Don't rely on someone else, when you can do it yourself.
financial/male 'abortion' rights?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
When did I say it was the mans fault, I said they had to share responsibility. If you actively decide to remove yourself from taking responsibility for contraception you are accepting the additional risk that comes with that. Is it wrong that the women deceived their partners.... of course it is.
Both would have been happy to rubber up if asked (or more importantly, told they stopped taking the pill), because neither of them wanted a child. However the women in both cases took it on themselves to intentionally stop taking the pill and get pregnant without telling the man. Both up until they got the news were under the impression that they and their partners both didn't want children.
Because of the above. Would you want to be with a woman who decides to intentionally mis-lead you to get you on the hook for a child you didnt want and assumed she also didnt want one at that point?
I'd say that as unplanned pregnancies are the minority event it might be a bit overkill though perhaps prudent to have it signed in advance, i.e. have a father sign a register and notify his partner he doesn't wish to be a parent etc.. - then again it was the principle I was interested in more than the implementation. A couple generally knows if they're trying for a baby without needing a legal agreement - if they're using birth control then the default stance IMO is that they're not. Really it ought to be a conversation that two people in a relationship have themselves - this financial abortion only being required in a tiny minority of instances where a woman decides to keep an accidental pregnancy despite knowing her partner had no intention of becoming a father. I was actually assuming more of an option to have this financial abortion up to a deadline well short of the legal abortion limit.
You've also got a potential issue whereby a couple sign one of these and it doesn't get updated, they both decide that actually they'd like to keep the unexpected baby the father however is technically by default automatically disenfranchised. I think if the pre-signed contracts are they way that these things get done then there would need to be some reverse optionality for the father to nullify the contract - after all they both decide they're not going to have a baby then when they pregnancy occurs they ought to both have the option to change their minds - the woman does by default as it is her body and a real abortion (even if the father wants to keep the baby) is solely her decision.
She doesn't need to - the choice re: whether either party wishes to be a parent is solely theirs. A woman already has this optionality and doesn't need to register or sign anything - she can have an abortion at will.
Last edited:
The term is just a term. He was pretty specific in the first paragraph of the OP what it meant.
Why would anyone sign a prenup? Why would anyone enter into a myriad of other legal contracts. People are willing and do all the time, it's up to the couple to make a decision and to sign the documents.
As an example: A couple early on discuss the matter and agree that if the woman got pregnant she would have an abortion. They have sex on those "terms", but then when the woman does get pregnant the man can do nothing if the she decided so break the terms of their agreement. One side deciding to break an agreement because "things change" is the reason legal contracts are needed in the first place (in life in general).
If it became legal I wouldn't be surprised if it became increasingly common, to the point where it would become a semi expected part of relationships, just as prenups are becoming more common.
If it is not signed in advance then what is stopping the man (or women) simply changing their mind once the women is pregnant?. The concept only makes sense if both parties positions are ascertained before commencing sexual activity.
Then you have shifted the entire argument to the fact the women can have an abortion, vs the man can simply not pay. These are not equivalent. As soon as couple initiate sex they have to know there is a small chance of pregnancy.
If both parties agree then they can change their mind. If one party changes their mind afterwards then the whole point of the contract becomes useless. You can't have the man or women saying they will have financially responsibility and then when an accident happens one of them simply say no, the other partner can't become 100% financially responsible.
So if a women doesn't want to be financially responsible, and the man doesn't, then who does become financially responsible? Does the tax payer just pick up the bill? That really would make Daily Mail headlines, don't pay for your own children, just decide you aren't financially responsible and the state will pick up the tab.
Sorry I need to clarify - by "declare in advance" I was referring to in advance of a baby being born (well in advance), as in I don't support the idea that someone can just walk away from a child if the mother is under the impression that she is still in a relationship, will be having the baby with the support of another person etc... This isn't about dead beat dads getting a get out clause, the woman getting pregnant needs to be informed ASAP what the partners wishes are re the pregnancy and should also know before whether he intends to be a father - i.e. if they're using birth control then probably not. While I'm not specific on the implementation and this certainly could be done in advance of conception even I'd have thought that something along the lines of being able to to give official notification in the event of a pregnancy but well before the limit on abortions would be the preferable way to do it.
i.e. turn up at magistrates court, state that precautions were taken to avoid pregnancy and that you do not wish to be a father but the woman has decided she would like to have a baby regardless
Like I said it was more the principle I was interested in as this then leads to potential side tracked things like where does the line get drawn re: time limits, what happens if say a woman who wants to trap someone deliberately conceals the pregnancy beyond this limit etc.. or even what happens if someone genuinely didn't know they were pregnant and only finds out too late (perhaps in that case a financial abortion can't be used). It is certainly something that would need limits/constraints etc..
