Swift disclaimer: sorry, this account is hetero-centric and not fully inclusive of people who are trans, or people who are agender, or people who use IVF, or or anything other than in vivo, cis, hetero baby-making. I would love to talk about people who are trans and agender, and people who use IVF, and surrogacy, and adoption, but this is super complicated as it is.
It's a catch 22. When two people (e.g. a potential mother and a potential father) vote on an issue (e.g. whether to carry the baby to term) and they disagree, who should win? It's an impossible question, but I will break it down as best I can.
A few logical rules to consider:
- All people (including women and men) have a basic right to decide how their bodies are used. Denying them this is unacceptable.
- Abortion is an either/or thing. It's a binary decision. There is no such thing as a compromise over an abortion. You can't have half a baby.
- You CANNOT have a situation where there is equal say. Equal say leaves you open to a stalemate, which is not an outcome.
- "Doing nothing" is not the solution to the stalemate problem because choosing to allow natural birth is an ACTIVE DECISION.
- There is no way you can give some say to one partner, but most say to the other. Because abortion is a binary decision, giving one partner a greater say is the same as giving them the entire say. Provided we divide the issue along gendered lines, there are only two choices: give the man the entire say, or give the woman the entire say. We could also toss a coin (sounds utterly tasteless, but it is a genuine option), or build in an outcome bias (in the event of a stalemate the outcome is that the couple always abort, or they always go to term - whatever politicians decide is best for us collectively).
- In reality, in a stable relationship, a woman and a man would probably have this discussion and would probably listen to each other. And that's great! That's how a relationship should be run. However, this discussion isn't about that. This discussion is about *rights* and what should happen if the man and woman cannot agree.
This leaves four problematic possibilities. 1) Man decides to abort, even though the woman says no. 2) Man decides to carry to term, even though the woman says no. 3) Woman decides to abort, even though the man says no. 4) Woman decides to carry to term, even though the man says no.
All these possibilities are bad, but you could say that there are shades of grey. There is an argument to be made that forcing a woman to have an abortion (which could happen if you didn't allow women to choose) is worse than anything you could do to a man in this framework. Forced abortion is rape, and rape is terrible. It's a compelling argument, for sure. However, it does ignore the potential trauma for a man. His experience is not anywhere near as physically invasive, and most men might not even mind, but that isn't necessarily important. It's down to you to make your individual decision. Personally, I think forcing a woman to have an abortion (or forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term) are worse than anything you could do to a man in this framework.
I'm afraid this is an essay without a conclusion. I can see no answer. It's just about possible that there is a solution which involves slightly less suffering that the alternative, but it's not simple. By all means reply if you have any thoughts though, 'cause I'd love to hear them.
What you said is correct. I only wish there could be a way to allow the father to early in the process sign a release paper so that he would not be forced to be a father even financially. If the woman decides to keep the baby against the will of the father he should not in any way shape or form have to finance her.
She should think the situation through and keep it only if she can manage it.
I will also have to add that I cannot know for sure, but it seems to me like a lot of the users on IIN is located in America? And judged by my American friends the sex-education around there is horrible and parents are most likely to say "Don't have sex" rather than informing their kids about the importance of protection.
Oh come on, she didn't get pregnant by herself! If he didn't take precautions he's equally responsible for any baby that results - it's not the child's fault its father didn't want it, he still fathered it
Sex isn't just "making babies" Sex can be so much more and people who are engaging in sexual activities are NOT necessarily mature (nor fit) to be parents.
It should be a guys choice to not be involved in a child's life if he knows this since day one. If he however bails on her when it's too late to abort it that fucker should pay child support!
And a guy can wear a condom and a condom CAN break. It has happened to me once, thankfully nothing happened that time. I was quick to go on the pills after that incident.
Of course sex isn't just "making babies" BUT also of course, it does have that potential for most people doing it.
I don't understand you second sentence about the man's choice not to be involved if he knows what from day one? Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that if there's unwanted pregnancy and the woman doesn't abort it, the man shouldn't be expected to financially support her and the child? In other words, they both made a mistake, but she bears all the brunt of it?
The point about abortion is that it isn't a desirable thing, just sometimes necessary when contraception fails. No-one will ever convince me that an embryo or foetus has more rights than the woman unwillingly carry it. Ideally the man should be involved in the decision, but should never have the final say, that must remain with the woman.
I'll try to rephrase myself. English isn't my first language so sometimes I do get carried away and lose all concept of grammar.
I agree with your last paragraph to a 100% Every child deserve to be born wanted by at least one parent and "pro-lifers" annoy the shit out of me because they, as you say, claim that the foetus has more rights than the woman carrying it.
Moving on to the part you didn't understand: If I have sex with a man and we use a condom and we are both saying that we do not want children and the condom breaks I do not think I have any right to force parenting upon him if I for some reason decide to keep the baby.
