Can you do more for a human than carry their child?

Wolfiefan · 12/07/2023 16:12

Men like this generally didn’t treat their partners well before they had kids. They won’t suddenly become wonderful human beings because they are a father. Odd post.

FloweryName · 12/07/2023 16:14

She didn’t do it for another human though, she had a baby for herself because she wanted one.

No one is forced to carry a child they don’t want to carry.

Having a healthy pregnancy is a privilege that women are lucky to have. It’s is not a favour they do for other people in return for gratification.

Lesssensethanmoney · 12/07/2023 16:15

I really, really wanted to have my children and DH is a really engaged father so I kind of feel we both did each other the world’s biggest ever favour in that regard.

I think up until they’re 40s more men than you would expect would be happy to live life without children. My DH’s friends who hit that stage before having kids were absolutely desperate to have children but before that it felt like they were doing it for their partners in many cases.

BMW6 · 12/07/2023 16:16

Sorry, I don't rate just reproduction very high in the range of things people can do for others!

It's such a commonplace thing to do and we are generally designed to do it well and repeatedly.

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:18

Lots of women are forced to carry babies they didn't want. But that's not my point.

My point is literally what I said, is there anything more you can do for a man than carry and give birth to his child, then raise that child? I don't think there is and I think it's an action that deserves more respect.

OP posts:

TheYearOfSmallThings · 12/07/2023 16:18

Having a baby is not something a woman does "for" anyone. It isn't a favour or altruistic act in that sense, unless she's an unpaid surrogate.

Obviously a man shouldn't treat his partner badly, but it's nothing to do with childbearing.

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:19

Lesssensethanmoney · 12/07/2023 16:15

I really, really wanted to have my children and DH is a really engaged father so I kind of feel we both did each other the world’s biggest ever favour in that regard.

I think up until they’re 40s more men than you would expect would be happy to live life without children. My DH’s friends who hit that stage before having kids were absolutely desperate to have children but before that it felt like they were doing it for their partners in many cases.

That's beautiful. You sound like a lovely family.

It's true that a lot of men wait until their 40's until any real desire to have a child kicks in too.

OP posts:

AnneLovesGilbert · 12/07/2023 16:20

Weird. We wanted children, he’s a man, I’m a woman so I did the pregnancy bit. I didn’t do it as a favour to my husband.

I didn’t see the thread you’re referring to.

Pkhsvd · 12/07/2023 16:20

It is something that deserves respect but you don’t do it for a man.
I’d expect the same consideration after any major surgery in the same way as I expected from my DH after my c section

holycannaloni · 12/07/2023 16:21

I think it's a weird way of thinking about it - you're not having a child "for" your partner, in the same way you're not carrying the child "for" the child. I think that sets up a weird sort of you-owe-me situation that's bad for the relationships.

I do obviously think co-parents should treat each other with love and respect though.

FloweryName · 12/07/2023 16:22

You are missing the point. Women don’t have babies for men. They have babies because they want to.

We don’t deserve extra respect just for doing what we were biologically intended to do.

Jusy like men don’t deserve extra respect just because they tend to earn more money which is just as essential to a family, and has to be done for much much longer than it takes to grow a baby.

Somanycats · 12/07/2023 16:24

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:10

I was reading another thread where the OP yet again is not being treated with consideration by her husband after having a baby.

AIBU to think that there is very little more you can do for another human being than to carry and birth their child, continue their DNA and make them a parent?

I do not even think giving them a kidney is as big or as life changing as pregnancy and child birth is upon the woman.

FFS. Loads of men don't want children, even those who agree to a pregnancy! Why would you think all men are invested in their children? They are not. We know this by the numbers of men who leave their partners and never see the children again. Even those who stick around often find their children a nuisance rather than a blessing and they certainly do not thank the mother for bringing them into their lives.

Precipice · 12/07/2023 16:24

I wouldn't frame it as carrying 'their' (the other person's) child. It's as much the mother's child as the father's, genetically. I think the mother has a greater claim, since she has to go through the risks and consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, while the father's role in bringing the child into existence is about five minutes at the onset.

More generally, I think saving someone's (already existing) life is a greater 'gift'. I'd agree that the loss of a kidney through donation has a lesser impact on the donor than the pregnancy on the mother, but if we hold that the recipient would have died without it (rather than possibly received someone else's kidney later), then it's a bigger help to them.

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:29

@FloweryName Choosing to give money to a member of my family is not the same as carrying a whole human being abs risking my life in child birth, changing my body forever and being tied to the child for life. It's just money.

OP posts:

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:30

@Somanycats that's my whole point!

OP posts:

KrisAkabusi · 12/07/2023 16:30

No, because in 99% of cases the woman wants the child as well. She's not doing it solely for her partner.

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:32

Precipice · 12/07/2023 16:24

I wouldn't frame it as carrying 'their' (the other person's) child. It's as much the mother's child as the father's, genetically. I think the mother has a greater claim, since she has to go through the risks and consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, while the father's role in bringing the child into existence is about five minutes at the onset.

More generally, I think saving someone's (already existing) life is a greater 'gift'. I'd agree that the loss of a kidney through donation has a lesser impact on the donor than the pregnancy on the mother, but if we hold that the recipient would have died without it (rather than possibly received someone else's kidney later), then it's a bigger help to them.

I agree. I wouldn't normally frame it as "their" child. But I was just thinking about it from a different angle. It's an amazing thing to do for someone even if you are also doing it for yourself.

OP posts:

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:32

@Precipice yes it's true that without the kidney the person might die. Good point.

OP posts:

OutsideLookingOut · 12/07/2023 16:33

In theory yes, which is why I wonder why women with free choice and agency have children with the undeserving. When a resource is too plentiful no one can appreciate it.

KrisAkabusi · 12/07/2023 16:33

Crossposted. Why do you think a woman deserves respect from a partner that doesn't want to have children, but she has one anyway? There is no way that that can be described as doing something for him? Obviously all women should be treated with respect, but there's few here that follow your logic

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:34

I agree.

OP posts:

Original poster

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:36

That was to @OutsideLookingOut I absolutely agree.

@KrisAkabusi I don't personally know any women who have had children when their partner absolutely didn't and made it clear and took precautions. That's a different scenario.

OP posts:

WellThisWentWell · 12/07/2023 16:37

BMW6 · 12/07/2023 16:16

Sorry, I don't rate just reproduction very high in the range of things people can do for others!

It's such a commonplace thing to do and we are generally designed to do it well and repeatedly.

This one here.

I don’t put women who had children on the pedestal, that’s weird and misogynistic.
She had a kid because she wanted a kid, that’s it - it’s an selfish act.
Saying she did it for the man, is kind of like some mothers claim they had kids for the society 😳🙄😂

BillyNoM8s · 12/07/2023 16:38

I thought this was going to be about surrogacy.

You're coming at this from a weird angle.

I've never known a woman in a relationship to consider that they carry a child "for" their partner/husband

They generally actively want the child, oftentimes more than the man.

Having children is not altruistic. Quite the opposite.

I think donating a kidney is a bigger deal than giving birth, personally.

And I don't agree with paid surrogacy.

FloweryName · 12/07/2023 16:41

TRexTara · 12/07/2023 16:29

@FloweryName Choosing to give money to a member of my family is not the same as carrying a whole human being abs risking my life in child birth, changing my body forever and being tied to the child for life. It's just money.

No, plenty of jobs have a physical toll on a persons body. It is not just money, it is also time, stress and effort.

Are you trying to say that you didn’t want your own pregnancy or child and that having it was a purely selfless act done entirely for your partners benefit?

You enjoyed no part of pregnancy or being a mother?