I think the bold part could be easily solved by having a contract "break" whereby the father has an automatic right to access and financial responsibility (if they so please) up to a certain point, say either birth or maybe 12 months after birth. Perhaps the break could be as simple as providing financially for the child (or perhaps just seeing the child) - although if it's a legal contract initially then perhaps something more legal, such as a formal letter - which then puts them back on the hook, equivalent to today. If they so please later in life then there would have to be an agreement from both sides. Either way I think you'd have to make it a one way change. Once you accept "responsibility" you are financially responsible until they come of age - no dipping in and out.
Just having something like a register I don't think would work as there's no way of knowing if the woman knew the man wa son the register in the first place. Personally I'd only argue for the idea if it was an open and legally tight agreement with both parties, basically a formal contract between two specific individuals.
nothing, that is intentional - if a pregnancy accidentally happens and both decide that actually they will keep it after all then great
a woman can already change her mind etc..
that is the argument, I've never said they are equivalent - the woman has 100% of the risk of the biological aspect and therefore 100% of the control - it is only the choice to be a parent aspect that could be made equal here
This is backwards - the point of this is to declare that you don't want to be a parent! It isn't to declare that you do!
Those scenarios are unchanged and already catered for:
If a woman doesn't want to become a parent then she can terminate the pregnancy rather early on.
On the other hand if a couple for whatever reason have an unwanted child they can give it up for adoption.
Ah, ok.
The issue I have with that is the specifics of the general principle would be a relatively important part of whether I'd consider it an agreeable situation or not.
For example I don't think it's fair on the woman for a "Post Coitus" change of "terms" to occur. The woman would still have to deal with the abortion and consequences whether they decided to keep the baby or not.
You can't buy car insurance after you've had an accident and expect it to pay out for the damage for example. So once the act is done you're tied in. As a male you can't go back on that, even if you haven't discussed it in the first place IMO. You have to take what the woman decides.
On the other hand having a legal agreement prior to the event setting out clearly where both sides stand seems reasonable IMO, but would be more difficult for the male in completely unplanned pregnancies (such as a one night stand).
In a longer term relationship where the decision to have/keep an accidental baby is likely to have been discussed and or part of the relationship staying together it would bind both parties to the agreement they made. For example it would stop the woman from keeping the man on the hook if prior to sex they had agreed that nether wanted a child and that she would have an abortion if they did accidentally conceive, but then when they conceived she changed her mind and wanted to keep the baby.
So in summary I think I'd be against the principe if it were a general get out clause after conception, but would be for it in principle if it was a much stricter and legally tight agreement prior to conception (essentially cementing a conversation had prior to sex).
I think a formal contract between two removes the choice from the father as an individual, as with the mother the choice to not want to be a parent ought to be a unilateral decision (and likewise, in an ideal world the choice to be a parent ought to be a mutual decision - though is something women can decide unilaterally as it is their body).
I guess if this was implemented in advance with a register there could be a requirement that in any ongoing relationship you have to show/prove that your partner is aware of your status in that case. (Though in the case of a one night stand the default assumption ought to be that the intention isn't to bring a child into the world!)
I don't think after birth could work so well - I think that would need the consent of the mother. Imagine a guy says he wants nothing to do with being a father, the mother therefore makes a unilateral decision to have the baby regardless in the full knowledge she will be a single parent - I don't think the ex then gets to just turn up out of the blue, 6 moths after the birth and start demanding access etc.. that would need consent. It would need to be done early on in the pregnancy (I'd say like the limit for the case I proposed before re the financial abortion) - the guy who signed a pre-existing agreement but does actually want to be a father now he's learned the news - ought to declare that interest ASAP, probably at a time limit before the legal abortion limit... for example maybe the couple had just broken up - perhaps if he now does want to be a part of the baby's life the woman might want to exercise her ultimate right to have an actual abortion - her decision to keep the baby might otherwise have been conditioned on the fact the male is NOT going to be part of the baby's life.
Hence why I think any agreement would have to be made prior to conception.
People should know where they stand prior to something as big as having to decide on an abortion. Especially if you're in a relationship, not just a one night stand.
The choice of the father would be to not continue a relationship with the woman (prior to conception). If a couple can't agree on something as fundamental as parenthood then perhaps they shouldn't be together. That goes for both the individuals wants in a relationship now, and any legal contract that may or may not be signed.
Perhaps by signing a piece of paper? Aka a legal contract?
A good argument. I'd agree, it would make sense to have to make the decision as early as possible.
