The right to choose to become a parent

[knowitallstrikesagain]

Treading softly as I do not want to start an argument, I really want to be clear in my own mind.

I agree with a woman's right to have an abortion. I have seen many a debate about it and most of the reasons for 'pro-choice' (I have put this in brackets because I hate the term pro-choice and pro-life) is that a woman should not have to go through pregnancy and birth if she does not want to. Accepted. But people I know who have had abortions have not done so because of a fear of pregnancy and birth, they have done so because they did not want to raise a child, they were not in the right place, emotionally or financially. Accepted.

What I am trying to understand is this: Why does a man have to support a child conceived when he was using protection? (I have tried lots of different ways to type this question and am aware it sounds crap however I put it)

If a woman is using protection, so is taking the view that conception is unlikely, and falls pregnant but cannot financially afford to raise a child, she can abort. But a man in the same situation does not have the same choices. Why is the argument always, 'The man knew what he was risking when he had sex, sex can lead to children, etc.' We all know this, yet a woman does have the final say and will never end up having to support a child she does not want to have, even if the father wants is very much. Is this fair?

If the argument is that a child is an accepted risk of having sex, should that not apply to both parties?

Please just help me get this clear in my mind as I personally feel that I could not ask a man for financial support to raise a child he never expected to be conceived if I have the opportunity to abort but decide I want to keep it. Is this totally anti-feminist or is my thinking understandable, just misguided?

does the same not apply to a woman, in that she should not have PIV sex if she is not prepared to become a mother?

It would be more accurate to say: she should not have PIV sex if she is not prepared to become a mother or prepared to weigh the risks against a not consequence-free abortion, or any other consequence of the PIV sex

A woman's choice doesn't extend to having a child free of the father. Going through with a pregnancy when the father doesn't want the child isn't exactly a happy option.

To know that you are going to be bringing up that child with an angry resentful XP constantly in the background isn't a picnic. Or that whilst you are putting all the work in whilst someone else gets the nice weekendy bits, and gets to keep their career.

There's no entirely fair scenario, but ultimately the last word must lay with the mother because, as radiatorlady says, it is her body.

There is another aspect to this. In our legal system, the birth of a child is treated as a boon for its parents. That is why you can't (I think I'm right in saying) bring a 'wrongful life' action-I, or my child, ought never to have been born, compensate me. If you sue for a negligently performed sterilisation, you can get damages to compensate you for the cost of bringing up a child, but no damages for the mere fact of having one, as that's a blessing not a tragedy.

Overall, I think that is the right way to approach it. And it is part of why fathers do not get to argue that their child born against their wishes is a tragedy for them that they don't want to pay for.

"does the same not apply to a woman, in that she should not have PIV sex if she is not prepared to become a mother?"

No it doesn't, because a woman has the power to ensure that she doesn't become a mother if she isn't prepared to, now that we have legal safe abortion.

A man has no power to ensure that he doesn't become a father, without using coercive control over a woman. Whcih men have done throughout history and which of course, lots of men still do. You only have to look at the femicide of Asian babies and the one child policy in China, to see how women are forced to have abortions they don't necessarily want.

I've just thought of another point as well. If you are a reluctant father, you can stop paying maintenance at any time. If you are finding motherhood hard, you cannot go back and say "I change my mind, I don't want this child." Equally, you can't undo an abortion yet a previously reluctant father can arrive back into the child's life at any time following a simple court procedure.

It's a totally different decision and that's why the question is different.

I wonder if in the future another option will be to remove the embryo/s and freeze them, meaning either the woman could access them later or the man could later have them implanted into his new partner /a surrogate/some kind of space age artificial womb environment. That would bring a whole load more ethical arguments with it. Maybe we have it pretty easy :o

I think TillyMint has it.

It's not fair, but there is no other option that is more fair.