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?

@Katie2017

Women choose to go it alone via sperm donor and there is no guy to be chased for money. Why is that allowed? Where is the child's right to have financial support from a father?

Because they are going into the situation with full knowledge the sperm donor will not be involved.

@Katie2017

Women choose to go it alone via sperm donor and there is no guy to be chased for money. Why is that allowed? Where is the child's right to have financial support from a father?

This is an interesting perspective, men have minimal input in women's everyday lives. Just there for sexual services sperm donation! One positive effect for women would be only the worthwhile one need apply. No room for the flakes and wasters if that's their only function.

Looking at it that way this could actually be a positive thing for women.

You could say the same about a single man who uses a surrogate. Hugely irrelevant.

@cuno it's not irrelevant, either a child needs contributions from both people involved in their creation or they don't you can't have it both ways. What I'm seeing though is that women are going to bend the rules when it suits them.

@jellyfrizz so is a woman who is continuing a pregnancy when they know full well the man is not on board.

Women choose to go it alone via sperm donor and there is no guy to be chased for money. Why is that allowed? Where is the child's right to have financial support from a father?

Actually, I agree. I'm really not comfortable with deliberately creating children without fathers. I believe the law changed on this somewhat a while ago and sperm donors can no longer be anonymous.

Unpopular opinion but I agree with you OP. A lot of people seem to be missing the point or getting caught up on other factors you've not even mentioned?

If a woman gets pregnant accidentally, it's unplanned etc, she can decide to go ahead with the pregnancy and keep the baby. Similarly, she can decide to get an abortion and terminate the pregnancy (I am 100% pro-choice). The man, rightly so, has NO say in this.

I agree that if an accident has happened and the woman decides to go ahead and have the baby, that's her right to choose to do as she wishes BUT, in my opinion, the man should be allowed to say he doesn't want anything to do with it. Maybe sign away his parental rights and forgo any claim to the child.

Obviously, it's not as black and white as that and we all know the only sure fire way to avoid pregnancy is celibacy but that's the case on both sides and we're all still having sex. Protection can fail but it's only women who can decide what to do once they fall pregnant - as it should be - so I do think there should be something in place for men who don't want children but are forced into it and have to pay for a child they didn't want. There's grey areas (with long term couples because men could lie and say they never agreed to have a baby to get out of paying their fair share) but there should be something in place for one night stands in particular to stop people being forced into parenthood when they didn't want it. I'm all for vasectomies but doctors can be extremely hesitant - my bf has to wait a few years before being allowed to have one and we've remained child free by choice for 11 years!

If you disagree, just remember I'm a stranger on the internet and it's only my opinion. Opinions are like arseholes, we've all got one. I cba getting into an irate back and forth with anyone, I'm just sharing my own view.

@Katie2017

You could say the same about a single man who uses a surrogate. Hugely irrelevant.

@cuno it's not irrelevant, either a child needs contributions from both people involved in their creation or they don't you can't have it both ways. What I'm seeing though is that women are going to bend the rules when it suits them.

@jellyfrizz so is a woman who is continuing a pregnancy when they know full well the man is not on board.

How is it women bending the rules when it suits them? As I pointed out it works the same when single men use surrogates (not that I agree with surrogacy, but that's a whole other thread).

The circumstances around a baby conceived via sperm donation are clear.

But when a man and woman have sex and the woman falls pregnant, there isn't a way to establish the exact circumstances of the conception, it's he said she said.

We can't even establish if/when rape has happened in this country, how the hell are we meant to establish that it was a one night stand and a condom was used, or whatever bizarre criteria you propose to let the man off the hook? What if the woman and the man were actively trying for a baby and once the pregnancy came about he got cold feet and said he doesn't want to pay? You're then basically telling the woman you either have to have an abortion or raise this child as a single mum without a penny from the father. Yet she only went ahead trying for a baby because she was in what she thought to be a loving stable relationship and they are in a position to afford it. Now what we have is a system where women are effectively coerced into a medical procedure through rules that only benefit men. As opposed to a system where even if the man walks out, he still bears a financial responsibility so women are not left in the absolute shit.

