If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Should guys have more say in unplanned pregnancy decisions?
+Chimpy+
Deactivated Posts: 37 Boards Initiate
A few weeks ago, I took Dr Helen to Lancashire to challenge young people on some of the issues around unplanned pregnancies and abortion. In this video, we asked whether lads should have the right to have their say on the decision to abort or go ahead with a pregnancy.
What do you think?
- Should men have a right to know and be consulted if a partner is pregnant?
- What would you do if a girlfriend had an abortion without telling you? :chin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDLKvS6h3nUWhat do you think?
- Should men have a right to know and be consulted if a partner is pregnant?
- What would you do if a girlfriend had an abortion without telling you? :chin:
0
Comments
Yes, he should be told, maybe even asked his opinion, but no, he shouldn't get any say in the final decision, even if he'd be willing to look after the child all by himself.
One interesting possibility in the legal sense, however, would be to have a male equivalent to an abortion, where a man can effectively say that he doesn't want to have the child, and therefore has no responsibilities to it regardless of the decision of the woman. Effectively, both parents make their own choice regarding whether they want the child, and in one scenario at least, both get their wishes. Doesn't really work if the man wants to keep it and the woman wants rid, of course (I suppose it could technically work if the woman was willing to carry it until birth and then hand it to the father, but it's obviously not something you could force anyone to do). I don't think it's a good idea, but it'd be an interesting debate.
But.....
It is not an equal situation. Yes a child is 50% his but what tips it in favour of women is that it's also her body, her emotional state and her mental health. Should a woman be forced to carry a child to term if she doesn't want it? OK it's not the child's fault if it isn't wanted by the mother but at the same time her needs would need to take priority over his in this instance.
I would however suggest that the male should always be informed where possible. It could be that it came about as a one-nighter and he may not be attracted to the mother that much and a relationship isn't possible but that's not to say they cannot be good parents.
Is it morally correct to consult = yes.
The others had adequately explained why.
Bad argument which could also be used to prevent abortion full stop. She had a choice to avoid pregnancy at the same time that the bloke did.
In an 'ideal world' where there was no financial burden on the state from single parents then the man should be allowed to opt-out of parental responsibility prior to birth, and give up his parental rights too.
It's not a perfect world though and someone has to foot the bill for the unplanned pregnancies, and if there is nobody else it should be the man whose sperm it was since a single mother has no real chance to make a living for herself while looking after her child. And I doubt most mothers would give up the chance to raise their own child 24/7 and work / pay support instead.
As far as the rights of abortion go, as far as I'm concerned until it pops out whatever happens is up to the woman, unless the baby is viable e.g. 25/26 weeks, then there is the ethical question of intentionally killing an infant just because the mother doesn't want it, whereas if you induced the pregnancy there would be a good %age chance of the baby living and surviving and could be adopted.
I don't like the attitude that 'a man decided to have sex, hence agreed to all liabilities arousing from that act for the next 18 years' when he has no control over those liabilities for the next 18 years. I would rather people recognise something closer to the reality - that people should be allowed to have recreational sex without it changing their lives for the next two decades, that both parties should have control / power over how to deal with any consequences, but we don't live in a perfect world so we just have to choose the least bad option. Which is forcing men to support any children they've fathered regardless of their wishes or even if they knew they were fathering the child.
Analogous to SCC's post, imagine if a woman had a one-night stand and found out she had to be married and a housewife to a guy for the next 18 years. That would be horrific. But men don't need a housewife, children do need support. That's what we're working with, practicalities rather than ideals. TBH going down the practical rabbit hole further, anecdotally a good proportion of absent fathers don't bother paying child support anyway. Not sure how they get away with it what with the law being the law, but probably not in a dissimilar way to mothers denying visitation rights to their fathers.
Almost makes you sad to be a human sometimes that people can fuck about so much when a child's welfare is at sake.
Sometimes I very much doubt that the sweeping generalisations you make are tongue in cheek.
Oh they are - just me playing on the widely-held (and often unchallenged) belief by some women that everything in life is the fault of men.
No man should ever make a woman abort or keep a child against her will, but it happens all the time.
Its even more complicated when its not a couple. Most couples will probably discuss this anyway. If its an ex or a one night stand then the woman might not feel comfortable confiding something as private as an abortion with them. Its a private thing which I would want to keep private personally. Then there are cases where the father could be one of several men, should she have this discussion with all of them?
I do think that noone should ever force a woman to have an abortion. full stop. and i think it is just as bad to force a woman not to. They have their own health to concider first!
However........
I was with a woman who was on the pill. Pregnancy never came up in conversation because it wasn't going to happen. She did get pregnant despite it. I had absolutely no say in the pregnancy (i love my daughter to bits by the way) and now am being refused access and having to pay £58 a week in maintanance.
So now i have a responsibility by law to support my daughter who i cannot see (except on the whim of a woman) despite having no say in pretty much anything other than what i buy her for christmas!
I think that if mother decides to keep baby, father should have the right to relinquish responsibility AT THE EARLY STAGES OF PREGNANCY. This would mean the mother is aware of what her choices will mean for the future.
The man accepts- just as the woman does- that pregnancy is a possibility whenever he chooses to have sex. This is especially the case if he chooses not to use a condom, regardless of whether the woman says she's on the pill or not. What a man also accepts when he has sex is that the outcome of that pregnancy is not his final decision, it is the woman's. If she wants to keep the baby then he has to suck it up; if she chooses not to keep the baby then he also has to suck it up.
It's not necessarily fair but it's a fact of simple biology. The man doesn't have to carry the baby for nine months and give birth to it, so he cannot have the final say.
A woman should morally and ethically consult with the father if they're in a relationship, of course she should, but there should be no legal right for a man to force a woman to carry a baby she does not want. Heaven knows there are enough screwed up kids born to parents who don't want them without making more. Equally there should be no legal right for a man to force a woman to terminate a baby that she wants to keep.
My opinion on this is before yes, the woman probably gets a slightly more forgiving deal in getting to control whether she has the kid, whether she opts to include the father in the childs life, whether she wants supporting - but this is a byproduct of the overriding responsibility of society to ensure that the child's welfare is paramount.
Then again, if that was the case, we'd probably stop a lot of people being allowed to have kids. So it's always about a shitty compromise where nobody really gets the deal they really want. The least bad option I would say.
I have a good book on the subject. Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? by Warren Farrell. Despite it's title, it's actually a discussion piece rather than a 'this is definitely the case', mainly aimed at people wanting to open their mind to the questions surrounding men / women / feminism / egalitarianism. And ultimately - in my opinion - a lot of these situations are just questions with no good answer than can satisfy everything, so pragmatic concerns must be first and foremost and we must aim to try to do 'the least harm'. Of course when pragmatic options become mired in political problems... then it's time to just grab the beer and remind ourselves that people sometimes suck :P.