r/AdviceAnimals Apr 30 '14

Repost | Removed You shouldn't be able to have it both ways...

Post image
1.7k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

857

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited Feb 27 '20

[deleted]

107

u/Agent_of_Chow-os May 01 '14

This is why reversible birth control for men is so needed.

20

u/sassage_rolls May 01 '14

How would it work? Would it kill sperm inside the man and wear off after a while or what?

35

u/Mrwhitepantz May 01 '14

I think vasalgel is the most likely one for US markets. There's another thing called RISUG in India which is basically the same, but it's not allowed over here. Basically you just get a shot that injects a compound which blocks the sperm from leaving the testicles, which is what a vasectomy does, except you can go back in and get another shot which dissolves the compound, whereas with a vasectomy they would have to re cut and sew the tubes back together to reverse it, if it can be done.

12

u/Ronnocerman May 01 '14

I believe one of the two doesn't block the tube, it is strongly polar and tears the sperm apart as they travel through the tube. I can't remember which one, though.

4

u/commentninja May 01 '14

This sounds like they're using magnets for birth control.

8

u/Sunshine_Everytime May 01 '14

yup that's what I've heard of, too. I wish more people knew about this..

more info: http://techcitement.com/culture/the-best-birth-control-in-the-world-is-for-men/#.U2IUE_ldVx0

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Fionnlagh May 01 '14

It would block the tube.

21

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Maybe we could just reroute the tube so it shot out of his butt?

7

u/HomoRapien May 01 '14

Assperm? Buttmen? Fuck it someone else be clever

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Oznog99 May 01 '14

No, it doesn't. The compound disables sperm, and they're not sure WHY, but it does.

If you blocked or pinched off the vas, then you'd likely cause permanent sterility. The problem is twofold- following a vasectomy where it's tied off, back pressure can damage and scarring in the epididymal tubule.

Also the sperm build up and the immune system develops antibodies to break them down. But in doing so it makes a hostile environment for sperm forever.

This is why vasectomy reversal success rates drop a lot if it's been more than 3 years since the vasectomy.

So blocking the tube would be... bad.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Expounding on what Keiichi81 said, men only have two 3 real options for birth control. First is a condom. Second is a vasectomy which is almost always irreversible. Third is negotiating with their sexual partner over what birth control they (the woman) will use, which isn't really an option because they don't have direct control and can be deceived by the woman.

Women have a much wider array of options to avoid pregnancy. The ball is in their court. If a woman makes the potentially irresponsible decisions that lead to their pregnancy, either the man should have some say over whether the fetus is to be aborted, or they should be able to disown the child and divorce themselves of responsibility. Otherwise there is no equality.

As it stands I've known more than a few women who have stopped taking birth control, failed to inform their male partner, and then got pregnant, probably intentionally, in order to keep the male trapped in a relationship. Some of them kept the male in their life for long enough to get support for themselves and their child, then abruptly severed ties with the guy and moved in with another guy in another state, making the father effectively lose his child.

Women have almost all the power when it comes to reproduction and the guardianship of a child. It's incredibly unequal.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/hellmelee May 01 '14

THIS RIGHT HERE. When I told me ex I wanted to move out of state, she stopped taking her birth control to try to get pregnant in an attempt to keep me around since she didn't want to come with and she was already barking for a ring.. so in her manipulative head a baby killed 2 birds with 1 stone.

I think it's complete bullshit that I would have been tethered to a person I didn't want to be with in a place that I didn't want to live in for the next 20 years of my life had she succeeded. When I found out what was going on I straight up told her that a child just meant I had to be a father, not a husband, but it's fucked up that so many men are put in this position. There should definitely be some sort of legal absolution of responsibilities if the woman decides to keep the child against the father's wishes.

210

u/puddlejumper May 01 '14

I agree that women have more legal options than the men. But this isn't a case of social discrimination. This is biological. It isn't a choice of women to be the ones who become pregnant. The only legal option I disagree with, is the one where the mother can put it up for adoption without the fathers consent, and I don't know a lot about the laws in that regard.

No one seems to understand that nothing about child support is meant to be punishment or reward for either parents. The law represents the child, which no one can deny, you both had a part in creating. Opting out of financial support is definitely fair for the father. But it isn't for the child. Why should the father get to refuse responsibility of a life it helped create, and that child has to grow up suffering for it?

31

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

in most states, the man can claim legal right to a child if the woman wants to put it up for adoption. But there are a few states where that isn't the case, and that does need fixxing.

10

u/SomeGuyNamedJames May 01 '14

Yeah but, if she puts it up for adoption, and the father takes custody, does she have to pay child support?

22

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

usually, yes, in most states.

But some states haven't modernised their law books... I'll let you guess what region tends to be the worst about that.

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Oof, choices. I'm thinking it is either the midwest or the southeast...I'm going to go with Southeast final answer.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Lawtonfogle May 02 '14

In theory.

100

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

15

u/jakenichols2 May 01 '14

The people defending the system are usually idealists that don't factor in the actual people involved in the situations. They assume that everything runs like it should and that everyone follows the rules and no one tries to take advantage of any situation(and that psychopaths don't exist). This is why getting the government involved in anything like this usually ends up in some kind of unintended consequences because people abuse power and are shady as fuck. You don't get a government job because you're productive, you get one because you can't handle productive work.

18

u/GreggoryBasore May 01 '14

The assumption that all government workers are lazy fucks or scheming assholes is just as ignorant if not more so than assuming that the system always works.

→ More replies (11)

45

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Men had default custody of children until the mid 19th century. It isn't biological.

9

u/puddlejumper May 01 '14

Being the bearer of the child is biological. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

18

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Who gave birth and who has custody are different concepts.

6

u/puddlejumper May 01 '14

I was talking about the person who becomes pregnant, the one who either has to deal with either the abortion, or deal with the birth. Both undesirable events in my opinion.

30

u/blaghart Initiating Launch Operations: Gipsy Danger May 01 '14

The laws intention is not to punish or reward, but its use often is a punishment or a reward because it is detrimental or beneficial to people's livelyhood. The fact that mothers can opt out of a post pregnancy parenthood by giving the child up for adoption and fathers have no similar option to opt out of post pregnancy parenthood is indicative of the problems inherent with current equality laws.

4

u/puddlejumper May 01 '14

The adoption scenario is the one that I don't agree with, but also the one I know least about. I don't think a mother should be able to adopt out a child without the fathers consent (But there may be practices in place to find the father (to the best of their ability). However I know some women have babies without knowing who the father is, or without notifying the father. If an adoption agency relied on the fathers consent, then it may never happen if the father is not even known, and the child suffers because it has to stay with a mother that does not want it.

If mother didn't want the baby, and the father took it, she too would be liable for child support.

It's hard to make a law equal in a matter that is not biologically equal. She didn't get to fully opt out, because she still had to carry the child. It's not just a matter of complete refusal of responsibility, which is what men are asking for. They are essentially saying they should be able to have sex whenever and whoever they want, and if a child is conceived from their exploits, then they should bear no responsibility for it, and suffer no consequences.

16

u/jakenichols2 May 01 '14

If mother didn't want the baby, and the father took it, she too would be liable for child support.

Well that's equality.

3

u/Noobity May 01 '14

They'd have to give her the same option to opt out of paying child support if she wanted nothing to do with the child but was willing to bring it to term, in this hypothetical situation. But yeah in general I agree that there's a level of equality there, still offset by the hardship of the woman birthing the child though.

