Men should have the right to not want a baby

[user57639206]

NC as I've been shot down a few times in real life for having this opinion.

I find it bizarre that women can decide that they don't want a baby and opt for a termination (just to clarify, I completely agree with this. It's her right to choice) but when a man decides now isn't the right time, right partner or whatever the reason - he's labelled a arsehole, good for nothing or irresponsible.

Surely if a woman has the right to say "no, not right now/not for me" a man should have the same right? Without being labelled or judged!

I've seen it a few times in real life, be it from a one night stand or a not so serious relationship. The woman wants to keep the baby, the man says he doesn't (but doesn't suggest an abortion), and he's thrown under the bus.

I know there is a big difference in some sense because obviously, the woman goes through all the physical changes/trauma of having a baby - but when are men then taken to court for CA or have knives shoved in their backs for not wanting a baby?

AIBU?

No the point is no man should be forced to raise a child that he didn’t want (same for women) it does NOT benefit the child.

I understand your point op. I dont think it is as simple as saying he can walk away saying no.

What happens if he changes his mind in 10 years time?

What happens if the child wishes to know its paternal history,

I think once a child is born then it becomes about the needs of that child

I do understand your point and my head gets what it is you are trying to convey. I just think due to there being a new human in this world that man is biologically related to. He needs to take responsibility for this child.

It is shocking sometimes to see how much people hate women! And how willing other women are to punish women and children in order to make life easier for men. I expect men to be selfish and advocate for this nonsense… but not women.

Why do you think this is about hating women?

Thinking that we should aim to make the rights of adult men mad women comparable when it comes to unwanted pregnancy does not mean I hate women, and it’s ridiculous to suggest it does.

I’m not advocating making life easier for men by punishing women. People on this thread seem unable to separate issues.

I’m advocating men having a small amount of time, where if they realise they have created an unwanted pregnancy, they can make sure it doesn’t affect the rest of their lives. Women have the right to choose not to become parents after they have have created a pregnancy, men should have the same right.

It doesn’t take away from a women’s right to do what she wants with her own body, she’s free to crack on with what she wants. It doesn’t take away from rights of the child, because a child doesn’t have the right to be financially supported by nothing other than a biological parents earnings, and sadly children don’t have the right to two parents.

Thinking that we should aim to make the rights of adult men mad women comparable when it comes to unwanted pregnancy

But this is an impossible task. Because of the totally different biological experiences of bringing children into the world for men and women. Is that so difficult for you to grasp? You can comfort yourself with the risks of death and disability faced by women in pregnancy and childbirth if you're so exorcised by the inequality facing men.

I’m advocating men having a small amount of time, where if they realise they have created an unwanted pregnancy, they can make sure it doesn’t affect the rest of their lives.

So how many 'scot free' children do men get to create? Hundreds? You'd have to be open to that possibility as there would be no way to put a limit on it under your suggestions. Is that really the kind of society you want to foster?

It doesn’t take away from a women’s right to do what she wants with her own body, she’s free to crack on with what she wants.

Of course it does, how could you argue it doesn't? How extraordinarily naive. The impact of indirectly coerced abortions on women's health would be catastrophic, I'm finding it hard to stomach women arguing for these things.

But this is an impossible task. Because of the totally different biological experiences of bringing children into the world for men and women. Is that so difficult for you to grasp? You can comfort yourself with the risks of death and disability faced by women in pregnancy and childbirth if you're so exorcised by the inequality facing men.

Yes, it is impossible. All we can do is try to level it up as best we can. The risks associated with pregnancy are irrelevant, because women have the right to terminate pregnancy if they want to.

So how many 'scot free' children do men get to create? Hundreds? You'd have to be open to that possibility as there would be no way to put a limit on it under your suggestions. Is that really the kind of society you want to foster?

The same amount they already can if they want to. The same amount that women create, seeing as they can’t do it alone. Obviously it’s better to have a society where children are conceived only into loving relationships where parents have financial stability, but that’s not realistic.

Of course it does, how could you argue it doesn't? How extraordinarily naive. The impact of indirectly coerced abortions on women's health would be catastrophic, I'm finding it hard to stomach women arguing for these things.

I can argue that it doesn’t take away a women’s right to do what she wants with her own body because quite simply, it doesn’t. Whether or not a man wants the pregnancy, it’s still up to the woman whether she has it or not.

Women would be in a better position to decide if they want to keep their pregnancy knowing with certainty that theyd be doing it alone. I’d say that knowing definitely either way that you’re going to be supported by the other parent would be better for the mental health of pregnant women because they don’t constantly have to worry whether he will or won’t help after they’ve conceived with an idiot.

