Single men have a right to start a family

[Thecontentedcat]

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.

Legal recourse against who, manumission?

I really think this is a non-point. There's nothing here that isn't already the case, as far as fixing women to procreate is concerned.

Forcing, not fixing.

pluto sad thing is that when money is involved yes women might be having a gun held to their head.

Legal rights always create concomitant obligations and the possibility of recourse. So why create that mine field at all by bestowing a right? What's wrong with an awareness campaign about circumstantial childlessness?

Because an awareness campaign isn't much use when you want a child.

Nor is a waiting list.

I can't quite believe I'm in feminist chat and people are saying this is not a problem.
The authors of the new global standards said the revised definition gave every individual “the right to reproduce”
This is from the WHO!!! I can't believe people can't see the problem here. Legal experts said the new definition, which will be sent out to every health minister next year, may force a law change, allowing the introduction of commercial surrogacy.

But the legal right to have a child won't conjure more freely willing, altruistic surrogates into being.

Indeed, but a waiting list is giving hope.

Contended cats I'd be a hypocrite if I tried to be outraged by this, as my children are the result of donor sperm.

It seems ridiculous to me. There's no money to help my sister conceive because her husband had a child from a previous relationship, but WHO reckon a single man is infertile? Please. It's so far fetched that any resources would be available that it is purely theoretical.

Sorry, that last was to daze.

I can't quite believe I'm in feminist chat and people are saying this is not a problem.

Me neither.

I've heard before that poor women in India particularly offer surrogacy in sheer financial desperation and need. Without wanting to cast slurs on those who find in surrogacy a way of helping others, it isn't that much different from being forced to sell a kidney. Or even being forced into regular sex work for financial reasons, and then the only help our state willprovide is 'oh let's legitimise that then'. It's all about enforcing male rights over women's bodies and I find it deeply worrying.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37050249

Actually risotto the new definition might fix that particular unfairness in IVF rationing as presumably the childless partner could invoke their right?

I don't have a problem with donor sperm, donor eggs, or even surrogacy if it is given willingly and freely
I do have an issue with commercial surrogacy and the very idea that women's bodies can be reduced to their reproductive capability and bought and sold. Getting some bodily fluid is very different to full term pregnancy and the attendant risks. I don't think anyone died providing sperm!

Manu, like I say I had my kids using donated sperm, paid for privately at a clinic. If it was to be available on the nhs, I don't think men would be pressured into donating their sperm just that the waiting lists would be very long.

Daze, there was no law that said you had a right to that sperm (nor me to my adopted children), that's the difference.

No, but again, there's a parallel in that you make the choice. I understand a disquiet about surrogacy but really I would be a total hypocrite if I had an issue with it!

Freely donated sperm daze?

It's a big difference.

But the legal right to have a child won't conjure more freely willing, altruistic surrogates into being.

No but the 'introduction of commercial surrogacy' surely will.
Pressure on women (probably the most vulnerable) will be hard to resist.

Quite grow. Bang goes the altruism.

If I've misunderstood something, I'm really sorry but my understanding was that single men had the right to access use of a surrogate not that women would be pressurised into becoming one.

There is one hell of a difference between donated sperm, something men like to lose at every opportunity and is remarkably easy for them to do, and surrogacy, a 9 month long journey creating a real baby which has large health risks and emotional/ hormonal links. I am gobsmacked that anyone thinks the two can be freely compared.

From that article, Empress does anyone have the slightest idea wtf this even means?

What this means is that trans women who stop taking HRT for a few months can reverse sterilization and become pregnant with viable sperm

Yes bungo! Good overview, this is where I am coming from.

Thanks manu I read the article at the start of the thread, it pissed me off and everyone has gone out this eve, and I only have the cat to rant at so it is nice to have some discussion with people who can see where I am coming from. I'm not an expert on any of this and I always learn a lot on this board.

I think they can be freely compared really because otherwise we are saying women can't help someone have a baby, because they are too vulnerable and cannot make this decision, but a man can.

Obviously there is a MASSIVE difference between pregnancy and sperm. I'm not comparing them as like for like but pointing out they both aid someone else to have a child. So how can I say, well, I don't have sperm and I can buy it to help me have a child, and condemn someone else for doing the same?