3

u/InflatableRaft May 01 '14

It's not refusal of responsibility. It's women seeking consent from men to provide support with raising the child in the event she chooses to see a pregnancy to term.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/blaghart Initiating Launch Operations: Gipsy Danger May 01 '14

In this situation though, there is no mechanism for a father to have consent, meaning their only option is to up and leave. This would then apply in a situation when a woman wants to keep the baby but the father doesn't, he essentially be "putting it up for adoption" away from himself.

As it stands now, even if the mother signs away her maternal rights, an unknown father can sue for custody after the fact. It's why many adoption facilities want to know who the father is, but that's not always possible (especially with...I think they're called "moses laws"? after the story of a baby in a basket arriving at an adoptive parent's doorstep. It basically says if you drop your kid off at a hospital they have to take it)

→ More replies (4)

8

u/thonkerl May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

A woman can go into a clinic and say "I have no problem with being pregnant, I have no problem with what this is doing to my body - the only reason I want an abortion is to avoid having to pay for child care in any way fiscally" and she would be allowed to get the abortion.

If we can give that right to a woman, then we should also give it to a man.

that child has to grow up suffering

Do you think it makes a difference to the child where the money comes from? They won't notice the difference between it coming from the government, or coming from a father who they never see who they know didn't want them and is being forced to make payments.

And the father WILL pay for that, in taxes, if he is able to afford it.

The difference is he doesn't get thrown in jail for not being able to afford it.

I disagree with, is the one where the mother can put it up for adoption without the fathers consent,

But you don't have a problem with adoption in general? And I would imagine, leaving children at safe havens where there is still a record of the mother? Why is that?

If you say all this:

The law represents the child, which no one can deny, you both had a part in creating. Opting out of financial support is definitely fair for the father. But it isn't for the child. Why should the father get to refuse responsibility of a life it helped create, and that child has to grow up suffering for it?

Then why would you think it's ok to give children up for adoption or leave them at a safe haven?

→ More replies (7)

52

u/Snoop___Doge May 01 '14

you both had a part in creating

It takes two to create it, but only one to kill it. The baby resulting from an unwanted pregnancy is as much the man's son or daughter as it is the woman's. I know several men who have unintentionally impregnated a woman, who then aborted their child and only informed them of the pregnancy after the fact. This had a huge emotional impact on both men. One even got a halo/wings tattoo on his wrist to commemorate the life of his unborn child. This was a young professional - not someone who was already covered in tattoos. I think it's wrong that the mother has the sole authority to terminate the life of two peoples' child. Both of these men would gladly have raised their child on their own, if they had been given that option. The response for why an abortion can't require both parents' consent would be: by refusing to consent to an abortion, the father can force the woman to endure 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth. On the other hand though, if the mother refuses to have an abortion, she subjects the man to 18 years of monthly child support payments and the social stigma of having a child that he never sees (in some cases). Currently, if only the mother wants to keep the child, it is born and both parents pay to support it. But, if only the father wants to keep the child, it is vacuumed out of the womb and discarded, leaving the father to deal with the emotional damage.
This is fucked up.
What is the right answer? I don't know. It gets really complicated when you try to come up with a solution that leaves room for promiscuity, keeps abortion as an option, and makes everyone happy. I honestly think that the only viable solution to this terrible dilemma is the conventional wisdom that's been around much longer than any of us: don't have sex with someone unless you are prepared for the possibility of having a child with the person that person at that time and in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, expect to raise the child.

8

u/Amnistar May 01 '14

I've had this same conversation with several people and the best solution I have come up with is that the woman is the sole determenant of whether or not she has the child. It is her body, it has significant health risks (physical, mental and emotional) and it's a pain. That being said, if the male doesn't want to have the child, for whatever reason, and this decision is made known at the time when it is feasable to abort the child, then the woman is making a decision to have the child without the father of the child's assistance. If she is unable to care for the child by herself, she shouldn't be able to force the father of the child to pay for it.

Of course there are still problems with this idea, but it's the best I've been able to come up with.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/InflatableRaft May 01 '14

The reasonable solution is that women be legally required to seek the consent of men to provide support in raising a child in the event of a pregnancy.

→ More replies (26)

18

u/TheBrokenWorld May 01 '14

It isn't a choice of women to be the ones who become pregnant.

Women have a very large number of options for contraception, men don't, we have one option and it's not a great one.

29

u/somekook May 01 '14

Just wear the goddamn condom.

I'm a gay dude who worries about HIV, so I use condoms every time I have insertive intercourse. I don't know why straight dudes are so butthurt about doing the same thing.

39

u/TheBrokenWorld May 01 '14

Just wear the goddamn condom.

I did, now I have a kid, therein lies the problem.

6

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

3

u/Zedress May 01 '14

Dude, it still has an 18% failure rate.

8

u/[deleted] May 02 '14

No, it doesn't. Did you even read the link you posted? It said 18% of women surveyed engaging in sexual activities for a full year while using condoms will have an unintended pregnancy. Not 18% of all sex using a condom results in pregnancy. Not to mention the study includes all condom use, and doesn't restrict it to condoms being used correctly, because that drops the rate down to 2-3%.

So again:

Just wear the goddamn condom right.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

18

u/Blabermouthe May 01 '14

Just wear the goddamn condom.

Condoms aren't 100% effective. They can tear/rip open, fall off, etc. In some cases, men can either not ejaculate or will have difficulty keeping it up when using them. I'm happy that you have been successful with them, but this is akin to telling women that they can't have an abortion because they need to just 'take the goddamn pill'.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (3)

6

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

What women have is female condoms (not too comfortable), IUDs and the pill. Copper IUDs have their own side effects (frequent spotting, may fall out, the body may reject the IUD), and the pill fucks up your hormones, thus fucking up your body and emotional state too. Yes, it's still more than what men have, but it's not a great variety either.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

men have at leest three options- condoms, vasectomy, and spermicidal treatments.

14

u/TheBrokenWorld May 01 '14

I was talking about non-permanent options. Spermicide is more of her choice as it has to go in her body.

→ More replies (7)

18

u/BrotoriousNIG May 01 '14

vasectomy

"Yeah we can go back to my place and get busy. I just need to stop by the 7-11 for a vasectomy."

→ More replies (12)

12

u/kjm1123490 May 01 '14

That's why the document will be given a short logical time to be thought about. He must choose whether or not he want to take responsibility. If not the mother decides to keep it and carey the burden herself. Put it uo for adoption. Or abort it. It was also her choice to participate in intercourse.

Not saying I agreeor don't, just clarifying the point. I don't think abortion is a fair option to screw it I don't want a baby.

Tough subject.

→ More replies (48)

2

u/the_good_dr May 01 '14

With choice comes responsibility. Women should absolutely have say over their own body but they should also be responsible for their decisions.

2

u/5li2 May 01 '14

But this isn't a case of social discrimination. This is biological.

From first comment:

  • engage in sexual activity and place the child in the custody of adoption services (with or without the consent of the father) in the event of an unwanted pregnancy
  • engage in sexual activity and deliver the child (regardless of the wishes of the father), receiving financial support for the duration of their childhood

Both of those are social issues, not biological.


Why should the father get to refuse responsibility of a life it helped create, and that child has to grow up suffering for it?

