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.

I don't see that line about transwomen in the article - perhaps it's been changed?

And yes, if a man could stop a woman aborting a baby she was carrying, the impact on women would be profound, and there are definitely plenty of abusive men who would do that - just look on relationships.

Here's a cut and paste of the line plus context

"I can’t have babies. And no one in the reproductive justice movement is talking about this.

It wasn’t until I watched Micha Cardenas perform about her pregnancy as a trans woman that I had a major breakthrough moment. It was – and still is – possible to become pregnant again.

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

In the audience, as Micha stood before her artwork and moving telescope images of her viable sperm, I cried whole-heartedly. She had been on HRT for many years and still was able to become pregnant".

I can't believe for one second that there will be any NHS funding for this.

I'm a single woman. I am currently pregnant having conceiving using IUI (insemination) with donor sperm.

I have had to pay for my treatment privately. The NHS now will generally only provide treatment for single women with a known fertility issue where their time is running out and even then it varies by PCT.

I don't have a problem with this. No way should NHS money be spent on helping me have a child. It's not a medical problem, it's just a basic 'I want a child'.

The state of our current NHS is poles apart from an NHS that would bear the costs of men having surrogates to carry their child.

That is what I am thinking jed
There is also mention that infertility is classed as a disability by the WHO. If single men who want a child but have no partner can be infertile then will women rejecting their advances be discriminating against disabled people?!
As a pp said I'm finding it hard to believe this is real it's so bonkers and ill thought out.
freshwater unintended but damaging consequences.

I agree op I don't like the idea of women being used as cattle to carry babys for men but I also don't believe in sperm donators either. I believe a child should have the right to the indentity of both their parents and I agree with the law being passed where a child can search for their biogial parent. But those are my believes I'm sure the individuals involved will have choices available. We know live in a society where many gay couples or lesbians have children together. Something that didn't happen when I was younger but we have evolved as a society now and if the children are well cared for and there's approiate regulations in place and laws who knows what will happen, I do think those who end being a surrogate don't choose it lightly.

Yes Buffy, I was wondering that too (and thank you for posting - they were the only guidelines I could find too). I only trust official sources ... (let's hope the Torygraph made it up)!

The only way it makes sense is to interpret it that countries such as the UK which ban commercial surrogacy are breaching human rights and force them to change the law. I can't see that happening.

OOOHhh - it's from the everyday feminism article. Yes, I've read that. And Mischa's poetry (about which the less said the better)

I have been a surrogate three times and even though the children are in or soon will be in their teens now I retain a strong friendship with their mothers.

Despite this I see big problems in the way this "right" appears to be being given. It needs clarifications and reassurance about how it will be implemented.

I think my head has exploded enough for one day so I won't chase up the poetry. But seriously, is 'Loretta' confused, deluded or simply misogynist enough to think that impregnating a woman with 'her' sperm means she is pregnant? Really?

Well I suppose we shall have to wait for the official announcement from the WHO. Although I agree with buffy women's bodily autonomy seems to be the last thing on most people's list 💥

I think the notion that there should be a 'right to reproduce' is simply wrong.

There should be a right to not be prevented from reproducing - eg a law which banned certain groups from having children would clearly be wrong.

A gay person or a single person should not be discriminated against in their quest for parenthood (perhaps that was the intent of the WHO?) so in that sense they have as much 'right' to try to reproduce as a heterosexual couple. It does not imply that they should have any right to help from the state in this.

Cat - I utterly agree with you re women's bodily autonomy not being high on the list of priorities right now ... but I'm just holding my rage until I see the actual announcement / WHO's own words...

errol your take on it seems like a more sensible approach although if you had a right not to be prevented from reproducing could you argue that banning commercial surrogacy does this? Could a woman carrying your child and wanting an abortion be preventing a man from reproducing? It's a minefield. I don't think anyone has a right to reproduce, at least not when the cost is women's bodily autonomy.

A waiting list for surrogates would be completely different from the current "system" in the uk.

surrogates who don't already know the parents meet via one or two UK organisations and have time to get to know each other and decide who to "work" with.

A waiting list implies that a surrogate would be matched without such choice, just based on medical factors (like current organ matching). Iirc, organ matching is usually anonymous too.

I would imagine fewer women would want to do this - oddboots mentioned she was still friends with her parent partners and certainly I've seen similar in my friendship group.

I would consider being a surrogate for a sibling but for no one else.

Carrying a man's child, not 'your' child errol

I was getting tied in knots last night trying to phrase my posts and it was all about the use of the word 'right'.

Having the 'right' to drink alcohol is not the same as expecting it to be provided as your right.

Having the 'right' to use donor eggs/sperm is not the same as having those provided as a right.

Having the 'right' to use a surrogate is not the same as having a surrogate provided as a right.

The right to use a surrogate already exists in the UK.

It seems like the writer of that article has assumed this change would necessitate extending that right to the second option.

And certainly if it was classed as a disability it would, wouldn't it?

This could lead to a situation where a male prisoner would have to have access to the same medical treatment for his 'disability' as he would if he wasn't in jail. Surrogates for lifers, anyone?

I hope I'm wrong.

The 'right' of a single person to reproduce should be exactly the same as anyone elses. If a country allows commercial surrogacy then a single person should have exactly the same right as a couple to access that service. If a country does not allow commercial surrogacy then there is no discrimination - a couple has no right to a surrogate either. I don't think that part is complicated.

A man has no right to rape a woman, and if he does so it should be perfectly clear that he has absolutely no rights over her body and any child that might be conceived.

The 'right to reproduce' should be no more than the right to access any legal means to do so whihc are available to a heterosexual couple. Not a right to have laws changed or ignored and certainly not anything which impinges on another person's more fundamental right (bodily autonomy)

This strikes me as like Amnesty's "right to have sex". You cannot - no human being - can have a right to something which requires the cooperation of another person. Because what are you going to do if no other person wishes to cooperate? Coerce them?

Framing it as a right to seek to have children if everyone else involved in the process is happy about it is fine. But as many others have pointed out upthread, framing it as a right, full stop, just opens the way to the exploitation of women in desperate circumstances through poverty.

And there is no equivalence at all between a quick wank into a jar and nine months of the physical, mental and emotional toll of pregnancy followed by the physical risks of childbirth.

Oh and re. Bubblegum's point about tracing one's parents upthread, in the UK if you go through a registered clinic you are legally obliged to use sperm from named donors so that your child can trace their biological father should they so wish.

Of course women can and do get pregnant using anonymous donors via the internet, but then they can and do get pregnant from anonymous one night stands. It's sad for the child, but there is no way of compelling one's parents to have been perfect in the run up to one's conception.

Errol, I hope that is what is meant.

Faraway tree, if we're talking about the WHO and the UN, we're talking about human rights.

There isn't a human right to drink alcohol. I doubt countries which ban alcohol are breaching anybody's human rights.

Again, it shouldn't be 'the right to have sex'. It should be 'the right not to be discriminated against if you want to have sex'. Coercive sex is (or should be!) illegal so no one, single,couple, gay,het should do it. But all these should have the right to fully consensual sex.