'My body, my baby'

py2006

I have just been reading through an interesting and extensive thread on abortion.

An interesting undertone in the discussion was the following (which I have paraphrased):

"My body, my baby and NO MAN will have a say in that".

Which, in fairness, is hard to argue against but it is effectively suggesting that potential child is none of the fathers business. As I went for a walk and was thinking about the discussion an interesting thought occurred to me which I was interested in hearing responses to:

If an equally strong minded woman decides to keep the baby should she be upset if the father says:

'Your body, your baby, I'm off'.

Now I wasn’t advocating this but was interested in the responses but unfortunatelly it didn’t receive much. Now obviously, most decent fathers out there wouldn’t do this. And there are legal implications if he does try it but it is an interesting angle on the original statement.

As the original discussion was largely female based, it would be interesting to get my fellow gentlemans perspective on this. Woman too of course!

Thanks! :-)

PS. I don't want this to be an abortion debate!

Monty Burnz

Well, there was an interesting concept that was briefly raised relating to an aspect of the imbalance of power where a woman is the only one who can choose whether to abort or keep a baby/foetus to full term. After fertilisation, a man can't force a woman to be a mother (or, at least, shouldn't be able to). But a woman can force a man to be a father, with all the legal and financial repercussions that this implies for the man.

This is an imbalance that would be simple enough to rectify - change the law so that a father can disavow any responsibility for a baby before it is born (or as soon as he learns of the existence of 'his' child). I don't hear anyone campaigning for such a change though, certainly not pro-choice women (unless I missed something, which is entirely possible).

Bottle_of_Smoke

py2006 wrote: »

I have just been reading through an interesting and extensive thread on abortion.

An interesting undertone in the discussion was the following (which I have paraphrased):

"My body, my baby and NO MAN will have a say in that".

Have seen that theme a lot in abortion debates.

If it were my kid inside her I'd be outraged at the attitude. If I wanted to have the child I'd consider the mother no different to the killer of a new born baby

Objectively speaking though. . . it is probably a fair enough attitude. All I've contributed is a sperm, whereas it has major effect on the woman's body.

I wish I was wrong though, perhaps someone can put forward an argument that refutes mine.

Malari

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Have seen that theme a lot in abortion debates.

If it were my kid inside her I'd be outraged at the attitude. If I wanted to have the child I'd consider the mother no different to the killer of a new born baby

Objectively speaking though. . . it is probably a fair enough attitude. All I've contributed is a sperm, whereas it has major effect on the woman's body.

I wish I was wrong though, perhaps someone can put forward an argument that refutes mine.

I can understand outrage at the argument if it wasn't clear this is what she always intended to do I suppose. It's a good argument for a discussion before you have sex. I know this isn't always practical, but it should be in a relationship.

G86

py2006 wrote: »

"My body, my baby and NO MAN will have a say in that".

IMO, if it was a serious relationship then he should definitely have a say, but the ultimate decision should still be down to the woman who has to carry the child for 9 months.

K-9

py2006 wrote: »

If an equally strong minded woman decides to keep the baby should she be upset if the father says:

'Your body, your baby, I'm off'.

If it was put like that I'd say yes, he would be entitled to that attitude, the same indeed if having an abortion was put in such clear and uncompromising terms.

I'd expect the woman to have some respect for the fathers view, whether that means an acceptable compromise can be found I don't know, as really it's having the baby or not! I mentioned on the other thread that I do think if the father wants to adopt the baby, it should be considered as a viable option.

Dravokivich

K-9 wrote: »

I mentioned on the other thread that I do think if the father wants to adopt the baby, it should be considered as a viable option.

Wait, what? The father would have to adopt their own kid?

Frank Black

G86 wrote: »

IMO, if it was a serious relationship then he should definitely have a say, but the ultimate decision should still be down to the woman who has to carry the child for 9 months.

Having 'a say' is meaningless in this scenario.

py2006

If a woman can abort a baby up a certain period in the pregnancy then perhaps men should be given the right to exclude themselves from involvement up to that date?