I should be able to take care of it alone both emotionally and financially and not force him to pay for a child he didn't want.
As you said, the woman does have the final say and if she cannot financially support a child she should not have it at all.
Unsure if you and I can ever agree on this however since it seems to be a subject were people have very different opinions and it may also have to do with how easy it is where you are from for a woman to finance her child alone.
Here in Sweden I'd just get more well-fare if the father wasn't signed on any papers. since we have a rather good structure when it comes to poor people= Everyone are entitled to the essentials (Food, clothes, home, health-care, education) So there really is no need for me to demand that a man pays for a child he do not want if the decision to keep it is only mine.
As someone who (like most white Australians) can speak only one language, I'm totally impressed - it never occurred to me that English wasn't your first language.
I do see what you mean now and I agree ....... I've had friends, both lesbian and straight, who've had kids and not expected or wanted the male to be involved in financial support.
From what I know of your country's welfare structure, it's the best in the world, isn't it? Ours is not too bad, but continually under attack from both sides of the political spectrum; for example, we had a female atheist childless Labour Prime Minister, who removed government child support from a big proportion of single parents, most of them women ...... I think she also thought she was a feminist, she certainly complained enough about her undoubtedly misogynist opposite number, who is now PM, but in my opinion at that stage he was only talking misogyny, she was doing it
Financial abortion is super duper complex and I don't know where I stand on it. Introducing it as an option invariably impacts on the mother's choice over whether to keep the child, and may force the mother's hand which, for me, is far from ideal. On the other side of the coin, it gives more freedom to the father. Really complex choice as far as I see it.
Totally true what you say about sex ed :) Realistic, empowering sex ed is super important. I feel really educated about sex, and part of that is due to going to school in England in a secular school and being taught about sex properly. I wish everyone had the same opportunities as I did.
IN Sweden we have the first sex-education when we are 12, the second when we are 14 and then above that most parents are really open to their children about it. I was never told not to have sex, I was told to use protection and never do something that I wasn't comfortable with.
I get what you are saying about the financial part too, but at the same time a single mother should not keep it if she cannot afford it. Gender equality goes both ways and no one should be forced to become a parent against his will.
And to expect people to refrain from sex until marriage just isn't fair either.
Is it normal to believe that men should have no say in abortions?
← View full post
Swift disclaimer: sorry, this account is hetero-centric and not fully inclusive of people who are trans, or people who are agender, or people who use IVF, or or anything other than in vivo, cis, hetero baby-making. I would love to talk about people who are trans and agender, and people who use IVF, and surrogacy, and adoption, but this is super complicated as it is.
It's a catch 22. When two people (e.g. a potential mother and a potential father) vote on an issue (e.g. whether to carry the baby to term) and they disagree, who should win? It's an impossible question, but I will break it down as best I can.
A few logical rules to consider:
- All people (including women and men) have a basic right to decide how their bodies are used. Denying them this is unacceptable.
- Abortion is an either/or thing. It's a binary decision. There is no such thing as a compromise over an abortion. You can't have half a baby.
- You CANNOT have a situation where there is equal say. Equal say leaves you open to a stalemate, which is not an outcome.
- "Doing nothing" is not the solution to the stalemate problem because choosing to allow natural birth is an ACTIVE DECISION.
- There is no way you can give some say to one partner, but most say to the other. Because abortion is a binary decision, giving one partner a greater say is the same as giving them the entire say. Provided we divide the issue along gendered lines, there are only two choices: give the man the entire say, or give the woman the entire say. We could also toss a coin (sounds utterly tasteless, but it is a genuine option), or build in an outcome bias (in the event of a stalemate the outcome is that the couple always abort, or they always go to term - whatever politicians decide is best for us collectively).
- In reality, in a stable relationship, a woman and a man would probably have this discussion and would probably listen to each other. And that's great! That's how a relationship should be run. However, this discussion isn't about that. This discussion is about *rights* and what should happen if the man and woman cannot agree.
This leaves four problematic possibilities. 1) Man decides to abort, even though the woman says no. 2) Man decides to carry to term, even though the woman says no. 3) Woman decides to abort, even though the man says no. 4) Woman decides to carry to term, even though the man says no.
All these possibilities are bad, but you could say that there are shades of grey. There is an argument to be made that forcing a woman to have an abortion (which could happen if you didn't allow women to choose) is worse than anything you could do to a man in this framework. Forced abortion is rape, and rape is terrible. It's a compelling argument, for sure. However, it does ignore the potential trauma for a man. His experience is not anywhere near as physically invasive, and most men might not even mind, but that isn't necessarily important. It's down to you to make your individual decision. Personally, I think forcing a woman to have an abortion (or forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term) are worse than anything you could do to a man in this framework.