Women don't get to walk away. Choosing to have an abortion is not walking away, it's a medical procedure which is emotional and potentially traumatising.

Yep there certainly should be something they can sign to give up all rights to the child, I am in many single parents groups and I actually don’t think that many women would be devastated with this as so many women seem to seriously resent their exes being involved in their child’s lives, they seem to hate their children having any contact with their ex and often say they wish he would just “fuck off” lots of women seem to feel this way, don’t mind claiming maintenance though

BUT, in my opinion, the man should be allowed to say he doesn't want anything to do with it. Maybe sign away his parental rights and forgo any claim to the child.

So you want to prioritise men's 'rights' to consequence free shagging above a child's right to parental support. What a beautiful vision for the world.

I don’t think anyone is missing the point

I know exactly what the OP is saying…i just don’t agree, at all

@user57639206

I seriously want to clarify I am not saying a woman should be forced into anything. The complete opposite, there are a million and one reasons to abort or continue any pregnancy and each is so unique, so relative and completely down to the woman.

I'm just saying I think men should be able to walk away from an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy but everyone jumps down their throat.

If a man has sex with a woman, he does so in the full knowledge that there is a risk he might get her pregnant and that she may want to keep the baby. If he is prepared to take that risk, he should also be prepared to share the responsibility for any unintended consequences. He knows full well what might happen if he has sex and he knows full well that he will not be able to force a termination. If he isn’t prepared to deal with that, he can take steps to prevent it, like wearing a condom or having a vasectomy.

That is why there is a stigma attached to ‘walking away’. If the man walks away, he is leaving someone else alone to deal with a situation he was jointly responsible for creating when he chose to have sex with someone for his own pleasure.

I understand you point in this and have know of this situation twice in amongst my uni friends group.
One friend walked away completely but the child ws still involved with his family, etc. Very difficult all round.
The second never wanted children, used a condom and she was on the pill. He told her he would support her with whatever she wanted to the point of the birth but as he did want children would walk away at that point. They got as far as the day before her first scan, where she confessed she invented the whole pregnancy. 😬
I think the problem is when a man tries to force women down a particular road, or is only half invested. I honestly think in this situation, if a man can be fully invested it is better for him to walk away... better for he child and the woman.

@cuno In the situation of surrogacy it is the woman deciding that her child has no right to be supported by the fathers finances. She's bending the rules to suit herself because otherwise she wouldn't get the babies she simply has to have, her child misses out on being supported by the father who helped create them (not to mention half of their DNA and family) I agree that is a separate issue but it's double standards saying a mother can deny her child of a fathers finances but a father can't. Either a fathers input is important or it's not-all the people screaming on here "it takes two to make a baby the father is equally as responsible" except of course when the woman decides it's not in HER best interest (nothing to do with what's best for the child).

In the example you gave I think the man should pay if he was actively agreeing to try for a baby-I'm not sure why he would change his mind, maybe momentary cold feet but yes if he explicitly agreed they'd try for a baby then I think he should support the child. That's very different to a one night stand or a woman saying she's on the pill when she isn't (a man should be able to trust his partners word and if she uses it correctly there really should be very minute risk of pregnancy). I'm not talking about men shirking their responsibility when they have agreed to try for a baby that's an active decision by both to create a baby and I'd feel terrible for any woman who was left in a situation of being abandoned by the man they thought was on board with it. Not sure how much this happens though-is it maybe men just going along with what their partner wants and thinking she's not going to get pregnant due to whatever reason, or not get pregnant YET? In which case the man is a monumental coward and idiot to agree to try for a baby. I'm not on any one side here.

Personally I think it's more important to have the love and support of a father than money but that's the world we live in where men can only be chased for financial support.