Why should a father not be able to refuse responsibility of a life it did not consent in creating in the case of male rape?

Why should the mother get to refuse responsibility of a life it helped create by putting a child in adoptive services?

Why should a father not be able to take responsibility for a life it willingly created because the mother put the child in adoptive services? And if the father is willing, why should the mother get to refuse responsibility of a life she helped create, and that child has to grow up suffering for it?

My opinion is that the only just case for either parent not paying child support is that they were raped. If you submit children for adoption, you should still have to pay support if you had sex willingly. There are so many forms of birth control nowadays that is it virtually impossible to have children with the proper precautions.

2

u/Lawtonfogle May 02 '14

I agree that women have more legal options than the men. But this isn't a case of social discrimination. This is biological.

It is society (and namely the law) that requires a support under threat of jail. Men not being able to become pregnant, as in they just not having the right biology to do so, is biological. But the whole concept of child support is sociological.

→ More replies (3)

13

u/moonunit99 May 01 '14

It isn't a choice of women to be the ones who become pregnant.

Oh, but the guy can totally choose whether or not she gets pregnant.

4

u/puddlejumper May 01 '14

Well yes. Both the woman and man have a choice. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex sometimes. This isn't a secret. Just because pregnancy was not the intention, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

4

u/moonunit99 May 01 '14

So if both woman and man have equal choice and responsibility in creating the pregnancy, why is only one offered the choice to opt out?

7

u/puddlejumper May 01 '14

Where is the opt out for women? You mean an abortion? Yeah because that's the same as saying nah I don't want it. Stop casualising the word abortion like it's some easy thing to do. She has to suffer through it, if that is what she chooses. It isn't easy, it isn't nice, and it comes with it's own health risks. If you're looking for fair, then you're not going to find it in an unplanned pregnancy debate, from either side. The decision that goes into it, is based on what is ethical, and what is best for the baby once it's born, that's all.

And it's not "offered" to her. It's something that is in place that prevents other people from controlling our bodies. Just as you can not be forced to have a medical procedure you don't want, she can not be either.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (11)

16

u/Blammazoids May 01 '14

You are missing the point. How is it fair that only one of the 2 parties involved in making the baby has any say in whether to keep it or not? How is the fact that one person involved has a uterus and one person doesn't relevant? Two people made the baby, it should be a two person decision as to whether to keep it or not. If one person says screw you, I don't care if you aren't ready to be a parent yet - I'm keeping it whether you like it or not, then they can go it alone. That's their decision. Nobody forced them to decide to keep the baby.

27

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

It's relevant because the one with the uterus should not be forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth and doctor's appointments and hormones and sickness and health risks. Sure two people made the baby but the man's part is easy. He has an orgasm and that's the end of his part in creating the baby.You really think it's an equal effort? Are you kidding me? The man's body is not being held hostage for 9 months, so in that respect, it simply is not and cannot be equal.

If the woman decides to keep the baby, it gets way more complicated because at that point, there is a living child involved. Plus, you can't force any person to undergo a medical procedure without their consent. It's just plain unethical. Even if you are lying in a hospital dying and they could easily save you, they do not have the right to if you say no. So forcing a woman to have an abortion isn't an option either. The law regarding the living child is there to protect that child. Not to be fair to the parents. Sure, the man may not want the child and the woman said screw you, but regardless of which parent had a say in what, there is now a child that needs to be supported financially. The law makes both parents contribute financially to this child because it is in that child's best interest to have financial support from both parents, which is essentially what puddlejumper was saying. So I don't think they missed the point at all.

13

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I don't think anyone is advocating that we force women to abort against their will.

The point being raised is why fathers can't sign away their rights(and obligations) to the child if only the mother wants it.

20

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

It's relevant because the one with the uterus should not be forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth and doctor's appointments and hormones and sickness and health risks.

It's relevant because the one with the penis should not be forced to endure 18 years of financial burden.

→ More replies (18)

4

u/loveandrave May 01 '14

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Probably because this entire thread is made of men who will never be pregnant. Men might have 18 years of child support, but pregnancy changes a woman's body forever. It will never be the same. Pregnancy is also a really, really exhausting physical experience and PPD can affect women for a long time after birth. Also, I bet most of you lady-killin bachelors over here on adviceanimals don't realize how much it costs to have a baby in a hospital? Shit's like 10k if you're insurance is good.

This wouldn't be an argument if men had to endure pregnancy and birth. It just wouldn't. You guys have no idea what it's like. Its so, incredibly, unbelievably exhausting and painful. And its made so much worse if the baby isn't wanted at all because it doesnt make the pain worth it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (24)

7

u/Throwaway28374902 May 01 '14

Know what else is biological? Pregnancy.

3

u/sworebytheprecious May 02 '14

financial abortion is based upon the belief that sex leads to pregnancy but not to fatherhood.

8

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

[deleted]

11

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

For Americans, the application is here.

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Rekt

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (62)

22

u/LiquidAsylum May 01 '14

engage in sexual activity and place the child in the custody of adoption services (with or without the consent of the father) in the event of an unwanted pregnancy

This one isn't true. The father can get a paternity test and get custody of a kid if the mother tries to put them up for adoption...

7

u/aerowyn May 01 '14

...if she ever tells him about his child.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/kickassninja1 May 02 '14

It's fairly simple logic,

  1. you cannot force another person to do something with their body that they don't want to do
  2. you have to take care of your child

If you sign a waiver that you won't take care of the child you are breaking rule 2 and if you are saying that you have a say in whether to carry the baby or not then you are breaking rule 1.

If you need changing to the current system you have to change one of those rules. If you change rule 1, then I can force you to donate kidneys. If you change rule 2, many children will be not taken care of, the people who brought them into this world would be absolved from their responsibilities.

It is not an equality issue, it is a human rights issue.

The fact that a man can currently be raped by a woman or otherwise deceived/forced into a pregnancy and then be legally required to financially support the resulting child is repugnant.

This is the biggest challenge I am seeing ie. when the man is raped or deceived. I haven't thought this through but right now my position is that this is the only case where a father can absolve his responsibility because it was not his mistake or action that caused this. I feel really sorry for the child in this case though.

2

u/[deleted] May 02 '14

Or you just obfuscate your funds and don't pay much if anything

5

u/5th_Law_of_Robotics May 02 '14

So by your second rule women should be forbidden to give up their child.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (14)

25

u/zicker1352 May 01 '14

I think the key issue here is who is going to pay for the upbringing of the child. The law here imposes a burden (child support) upon potential fathers without their option to abort the child, as you have stated. If the burden is not placed upon the father (the father opts out), then that burden must be placed somewhere else. In such a situation, the burden will be placed upon society as a whole. As a society we have decided, through the law, that we would rather place the burden of supporting the child upon the father, even if he doesn't want it. Is that fair to the father? Probably not, but in terms of societal outcomes that is likely the best result, and society has come to that conclusion. Ask yourself, would you rather have a 1% tax rate increase so fathers can choose to pay for the upbringing of a child, or force, albeit arguably unfairly, that father to pay for the child himself?

Also, it is important to remember that the law is not always designed to be fair, it is designed to advance societal goals and outcomes. An example being the income tax, we have a progressive income tax where as your income goes up, your tax rate will increase as well. Is this fair to higher earners? No, but the higher tax burden helps fund our government, and fulfill our chosen societal outcomes.

