Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

Discussion about abortion: part 2

132 replies

purits · 02/07/2010 11:48

Can someone explain this idea of "my body, my choice" because it has never sat easy with me.

Some women seem to feel that they are the ultimate arbiter of whether they should / should not have an abortion and that the man involved and society have no say in this.
Yet once a baby is born, women suddenly insist that the man is a part of the process and must pay towards the baby's upkeep, even if he never wanted the baby. It does seem to be a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. Not sure that is an apt analogy, but you get what I mean - it all seems stacked in the woman's favour and it all hang's on her "choice" and no-one else gets a look-in.
Doesn't seem equitable to me.
Go on: flame me and tell me where I'm going wrong.

OP posts:

hopalongdagger · 02/07/2010 15:54

swallowedafly Why is abortion not an option for many? If because it's not available or the pregnancy is not discovered until late etc, then I fully take your point.

But if you are talking religious or moral reasons then I would still say the woman has a choice, she could choose to have the baby adopted and would not therefore have any of the responsibility of raising a child.

I don't know a lot about adoption actually, but is it not again a choice for the mother to make? If the mother wanted to keep the child, I would imagine that the father could not legally force her to have it adopted. If the mother wanted the child to be adopted, could the father prevent this? And if so, would the mother then have to have financial responsibility for the child?

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 15:58

they're all such such hard choices that arguably the woman will bear the emotional physical blah blah brunt of

no easy way out of an unplanned pregnancy

happysmiley · 02/07/2010 15:58

Oh I could be sole breadwinner on my salary except if I have to pay for childcare too! That's the problem, as a couple, one can SAH. With maintenance, you could still make it work financially. But with neither (as purits suggests) I would struggle. I'd cope but it would be hard.

I just think for many women earning a lot less than I do, they'd do the maths and it wouldn't add up, and the temptation to terminate would be much greater. Not everyone would of course, but I'm certain more women would if they knew they wouldn't be able to claim anything from the father because he'd said he didn't want it.

I'm certainly not saying that women aren't able to cope or thrive alone, but the reality is that it is mainly only very high income women who bring up children alone, with no state financial support or maintainence from the fathers, and don't struggle financially.

Mookymoo · 02/07/2010 16:00

9 times out of 10, it will be the woman who is left 'holding the baby' whether the father expresses a want to have the child or not. Lots of men decide that they want children, only to resent the lack of independence and promptly leave the mother and child.

There is no such thing as pro-abortion, only pro choice as it is accepted that this is not an ideal solution but as previous posters have said, a lesser evil.

Original poster

purits · 02/07/2010 16:00

Thank you, hopalong. Someone finally agrees with me!

Swallowedafly, vasectomy is not necessarily the answer. The man might not want this baby now, but may want a family in the future.

MI: "they just can't or shouldn't force someone else to have a baby against their will" But it's OK for the woman to make him a father against his will?

OP posts:

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 16:04

but I think he implicitly accepts risk of pregnancy when he does the sexuals

especially if he takes no contraceptive measures himse;f

happysmiley (why am I banging on about this!) think the chances of getting maintenance are higher than you assume

is a worst case scenario but one quite a few of us live with, I'd just claim benefits if my earnings were a bit shit

hopalongdagger · 02/07/2010 16:04

I think you're right that more women would terminate. The reality is that either the fathers must pay, whether it's their choice or not, or the state would have to pick up the bill.

I think having fathers pay is about the most sensible option available to us, but what I struggle with is the idea that it's all right and just and how it should be. I wish there was a way for men to opt out of parenthood without taking control of women's bodies or leaving them in poverty. I know there isn't, but I don't think it's wrong to wish for it.
Or indeed an equivalent for women, without chosing between a termination or parenthood.

I still think our best hope is improved contraception.

happysmiley · 02/07/2010 16:07

Sorry, MI, the reason I keep banging on about it is because purits suggestion ultimately results in men not having to pay, ie there would be no legal redress as there is now, and women and children would be the ones to suffer financially.

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 16:08

men can can can opt out

they can assure themselves of contraception or lack of and make informed choice before they get stuck in

happysmiley · 02/07/2010 16:12

To be fair, the success rate for condoms is 99% if properly used. I'm not sure that men who use them are taking a particularly big risk. From my younger days , I do remember that not a lot of men were very keen on them.

hopalongdagger · 02/07/2010 16:12

But MI, contraception is not 100% so they can only truly opt out through abstinence.

hopalongdagger · 02/07/2010 16:14

99% sounds like a pretty big risk to me TBH.

