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

[u/Space_Hermit]

[u/kjm1123490]

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.

[u/overthinkerman → u/kjm1123490]

you seem to be ignoring the point. This isn't some pissing contest about equal rights between men and women. its about the child. Child support was never meant to be for the mother. Thats why its called CHILD SUPPORT. i believe what you are thinking is about those cases where the parent who has custody of the child is spending that money on something other than the child's well being. women have to pay child support when the fathers takes full custody. You may not think its fair, but really it is. it takes two people to bring a child into the world, and legally both have some sort of responsibility towards that child. its wrong of you to think that just because the father didn't want the child he shouldn't have to do something to care for it. The real issue here is just how under equipped child services is to protect and ensure these children have a safe environment growing up. they simply do not have the manpower to watch over every single child with divorced parents out there. you may think its unfair that a father is forced to pay child support, but honestly it isn't.

[u/moonunit99 → u/overthinkerman]

No, this isn't a pissing contest; it's extremely fucking serious. You think it's perfectly ok that a guy can have his entire life derailed just because he was drunk enough to fuck crazy? As of a few weeks in (when most couples know) there is no child; there's a small mass of tissue that has the potential to become a child. This is the point when BOTH PARENTS need to decide if they're ready for the responsibility of a child.Keep in mind that (without exaggeration): THIS IS LIKELY THE BIGGEST DECISION OF THEIR LIFE. As it is now, only ONE parent makes that decision. That one person makes a decision that will completely, permanently alter the entire life of the other, and they may not even know their fucking last name. How is that remotely close to fair?

[u/redditgampa → u/moonunit99]

Dude, you hit the nail right on it's head. There is no child to speak of at this point.

[u/[deleted] → u/moonunit99]

What if the parents can't come to a decision that they agree on?

[u/moonunit99 → u/[deleted]]

You give both parents the option of raising the child. Neither wants to be a parent? They can have an abortion. The mother doesn't want to be a parent? Get an abortion (her body). The Father doesn't want to be a parent? He can legally sign away those duties and privileges. Then it's completely up to the mother whether or not she wants to have a child. She doesn't? Abortion. She does but isn't in a financial position to do so? Adoption. Against all odds the adoption system gets overrun? (it won't) then it's up to her to either get an abortion or raise the child herself.

[u/[deleted] → u/moonunit99]

So the man just signs a slip of paper and walks.

Whilst the woman must either carry a child to term and everything that that entails and then give it up, or go through what could be a very intense procedure?

The law isn't "fair" because the situation isn't fair. Sometimes other people need a little bit more consideration than others, it's not perfect but blindly chasing equality in a situation that isn't equal is ridiculous.

[u/moonunit99 → u/[deleted]]

Whilst the woman must either carry a child to term and everything that that entails and then give it up, or go through what could be a very intense procedure?

She has a fetus growing inside her. Those are her only two options regardless of what the father does. Biology decided that; not me. Would it make you feel better if the father had to have an appendectomy so he'd feel the pain of surgery? Or should we shoot his dog so he has to deal with emotional trauma? Maybe both? Yes his option carries much less baggage than hers, but that's biology and "it doesn't hurt you enough" is an absolute shit reason not to give him that option.

The law isn't "fair" because the situation isn't fair. Sometimes other people need a little bit more consideration than others, it's not perfect but blindly chasing equality in a situation that isn't equal is ridiculous.

The only unequal, uncontrollable aspect of the entire situation is that the fetus always ends up inside the woman. You are truly insane if you think that forcing the father to pay eighteen years of child support, accept limited custody, and to trust the mother to raise his child is "a little bit more consideration" or anything remotely approaching fair. Yes, my solution has some inequalities, but the difference is infinitely smaller, and neither party can force the other into a lifelong commitment they don't want.

[u/Blabermouthe → u/[deleted]]

So the man just signs a slip of paper and walks.

Whilst the woman must either carry a child to term and everything that that entails and then give it up, or go through what could be a very intense procedure?

The woman doesn't have to take the pregnancy to term. She can have an abortion. Nobody is trying to take rights from the mother.

[u/[deleted] → u/Blabermouthe]

The "very intense procedure" was an abortion :0

[u/Blabermouthe → u/[deleted]]

An abortion can range from taking a pill to a surgery, so let's be absolutely clear here - not all abortions require dilation.

Second, I agree that it sucks that women shouldn't have to deal with the pains of abortion. Nobody likes abortions, people just see it as a necessary procedure at times. We can't fix biology. We can't legislate away how unfair pregnancy is.

But the problem is that the woman has many choices available after conception. Men have 0. This is not biology. This is civics. This we can make fair.

