Discussion about abortion: part 2

I think you're right that more women would terminate. The reality is that either the fathers must pay, whether it's their choice or not, or the state would have to pick up the bill.

I think having fathers pay is about the most sensible option available to us, but what I struggle with is the idea that it's all right and just and how it should be. I wish there was a way for men to opt out of parenthood without taking control of women's bodies or leaving them in poverty. I know there isn't, but I don't think it's wrong to wish for it.
Or indeed an equivalent for women, without chosing between a termination or parenthood.

I still think our best hope is improved contraception.

but I think he implicitly accepts risk of pregnancy when he does the sexuals

especially if he takes no contraceptive measures himse;f

happysmiley (why am I banging on about this!) think the chances of getting maintenance are higher than you assume

is a worst case scenario but one quite a few of us live with, I'd just claim benefits if my earnings were a bit shit

9 times out of 10, it will be the woman who is left 'holding the baby' whether the father expresses a want to have the child or not. Lots of men decide that they want children, only to resent the lack of independence and promptly leave the mother and child.

There is no such thing as pro-abortion, only pro choice as it is accepted that this is not an ideal solution but as previous posters have said, a lesser evil.

Oh I could be sole breadwinner on my salary except if I have to pay for childcare too! That's the problem, as a couple, one can SAH. With maintenance, you could still make it work financially. But with neither (as purits suggests) I would struggle. I'd cope but it would be hard.

I just think for many women earning a lot less than I do, they'd do the maths and it wouldn't add up, and the temptation to terminate would be much greater. Not everyone would of course, but I'm certain more women would if they knew they wouldn't be able to claim anything from the father because he'd said he didn't want it.

I'm certainly not saying that women aren't able to cope or thrive alone, but the reality is that it is mainly only very high income women who bring up children alone, with no state financial support or maintainence from the fathers, and don't struggle financially.

they're all such such hard choices that arguably the woman will bear the emotional physical blah blah brunt of

no easy way out of an unplanned pregnancy

swallowedafly Why is abortion not an option for many? If because it's not available or the pregnancy is not discovered until late etc, then I fully take your point.

But if you are talking religious or moral reasons then I would still say the woman has a choice, she could choose to have the baby adopted and would not therefore have any of the responsibility of raising a child.

I don't know a lot about adoption actually, but is it not again a choice for the mother to make? If the mother wanted to keep the child, I would imagine that the father could not legally force her to have it adopted. If the mother wanted the child to be adopted, could the father prevent this? And if so, would the mother then have to have financial responsibility for the child?

men can choose not to become parents

they just can't or shouldn't force someone else to have a baby against their will

well you fear that you'd struggle but you don't know what choices you'd make or how high the likelihood would be of enforcing a court order for maintenance from your husband - and a good salary is a good salary as opposed to minimum wage, for which I guess there are state top ups

am not completely arguing but do think it is important to remember that if a man can be sole breadwinner then a woman could

seems a bit negative to overlook never mind fail to promote female capacity to provide and adapt and thrive alone

OP, I understand what you are saying and I agree, but I got flamed for this recently!

I have no problem with the 'my body, my choice' idea at all and think anything else would be quite hideous.

But I do find it strange that a man can in theory not want children, try to avoid his partner becoming pregnant by using contraception, and still be expected to pay for the child. And indeed, still be expected to take on the role of a father.

I know perfectly well that a lot of men don't conform to these expectations, but the expectation is still there.

It doesn't feel right to me that women can choose whether or not to become parents, but men can not. However, I don't know what the alternative is. I guess until we have a fail-safe but temporary method of male contraception, there is no alternative.

MI, single parenthood doesn't have to equal poverty but is much more likely to if the non resident parent doesn't contribute financially (as purits is suggesting would be possible if they said upfront that they didn't want the baby).

I know that I would struggle on my very good salary to cover childcare, mortgage, food and other basics, if DH left me and refused to contribute.

purits, yes ideally, mother and father would both agree to bring the child into this world. But where they don't agree you have a choice:

(1) whoever wants the baby more wins (so abortion would have to be agreed by both parties and the mother may be forced to go through the physically risky process child bearing and birth)

(2) whoever wants the baby least wins (so the mother may be forced to have the abortion).

Both outcomes take control from the woman over her own body. Therefore, the only acceptable outcome is that the mother decides whether to terminate or continue with the pregnancy.

As for who pays, the costs would always be split between both parents. So, if for example, the mother did not want the child but continued with the pregnancy on the understanding that the father would care for it and bring it up, I'd still expect the mother to pay for the child.

I dunno really, have never considered and given the vast numbers of children born into poverty (but whyyyyyy does single parenthood equate to poverty? am I chippy or is there an assumption there that women incapable of earning money?) just made me go hmmmm

but for wider issue, is something for men and women to think about in advance and to take equal responsibility for the most effective contraception

probably about education and availability of really reliable methods, I just know for sure that if I was a man I'd double bag the condoms and hope my partner was equipped with an IUD and a contraceptive implant and or had undergone tubal ligation if I didn't want children

think the woman's rights v man's rights (and responsibilities on each side) an utter red herring, when is actually about thinking about possibility of pregnancy and both assuming responsibility for minimising risk or taking one another's views into consideration should it happen regardless

MitchyInge, do you really believe that there would be no women who wouldn't terminate a pregnancy under the threat of poverty? It's not a question of being feeble, having your partner's support or not makes a huge difference in whether women wish to continue an unplanned pregnancy.

sorry but is quite funny to suggest, in feminist section, that anything is stacked in our favour

at idea that women are so feeble they'll abort an otherwise wanted baby on basis of claims before birth that father won't support the child rather than bite bullet and support the child themselves - not to mention the availability of legal redress, possibility of compelling man to fulfil financial obligations or the chance that he will change his mind and be more supportive as pregnancy progresses or after the birth

But you are implicitly giving him control over her body if you are giving him the right to say that he won't support the child.

Imagine how many women would feel pressured to terminate if the father threatened not to support them and they knew that they were consigning themselves and their child to a lifetime of poverty.

purits, re abortion being available on the NHS, would you suggest that women pay for the costs associated with childbirth too? The principle of free healthcare means that the childbirth is free, any medical needs that the child has are free, why shouldn't a termination be free?

Regarding the general concept of men not being given a say in a woman's choice to terminate, why should they have control over another person's body? Once a child is born, would you support a father being able to compel a mother to supply a spare kidney for the child, should it need a kidney transplant?