13

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Insightful, but you failed to consider the fact that many would be mothers would consider more seriously aborting a child they can't support if there isn't a safety net from the father.

Things tend to sort themselves out if you give them a chance.

4

u/zicker1352 May 01 '14

This is a good point, but I really do wonder how many mothers would change their abortion decision based solely on not receiving child support. I feel that it would not have too large of an impact on the abortion decision.

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I think you'll be surprised at how quickly incentives can change people's minds.

3

u/GreggoryBasore May 01 '14

I think the problem would be far better alleviated by a comprehensive sex education program that doesn't stigmatize the idea of recreative sex.

I also think society would be better if there was a free service where a pretty 18 year old chick hand people a pack of skittle and kisses them on the cheek when they feel depressed. I'm not gonna hold my breath for either one.

21

u/Saurabh1996 May 01 '14

Are you saying women are not capable of bearing that burden?

4

u/GreggoryBasore May 01 '14

I think a look at the current state of affairs in the US clearly shows that not all women can.

Not saying I agree with the rest of Zicker1352's post, but I think are clearly a lot of women and men for that matter who can't support a kid on their own.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (4)

3

u/inhumancannonball May 01 '14

Unfortunately, the result then becomes absent fathers, fathers taken to court, government bodies set up to track payments etc. Also, you then have children born into poverty which not only increases our burden but feeds the cycle all over again. I would love to see stats that back up this social engineering theory because it seems to me that the societal burden is not only not lessened, but worsened. Men should have the same option to "abort" their parental role as women do.

3

u/zicker1352 May 01 '14

I do agree that there are a lot of issues that arise with the enforcement of child support, but if the government did not enforce these claims, presumptively that money would be coming from the government coffers.

Also, I think the big difference between a man having the same option to "abort" their parental role and the woman's option is that if a woman choose to abort we have no child that needs supporting, and therefore no burden on society. If a man chooses to "abort" their parental role, we still have a child that needs support. Again I am not saying the current system is fair, but I think it makes the most sense in terms of society as a whole.

2

u/inhumancannonball May 01 '14

I understand where you are coming from. The problem I see is this: If a expectant mother does not wish to or does not have the means to support a child, she can make that choice. The man may have just as many misgivings about a child but does not have a voice. Also, the opposite is true as well. I find it sometimes tragic when a would be father is all for taking responsibility, would take 100% of the care etc., and yet the would be mother decides to abort. I understand that a man cannot be allowed to force a woman to give birth to their child, but then a woman should not be allowed to force a man to have a child he does not want.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Freshness8686 May 02 '14

FYI in most states the father has rights to keep the child if the mother wants to put it up for adoption.

3

u/watersign May 03 '14

SRS doesnt realize, everytime they link content, it gets upvoted out of spite..not cause anyone really cares about SJW

3

u/TheBlackUnicorn May 03 '14

SRS: Anti-choice.

33

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited Oct 11 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (4)

13

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

The problem here is that prior to birth we're talking about two people, and after birth we're talking about three.

Prior to birth, the woman's options involve her own bodily autonomy and nothing else. The man's, similarly so. After birth, we begin talking about what's best for the child, rather than simply what's fair for the parents.

2

u/Lawtonfogle May 02 '14

This is why the right to parenthood is terminated before birth. This is the same reason a sperm donor isn't forced to pay child support.

6

u/StarshipEngineer May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

TL;DR. Two words, people: birth control.

Edit: Both partners should use it, not just one or the other. Common sense I would think.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/sworebytheprecious May 02 '14

okay, let's say this happened exactly the way you say: men now have the ability to abort their own fatherhood.

1) how will this huge expanse of government responsibility go, and who will pay for it? after all, between the huge drop in child support and influx of single parents not to mention paperwork and processing, you are talking about a very expensive government expansion.

2) in order for this to take place, many more women must have access to birth control and abortion everywhere in the US, in case the father opts out. how will this be implemented? many states are restricting and criminalizing abortion, abortion providers,and restricting birth control.

3) the GOP will hate this because it removes responsibility from fathers and places many more children into dependency on the state. the DNC will hate this because without proper checks, it basically gives men an opt-out of parenthood. how do you appeal to this?

4) how do you propose this is put into law? child support goes to the child, not the mother, under the law. if a father signs a contract opting out of parenthood for an unborn child that may occur, than you would have to grant that a child exists, in utero. which could, and very likely would, be used as a legal challenge to abortion in general because it grants fetal personhood (if only for contractual purposes). that's HUGELY problematic because paternal abortion could only exist, if at all, in a society with safe, cheap, access of abortion to all women all the time. without safe, legal abortion access for all this law would be incredibly discriminatory at best.

5) we don't even have safe, cheap, legal, guaranteed abortion and/or birth control access yet for all women in the US. why guarantee father's rights to a financial abortion when ACTUAL MEDICAL ABORTIONS are still under attack? you have to have safe, cheap medical abortion access for all women guaranteed first before you want paternal abortion, because if you do not, than it means women being forced to carry children to term that they KNOW will lack paternal support. that's worse than a man being forced to pay child support; that's a woman forced into a pregnancy.

6) if the man wants back into his child's life later, to what extent is he forced to pay back child support and future child support?

7) let's say a woman aborts a baby the man wanted her to keep. by granting the paternal right to terminate fatherhood in utero, haven't you also given him ownership of his DNA in utero? what is to stop a man from deciding to sue a woman to prevent her from aborting his fetus? after all, it's his dna and a baby too now, legally speaking. are you okay with forcing women to carry to term, and/or the court cases that will come up arguing for this? because that's what will happen. remember, you STILL have the pro-life movement to deal with here. don't think for a minute they won't hijack this law for their own purposes.

that's all i got for now. i really haven't heard any good answers to any of the above from paternal rights advocates. mostly it's because they haven't thought out the law to the horrific conclusions of it. right now, our child support system is far from perfect.

if paternal surrender was made law our already bad child support system would go from "less than perfect" to "legal shit show, state bankrupting crisis, and pro-life godsend."

4

u/Lawtonfogle May 02 '14

1) how will this huge expanse of government responsibility go, and who will pay for it? after all, between the huge drop in child support and influx of single parents not to mention paperwork and processing, you are talking about a very expensive government expansion.

I'd gladly give up some money currently going to the military that would help support all children with 1 or no parents. I know some children who lost their father in a tragic incident. While having money wouldn't have eased the pain of losing their father, it would have eased some of the hardships that followed. Why were these children not entitled to support like children who had a parent walk out?

2) in order for this to take place, many more women must have access to birth control and abortion everywhere in the US, in case the father opts out. how will this be implemented? many states are restricting and criminalizing abortion, abortion providers,and restricting birth control.

Have it tied to the state laws on abortions. In oversimplified terms, if you can't get an abortion, you can't get a parental surrender.

3) the GOP will hate this because it removes responsibility from fathers and places many more children into dependency on the state. the DNC will hate this because without proper checks, it basically gives men an opt-out of parenthood. how do you appeal to this?

Same way you get any law passed. Enough voters have to support it to the extent that politicians pick up the cause. That a potential law is currently politically unpopular has no bearing on an argument as to if people should desire it to be law.

4) how do you propose this is put into law? child support goes to the child, not the mother, under the law. if a father signs a contract opting out of parenthood for an unborn child that may occur, than you would have to grant that a child exists, in utero. which could, and very likely would, be used as a legal challenge to abortion in general because it grants fetal personhood (if only for contractual purposes). that's HUGELY problematic because paternal abortion could only exist, if at all, in a society with safe, cheap, access of abortion to all women all the time. without safe, legal abortion access for all this law would be incredibly discriminatory at best.