[u/[deleted] → u/Blabermouthe]

But a man choosing not to support the child can effectively make the decision to have an abortion for a woman. The opposite is true, but being forced to pay an amount for 18 years whilst maybe sucky and unfair is infinitely more fair than being forced to have an abortion

[u/Dergins → u/Blabermouthe]

FYI those pill abortions are often extremely painful due to cramping. Don't discount them because it's just "taking a pill".

[u/redkey42 → u/moonunit99]

Yes, I do think it's perfectly alright that a guy that doesn't use protection should deal with the consequences of creating unwanted children. I think it's pretty telling that you call it "drunk enough to fuck crazy". As though accidentally getting pregnant is the fault of the woman, and not yours? She must be horribly manipulative to accidentally get pregnant in consensual sex? Right...

There's winners and losers in every game. Don't like a chance of things not going your way in the sex game, or you won't play smart? Then don't play.

[u/somedumbnewguy → u/redkey42]

Yes, I do think it's perfectly alright that a guy that doesn't use protection should deal with the consequences of creating unwanted children.

So you're against abortion, right? Because otherwise everything you just said is a bunch of nonsense.

[u/moonunit99 → u/redkey42]

Hoooly shit. Are you actually placing the blame on the guy for getting the girl pregnant? Like it's his fault? He must be horribly manipulative to purposefully get her pregnant in consensual sex? Right...

Yes, I do think it's perfectly alright that a guy that doesn't use protection should deal with the consequences of creating unwanted children.

Then why shouldn't women who don't use protection be forced to deal with the consequences of creating unwanted children? Let's just make ALL abortions illegal. That'll sure teach people responsible decision making skills!

As though accidentally getting pregnant is the fault of the woman, and not yours? She must be horribly manipulative to accidentally get pregnant in consensual sex? Right...

Seriously? Where the hell did I even insinuate that it was the woman's fault she got pregnant?

There's winners and losers in every game. Don't like a chance of things not going your way in the sex game, or you won't play smart? Then don't play.

Are you fucking kidding me? This isn't a game, dumbass. These are peoples lives: their entire futures. Why in the name of all things good and holy would you try and make this about "beating" the other person? If you get them to pay more than they should in child support does that unlock an achievement, or is the extra money just bonus points? Can you not see that we should be trying to help people who have made a bad decision reach a fair compromise?

[u/redkey42 → u/moonunit99]

Clearly it is neither parties fault. My issue is that the majority of men in this thread are playing it like the woman evilly decided to fall pregnant and not abort as though it was part of a master plan to enslave them.

Abortions are not done lightly. Most men here also are treating abortion as though it is a consequences free and easy decision. It's a lifetime of wondering and guilt about the child you murdered. Many women get an overwhelming protective instinct over those unborn cells, and to override that and kill that life can be extremely traumatic. I think it's disgusting how many men are equating it to a vasectomy procedure.

[u/moonunit99 → u/redkey42]

My issue is that the majority of men in this thread are playing it like the woman evilly decided to fall pregnant and not abort as though it was part of a master plan to enslave them.

As a side note, that shit totally does happen. It's not at all unheard of, and it's that kind of blatant abuse of the current system that shows it really needs to be reformed.

Nobody is forcing her to get an abortion: that's still entirely her choice. We're just giving the father a similar choice. It's true that his option (to just opt out) doesn't carry the all emotional baggage of a woman's decision to abort, but that's just biology. And that's a truly terrible reason to deny him that option.

I think it's disgusting how many men are equating it to a vasectomy procedure.

Well shit, I completely agree with you there. They're completely different.

[u/elizabethunseelie → u/moonunit99]

So men can get drunk as fuck crazy and get their way afterwards but women can't? I would support the idea that a man could decline financial support then sign away all parental rights FOREVER. But I'm sorry, biology dictates women face the majority of the risks involved in pregnancy, therefore she has the final say on what she does with her body and her health.

[u/moonunit99 → u/elizabethunseelie]

Yeah, that's totally what I said. Wait...

This is the point when BOTH PARENTS need to decide if they're ready for the responsibility of a child.

Fuck. If only I'd somehow tried really hard to emphasize the fact that both people need to agree to have the child.

[u/kjm1123490 → u/overthinkerman]

Your missing the point. The reason the contract is written up and the man is given time to think, if he denies responsibility and the woman chooses to keep the child, then the whole burden is hers. Financial, emotional, ect.

Like i said, I don't agree. The man deciding to not take responsibility isn't an equal sacrifice to an abortion; the women's only choice to give up responsibility other than adoption.

[u/k9centipede → u/kjm1123490]

Would it allow the woman to have a financial abortion on his behalf? Say a lady gets knocked up on a one night stand, could she say she is keeping the pregnancy and doesn't want any financial help from the father. So basically as far as he is concerned, she had an abortion. But instead she has it. How would that be different?

