AIBU to refuse to take the morning after pill

[Stillwishihadabs]

So background I am 42 and happily married 2 DC s (14&11). Having used the cooper coil for 10 years (since DCs) I have recently have some gynae issues so have to have it removed. I had a couple of months on the mini pill, but had horrific side effects and understand that the mirena would be similar. So approxiamately 2 weeks ago I stopped taking it and basically told DH I was sick of messing about with my body and it was up to him. Last night after the footy and a few drinks we DTD. I asked him if he was going to use a condom and he said "where are you in your cycle?" To which I replied " I haven't a clue" ( true, no period since stopping mini pill). I wouldn't mind being PG I have an excellent job with good maternity pay, a people carrier and a 4/5 bed house. Also one of my school friends has recently announced her pregnancy which made me go "ahhh". Today DH seems freaked out by what happened and is asking me to take emergency contraception. AIBU to refuse ? I think he needs to step up with contraception if he doesn't want another DC. I have a feeling that if I do this it will remain my responsibility.

Condoms can fail, as can any other form of contraception, so both sexes are taking a risk by having sex.

It did sound like it wasn't very likely the OP would be pregnant, as she's 42 and has had gynae issues and no periods since coming off the mini pill. So I would be very surprised if she were to update us that she was actually pregnant. (Though obviously there is such a thing as sod's law.)

Bit early yet, only Dtd 9 days ago, no period but don't have a scooby doo when I'm due as I bled for 13 days or so just before stopping the mini pill ( that was 3 weeks ago tommorow) so wouldn't expect it just yet. If still no period in the next week I might test.

Has this thread only been going for 9 days.

A side-effect free pill to stop an unplanned pregnancy is something that a mature adult should take.
This reminds me of that thread discussing whether men can opt out of financial responsibility in situations like this. You have all the cards and are holding him to ransom.
What the fuck bollocks is this? Do people really think like this? Surely no one is this fucking dumb? At what point are we going to stop treating men like little babies who can't possibly take responsibility for their own actions? And since when is the MAP side effect free?

I hope it all works for you all op. Mainly the kids you have as I know how much work it takes to satisfy and juggle big age gaps.

@tillytown

"And since when is the MAP side effect free?"

I should have qualified that, perhaps. I don't think there's a medicine in existence (even salicylic acid can kill the wrong person) that is entirely side-effect free. The MAP is extremely safe and largely side-effect free.

However, I'm one of those fucking dumb silly little babies who have had an abortion. That was because I didn't take responsibility for contraception. I know I'm fucking dumb and stupid and silly but luckily I had that one last method of keeping life the way it was with two planned children.

I had a termination because I was so fucking dumb and stupid. I assume you think I did wrong and that there should be no access to MAP and abortions or are you sexist? Do abortions treat women like little babies?

Neither of you taking responsibility, is iresponsible. If you don’t want to be pumping hormones into your body then stop having sex with a man who does not want to take responsibility for contraception. You wanting a child is no excuse to be engaging in this childish ‘t’s your turn’ ‘no it’s your turn’, back and forth.

Gunny, I think you are projecting a lot. No one thinks the MAP shouldn't be available, only that the choice to take it rests solely with the OP, since it is her body which is affected.
She has already stated that the pill made her ill - her dh is aware of this and was given every opportunity to use contraception. He chose not to and it is selfish to expect the OP to take pills that harm her because he was irresponsible.
Besides, she would like a baby so won't be terminating the pg.

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds

I'm not projecting as my feelings towards this issue are mostly hypothetical. I am using the language that @tillytown used.

I'm in a happy marriage - of 30 years - with 2 planned children, one early-term abortion after my other two were born and I've taken the MAP twice.

I've questioned whether any post-sex 'contraception' (for want of a better term) should be available if adults need to deal with the consequences of sex. As women we have the final say in whether a man has a child as we can take the MAP, have an abortion and even wrangle over names on birth certs*.

I disagree with the premise of your argument. "He" wasn't irresponsible. They were. She doesn't seem to want a baby as much as ambivalence combined with wanting what her friend has.