Obviously, we wouldn't want a scenario where a man can fill out a legal form stating he wants no involvement on the day of birth or after.

jon1981

The Crux of the issue is... the man cannot choose to "not" have the baby and is such then forced to financially support the baby. Is this the current situation?

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure I understand the question...are you suggesting that because some women would have an abortion with the stance "it's my body, my choice", NO other woman should be allowed to be upset at the other party not wanting any more to do with her or the pregnancy?

For starters, I don't think anyone was advocating that any party shouldn't be upset - just that they don't have the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. In an ideal world both parties would get equal input and a solution that both are reasonably happy with would be reached.

It is unfair that women have the ultimate say in whether a pregnancy goes ahead or if it doesn't - but the alternative is enforced pregnancy, which would be a ridiculous scenario and, given the current tenets to abortion even here, a legal nightmare.

ToniTuddle

Dravokivich wrote: »

Wait, what? The father would have to adopt their own kid?

Think they mean if the mother is considering abortion and the father really does not want this that they could reach an agreement that she carry the baby to full term and then he gets the baby and has full responsibility for it from then on. She can have nothing more to do with it.

Though I doubt many women go for that option.

G86

black francis wrote: »

Having 'a say' is meaningless in this scenario.

No, it's not. It's giving the man a right to his opinion. And it's giving the woman the right to choose whether she agrees with that opinion. You can hardly ask to have a woman, who point blank doesn't want a kid, to go through a pregnancy on the request of the father.

Bottle_of_Smoke

py2006 wrote: »

If a woman can abort a baby up a certain period in the pregnancy then perhaps men should be given the right to exclude themselves from involvement up to that date?

Obviously, we wouldn't want a scenario where a man can fill out a legal form stating he wants no involvement on the day of birth or after.

They already have the legal right to be excluded up to that date. In that there's no legal obligation to be included at that stage.

I agree with you on the second part. I don't like the idea of men being able to legally exclude themselves from being a parent. The "women have an option so why can't we" argument doesn't make any sense to me and sounds like it was dreamt up in a playground.

py2006

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the question...are you suggesting that because some women would have an abortion with the stance "it's my body, my choice", NO other woman should be allowed to be upset at the other party not wanting any more to do with her or the pregnancy?

No.

Frank Black

G86 wrote: »

No, it's not. It's giving the man a right to his opinion. And it's giving the woman the right to choose whether she agrees with that opinion. You can hardly ask to have a woman, who point blank doesn't want a kid, to go through a pregnancy on the request of the father.

Giving the man a 'right to an opinion'?

Since when did that not exist?

And if the woman is free to choose to ignore said opinion then the right to that opinion is ultimately meaningless anyway.

Bottle_of_Smoke

G86 wrote: »

No, it's not. It's giving the man a right to his opinion. And it's giving the woman the right to choose whether she agrees with that opinion. You can hardly ask to have a woman, who point blank doesn't want a kid, to go through a pregnancy on the request of the father.

That does in practical terms make it ultimately meaningless though. An opinion is just an opinion unless its backed up with something tangible.

Unfortunately it can only be black or white in this scenario, and the most fair way is to give the female the right to decide.

Monty Burnz

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree with you on the second part. I don't like the idea of men being able to legally exclude themselves from being a parent. The "women have an option so why can't we" argument doesn't make any sense to me and sounds like it was dreamt up in a playground.

Do you think that it is equitable that one person can abort a pregnancy where the second person wants a child, or can bring to term a child that the second person does not want?

Ickle Magoo

py2006 wrote: »

No.

Okay - so why are some women using the "my body, my baby" line being linked to men having a right to walk away? Given that those who are using that line are not necessarily the same people who want to go to term against the wishes of the other party? I'm confused at what ties the two together baring in mind a law has to be universal.

seamus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't like the idea of men being able to legally exclude themselves from being a parent. The "women have an option so why can't we" argument doesn't make any sense to me and sounds like it was dreamt up in a playground.

It makes perfect sense. If a woman is permitted to abort without the father's consent, then surely an equivalent system should be in place for the man?

It doesn't make sense that a woman is given the entire choice - two people are in the situation, both have (potentially) made a mistake, but only one party is given the power to rectify that mistake or live with it. The other party just has to live with it, whatever the mother chooses.