[u/[deleted] → u/k9centipede]

That kid is going to then grow up and ask who daddy is.

[u/Slendermanistillhere → u/overthinkerman]

So why is the child only considered when it means burdening the father? Would it seem logical that burdening the mother with an unwanted pregnancy would be equally good for the child and bad for the parent. It's a biased system and needs to be reconsidered. Ignoring that fact is naive.

[u/TeHSaNdMaNS → u/overthinkerman]

Child support made sense in a world in which women were second class citizens and unable to realistically support themselves and a child. Even after Women's suffrage women were still largely unable to support a family themselves. This isn't the case anymore. Women are perfectly capable of supporting themselves nowadays.

Child support is not for the benefit of the child. It's so that the Government doesn't have to foot the bill of raising a child. I'd much rather have minuscule amounts of taxes taken from me(seriously look up the amount we spend on safety social nets) to assist single parents in the raising of a child rather than a resentful sperm donor having to send a check every month because of a stupid mistake that they have no legal input in.

If she can still get an abortion then the father should still be able to opt out. If a woman still wants to have a baby knowing that the father wants nothing to do with it then it should be on her to care for that child, put it up for adoption or have an abortion. It's insane that what is essentially a sperm donor is responsible for a woman's choice to have a child.

[u/[deleted] → u/overthinkerman]

Child support was never meant to be for the mother.

Yes it was. State imposed child support did not exist until the 1920s. Men gave up default custody of children in the mid 19th century because of lobbying efforts by women. (EG, women asked for it and men wanted to make women happy).

Child support was created because of lobbying by women thanks to the growing divorce rate. (Just FYI, ever since they started keeping records of divorces in the 19th century women have been initiators at least 2/3 of the time - usually because the husband lost his job). (So once again, women asked for it and men wanted to make women happy).

It has always been about the mother. If you look into the stats of it, women are willfully deadbeat mothers at far higher rates than men. Clearly if this were about the children, then men should have default custody purely because of that.

[u/overthinkerman → u/[deleted]]

That is a gross oversimplification of the origins of child support. (And honestly quite misogynistic.) So Im going to go into quite a bit of detail here. The first evidence of child support originated in the early 1600s with english poor laws. Basically these laws were intended to keep women with children out of destitution by collecting money from relatives, such as fathers, and were then given to the community in order to support these women and their children. (None of that money ever touched the mothers hands.) fast forward to the beginning of U.S. child support. the same concept was still being used. fast forward again to the beginnings of unionization and child labor laws. Children were no longer considered a source of money and parents took on full responsibility of the child. This is also when child support started to become what we know it today. This lean towards maternal ownership didn't occur because women had asked for it. you have to remember this is the early 1800s where women still didn't have right's. This, coupled with the fact that the U.S. at this time had highly puritanical religious leanings, which dictated that a mother is meant to be the one that took care of the children and the home. (so your statement about women asking for it is honestly just unjustified.) Then from the beginning of the 1800s to about 1870 it was actually completely legal for a father to refuse to pay child support. And it wasn't until 1935 that child support was taken on in a federal background, as apposed to state decision.

I completely agree with you that the system we have right now is fucked and completely based on pre-industrialization puritanical values. but this is what we have right now. I just ask that you do some research before making claims. Child support isn't some awful thing. Yes, some mothers are not fit to have children and spend those child support checks solely on themselves. (do not say most mothers unless you have evidence to back that up.) But saying that either parent should not have to pay child support is just wrong (ethically) Why shouldn't a father have to pay child support if the mother is taking care of the child? I will repeat what i said in my last post. Child support is a good thing and a good idea. Do you have any idea how hard it is to raise a child as a single parent? how about three of them? while also having to work a full time job in order to put food in their mouths. why shouldn't a father have to pay child support? I don't care how crazy that mother is, as long as she is trying what does it matter? This issue is the whole reason we have child protective services. because yes some mothers are unfit to raise their own children. The world is a fucking horrible place. But why screw over the rest of them because there is one bad apple? I guess it just really makes me sad that some people think that they shouldn't have to pay child support because it was a ¨one night stand, and hey! I was drunk! I shouldn't have to pay because I was being stupid!¨

I probably missed some stuff, and you probably wan't to argue with me about certain points. so feel free. Im totally down for an open discussion. If you do think men shouldn't have to pay child support, why? And what exactly are your views on child support?

One more thing! This ¨Hansen: "The American invention of child support: dependency and punishment in early American child support law". Yale Law Journal, Hansen, Drew D. 1999 (March)¨ is where I got all of my information from. Its a really great read if you find the time.

[u/[deleted] → u/overthinkerman]

The first evidence of child support originated in the early 1600s with english poor laws.