In a situation like this where the man doesn't want to be a father to another child and has made this clear from extremely early in the potential gestation, I find it tricky to argue that he can be forced to be responsible when the woman can decide exactly what happens to all three parties. If he were desperate to keep the baby but the OP wasn't then you would no doubt be telling her that it's her body and she should end the pregnancy if she wants.

It seems to fly in the face of wanting equality. We can't allow child-bearing to hold us back in the work place or in society but we can force a man to be a father against their wishes or terminate a pregnancy against their wishes. I'm not saying that anyone should lose autonomy of their bodies but with this power comes responsibility.

*I think. Happily I've no real knowledge of this area.

There was a condom sitting a few inches away from his dick.

Gunny, the person who doesn't want a pregnancy is always the one who should take the most care with contraception.
There is equality between the sexes wrt contraception, but since men cannot get pregnant it will always be the woman who gets final say - there is no means of giving him an equal say post conception without compromising a woman's bodily autonomy. This is not a surprise to men - the OP's husband knew well enough that his choice to not use a condom may have a consequence he doesn't want. She made it as clear to him as possible, but it's not her job to think for him or take physical responsibility simply because he cba to.

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds

"the person who doesn't want a pregnancy is always the one who should take the most care with contraception"

True. But in the event of a split condom, do you still think that there's an imbalance of power?

"there is no means of giving him an equal say post conception without compromising a woman's bodily autonomy."

Not on whether a child is born but there is on his role as a parent and this is where there's an imbalance. I'm not arguing against bodily autonomy simply that if women can opt out of parenthood, there is no argument which has persuaded me that a man can't. I think we need to draw a line between bodily autonomy and parenthood. We have wrt abortion.

"She made it as clear to him as possible, but it's not her job to think for him or take physical responsibility"

And vice versa. If I was having sex with a man who didn't want a baby then I'd either stop or take control but it takes two to tango. I wouldn't want a child with a man who was against it from the moment of conception. Situations change and I understand this but I still feel some moral discomfort for thinking a man can be forced to be a parent when they are clear about their feelings at such an early stage.

I completely understand everything you've said and you've done so without being a twat (unlike another poster) and I agree with it all which is why I said in a previous post that I'm on the fence.

Once a child is born, the 'rights' all become about the child and not the parents. Which is why a man cannot reasonably say, post conception, that he would like to opt out of fatherhood. What he wants is secondary to the needs of the child, which is why a man is beyond daft to have sex without contraception - he is knowingly giving up his 'say'.
A broken condom is unfortunate and hopefully there would be consensus of opinion on what to do between the couple. But if not, it sicks for him but he just has to get on with whatever choice the woman makes. There is no way around that for him, except to be choosy in who he sleeps with and only have sex with someone whose views on map etc align with his.
That's as fair as it can be.

I really can't see what the OP did wrong. She wanted to have sex, she would happily have another baby. I think that while her dh wouldn't actively choose it, he clearly isn't so bothered that he cba to use contraception. She was very clear and honest with him. Women can't keep taking care of everything and thinking for men and doing things that are detrimental to their own wellbeing just so that men don't ever have to grow up and do anything they don't want. That isn't fair or equal.
I don't know why the OP wants to have sex with a lazy arse manchild, but she did and that's her prerogative. She was honest and the rest is on him.

The impression I get from what the OP has said is that her DH wasn't totally clear that he didn't want any more DC. She also warned him before they had sex that pregnancy was a possibility. He didn't react the way you'd expect if he really didn't want her to get pregnant, i.e. use one of the condoms that were available.

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds

"Which is why a man cannot reasonably say, post conception, that he would like to opt out of fatherhood. "

Women can. Women can opt out of motherhood (and kick a father out of fatherhood despite them desperately wanting a child) up to 24 weeks gestation.

"it sicks sucks for him but he just has to get on with whatever choice the woman makes."

I've never heard that used as an acceptable argument when women are on the losing end of an imbalance of power.