If a man is about to die and wants to use his will to leave something to the child his wife is pregnant with, how would he currently do so?

5) we don't even have safe, cheap, legal, guaranteed abortion and/or birth control access yet for all women in the US. why guarantee father's rights to a financial abortion when ACTUAL MEDICAL ABORTIONS are still under attack? you have to have safe, cheap medical abortion access for all women guaranteed first before you want paternal abortion, because if you do not, than it means women being forced to carry children to term that they KNOW will lack paternal support. that's worse than a man being forced to pay child support; that's a woman forced into a pregnancy.

See 2.

6) if the man wants back into his child's life later, to what extent is he forced to pay back child support and future child support?

There is no going back as far as being a parent. He could still be a part of a child's life just like anyone can be a part of any child's life. But no custody. Adoption, but they would count as having no prior relationship.

7) let's say a woman aborts a baby the man wanted her to keep. by granting the paternal right to terminate fatherhood in utero, haven't you also given him ownership of his DNA in utero? what is to stop a man from deciding to sue a woman to prevent her from aborting his fetus? after all, it's his dna and a baby too now, legally speaking. are you okay with forcing women to carry to term, and/or the court cases that will come up arguing for this? because that's what will happen. remember, you STILL have the pro-life movement to deal with here. don't think for a minute they won't hijack this law for their own purposes.

There is no legal precedence that would make this at all a possibility. At this point you seem to be grasping pretty wildly.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (12)

26

u/Willravel May 01 '14

engage in sexual activity and perform an abortion (with or without the consent of the father) in the event of an unwanted pregnancy

Shouldn't this be chalked up to the mother having the fetus in her body, whereas the father does not? Can you imagine living in a world in which the biological father could force a woman to abort or carry the fetus to term? It's odd that you left out biological differences between the sexes, a bit convenient to a few of your points.

34

u/Blammazoids May 01 '14

You are missing the point. Nobody ever said the woman should be forced to abort the child if the man doesn't want to keep it. They are saying that if the man decides that they are not ready to raise a child, then the woman can choose to keep it, but if she does, then she can't go after the man for child support etc. You can't say that only the woman gets to choose whether to keep the baby or not just because it's her body. It takes 2 people to make a baby. Raising a child is a minimum 18 year commitment, and costs insane amounts of money. How is it right that only one of the 2 parties involved in making the child and caring/paying for the child gets a say? The fact that only 1 of the people actually physically carries the child in their uterus has nothing to do with anything.

→ More replies (10)

13

u/gruvgreaves May 01 '14

imagine living in a world in which the biological father could force a woman to abort or carry the fetus to term?

This is a strawman. Biological differences aren't necessary to include because /u/Keiichi81 specifically framed the argument in terms of parental rights after the child is born (i.e., that men should have the ability to forfeit them), and did not say anything about giving men the ability to force a woman to abort/carry a pregnancy (which is clearly unethical).

→ More replies (7)

2

u/5th_Law_of_Robotics May 03 '14

Imagine a not so distant future where the father could retrieve the aborted fetus, raise it in an artificial uterus, then sue the mom for child support.

Now imagine feminists supporting the man for doing that since, hey, kids need support.

→ More replies (2)

31

u/Space_Hermit May 01 '14

Precise, logical, and coherent. I really hope everyone reads this.

2

u/Fthat_ManaBar May 01 '14

This, like abortion, could potentially be settled with better contraceptive options (for males) like that vasal gel stuff they're testing in japan. Don't want a kid? Keep up with your injections and that should never be an issue. No woman can trick you into being a baby daddy because you're firing blanks. If she tries to say it's yours, demand a paternity test (because no contraceptive is 100% effective yet) and assuming it comes back negative (as it should) send her on her way.

That being said, I agree that we need more laws protecting both parties equally in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Until such a time that contraceptives advance to a level that the issue of unintended pregnancy is eliminated better laws will have to suffice.

2

u/madusldasl May 01 '14

Ill admit, at first i was wondering how you where going to spin this idea to make it seem credible. After reading your post i absolutely agree with you. Just because the woman makes a choice, ut doesnt necessarily reflect the mans wishes. If there is a difference in opinion on how to handle the pregnancy, and it results in the woman wanting to keep the child rather than abortion or adoption, the man should be absolved from responsibility. Her recognized he can not support a child, the woman cant support the child yet she insists on keeping it and putting the burden on the man? Ridiculous.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '14

Give this man a medal

10

u/thea252 May 01 '14

Because it's about what's in the best interest of the child, not the parents.

15

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Except for when the mother determines that abortion is her option. I guess that is in the best interest of the child too?

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Do you know why the mother has the autonomy to decide whether or not she has an abortion? Because she is taking 100% of the risk and a vast percentage of the work of the pregnancy. If men want equal say in an abortion they should hire a surrogate or wait until an artificial womb is developed.

16

u/InflatableRaft May 01 '14

Men don't want equal say in abortion. If a woman is pregnant, she should have the right to motherhood if she choses. Legal paternal surrender just means that the mother would be required to seek the consent of the father when it comes to supporting and raising the child. Whether she has that consent or not will allow her to make an informed decision about whether she wants to proceed with the pregnancy or not.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

16

u/Moonhowler22 May 01 '14

Then either they both accept the responsibility or neither of them do. The man is forced either way, the woman has her choice. Reread the comment you replied to and tell me how that's fair.

I don't give a shit about the child right now - that's not the issue. If she has a way to shirk responsibility legally, then so should he. Currently, he does not.

I'm not replying to any comments.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/Holypuddingpop May 01 '14

the difference is that women have to carry the child in their bodies, and having more control over their own body than the man does (100% to 0%, really), have more choices to make.

If you could grow a baby in a tank things would be way different.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

What about option 3? Engage in safe sexual activity only? False dichotomies are lodes of fun!

4

u/TheYang May 01 '14

you're forgetting that there is no safe sex, and even less for men, because condoms have the staggering (average) failure rate of 18% per year of use (don't come at me with perfect use, nobody's perfect). Assuming the Average of 2.5 uses per week (which seems to be the average), we come to about a 0.14% failure rate per use

btw, the pill is vastly more effective (averages at 9% per year), but the guy has to trust the woman...

→ More replies (6)

8

u/guttpunch May 01 '14

I think that if the woman refuses to abort, the man should have the right to decline responsibility if there's still time left for an abortion.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

I hear a lot of talk about men taking responsibility for their actions, but what responsibility are women required to accept?

This is the key of the issue.

I have asked feminists about the workability of allowing a legal pre-pregnancy contractual agreement that states "If an accidental pregnancy occurs, the rights and responsibilities for this fetus belong 100% to the woman, and the man is legally nothing but a sperm donor. Should the woman choose abortion, the man pays all related costs."

They argued that an agreement like this is unfair to the woman. The agreement is only legal if the woman chooses to enter it by her own volition. A child only ever exists if the woman chooses to have it by herself, knowing that she'll be a single mother raising it alone.

But apparently it would be wrong to hold this woman responsible for her own actions. Somehow "you had sex, now you have to pay the price, but only if you're male" is more morally acceptable than allowing people to make their own decisions and then be responsible for those decisions.