I'm afraid this is an essay without a conclusion. I can see no answer. It's just about possible that there is a solution which involves slightly less suffering that the alternative, but it's not simple. By all means reply if you have any thoughts though, 'cause I'd love to hear them.
--
(s)aint
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
What you said is correct. I only wish there could be a way to allow the father to early in the process sign a release paper so that he would not be forced to be a father even financially. If the woman decides to keep the baby against the will of the father he should not in any way shape or form have to finance her.
She should think the situation through and keep it only if she can manage it.
I will also have to add that I cannot know for sure, but it seems to me like a lot of the users on IIN is located in America? And judged by my American friends the sex-education around there is horrible and parents are most likely to say "Don't have sex" rather than informing their kids about the importance of protection.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
dom180
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh come on, she didn't get pregnant by herself! If he didn't take precautions he's equally responsible for any baby that results - it's not the child's fault its father didn't want it, he still fathered it
--
(s)aint
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Sex isn't just "making babies" Sex can be so much more and people who are engaging in sexual activities are NOT necessarily mature (nor fit) to be parents.
It should be a guys choice to not be involved in a child's life if he knows this since day one. If he however bails on her when it's too late to abort it that fucker should pay child support!
And a guy can wear a condom and a condom CAN break. It has happened to me once, thankfully nothing happened that time. I was quick to go on the pills after that incident.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Of course sex isn't just "making babies" BUT also of course, it does have that potential for most people doing it.
I don't understand you second sentence about the man's choice not to be involved if he knows what from day one? Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that if there's unwanted pregnancy and the woman doesn't abort it, the man shouldn't be expected to financially support her and the child? In other words, they both made a mistake, but she bears all the brunt of it?
The point about abortion is that it isn't a desirable thing, just sometimes necessary when contraception fails. No-one will ever convince me that an embryo or foetus has more rights than the woman unwillingly carry it. Ideally the man should be involved in the decision, but should never have the final say, that must remain with the woman.
--
(s)aint
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I'll try to rephrase myself. English isn't my first language so sometimes I do get carried away and lose all concept of grammar.
I agree with your last paragraph to a 100% Every child deserve to be born wanted by at least one parent and "pro-lifers" annoy the shit out of me because they, as you say, claim that the foetus has more rights than the woman carrying it.
Moving on to the part you didn't understand: If I have sex with a man and we use a condom and we are both saying that we do not want children and the condom breaks I do not think I have any right to force parenting upon him if I for some reason decide to keep the baby.
I should be able to take care of it alone both emotionally and financially and not force him to pay for a child he didn't want.
As you said, the woman does have the final say and if she cannot financially support a child she should not have it at all.
Unsure if you and I can ever agree on this however since it seems to be a subject were people have very different opinions and it may also have to do with how easy it is where you are from for a woman to finance her child alone.
Here in Sweden I'd just get more well-fare if the father wasn't signed on any papers. since we have a rather good structure when it comes to poor people= Everyone are entitled to the essentials (Food, clothes, home, health-care, education) So there really is no need for me to demand that a man pays for a child he do not want if the decision to keep it is only mine.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
As someone who (like most white Australians) can speak only one language, I'm totally impressed - it never occurred to me that English wasn't your first language.
I do see what you mean now and I agree ....... I've had friends, both lesbian and straight, who've had kids and not expected or wanted the male to be involved in financial support.
From what I know of your country's welfare structure, it's the best in the world, isn't it? Ours is not too bad, but continually under attack from both sides of the political spectrum; for example, we had a female atheist childless Labour Prime Minister, who removed government child support from a big proportion of single parents, most of them women ...... I think she also thought she was a feminist, she certainly complained enough about her undoubtedly misogynist opposite number, who is now PM, but in my opinion at that stage he was only talking misogyny, she was doing it
Financial abortion is super duper complex and I don't know where I stand on it. Introducing it as an option invariably impacts on the mother's choice over whether to keep the child, and may force the mother's hand which, for me, is far from ideal. On the other side of the coin, it gives more freedom to the father. Really complex choice as far as I see it.
Totally true what you say about sex ed :) Realistic, empowering sex ed is super important. I feel really educated about sex, and part of that is due to going to school in England in a secular school and being taught about sex properly. I wish everyone had the same opportunities as I did.
--
(s)aint
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
IN Sweden we have the first sex-education when we are 12, the second when we are 14 and then above that most parents are really open to their children about it. I was never told not to have sex, I was told to use protection and never do something that I wasn't comfortable with.
I get what you are saying about the financial part too, but at the same time a single mother should not keep it if she cannot afford it. Gender equality goes both ways and no one should be forced to become a parent against his will.
And to expect people to refrain from sex until marriage just isn't fair either.