'sucks for you but that's the way it is ...'

Would you stand for this in any scenario? If so, which?

You spoke about achieving a consensus in a contraception failure. What if none were reached? You've skirted around the issue but not explained why a man cannot opt out of parenthood but a woman can? I think it's great that women can terminate a pregnancy (within a reasonable window) and opt out of being a mother and no one can explain why a father shouldn't have this choice. You certainly haven't.

If the OP had said she'd lied and said she was taking the pill, then I would agree that she was being unreasonable. But she didn't lie, in fact she told him there was a chance that she could get pregnant. If he really didn't want kids at all, don't you think he would have used a condom, which she had bought?

It's very unlikely that she is pregnant. But what you both need is a proper conversation so you're on the same page on this issue.

You are not BU

I think I have explained maybe not very well. The woman is pregnant, the fetus has no legal rights independent of her until birth. Because the pregnancy is happening inside of her body, that's why she alone gets to decide whether it goes ahead or not. The fayher does not have a choice because he isn't pregnant! It's better for all concerned if agreement is reached, but this is one of the few scenarios in life where there can be no compromise - pregnancy either goes ahead or it doesn't. Because it goes ahead inside of the woman, she has to have final say.

Once a baby is born, the woman doesn't get to opt out of motherhood either. Women are already held to higher account by society than men wrt parenthood. At birth, it becomes about the child's rights, not the parents'. The parents' wants become unimportant compared to what the child needs and is entitled to.

This is one of the few situations in life where any imbalance is necessary because without it we limit the bodily autonomy of the woman. The situation which is the closest equivalent for me is vasectomy.
A woman cannot make a man have one. She gets no say beyond either taking care of contraception herself or choosing not to have sex with her partner.

So the condoms were on the bedside table, you weren’t on the pill. You both decided to have unprotected sex.
I would assume you both wanted a child in that case.
I think you should take map as you weren’t trying to conceive but I think you should ask dh and yourself why you didn’t use protection.

IWannaSeeHowItEnds thats not what she means. Basically, a woman can find out she is pregnant and up until 24 weeks gestation, regardless of what the father wants or wishes or says etc, she can terminate and get out of being a parent, if a man does use a condom and a splits he hasn’t got a say at all. If he says very early on that he doesn’t want to be a father and the woman refuses to terminate, why can he not just walk away? Even if he didn’t protect and he woman also didn’t protect, she still gets a last er out of parenting card to play, he has none. So, if she carries on, why is there no way for him to walk away? He didn’t want the baby but he can’t abort it and the mother knows this but continued to have the child so why should he not have the choice to get out too? I think that’s what she means. I’ve been thinking along these lines for years and can’t see why a man shouldn’t also be able to walk away from parenthood if he’s made his feelings very clear, especially if he did protect and it failed.

Ahh. That makes more sense, but I still think it is an inequality that he does just have to accept because once a child exists, the child's needs are paramount and it is thr child who is entitled to physical, financial and emotional support. It stops being about the preferences of the parents.

It is unfortunate for him, if he has used contraception but life is unfair in many ways - the priority has to be the welfare of the baby, who made no choices at all. The father just has to play the hand he's dealt.
Women aren't getting it easier in these circumstances, even though the final decision rests with us.

I don’t think women get it easier when choosing to have a baby, but we also don’t go into it blind and we know roughly what’s to come. I don’t think it will affect a child anymore to be raised with no father present ever, than it is for the father to stay and then leave or to not be present at all but sending money, usually not very much either. He’s being charged for something that isn’t his fault (if it’s a case of condom splitting etc) when even if he did want this baby he doesn’t get a choice (and rightly so as unfortunate as it is) if the woman doesn’t want it and has a termination. If she does want it me he doesn’t then I do think she should go it alone because she had options and he didn’t. However, he shouldn’t be able to walk into the child’s life at a later stage though, so I don’t think it could be implanted well but it’s sosmthing I have thought about for a while now.

Implemented not implanted.