, in general becoming a mother has much more of an impact upon a woman's social, economic and emotional status, than having a father does on that of a man.

Let's face it, on the whole, the whiners who don't want to accept financial responsiblity for their children, simply don't. End of. There isn't a problem for them really.

Well, a man and a woman need to go into things realising that the potential outcomes are different for the two of them. A man can minimise his risk by using contraception, but that is the extent to which he is in control. So he makes his decisions based on that knowledge. A woman has a further choice, and can make her decisions based on that.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. It is the way it is. There's no point making a fuss over something that you should have considered going into the encounter.

Is it fair that for my DH and I to have two children, I had to have all the pregnancies? Of course not. But fairness has nothing to do with it.