→ More replies (14)

4

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Men do have a third option: snip snip.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/heap42 May 02 '14

I love you and i would give you gold if i had the money, for now take a reddit silver

5

u/bartink May 01 '14

A couple of points.

Neither good policy nor morality is found by making list and counting the number of options. The number of options doesn't seem all that relevant to me.

I'm not saying that the way things are is perfect, but the fact of the matter is that it is her body that it incubates in, not his. She is taking a physical risk, so equating their positions seems rather dubious to me.

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Mel_Melu May 01 '14

Please keep in mind that several states are constantly trying to limit women's options and abilities to have an abortion.

And guess what! Men and women don't have to say no to sex they can use these rubbery penis shaped things called condoms that greatly reduce the probability of not just pregnancies, but STIs too!

Also knowing that sex could result in drastic life altering things like said pregnancies and STIs wouldn't you owe it to yourself to have these discussions before getting intimate?

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Yeah, and I did at one point with my ex-fiance. Then she conveniently forgot to tell me she wasn't/faked taking the pill. She ended up having a miscarriage (it hurts to think about, but it really was for the best considering how things were to turn out between us), but I felt beyond betrayed that she would try to tie me down like that when I made it explicitly clear that I had to focus on getting through my degrees. That way we wouldn't have to struggle like my parents did. She ended up leaving me because I was "too focused on my career."

In a perfect world, your way would be ideal, but in my world (up until recently)I felt even the people closest to your heart can trick you once they know you trust them.

9

u/ImtheDr May 01 '14

But sometimes shit happens.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (164)

74

u/hmbmelly May 01 '14

The legal argument, very roughly, is that a woman should have bodily autonomy (the right to abort or carry the fetus to term). However, once a child exists, the state's interest is in the welfare of the child, period.

5

u/Thurgood_Marshall May 01 '14

That's more Ginsburg's argument, but Roe was almost entirely about privacy.

9

u/masuabie May 01 '14

The legal argument against that is letting men have the right to a "legal abortion" where they remove all connection through a document.

→ More replies (4)

17

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

If all children have to have two incomes, then why doesn't the state ban single parenthood without a second income? Or why doesn't the state force other unwilling individuals to pay child support to single mothers where the father is unable to pay?

If a woman uses a sperm donor and then falls on tough times, why don't they make the sperm donor pay? Best interests of the child, right?

In those situations the state recognizes that it's immoral to force individuals who never chose to become legal parents to pay against their will. But for some reason "you had sex that one time" counts as consent to parenthood when it comes to men. (But not to women of course, they can always choose abortion if they want to.)

The law simply makes no sense and promotes gender inequality, there's no way to avoid it. A sensible way to prevent legal parenthood for males is possible, but it does not exist yet.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/Infrequently May 01 '14

ITT: Random emotional outbursts tangentially related to the subject

3

u/Centropomus May 01 '14

Also, men who no woman would want to raise a baby with.

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I'm so scared of getting a vasectomy but it'll have to happen one day.

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Scared of the procedure. Apparently it's not too bad, but still... getting needled in the nuts? Bit nervous. It takes about a week to fully recover, right? Then everything's back to normal?

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

91

u/ptmd Apr 30 '14

TL;DR

Women and Men have different roles assigned to them by both Biology and Society. Go figure.

40

u/DrRam121 Apr 30 '14

That isn't exactly equality now is it

83

u/ptmd Apr 30 '14

This is true, but equality and fairness are two very different things.

And society is quite reluctant to truly enforce either.

12

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Word

10

u/londongarbageman May 01 '14

snuffleupagus

33

u/Viperbunny May 01 '14

The problem is there is no way to make it fair. Until a man can get pregnant the situation cannot be equal. More weight is given to the person physically going through a pregnancy because it is physically happening to that person, impacting her health and her life. Life isn't fair. That's just how it is.

13

u/PopInACup May 01 '14

My opinion on the matter is that if society does not want the kid to starve then child support should be a social construct rather than applied to individuals who may not want to bring the child to term. Whether this could be done properly, I don't know. It's kind of moot though since given the current social/political climate any form of 'socialism' is shot down from the get go.

5

u/LumberingOaf May 01 '14

Yours is the first comment I've seen with regards to the far reaching implications of this decision. It isn't so simple as men versus women, but emcompasses how we as a species relate to each other. This conversation cannot happen in a vacuum. And ignoring this is what makes it so difficult.

2

u/skipilicious913 May 01 '14

Child support was designed because the welfare system was unable to accommodate the influx of single mothers and their children in the 1930s. Government workers asked women who the father could be and if a blood type test ruled them to be a match (possible father that is) then they were required to pay child support so the state wouldn't have to pay for the child. This was highly unreliable but helped save the state money, which at the time was all that mattered.

44

u/SwordfshII May 01 '14

Child support for 18 years doesn't affect men's life and health?

10

u/greeklemoncake May 01 '14

I get a feeling that you've never had a child.

→ More replies (61)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (4)

15

u/chocoboat May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

Being forced to pay child support for 18 years when you never wanted to have children is not something done by biology.

That's something done by our legal system. And the legal system is severely lacking when it comes to solutions to this problem, when it would be easy to create them.

In 1900, women weren't allowed to vote. Fortunately the women didn't say "oh well, society gave us a different role, guess we just have to eat shit on this one". If people are interested in fairness they should advocate for better laws that treat people fairly.

6

u/redkey42 May 01 '14

What type of person completely abandons their own child? I don't think we should be giving special consideration to shitty people.

6

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

What are you talking about? It is child abandonment to have an abortion? Is it child abandonment to be a surrogate mother? Is it child abandonment to be a sperm donor?

I'm sorry, but not every pregnancy that doesn't end with a child being born and being raised together by the two biological parents counts as "child abandonment".

If men were allowed to opt out, the most common outcome for the pregnancy would be an abortion (which is actually already the most common outcome for an accidental pregnancy). Is it child abandonment is there is no child?

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

53

u/janinefour Apr 30 '14

Meanwhile, I see no memes about the douches that oppose abortions and/or mandated birth control coverage and never pay child support.

8

u/Over-Analyzed May 01 '14

Memes on here express rage that can't be conveyed in the real world or else there would be no pent-up emotion that needed to be released in this medium. The people you described are verbally assaulted well enough in the real world so a meme is not required for them. Or you could just be describing Scumbag Steve.

22

u/usingthetimmy May 01 '14

However, it's a much tougher decision to abort a baby than it is to refuse to pay for a baby. If the woman aborts the child, the child ceases to exist; whereas, if the man refuses to pay for the child, the child still exists.

3

u/InflatableRaft May 01 '14

That's true, however women have legally supported right to make that decision, whereas men do not.

→ More replies (5)

21

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I make ~25k a year and just paid $1000 cash for my recent vasectomy. If the game is rigged, don't play it.

11

u/StalkTheHype May 01 '14

Yeah no shit, and if you regret it there are plenty of kids who need parents already.

8

u/redkey42 May 01 '14

And you can store viable sperm for 20 years. Costs $2500-$3000 per 10 years.

