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 guess the question is whether reproduction is a 'right'. I would argue not but many would argue the other way.

If it is a 'right', though, then why should it be only for heterosexual couples. And if not just for heterosexual couples, why not for everyone?

I think it is about allowing a single man the same position in the pecking order for a willing surrogate as an infertile couple. No one is suggesting forced surrogacy.

How is there a pecking order for surrogacy in the UK?

Isn't it a private arrangement?

Like Buffy, I think this might play into abortion rights and would create a "clash of rights" and a woman's right to decide what happens with her body and to continue or terminate a pregnancy would be set up against the father's right as an "infertile man" to a child. I don't think abortion rights are sacrosanct anywhere in the world, I think they could be taken away, or a court would have to rule in each case.

Why should a single man with no medical issues have the same status as a medically infertile couple? If he cannot find a mate that is not a medical issue.

And wot buffy and venus said

I don't think finding a surrogate should be considered a medical issue for anyone.

Why should a single man with no medical issues have the same status as a medically infertile couple? If he cannot find a mate that is not a medical issue

He shouldn't. Or she shouldn't. It's conflating two entirely different things.

However, a medically infertile single person should (IMO) not be discriminated against. E.g. suppose you're a single woman with a condition like PCOS. You try donor insemination and it fails. Should you or should you not have the same access to diagnosis and treatment as a woman with a partner? I'd say you should. No more, but no less.

Spartacus - I think Loretta might well be that stupid judging by the article, but it seems to me that the language used is almost reminiscent of the nauseatingly twee "we are pregnant" except with the inevitable invisible woman who would have to gestate and give birth to the child completely erased. I find it quite chilling.

The new definition would include single men who cannot find a mate. Not just infertile single men. That is the central point of the article in the OP. I am not conflating anything, the WHO are!
almond I agree.

Yes, I didn't mean you were doing the conflating!

I hope somebody sensible at the WHO is putting the brakes on this. I wonder when they will release the official statement.

Hope it's a journalistic misrepresentation.

Just bouncing this to link to an interesting article that Glosswitch has written on this. Covers a lot of the points that were made in this thread.

Also to add, Libby Purves made this the subject for a pretty scathing column a few days ago - in The Times so can't link.

I think they could be taken away, or a court would have to rule in each case

Which, just like all the rules in the States where you have to have compulsory counciling/scans/multiple appointments and cool-off periods, means that the abortion gets later, and later, and therefore more, and more difficult.

As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always.

It seems to me, there are two parts to reproducing. There's the passing on of genetic material, and also the raising of a child.

If you have a right to reproduce, do you have a right to both of those aspects? I'd argue not. I'd argue that once a child is here, it's the child that matters, and no person has the 'right' to raise that child. That child has the right to be raised though.

I'm waffling a bit, but I feel like, the right to pass on genetic material wouldn't interfere with women's rights - you just become a sperm donor. It's the right to raise the resulting child that is the issue, because the woman who combines and grows that genetic material may not want the sperm donor involved in that aspect.

It is perfectly possible that no woman wants a man's sperm. Therefore, he should not have a right to pass on genetic material, either. A right to try by becoming a sperm donor, sure. But not a guaranteed right that a woman will have his baby.

I am not, in theory, opposed to single men getting their sperm scanned for infertility issues and stuff, but unless they want to become sperm donors, it is a bit pointless, isn't it?
And if you want to make a law about it, then that should be a right to reproductive health, i.e. his own body being able to produce viable sperm.

Thinking about sperm donation, I assume they screen for genetic conditions and would not accept sperm from a donor with a life limiting condition eg Huntingdons. From what I have read/seenon documentaries, many such affected families are at pains to spare the next generation unnecessary heartache and opt for donor eggs/sperm or specific IVF procedures or embryo selection to reduce risk of passing an inherited condition. Does the WHO guidance override that caution?

^ This was we clumsily trying to say "where do the needs & welfare of the potentisl offspring sit in this?"

And I was not suggesting families affected by these harrowing decisions would throw caution to the wind.

Does the WHO guidance override that caution?

I would assume that, yes, it does.
Though prevention of disabilities has always been more important than women's rights, so it is possible that a man with one such disease would not be entitled to a paid-for-by-NHS womb-for-hire.

They'll probably continue to scan sperm donors ... after all, infertile married men don't want a disabled child ... and men matter.