[quote Katie2017]@cuno In the situation of surrogacy it is the woman deciding that her child has no right to be supported by the fathers finances. She's bending the rules to suit herself because otherwise she wouldn't get the babies she simply has to have, her child misses out on being supported by the father who helped create them (not to mention half of their DNA and family) I agree that is a separate issue but it's double standards saying a mother can deny her child of a fathers finances but a father can't. Either a fathers input is important or it's not-all the people screaming on here "it takes two to make a baby the father is equally as responsible" except of course when the woman decides it's not in HER best interest (nothing to do with what's best for the child).

In the example you gave I think the man should pay if he was actively agreeing to try for a baby-I'm not sure why he would change his mind, maybe momentary cold feet but yes if he explicitly agreed they'd try for a baby then I think he should support the child. That's very different to a one night stand or a woman saying she's on the pill when she isn't (a man should be able to trust his partners word and if she uses it correctly there really should be very minute risk of pregnancy). I'm not talking about men shirking their responsibility when they have agreed to try for a baby that's an active decision by both to create a baby and I'd feel terrible for any woman who was left in a situation of being abandoned by the man they thought was on board with it. Not sure how much this happens though-is it maybe men just going along with what their partner wants and thinking she's not going to get pregnant due to whatever reason, or not get pregnant YET? In which case the man is a monumental coward and idiot to agree to try for a baby. I'm not on any one side here.

Personally I think it's more important to have the love and support of a father than money but that's the world we live in where men can only be chased for financial support.[/quote]
Well clearly you haven't got the faintest idea about surrogacy. Nothing you said wrt surrogacy makes sense. The point of surrogacy is to produce a genetic child when you can't produce one yourself or if you don't want to risk your own body and health. So the sperm would be provided by the single man in this instance. The one that's renting a womb and buying a baby. The one who will be providing financially for the baby. Who on earth did you think was providing the sperm??? And it's incredibly rare for the surrogate to even share DNA with the baby, in this case as it's a single man an egg donor would be used.

And my point about the scenario of the couple trying for a baby is, how is anyone meant to know what was said or agreed between the man and woman? The idea that men should be able to opt out of financially providing for their offspring is ridiculous because you never know what happens behind closed doors. If there is a way to prove who is telling the truth in these "he said she said" scenarios, I'd love to see those resources used in rape investigations rather than aiding feckless fathers.

How stupid.

Men get to opt out of having children by using contraception or abstaining from sex with fertile women. HTH

@cuno apologies I didn't mean to be talking about surrogacy that was an error, that whole paragraph was meant to be about women using sperm donors not men having a child via surrogacy that's why it doesn't make sense! Should've proof read what I wrote but just swap surrogacy for sperm donation. Yes men do the same thing when they go down the surrogate route but we are talking about women chasing men for financial support in this thread and you said you didn't agree with surrogacy anyway!

@Patapouf so do you think men should just never have sex with a woman under 55 if he doesn't want kids? If the woman is on the pill which offers more protection than condoms and very unlikely to result in pregnancy should this not be enough? Men and women should be able to work together, if the woman is not happy to be on the pill or other contraception then yes the man is an idiot for not wearing something but if she says she is on the pill she has a responsibility to use it and use it properly (or tell the man so he can wear something or refrain from sex) if women on the pill used it correctly there would be very very few "accidents".

we are talking about women chasing men for financial support

No we're taking about men taking responsibility for their own actions.

if she says she is on the pill she has a responsibility to use it and use it properly (or tell the man so he can wear something or refrain from sex) if women on the pill used it correctly there would be very very few "accidents"

Having the shits, and vomiting can affect the pill. A man should always wear a condom if he does not want a child. Or abstain.

we are talking about women chasing men for financial support

You mean mothers advocating for their child.

@ILoveYou3000

we are talking about women chasing men for financial support

No we're taking about men taking responsibility for their own actions.

