Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Single men have a right to start a family

147 replies

Thecontentedcat · 20/10/2016 20:39

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/single-men-will-get-the-right-to-start-a-family-under-new-defini/
I have not seen a thread on this yet, so apologies if this has already been done - but I find this recent development deeply worrying. How can anyone have a right to start a family?
What if: man and woman have ons, woman gets pregnant, wants abortion, man wants to exercise his 'right' to start a family and compel woman to carry to term? I don't think we can grow babies in jars yet, so this is either nonsense or very worrying.

OP posts:
onlythedaze · 20/10/2016 21:05

I think the right to use a surrogate will in reality mean the right to go on a waiting list for a surrogate.

I doubt that women will be forced into being surrogates.

Original poster
Thecontentedcat · 20/10/2016 21:05

women don't tend to choose to hire out their wombs if they have a choice. It is both dangerous and very personal.

OP posts:
mycatstares · 20/10/2016 21:06

Your all batshitConfused.

I'm leaving this thread, carry on as you were!

Original poster
Thecontentedcat · 20/10/2016 21:06

Olennaswimple my thoughts exactly. Terrifying!

OP posts:
Manumission · 20/10/2016 21:08

That sounds a reasonable assumption daze but what then happens when the NHS can't source enough surrogates to meet demand? Will they be under pressure to buy in foreign wombs? Or recruit glossily but domestically?

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 20/10/2016 21:08

I doubt that women will be forced into being surrogates

Exactly

ftw · 20/10/2016 21:08

mycat
That's incredibly insulting to surrogates. Its a beautiful amazingly kind thing to do for another human

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/india-bans-foreigners-from-hiring-surrogate-mothers

Yeah, beautiful.

ftw · 20/10/2016 21:10

Goodness, mycat has a low threshold for 'batshit'.

EmpressKnowsWhereHerTowelIs · 20/10/2016 21:10

This chilling article about transwomen's reproductive rights feels relevant here.

It's all about the rights of biological males to make babies with their sperm, and bears no reference whatsoever to the females who would need to carry them. The Handmaid's Tale really does seem closer ever day Sad.

onlythedaze · 20/10/2016 21:11

I think people will just languish on the waiting list. I would be a hypocrite if I claimed I wouldn't have done anything to have a child of my own.

FabFiveFreddie · 20/10/2016 21:12

I think you're seeing something that's not there.

If a woman consents to having a man's child, for him, where's the problem?

The question I think you want to be asking is whether a man's right to have his baby trumps a woman's right to abort his baby (within existing legal limits). The answer to that will be "no".

Original poster
Thecontentedcat · 20/10/2016 21:13

All it takes for evil to thrive is for good (wo)men to do nothing. If you enshrine this right in law it could have a great many unintended consequences, none of which are good for women's rights. At a time when our rights seem to be going backwards I find this latest revelation worrying.

ftw that article is exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

OP posts:
Manumission · 20/10/2016 21:13

But would allowing people to languish on a waiting list discharge the legal obligation of the NHS?

onlythedaze · 20/10/2016 21:14

I think so, yes, because 'you have the right to use a surrogate when one becomes available' - if one doesn't become available then you don't.

It's not quite the same, but similar to adoption I suppose. You might be approved in theory but if no suitable child becomes available, they don't kidnap a random one :)

scallopsrgreat · 20/10/2016 21:15

The views on here are very western. Yes women in the UK may not be forced to be a surrogate. I'm pretty certain we can't say the same for other countries.

But I'm alright, Jack, coz choices or summat.

I agree with you completely Thecontendedcat.

Original poster
Thecontentedcat · 20/10/2016 21:16

Fabfive key point within 'existing legal limits' is the key point. The law will have to change to enshrine this latest right.

If a man finds a women who consents to having his child he wouldn't be 'infertile' under this definition.

OP posts:
Manumission · 20/10/2016 21:16

If a woman consents to having a man's child, for him, where's the problem?

The big problem comes when - inevitably- there are far more 'infertile' (🙄) men than willing altruistic surrogates. At that point the men have unmet legal rights.

Manumission · 20/10/2016 21:18

So, presumably, will have some legal recourse (??)

Original poster
Thecontentedcat · 20/10/2016 21:18

Scallops - yes, bloody hell, women's bodies as commodities for sale around the world, and this reinforces that.

OP posts:
ftw · 20/10/2016 21:19

I'm a bit surprised posters aren't seeing at least the hypothetical issue here, tbh.

If a man without a womb of his own has a right to a child, then a womb must necessarily be provided.

How can that not be an issue?

ftw · 20/10/2016 21:21

daze, the right to adopt isn't enshrined in law.

onlythedaze · 20/10/2016 21:22

No, but once someone has been approved to adopt, that doesn't necessarily mean they will go home with a child.

Pluto30 · 20/10/2016 21:27

If someone wants to be a surrogate, what the bloody hell is the problem?

They're not having gun held to their head and being told that they have to carry someone's baby or else.

olderthanyouthink · 20/10/2016 21:28

Does anyone think this would affect adoption rates?
If you couldn't have a child because you're a gay couple, for example, now you could actually have a baby biologically related to you instead of a child (probably not a baby) who isnt.

onlythedaze · 20/10/2016 21:28

Probably not, gay men adopting is pretty rare,