With rights come responsibilities and a woman absolutely has the right to decide whether she has a baby or not but that comes with the responsibility of bringing it up alone if she’s been told in early pregnancy that the other parent doesn’t want it.

I’m advocating men having a small amount of time, where if they realise they have created an unwanted pregnancy, they can make sure it doesn’t affect the rest of their lives. Women have the right to choose not to become parents after they have have created a pregnancy, men should have the same right.

Men already have a time to not have an unwanted pregnancy affect the rest of their lives - it comes before they ejaculate into a woman.
Due to biology that is the time they have full control.

Women only have the extra options because of advancement in medical science and the laws around that in the morning after pill and abortion.

Why is it more important to level the playing field so that men don't feel hard done by because of the biology of sex and pregnancy, than to encourage men to use the control they do have to prevent the pregnancy on their own behalf in the first place. Prevention is generally seen as a better option than cure.

And that's before you get to the fact that this already happens anyway, men are sanctioned by society to walk away should it not suit, they do this in enough number and with enough frequency that the government effectively covers the cost of raising the child over and above what the mother can do by way of benefits and society in general judges her as the feckless one that should have kept her legs shut. So it's already very much in action.

Yes, it is impossible. All we can do is try to level it up as best we can.

We could only do that at the expense of children's rights to be provided for or women's rights of autonomy over their own bodies. So no, I see absolutely no reason to 'level up' so that men get consequence free shagging. kinda disgusting thing to be arguing for in all honesty.

The same amount that women create

One man could be fathering hundreds of Scot free babies, in a way that no woman could ever be having that many abortions. That's the society you want? Says a lot about you.

I can argue that it doesn’t take away a women’s right to do what she wants with her own body because quite simply, it doesn’t

This is just gaslighting. If you're going to be so dishonest in your arguments, there isn't much point, is there?

With rights come responsibilities

And yet you're arguing for men to have all the shagging rights and none of the responsibilities of the consequences. Funny that.

The same amount they already can if they want to. The same amount that women create, seeing as they can’t do it alone. Obviously it’s better to have a society where children are conceived only into loving relationships where parents have financial stability, but that’s not realistic.

In the time it takes a woman to have one baby a man could make dozens, even hundreds of other babies. Men can also continue fathering children into their 70's+

Here's a scenario for those advocating men should be free to walk away (there was a thread on here the other day that was exactly this): Couple in a committed relationship, both agree they want a baby and stop contraception. Pregnancy occurs and suddenly the man no longer wants the baby. Does he get to walk away now because he's changed his mind and no longer wants to be a parent?

The same amount they already can if they want to. The same amount that women create, seeing as they can’t do it alone

Men can impregnated hundreds of women. Women can't have hundreds of babies.

@ILoveYou3000

The same amount they already can if they want to. The same amount that women create, seeing as they can’t do it alone. Obviously it’s better to have a society where children are conceived only into loving relationships where parents have financial stability, but that’s not realistic.

In the time it takes a woman to have one baby a man could make dozens, even hundreds of other babies. Men can also continue fathering children into their 70's+

Here's a scenario for those advocating men should be free to walk away (there was a thread on here the other day that was exactly this): Couple in a committed relationship, both agree they want a baby and stop contraception. Pregnancy occurs and suddenly the man no longer wants the baby. Does he get to walk away now because he's changed his mind and no longer wants to be a parent?

Yes same way a woman could abort if she changed her mind after becoming pregnant

GMen already have a time to not have an unwanted pregnancy affect the rest of their lives - it comes before they ejaculate into a woman.
Due to biology that is the time they have full control.*

Women have that control too, but due to biology they get a chance to fix their mistake but men don’t. I don’t think that’s fair when at the very least, the woman’s choice has a big effect on the mans finances for the next 18 years.

Why is it more important to level the playing field so that men don't feel hard done by because of the biology of sex and pregnancy, than to encourage men to use the control they do have to prevent the pregnancy on their own behalf in the first place. Prevention is generally seen as a better option than cure

Then let’s hold women to that standard and stop expecting taxpayers to pay for their abortions. Except, no one would agree that that’s reasonable, so I think it’s important that we try and level the playing field because equality is a thing that matters. It’s really not about trying to stop some poor men feeling hard done by.

GAnd that's before you get to the fact that this already happens anyway, men are sanctioned by society to walk away should it not suit, they do this in enough number and with enough frequency that the government effectively covers the cost of raising the child over and above what the mother can do by way of benefits and society in general judges her as the feckless one that should have kept her legs shut.*

But don’t you see how this attitude could change if men were given the right to walk away from a pregnancy in it’s early stages the same way women can? If it’s known that men didn’t ‘opt out’ of a pregnancy, then the default is that they chose to be responsible for it. Society’s attitude would shift, because there could no longer be a belief that a woman tricked or coerced a man into having a child. It would not be considered acceptable for a man not to pay in the way it is now, because that man will have had the option to do something about it when he had the chance, and if he didn’t then he would automatically be considered responsible. There’s no reason why the CMS couldn’t be given more power to enforce payment, and I think there would be much more popular support for this if we could establish that all the men expected to pay it actively chose to have a child.