This discussion came up very recently IIRC. I proposed that a man should be permitted to legally absolve themselves of their parental rights and obligations, with caveats obviously:

- It would have to be done while the child is in utero and only up to a certain stage of the pregnancy (to prevent a guy from deciding "I'm off", a week before the child is born), say up to 20 weeks.

- The woman would have a legal obligation to notify the man of her pregnancy as soon as she knows about it, in order to give him the same amount of time to make a decision as she has.

- If the pregnancy is only discovered very late on, then it's kind of tough **** for both parties, deal with it.

There would obviously be tonnes of "what ifs" and special cases, but overall it would be quite simple to build a framework to introduce equality into the abortion process.

py2006

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Okay - so why are some women using the "my body, my baby" line being linked to men having a right to walk away? Given that those who are using that line are not necessarily the same people who want to go to term against the wishes of the other party? I'm confused at what ties the two together baring in mind a law has to be universal.

I think that some woman are suggesting that the baby is theirs and has nothing to do with the man and they will abort it if they choose. But if they choose to keep the baby, do they then consider it to be the mans baby as well? (i.e finacial support)

If that makes sense!

Ickle Magoo

py2006 wrote: »

I think that some woman are suggesting that the baby is theirs and has nothing to do with the man and they will abort it if they choose. But if they choose to keep the baby do they then consider it to be the mans baby as well? (i.e finacial support)

If that makes sense!

It would make sense if I'd seen anyone making such a suggestion...

py2006

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It would make sense if I'd seen anyone making such a suggestion...

I doubt many women would actually say it.

Clearly some women believe the baby is theirs as its in their body. The father has no say or right.

I believe somebody mentioned on the other thread that somebody he knew had a situation where his girlfriend/wife aborted a pregnancy without him knowing she was even pregnant. That was her right as things stand today.

I am not sure how I would react in that scenario. Obviously the relationship didn't last.

tallaghtmick

my mickey my responsibilty

K-9

Dravokivich wrote: »

Wait, what? The father would have to adopt their own kid?

AFAIK, it's about the only way for a mother to give up her rights. I suppose the court could make him sole guardian but the law may still view her as liable for maintenance. He wouldn't have to seek it but there maybe problems if he applied for lone parent assistance eg.

py2006 wrote: »

Obviously, we wouldn't want a scenario where a man can fill out a legal form stating he wants no involvement on the day of birth or after.

Some men do actually want that. It seems to come from the "well they have abortion, we want equal rights" mindset. Personally I think it ignore a child's right and that's where the practical problem arises.

ToniTuddle wrote: »

Think they mean if the mother is considering abortion and the father really does not want this that they could reach an agreement that she carry the baby to full term and then he gets the baby and has full responsibility for it from then on. She can have nothing more to do with it.

Though I doubt many women go for that option.

Yeah, obviously if the mother is dead against adopting there wouldn't be a lot he could do. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered an option by crisis pregnancy agencies say.

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

Some men do actually want that. It seems to come from the "well they have abortion, we want equal rights" mindset. Personally I think it ignore a child's right and that's where the practical problem arises.

Right, but we are not talking about a child, we are talking about a foetus. And a fundamental point that many of the pro-choice arguments rest on is that a foetus is not a person. If it's not a person, then it has no rights, and can surely be disowned just as it can be aborted?

seamus

py2006 wrote: »

Clearly some women believe the baby is theirs as its in their body. The father has no say or right.

Are you trying to say that the father should be allowed have a say as to whether she does or does not carry the child?

The problem here is that the majority of people recognise the fact that regardless of equality, it would not be right for the father to be able to "block" the mother from going through with an abortion and forcing her to carry a pregnancy to full term. It's a gross violation of one's personal liberty. Notwithstanding that the Irish state does this at present.

However, I think a good number of people also recognise the inherent inequality here where the man has no options whatsoever. The situation is effectively reversed - a woman can choose to force a man into becoming a father, even if given the choice he would have the child aborted. Which, while not an invasion of personal liberty, is a gross inequality.