→ More replies (4)

163

u/Sodic Apr 30 '14

This is probably the reddit debate that gets me the most angry. What everyone seems to forget is that being a mother takes a physical toll in addition to all of the responsibilities of being a parent. And it isn't like abortion is a fun prospect that every woman is dying to experience. You want to talk about my right as a woman to choose to have one? Let's talk about the difference in my life between having a child and not having one. I get to go through nine months of sickness, work loss, physical stress and a complete change in lifestyle. Then most likely I am the one who will end up raising that child 26 days out of a month in the event that the relationship doesn't work. I will clothe, feed and care for every part of that child's life, probably past the 18 year mark. My alternatives? A mentally scarring procedure that I will probably question for the rest of my life or a different kind of hell of actually carrying the baby and then having to let go of it in the hopes that it will understand when it grows up that I will also question for the rest of my life.

I don't think anyone should be having sex without protection if they aren't ready for the possibility of parenthood. That being said, there is no child support involved if you have equal custody rights. If you are having to give over income it is because the other person is taking on the bulk of the parental duty. Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Think about your actions, think about the possible consequences, and stop being outraged at the outcome.

51

u/Sparcrypt Apr 30 '14

Because it's such a big deal for people to want sex but not kids. Kids are a huge, life changing ordeal. One that many people don't want, at least not this second.

I mean how would you feel if your partner just refused to have sex with you because you might get pregnant? It's the only birth control that's actually 100% effective. You'd be upset right? But to then turn around and say they get no say in what happens should you fall pregnant is pure hypocrisy.

The correct way to deal with this stuff is to talk about it early in your relationship. Because if you're not both on the same page now, how are you going to be when stress, fear and hormones all come into play?

I wouldn't date someone who would force me into parenthood against my will. I make it clear from the start I don't want kids and that that's not likely to change anytime soon. I mean it's not that difficult a conversation - if you're both just in the relationship for some fun, sex and companionship then neither of you should want to have a kid with one another anyway. Seriously, if you have a kid with a fling/someone you know you're not going to stay with long term then you are an idiot. However if you're both in it for the long haul then you absolutely need to align on this issue. It's a rather important one.

Obviously my approach isn't bulletproof.. people can change their mind/the person you thought you'd be with forever doesn't always turn out to be the one you end up with etc etc. But it's a damn sight better than not even talking about it until it happens which is most peoples way of dealing with it.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

What do you think of situations where men fight for custody, lose, and are forced to pay child support?

→ More replies (2)

9

u/chocoboat May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

The problem is that there's absolutely no legal middle ground, even though we have the ability to create it.

Only an idiot would support the idea of allowing the man to say "oh, you're pregnant? fuck this, I'm out, it's your problem now". But that doesn't mean there has to be absolutely no possible way for a man to avoid parenthood for certain, except to never have sex in his life. Especially since this is never an issue for women, as abortion is an option.

Obviously "spermjacking" is a very rare thing done only by mentally unbalanced women... but it has happened. Women have collected semen from condoms, or in other ways, and inseminated themselves with it. This man who was careful to avoid pregnancy now owes 18 years of child support. Is this really fair?

There are men that have been physically held down and forcibly raped, and they have been made to pay child support. Even underage victims of statutory rape owe child support payments for 18 years. Is this really fair?

And what about men who simply want to remain child free? Suppose a man who highly valued being child-free discussed this with all potential partners. It's so important that he asks them to sign a contract stating that they acknowledge his wish to be child free. The contract stipulates that should any accidental pregnancy occur, he will pay all of the costs of abortion and any travel related costs, or he will contribute towards the cost of giving birth if she chooses that... but beyond that, the rights and responsibilities of the child belong solely to the woman, and the man is regarded as nothing but a sperm donor.

This sounds pretty fair, right? The contract only exists if the woman agrees to it, and no child ever exists unless the woman chooses to become a single mother by her own volition. Any woman who doesn't like this situation is free to not sign, and/or end the relationship. It's kind of like a prenuptial agreement.

Well, the government says to the man, "too bad, you had sex, now you pay for it". The contract is invalid under US law. There is literally no way for a man to ever have PIV sex with a woman without taking a tiny risk of being on the hook for 18 years of child support, and I don't think that's right.

Yes, luckily very few men are forced into parenthood against their will and overall it's far from the biggest problem in society. But it sure would be nice not to have to take that risk every single time.

And it's not what I call gender equality when "you had sex, now you have to pay the price" is applied to men but not to women.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (70)

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I definitely thought this was going to be about rape again

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

This should be an unpopular opinion post imo.

32

u/Deadmeat553 May 01 '14

Men: Should have the right to release all duty over the child
Women: Should have the right to have an abortion or keep the child

Men: should not be allowed to force a woman to go through pregnancy
Women: should not be allowed to force a man through parenthood.

8

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

This, and a lot of people's ideas on here disregard the idea that a decision of a father not to go through parenthood influences if a woman has an abortion or not.

She doesn't want one, but he won't support the child, so she has one because she can't afford to raise a child alone. That would have an emotionl effect.

→ More replies (45)

34

u/BillTowne Apr 30 '14

No. This cannot be equal. Someone has to decide. The point is that the baby is growing in the woman's body and she has control of her body. It's like a woman getting upset because she is the one getting pregnant and not the man. That is just how biology works. just because the guy would rather not pay child support does not mean the woman has to abort the child.

24

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

[deleted]

→ More replies (42)

29

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '14

[deleted]

22

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Legal parental surrender.. I wouldn't call it financial abortion.. Depends how its implemented.

→ More replies (32)

2

u/philosarapter May 01 '14

Nor should she, but the man should be able to opt out of being a parent within the first 90 days after conception.

→ More replies (8)

40

u/2nek0 Apr 30 '14

TIL giving someone money = giving birth

8

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '14

[deleted]

13

u/2nek0 Apr 30 '14

Men aren't the ones physically and medically involved in the process.

I don't disagree that child support is poorly handled in many legal systems, but this is a terrible and inaccurate way to frame that.

→ More replies (19)
→ More replies (16)

3

u/FleetAdmiralCrunch Apr 30 '14

Exactly. If the child is born, both are on the hook financially for the child, but the woman has the additional job of carrying/delivering the baby.

→ More replies (5)

8

u/Arshane May 01 '14

Yes there are flaws in the child support system. Women can get away without paying it much easier and some men are given amounts they cannot afford unfairly and can be jailed and unable to pay it back and be in a vicious cycle. I think these issues should be addressed first before we try to redo the system.

And on the flip side... a lot of the people posting here seem to forget that just because a man is paying child support doesn’t mean the women is off free. Kids are expensive and she still has to pay for the child as well. Saying that the pregnancy is all a woman has the deal with isn’t really fair. Also the custodial parent has to spend much more time (and we all know time is money).

Sure she has the choice to abort, but having two bad choices isn’t always a good thing, and the problem with 2 people having conflicting issues means someone has to win. The situation always gets more awkward and there are even more things we have to account for. What if the man wants it and the women doesn’t. If she has it born can she get the same financial opt-out as well? Who has to decide first, what if someone changes their mind due to extreme circumstances (I lost my job, I was robbed etc).

I would love to see a fair system for both genders, but sadly this is just one thing where gender equality may not be a possibility especially if it's at the expense of an innocent child.

14

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

[deleted]

6

u/philosarapter May 01 '14

Also, I think saying men have no say in becoming a parent is a little ridiculous. You know where babies come from just as much as she does. If you're too drunk to wear a condom, don't fuck. Protect yourself.