Edit: I think the suggestion of any man having the option at any time (to x weeks after conception) to have a "financial abortion" is little different to just flipping the current law on its head. That would perhaps be easier to deal with too. In that the law becomes that the male has no responsibility unless they decide they want to, and they have to express that choice within x weeks of conception.
When it's written like that it (IMO) shows why so many have issues with the premise. It basically absolves all men of the consequences of their actions.
Edit 2: to go further down this rabbit hole I think we'd probably need to know what proportion of births/unwanted pregnancies end up with the situation where a man says he will stand by the woman and then decides to run off at a later date vs how many make it clear they aren't interested in a child from the start. I personally don't have a clue what those numbers would be.
Last edited:
The choice of the father would be to not continue a relationship with the woman (prior to conception). If a couple can't agree on something as fundamental as parenthood then perhaps they shouldn't be together. That goes for both the individuals wants in a relationship now, and any legal contract that may or may not be signed.
Perhaps by signing a piece of paper? Aka a legal contract?
I think that would be a bit convoluted to have this prenup type agreement prior to every relationship - the principle really was that it ought to be a unilateral choice just as a woman has, but you're right in that they can simply decide not to be in a relationship if there is a disagreement. Likewise the same can be said for a man simply registering his interest in general and ensuring that there is a notification to the partner re: each relationship. End result is the same I guess though and this is more of an implementation detail - though there is a minor objection in that the contract removes the unilateral decision from the father which was part of the point of this - the decision to be a parent ought to be one both parties have an independent choice over. Given that then my opinion is unilateral declaration/registration of wishes and proof of notification of wishes > requiring consent/contract of the other party IMO.
In the case of a one night stand the default ought to be that the two people involved are not trying for a baby.
Agreed, as long as both parties know where they stand then it's basically the same as you say. I think the biggest issue for me would still be when the intention was announced. IMO it would always have to be prior to the conception, rather than any option post conception.*
*i guess if we could delve into implementation a little again you wouldn't necessarily need some form of official paper with witnesses etc. Perhaps just a video recording prior to the "event" would be enough - although at that point presumably you'd have to testify that you were sober and were not coerced into continuing.
See my edits above regarding the default position.
The options a women have for changing her mind about financial commitment are very different to the tons a man has, which is why the law is the way it is.
I understand. But the point is the contract is useless if either party can change their mind without the consent of the other.
And here we get back to thecrux of the matter, that if a women doesn't want financial responsibility then she can't just walk away.
Agreed entirely, which is why the only way this could work is with a legal agreement before having sex, and even then I am highly skeptical why a women would sign such a contract. It puts a lot of brunder ont he woemn to have a child without fianncial aid form the father, or have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.
As you say, if a man doesn't want to be a father they should have a long hard think about having sex
I'm not trying to trivialise it but just being realistic in that it is the woman's body and an actual abortion is 100% her choice.
If you don't want to be a dad at some point in your life you do have some control over that but that control generally isn't 100% (unless you want to never have kids).
We're beyond abortions just in the case of rape, incest, medical reasons etc.. and as a society we recognise that a woman may chose an abortion for financial reasons, career reasons etc.. i.e. we assign some value to having the ability to decide to be a parent then perhaps it ought to be a decision both can make while maintaining that a woman has 100% control over the biological side
Either party? The woman can have an abortion or not regardless, that doesn't require consent of the other. Are you seriously proposing that it should? That if this contract contains the choice of both parties then the woman can't change her mind and keep the baby? I think that it would be a regressive step to require consent for that. The contract should concern the parental choice of only one party - the man*. The woman, due to the biological aspect, has a free choice whenever to the limit the law allows for abortions.
The contract is simply the man stating that he doesn't want to be a parent - I'm not sure how him then deciding to change that and want to assume parental duties (within a short period of time of being notified of the pregnancy) makes the contract useless. If he doesn't make that choice then the contract still stands and he's able to exercise his choice. It objectively isn't 'useless' its use is clear - he can declare that he doesn't wish to be a parent.
well we can't change biological reality, but the early options re: medical abortion and morning after pill (without wanting to trivialise them) are easily available and as per the link posted earlier abortion is associated with much less psychological harm than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Though this is all separate from the financial/legal side - that a woman has this biological reality, that both sexes can't get pregnant, that is unchanged but I don't see that the existence of that (if it is seen as a disadvantage - there are positives and negatives to it tbh...) need be a reason to deny both parties choice re: the parental aspect.
(*for completeness if you do want the contract to concern the choices of both parties we could introduce a convoluted scenario where the woman doesn't believe in abortion but also doesn't want to be a parent either and the man does ergo will father the child without requiring maintenance payments from the woman - but again in this scenario, having an opt out certainly doesn't make such a contract useless )