What about women taking responsibility as well? Men don't really have a lot of options, I've seen about 3 "options" trotted out and none of them are very practical. The main problem is women have much better AND more effective birth control options so it makes sense that we get relied on to be on a form of contraception. If men had the pill and women didn't I'd say we'd very likely be relying on the men to take contraception (in a trusting relationship only of course) because it's the easiest and most effective option (rather than get surgery, never have sex or risk condoms not being as effective) if women don't want to be on the pill or implant etc. then all they need to do is be honest and tell the man and I'm sure he will wear something or abstain. If he doesn't then he is an idiot and should be responsible for any pregnancy that occurs.

No one would ever expect a woman to just get sterilised or abstain from sex for most of her life it's unfair to expect that of men. So many seem to resent men being able to have sex AT ALL except when women want babies of course

Having the shits, and vomiting can affect the pill. A man should always wear a condom if he does not want a child. Or abstain.

That would come under the definition of "using it properly", is she even likely to be having much sex if she is having the shits or vomiting? Is it beyond the realm of possibility to expect a woman to know those things can affect the pill and shock horror tell her partner she might not be as protected as usual so he can choose to abstain or wear a condom in that instance?

That would come under the definition of "using it properly", is she even likely to be having much sex if she is having the shits or vomiting? Is it beyond the realm of possibility to expect a woman to know those things can affect the pill and shock horror tell her partner she might not be as protected as usual so he can choose to abstain or wear a condom in that instance?

Lots of people have sex if they've been a bit sick in the morning but feel fine later, many wouldn't thing anything of it.
This just shows why men should either abstain or use condoms. Every time he has sex he should think 'am I ready to father a child?'. He should never ever even think that abortion is even an option, it's not a contraceptive and it is something he has no control over.

How babies are made is not a secret. Men need to get over the fact they can't have an abortion or force one.

No one would ever expect a woman to just get sterilised or abstain from sex for most of her life it's unfair to expect that of men. So many seem to resent men being able to have sex AT ALL except when women want babies of course

Is it fair that in your world a man can expect a women to undergo a medical procedure that can have health and mental health consequences just so that he can ejaculate without responsibility? Is it right that she is forced to chose between raising her child in poverty or facing the torture of having an unwanted abortion?

And plenty of people expect women to just not have sex, look down on them, ask why they didn't 'keep their legs shut'. Single mothers are thought of as feckless, brought it on themselves (despite those women raising those children, being there day and night, through illness etc).

Men have it easy. All anyone is asking is that they actually pay for their child.

I had a one night stand, got pregnant and kept the baby. I respected his decision to keep out if it. Still hasn't met her 3.5 years on. I didn't respect him trying to force a termination.

Knew that would get you lot going 🤣🤣🤣 sisters in arms 💪

JFC how pathetic must a man be to goad women on a parenting forum. Slow hand clap for you.

Lots of people have sex if they've been a bit sick in the morning but feel fine later, many wouldn't thing anything of it.
This just shows why men should either abstain or use condoms. Every time he has sex he should think 'am I ready to father a child?'. He should never ever even think that abortion is even an option, it's not a contraceptive and it is something he has no control over.

Many wouldn't think anything of it? Why are women not taking responsibility for a pregnancy especially when they are the ones taking the pill (in the scenario we are talking about) why are men the only ones that are supposed to be thinking every single time "oh I wonder if she had the shits yesterday and the pill might not be as effective!" As a woman I find it offensive that I'm not expected or can't be trusted to take any responsibility for getting knocked up myself. The pill is over 99% effective, if you have recently been sick and it tells you that might effect the pill in the pamphlet you need to tell your partner so he can make an informed decision. Stop shirking responsibility and putting it all on the man. If you are not grown up enough to take the pill properly then by all means you should be telling every man you are with that you can't take the pill and he needs to wear something or not have sex with you.

In my world? A man can't expect a woman to undergo a medical procedure if you are talking about abortion? Where did I say I want this to happen? It's completely right a man has no control over a woman having an abortion or not having one.