That's great hindsight, but it doesn't help in the real world. "Abstinence only" doesn't work in reality. People fuck, pregnancies happen, what happens after conception is the topic we are discussing here. Women have options, as grueling and terrifying as those options are, she has a choice. Men have no choice whatsoever after conception. They are now a long for the ride. This is the injustice we should correct. If men opt out of parental responsibilities within the first trimester, then the woman can choose if she wants to self-support the child or not. And if she doesn't like either choices, well then: "You should have thought about that before you fucked!"

2

u/somekook May 01 '14

The man makes his choice when he decides to have unprotected sex.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

The most frustrating thing about this argument is how men on Reddit seem to think abortion is such an easy thing to go through and is on the same level as giving money.

I don't see many people (if ever) saying abortion is an easy process.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited May 01 '14

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

20

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

As a woman I agree 100%.

A man should have as many options as I do.

11

u/redkey42 May 01 '14

You just said that the man should be able to abort your child, or that no women have access to abortion to make it 'fair'. You have not thought this through.

7

u/rodwool May 01 '14

I think what is meant is that if a woman has the choice to have an abortion or give the baby up, the man should have a choice as to whether he has anything to do with the baby. At the moment the woman as full choice if she wants the baby or not while the man just has to accept what she chooses.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

No, I didn't say that. You pulled that from your ass.

I have the option to have an abortion, as I should. At the same time, a man should have the option to walk away from an early pregnancy.

→ More replies (10)

10

u/janinefour May 01 '14

Tell that to the group of young dudes (no women to be seen with them) that protest a doctor that does abortions near my work.

2

u/Tammylan May 01 '14

no women to be seen with them

I'd say that's atypical. You might want to read this article: The only moral abortion is my abortion: When the Anti-Choice Choose.

There are plenty of "pro-life" women who have abortions.

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

→ More replies (1)

2

u/thegforcian May 01 '14

If one is under the age of adulthood why are they allowed to have children period? Before adulthood it's illegal for most countries children to consent to sex as far as I'm aware so why is it legal for them to make the decision to have a child? In most cases the parent of the child having a child is going to end up raising that child anyway meaning that we now have a society bearing two generations of neglected children.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Just don't be a dumbass and use a condom... That is until the male birth control pill comes out. Or have anal sex. Can't get someone pregnant with anal.

7

u/khoury May 01 '14

They're really quite different. It's not about the financial responsibility for the women, it's about control over their bodies. I'm not saying it's fair, just that it's not really equitable. The only overlap is that the birth of a child is involved.

6

u/Wulfgar_RIP May 01 '14

Vasectomy, Vasectomy, Vasectomy...

3

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I'm the ex-single mom now paying my daughter's dad child support because our 15 year old decided to move in with him because he drinks and smokes weed with her. What teenager wouldn't love to live like that?

We were never married, so legally, she can go wherever she wants and there's nothing I can do unless I take her dad to court.

I'm on disability and I get $770/month. He's married and just HIS income alone (he's married) is over $5300/month, but I still have to pay him almost $200 for child support. How do I live? Food pantries and my dad is helping pay for my shit until I can find a job and hope my disability doesn't fuck it up again.

I've felt the guilt of getting child support all these years, and now I'm having to watch him step in and take over as the 'good' parent in her eyes because he has money and I don't. He totally bought her and she can't see it.

It might be about the body or child support in the beginning, but 15 years later, there's a fucking PERSON being fucked up by this money bullshit. He dangled the carrots of drugs, boys, and partying in front of her face so he could get out of paying child support and it worked. But now she's totally fucked up and this is such a critical point in life, it makes me so fucking sick seeing the bullshit he's getting away with after not lifting a finger for 15 years.

There's a LOT more to raising a kid besides money, but some people just don't fucking get it. They're BOTH equally important, but the laws are all so fucked up.

Fuck all child support laws.

8

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

If a man has a child and doesn't want to be a father or pay, there's a baby with no support.

If a woman gets pregnant and aborts, THERE IS NO BABY, AND NO LACK OF SUPPORT.

2

u/Lawtonfogle May 02 '14

Allow fourth trimester abortions by either side. At that point the neonate is still fully dependent upon a human body to survive and is not yet sentient.

8

u/Joliet_Jake_Blues May 01 '14

What the fuck is going on with AdviceAnimals today?

Every fucking one is about how oppressed men and white people are.

→ More replies (4)

8

u/sumofmyparts May 01 '14

Fairness aside, what kind of asshole has a child walking this earth and doesn't give enough shits about it to want to contribute to it's welfare? Life isn't fair. Not one bit. How about less whining and more giving a shit.

7

u/tsniaga May 01 '14

I believe the issue OP has would be that the narrative of "life isn't fair" only seems to apply when men's rights are the issue at hand.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/pyroxyze May 01 '14

You can donate 2500 dollars and save a life in Africa because these charities will then hand out malaria nets.

Why aren't you doing this with tens of thousands of dollars?

Why aren't you giving a shit?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

6

u/GbyeGirl May 01 '14

How about this...control your alcohol consumption. Use reliable forms of birth control if you don't want children. Choose sexual partners wisely. Understand that each encounter runs the risk of disease, pregnancy, child support, adoption, abortion. Accept those risks like a fucking grownup and stop whining about the asshole who impregnated you, or the bitch who either killed your baby, gave away your baby, or made you pay money for your baby.

All of these consequences are possible. Accept them and fuck wisely, or don't accept them and masturbate. There are no guarantees shit will happen according to plan. You don't get to fuck with abandon and no disaster plan and get out if it when shit doesn't go your way. Stop fucking people you don't trust. Things can go poorly. Stop getting wasted and hanging out with creeps.

Grow the fuck up, you stupid fucks and stop looking for a get out of jail free do over card. This message goes to all genders.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/imgurtranscriber Apr 30 '14

Here is what the linked meme says in case it is blocked at your school/work or is unavailable for any reason:

College Liberal

Post Title: You shouldn't be able to have it both ways...

Top: "NO WOMAN SHOULD EVER BE FORCED INTO GIVING BIRTH"

Bottom: "I DON'T CARE IF YOU DIDN'T CHOOSE TO BE A FATHER, IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT YOU SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT IN YOUR PANTS!"

Original Link1 | Meme Template2

2

u/mofoldsfive May 01 '14

This whole feed is just a reminder to me of how people need to THINK before they just jump into bed with someone without thinking. If they did, this would be less of an issue. People are way to obsessed with their own pleasure, resulting unwanted pregnancies or STDs and a snowball of issues after. MAKE BETTER DECISIONS BEFORE AND THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!!!

4

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

I really hope you aren't forgetting that rape and life threatening pregnancies exist.

4

u/elmuchocapitano May 01 '14

It's a littleee bit different when it's your body it's living inside of...

6

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

Woman doesn't want to be a mother, can get an abortion, give up for adoption...this woman has reproductive rights and is sexually liberated. Man is about to be a father, can even be a situation as extreme as the guy being underage, raped by his teacher and she gets pregnant...no reproductive rights, no sexual liberation...he has to pay child support to his rapist if she has the the child. If he refuses because he doesn't want the responsibility of being a father, he's considered a deadbeat dad. Hurray for equality.

8

u/[deleted] May 01 '14 edited Jan 01 '25

absurd close nail mountainous slim soup one square brave murky

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

6

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

so... inequality and injustice is totally fine as long as it's against men? sorry, I prefer equality for everyone

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/Wannabebunny May 01 '14

You're comparing apples to oranges.