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 16:16

it's pretty reliable but that is sort of how sex works and the fact that it is fun doesn't really detract from its reproductive role does it?

so he can either weigh up the 1 or 2% risk of his condom breaking, and or verify that the woman is also using contraception, and then decide whether to indulge

and there's wanking and anal and stuff

vaginal sex not the be all and end all is it?

happysmiley · 02/07/2010 16:17

99% is better odds than the Pill for most users.

And if a man is really really scared, abstinence from penetrative sex isn't the end of the world. There are other things you can do in bed .

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 16:19

happysmiley - we are in agreement!

you just say it a bit more elegantly

LadyintheRadiator · 02/07/2010 16:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hopalongdagger · 02/07/2010 16:23

Indeed, you're both right about other options being available!

And IMO people (male and female) shouldn't have sex without being fairly sure that they can deal with the consequences, but thats even less likely than 100% reliable contraception

happysmiley · 02/07/2010 16:23

MI,

Drivermamsstorytrain · 02/07/2010 16:32

I have to agree that its the lesser of two evils. I don't think a man should be forced to have a child he doesn't want- and nor do i think that vasectomy is the answer. It is imo hugely selfish and stupid of any woman to have a baby that is not wanted by both parents, however, it is abysmal to suggest that she be forced to abort! Imagine being forced to terminate against your will! I have recently had a termination (my son would not have survived outside of my womb) and it is a huge and life altering decision to make. Unfailingly i imagine that decision would affect the mother in ways indescribable, deeply damaging emotionally should she have be forced by a reluctant father. children would be the ones to suffer. And the main issue is that once a child is born a third persons rights are thrown in. And a childs right to be supported by the father regardless of whether the father wanted them, far outweigh the rights of the reluctant father.

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 16:34

oooh, do you mean to insult with 'selfish and stupid' to proceed with a pregnancy the man is not happy with?

msrisotto · 02/07/2010 16:48

This is ridiculous

Hopalong
?But I do find it strange that a man can in theory not want children, try to avoid his partner becoming pregnant by using contraception, and still be expected to pay for the child. And indeed, still be expected to take on the role of a father.

I know perfectly well that a lot of men don't conform to these expectations, but the expectation is still there.

It doesn't feel right to me that women can choose whether or not to become parents, but men can not. However, I don't know what the alternative is. I guess until we have a fail-safe but temporary method of male contraception, there is no alternative.?

Exactly, men DON?T tend to take care of their unwanted children, hell, many don?t take care of their wanted children so don't feel too sorry for them and their 'lack of choice'
We all know a fail safe of a man avoiding impregnating someone, so why don?t they just abstain? Their body, their choice! They don?t want a baby, they don?t have sex!! Who in their right mind goes about having sex and then trying to force their partner into doing what THEY want them to do with their own body? How power trippy is that?

It doesn?t seem right to me that the alternative to pro-choice is to control women and force things upon their own body. Outrageous.

Purits
?vasectomy is not necessarily the answer. The man might not want this baby now, but may want a family in the future.

MI: "they just can't or shouldn't force someone else to have a baby against their will" But it's OK for the woman to make him a father against his will? ?

Again, if he doesn?t want a baby, he shouldn?t be having sex. And why are you prioritising a mans right to swimmers over a womans right to decide over her own body????

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 16:49

wtf

I didn't and would never say 'it's ok for the woman to make him a father against his will'

retract or DIE

MitchyInge · 02/07/2010 16:50

ok not exactly die

is just have been chuntering on in complete opposition to that idea

Original poster

purits · 02/07/2010 16:57

But if the two agree to have sex with lots of contraceptives (i.e. it is very clear that they don't want a baby) and the contraceptives fail and she then insists on following through with the baby, then isn't that making him a father against his will?

I don't understand all this talk of abstinence - this is not the MN that I know ...
Did you all sign up to the Silver Ring Thing while I wasn't looking?

OP posts:

msrisotto · 02/07/2010 16:58

Mitchy, you're not talking to me are you? I didn't refer to you.....

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Swipe left for the next trending thread