How to reconcile two very different opinions (pregnancy/rights)

[Thurlow]

It occurred to me today that two opinions I hold quite strongly are completely different, and its bothering me.

The first is abortion. I believe that it is entirely a woman's choice whether to continue a pregnancy or not. The father can have an opinion and, in an ideal world, will support the woman's opinion but it's still her final choice whether to go through with the pregnancy or not, even if the father is absolutely desperate to have a child. I don't believe that any woman should ever have to continue with a pregnancy they don't want.

The second is about father's rights once the baby is born. Take naming the child. Sometimes I see comments like, "you carried the baby, you gave birth to the baby, you have the final say in what name they carry." I believe that just because a woman is the only person biologically capable of carrying a child doesn't mean that the child is somehow more "theirs". It's not like some sort of global conspiracy whereby men chose not to be the ones to get pregnant. So, both the mother and the father (assuming a fair relationship) are equal parents.

But these are drastically different opinions Does anyone understand or have any suggestions to help me work it out, as it's slightly bothering me.

This is one of those 'a penguin is a bird, but not all birds are penguins' type situations.

I definitely did not mean to suggest my comments should be extrapolated to all vagina owners.

Thurlow, I would have no problem bonding with and caring for a child, while also accepting the unique needs of the birth mother. I would not need to be there at the birth. I am sure many people feel the same way.

It really is a poor excuse from a man if he can't care for a child he lives with or spends time with just because he wasn't treated in the same way as the woman giving birth.

I would suggest your approach means trapping women into heteronormative relationships and childcare arrangements with men that they simply do not want to be in. Many women who raise children without a father are choosing that position, and it is not a second rate choice.

Just because the mother and father have dramtically different roles in the early days doesn't mean one is any more important than the other.
Just a personal example (and a terrible old fashioned one but totally common scenario, which we are both happy with) in the early days with my newborn I was the one feeding and doing almost everything with and for the baby, but her fathers role in caring for the older siblings, as well as going to work to provide both her and I with everything we needed were of no less importance to either of us.
Different does not mean unequal.

Oleanna, as others have said, if people in a supposedly equal relationship can't agree on a name, they have far bigger issues to worry about. If you're married, either person can register the name. Wives don't have a greater right.

The reason unmarried mothers can just go and register a name without the father's permission is because the primary purpose of a birth certificate is to give a child rights straight away. Without a birth certificate, many children globally are left without an identity and a nationality, which restricts their rights to basic resources. In many places, children end up without a birth certificate because the mother is unmarried and she is not considered good enough to register a child.

So the state doesn't care about the right to name a child. The state cares about the child's right to a name and identity.

The right to choose whitout your osrtner's cobsent is a reflection on the disproportionate cost of pregnancy on a woman.

That is a good example Nohow. While I was in hospital with my newborn, my close family were acting as primary carers to my other children.

I never said it was a second rate position, nor am I talking about trapping women in heteronormative relationships. I don't entirely follow your argument that by suggesting a male father can be an equal parent - or indeed the mother who doesn't give birth - a woman therefore becomes trapped in a relationship?

I am saying that suggesting the non-birth parent is almost irrelevant in terms of parenting in the early days is potentially self-defeating and could easily push that parent out of parenting, so to speak.

if people in a supposedly equal relationship can't agree on a name, they have far bigger issues to worry about - to a degree, but plenty of normal and healthy relationships with involve debate over first, middle and surnames.

We both believe that a father can be an equal parent.

But it is not beneficial to women for that to be seen as a norm to aspire to. Many women want to bring up their child in completely different ways to that.

If an individual woman wants an equal parenting relationship with a man, and she feels that man will not be able to participate in such a relationship unless his feelings and needs are considered to be just as important as hers straight after birth and in the days following, then it's up to her to try and placate him in whatever way she needs to.

But society as a whole should not be taking that approach.

It is such a depressing view of men that they need to be elevated in the early days otherwise they won't step up.

My DH is very much a father. He didn't breastfeed. In fact - particularly once onto our second - he had much less to do with them as babies than with the older ones beyond changing more poopy nappies than me.

But as they get older, weaning onto food at 6m being an important stage, and care can be more evenly shared, of course he stepped up. He is a 50% parent to our 5 year old who I no longer breastfeed or SAH with (as he's at school! Gaah how!).

The idea that prioritising my bond in the early days would have him shrugging his shoulders and saying oh I won't bother then...I mean gosh that's such an immature way to behave! I wouldn't want to have a child with a man like that.

But it is not beneficial to women for that to be seen as a norm to aspire to. Many women want to bring up their child in completely different ways to that

It's beneficial to children that they have 2 equal parents. The rights of both mothers and fathers come below the rights of children.

'It's beneficial to children that they have 2 equal parents.'