That said, society has an inherent anti-male biase when it comes to child bearing and child rearing. Many (most?) people would take pity on a young pregnant woman without the resources to look after the child, and if not support, at least understand her reasoning for having an abortion.

However lots of those same people will judge the man in the same scenario for not being careful with where he's waving his cock, and condemn him as a coward or a scumbag if he doesn't "man up" and accept the child that he never wanted.

It's one of those situations where society tends to operate on the basis that a woman gets all the rights and fewer obligations while a man gets all the obligations and few rights.

Tallaghtmick has in fact demonstrated this inequality in a perfectly self-deprecating summation.

K-9

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right, but we are not talking about a child, we are talking about a foetus. And a fundamental point that many of the pro-choice arguments rest on is that a foetus is not a person. If it's not a person, then it has no rights, and can surely be disowned just as it can be aborted?

Yeah, that's the logical explanation from the "pro choice" side. The problem I see is if she keeps the foetus it does indeed become a child obviously and ignoring that isn't giving the whole picture, which has 3 Dimensions.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote: »

Are you trying to say that the father should be allowed have a say as to whether she does or does not carry the child?

The problem here is that the majority of people recognise the fact that regardless of equality, it would not be right for the father to be able to "block" the mother from going through with an abortion and forcing her to carry a pregnancy to full term. It's a gross violation of one's personal liberty. Notwithstanding that the Irish state does this at present.

However, I think a good number of people also recognise the inherent inequality here where the man has no options whatsoever. The situation is effectively reversed - a woman can choose to force a man into becoming a father, even if given the choice he would have the child aborted. Which, while not an invasion of personal liberty, is a gross inequality.

That said, society has an inherent anti-male biase when it comes to child bearing and child rearing. Many (most?) people would take pity on a young pregnant woman without the resources to look after the child, and if not support, at least understand her reasoning for having an abortion.

However lots of those same people will judge the man in the same scenario for not being careful with where he's waving his cock, and condemn him as a coward or a scumbag if he doesn't "man up" and accept the child that he never wanted.

It's one of those situations where society tends to operate on the basis that a woman gets all the rights and fewer obligations while a man gets all the obligations and few rights.

Tallaghtmick has in fact demonstrated this inequality in a perfectly self-deprecating summation.

It is my understanding that abortion and the woman's choice are around the risks to her body and the pregnancy. There are no such risks for a man.

Women get more obligations, obligations to the hospital, to the birthing room, to the recovery, to the 30% chance of a section, and to the childcare itself. So ...it's not a level playing field, let's just be honest about that.

Childcare is intensive and people will for the most part be sympathetic to someone who doesn't feel the can hack the 24/7 childrearing, but they wont feel sympathetic to someone who only has to see the child once every other weekend and still cant hack that.

py2006

seamus wrote: »

Are you trying to say that the father should be allowed have a say as to whether she does or does not carry the child?

I really wasn't trying to suggest anything but was trying to get a discussion going to see what the general consensus is from a male perspective.

I can't foresee a scenario where men would have the say here unless one day through the wonders of science the pregnancy can be switched to the man.

It would appear to be a sad situation that men seem to face.

seamus

metrovelvet wrote: »

It is my understanding that abortion and the woman's choice are around the risks to her body and the pregnancy. There are no such risks for a man.

Women get more obligations, obligations to the hospital, to the birthing room, to the recovery, to the 30% chance of a section, and to the childcare itself. So ...it's not a level playing field, let's just be honest about that.

Agreed completely. But I'm referring to legal obligations, not medical choices - which birthing rooms, sections and so on are. Of course she has the pregnancy process, but that's a short-term matter. The legal and financial issues are ones which effectively continue for the rest of the parents' lives and so their significance far outweighs ten months of discomfort followed by (at most) a few more months of recovery. The hispital, pregnancy, birthing room, etc are not "obligations" until the woman has exercised her choice to have the child.

I agree that in many cases, women are somewhat pigeonholed and left with obligations. But for the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about abortion. The argument is that if a woman is "stuck" with a child 24/7, then she has chosen that life by deciding to not terminate the pregnancy (or put the child up for adoption).
A man however, is "stuck" with whatever the woman decides for him. The woman, at all stages has far more options than a man does.