Here's a scenario for those advocating men should be free to walk away (there was a thread on here the other day that was exactly this): Couple in a committed relationship, both agree they want a baby and stop contraception. Pregnancy occurs and suddenly the man no longer wants the baby. Does he get to walk away now because he's changed his mind and no longer wants to be a parent?

Well, she could choose at that point that she no longer wants to be a parent, so why shouldn’t he?

I’m sure you’re not suggesting that she should be forced to go to term if she changes her mind just because she made an agreement with her partner? Apart from the biology, it’s the same thing, but we can’t legislate for biology.

Yes same way a woman could abort if she changed her mind after becoming pregnant

But he willingly tried for the baby. He had unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving. Why on earth should he get to change his mind when he was an active participant and they agreed to create that child together?

I genuinely can't get my head around your thinking here?

I'm curious as to how many women who are actively trying to get pregnant go on to change their minds and abort when they're in a committed relationship, where they've planned together to have that baby.

@ILoveYou3000

Yes same way a woman could abort if she changed her mind after becoming pregnant

But he willingly tried for the baby. He had unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving. Why on earth should he get to change his mind when he was an active participant and they agreed to create that child together?

I genuinely can't get my head around your thinking here?

I'm curious as to how many women who are actively trying to get pregnant go on to change their minds and abort when they're in a committed relationship, where they've planned together to have that baby.

Yes women DO change their minds, unless you think that should also apply to her and she should have to keep it because they made an agreement

Yes same way a woman could abort if she changed her mind after becoming pregnant

This isn't a petty dispute against men vs women, they may both be wrong - it's about do children deserve support.

(Also, not everyone want abortions. It's not by force)

What's the answer, then🎤

@RedCandyApple @FairyCakeWings

The difference being, if the woman changes her mind (I'd love to see some stats on this but suspect their are none) there is no baby to walk away from. If the man changes his mind but the woman doesn't because she quite openly wanted to get pregnant and they as a couple were actively trying, the baby exists, and becomes a person who needs to be provided and cared for.

If a man takes no steps to prevent and is in this scenario actively trying for a baby why do you both feel he should bare no consequence of that decision he made?

But he willingly tried for the baby. He had unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving. Why on earth should he get to change his mind when he was an active participant and they agreed to create that child together?

Because if she has the right to change her mind after agreeing and having unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving, then so should he.

*I don’t think that’s fair when at the very least, the woman’s choice has a big effect on the mans finances for the next 18 years.
*
Money comes and goes. Child's well-being and mental health is more important than travelling, as one poster way back whined about.

I’m more confused by people thinking anyone man or woman should be forced to raise a child they don’t want, it’s not in the best interest of the child and it seems people just want to punish men for their mistakes than actually what is in the best interest of the child.

Complaining that biology is unfair and gives women an advantage is ridiculous.
Men need to be upfront that they won't pay childcare, before they have sex.

Because if she has the right to change her mind after agreeing and having unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving, then so should he

She has that right because it is her body that is at risk of disability, death etc by continuing the pregnancy. It's her body that has to suffer the affects of abortion.

@FairyCakeWings

But he willingly tried for the baby. He had unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving. Why on earth should he get to change his mind when he was an active participant and they agreed to create that child together?

Because if she has the right to change her mind after agreeing and having unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving, then so should he.

His change of mind either removes her bodily autonomy or leaves child that he actively participated in conceiving unsupported. Her decision about her body is hers to make and has no impact physically on him, and there will be no child abandoned as a consequence.

I’m more confused by people thinking anyone man or woman should be forced to raise a child they don’t want

The father doesn't have to raise they child, he just has to support the child financially. He could set up a monthly standing order to the mother and be done with it, never has to think of it again!

Woman change their mind all the time about planned pregnancies I find it ridiculous that people think it’s only men who change their mind

@FairyCakeWings

But he willingly tried for the baby. He had unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving. Why on earth should he get to change his mind when he was an active participant and they agreed to create that child together?

Because if she has the right to change her mind after agreeing and having unprotected sex with the aim of conceiving, then so should he.

But it's not the same thing.

If a woman changes her mind she has the option of abortion.

A man doesn't. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that's beside the point. Once the child is born it stops being about what the man/woman want and actually raising a living breathing child.