There are no benefits at all to having 2 parents rather than a mother and grandmother sharing care, or a brother and sister sharing care, or collective care in a group, or 101 other arrangements.

It's beneficial to children to have both males and females involved in their care.

It's beneficial to children to be aware of and in touch with their genetic heritage on both sides.

I'm not convinced that that translates to two equal parents being the ideal.

It is such a depressing view of men that they need to be elevated in the early days otherwise they won't step up.

I can see how my comments came across that way, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

Based almost purely on MN posts, I do wonder whether there is a correlation between women/mothers who find it impossible (for whatever reason) to leave their baby or let anyone else care for the baby, for a very long time, and men/fathers who are accused of being clueless and incapable with looking after their children.

However it looks in my previous comments, I certainly don't mean to argue that a man needs to be 'elevated' during those first few weeks or months in order simply become a parent. But I do mean that the exact opposite is not true either.

If there are no benefits to two parents raising a child, if it can be anyone, and that does not need to include the biological mother, just reliable primary carers that the baby can become attached to, then surely that completely undermines/disproves the argument that the woman who gave birth is so important?

It's horrific and a major human rights abuse to forcibly separate a mother from her newborn, unless the child is at risk of abuse.

Surely that you can see that the mother is important?!

There no one right route though is there. So many choices. So many possible outcomes, and it's not the case there's one right possible outcome and the others are negative. Far from it. A range of parenting methods can produce lovely well-adjusted children.

Saying the biological mother is important when she's willing and able to be involved isn't to say adoptive parents aren't important. It's too different to compare really.

It's like saying having siblings is good for children - often it is, but it doesn't follow that only children are therefore missing out, because they have all the advantages that can only come from being an only.

Just because a choice is mutually exclusive doesn't mean one is good and one is bad.

Of course a mother is important. But any parent/primary carer is important. There are plenty of occasions, such as chosen adoption, where a newborn baby will be taken from its biological mother and have new parents/primary carers.

As I said right at the beginning, in our society women do not become pregnant, stay pregnant, and give birth unless they really want to care for a baby, except in very exceptional circumstances.

There aren't lots of newborns floating around waiting to be given to other people, because there aren't loads of women queuing up to go through all the danger and discomfort for nine months to have kids they don't want.

'There are plenty of occasions, such as chosen adoption, where a newborn baby will be taken from its biological mother and have new parents/primary carers'

If by chosen adoption you mean a woman choosing to give up her newborn, that is extremely rare in the UK.

Any parent is not important in the way the woman giving birth is. Lots of men have no interest in their child, never had an interest, just agreed to get someone pregnant etc.

I agree that who should name the child isn't the most definitive question in the rights of a father and when those rights commence. A far more definitive question might be whether a mother should have a right to determine maternity and contact/care arrangements irrespective of the views of the father. I think there is a turning point and I agree that it has to do with the father's relationship with both the baby and the mother. I do believe he has to prove his legitimacy. I am a gender denying feminist (thanks to mn) and my dh is a sahd but I believe that his becoming the main carer when my dd was 5 weeks old harmed us all, particularly me. That is my mistake but I can't bear the thought that a father could insist on this. Our family arrangements work brilliantly now but I think 12 months is an appropriate minimum time frame for a father to have a right to a say in contact and care and then only if he has proven himself a responsible and loving carer, as long as mother is not abusive obviously. I believe this is due to biology not gender.

DP is a wonderful father to our toddler - he is active and involved in her life and spends time with her just the two of them regularly.

But in the early days, her need to be with me was only slightly less than during pregnancy. She needed me to feed her, and needed to be with me to feel safe. The longest I spent away from her was a couple of hours, and that was when I was sleeping in the next room while DP held her. His role at that point was supportive, but could have been filled (and frequently was) by someone else - my mum stayed with us after I gave birth and both of them were excellent. I'm currently pregnant and when this one is born it's likely he will spend more time with our eldest. I also needed to be with my baby, and would not have been comfortable away from her.

If our relationship had ended before she was born, 50/50 access would have benefitted no one but him, and only if he was not negatively impacted by his baby being so. Their relationship has in no way been negatively impacted by him primarily supporting me in the early months. In the beginning there was me, and everyone else, as far as she was concerned - it was only later on when she was able to form attachments to others.

As I said right at the beginning, in our society women do not become pregnant, stay pregnant, and give birth unless they really want to care for a baby, except in very exceptional circumstances

which society is that then? The society where in some places abortion is illegal and women have babies because they got pregnant and couldn't afford to travel for an abortion in time?

Great Britain, notever.

And I don't think that handing newborns over for adoption like its no big deal is a good solution to lack of abortion rights.

Which hopefully we can all agree on.

So not "our" society then. Just yours. You should be more specific. Parts of your own country are excluded from your society....

I would consider Northern Ireland to be a very different kind of society to Britain, Notever.

Clearly it is in different in major ways - its laws obviously.