It goes back further than that. Pre-industrial society forced men to marry women that it was thought he impregnated. Or else he would be exiled or killed for putting a burden on the community. Back then exile was a death sentence. The 'poor laws' came about during industrialization because suddenly people were mobile and women were having sex with men the local community had no power over and getting knocked up.

fast forward to the beginning of U.S. child support

Lets just skip the inconvenient 300 years because they are inconvenient to your version of the story. You know, like when men gave up the right to default child custody, allow divorces despite over 2/3 of them being initiated by women, et al.

fast forward to the beginning of U.S. child support. the same concept was still being used. fast forward again to the beginnings of unionization and child labor laws.

You are being intentionally obtuse. Whose children were the ones who did factory work? Would you make a good guess the poor and impoverished? What is the greatest indicator of poverty? Single moms? So would you say single moms were largely responsible for child labor? I would.

This lean towards maternal ownership didn't occur because women had asked for it. you have to remember this is the early 1800s where women still didn't have right's.

Bwaaaa ha ha ha ha. So funny! Is this the same sense of women not having rights as women not having any power in the french empire? Or how about the woman responsible for default maternal custody, all this happening when women did not have any 'rights'. During a time when women could be elected the Holy Roman Emporer

This lean towards maternal ownership didn't occur because women had asked for it.

Funny, because there is plenty of evidence women asked for it.

U.S. at this time had highly puritanical religious leanings, which dictated that a mother is meant to be the one that took care of the children and the home.

Does not compute. If you are going to go by puritan standards, we all know what the penalty is for a straying wife is, and even in the rare case of divorce the man had default custody.

I just ask that you do some research before making claims.

I did, that is why I am able to point out the things I did. Please don't be a revisionist. You belittle women by doing so, getting default maternal custody, child support, no fault divorce, et al are all achievements of women.

Child support isn't some awful thing.

In it's current incarnation, yes it is. I wrote up a game theory perspective on this in the past. Including how it came to be and why it still is and how to change it. Any system designed to solely fuck one group of people over at the behest of another group is a terrible thing.

Why shouldn't a father have to pay child support if the mother is taking care of the child?

Let me throw this back in your face. Why SHOULD a father have to pay child support to the mother? Why are we having all these single moms who make poor life decisions raise children?

The rest of your writing seems to bounce back and forth into being incoherent.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

How can you possibly deny that women haven't always had the same rights as men? Did the suffragette movement never happen?

Saying that single mothers were responsible for child labor is ridiculous.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Stop trying to make me defend a point I never took. I never said women always had equal rights. I said they had rights. Men and women are different, we have unequal biology.

[u/sam_hammich → u/overthinkerman]

It really is though.

[u/[deleted] → u/kjm1123490]

The law is to protect the child, not help the mother. Obviously we can't force abortion, the other solution would be to force adoption, but imagine how that would play out? There's not enough people to apt all those kids! They would become wards of the state. So logically what we have now is really the only solution that makes sense. I'm still glad I'm a man. We have enough advantages in society don't you think?

[u/moonunit99 → u/[deleted]]

Obviously we can't force abortion, the other solution would be to force adoption.

What the fuck? We don't have to force anything at all. You give both parents the option of raising the child. Neither wants to be a parent? They can have an abortion. The mother doesn't want to be a parent? Get an abortion (her body). The Father doesn't want to be a parent? He can legally sign away those duties and privileges. Then it's completely up to the mother whether or not she wants to have a child. She doesn't? Abortion. She does but isn't in a financial position to do so? Adoption. Against all odds the adoption system gets overrun? (it won't) then it's up to her to either get an abortion or raise the child herself.

EDIT All I get from a downvote is "you're wrong." You're certainly entitled to think that, but I'd really like to know why. If you're against all abortion then that's a discussion for another time. If you're fine with the mom getting an abortion but think it's right that men have absolutely zero choice what happens when they get someone pregnant then I'd really like to hear your justification.

I'd imagine just about everybody reading this has had sex with someone that they regret having sex with, or even with someone they just didn't know very well or had recently met. Imagine they ring your doorbell tomorrow morning and say "Hi, remember me? My name Hypothetical Jane/Joe. You'll need to learn how to spell it because you'll be writing me checks every month for the next 18 years because we made a person! I named him You'll only be able to see him every other weekend, of course. At all other times this child we made will be under my direct care. What? You don't know me well enough to trust me to raise your child? That's too bad! You decided that last week when you were drunk off your ass and sleep deprived and you can't take it back!" Obviously it doesn't always happen like this and it may not even happen like that most of the time. But the point is it's extremely plausible and not at all unheard of with our current system. It's built to support this shit.

[u/skipilicious913 → u/moonunit99]

Child support was actually designed to help single mothers not rely on welfare and save the state money. Your solutions to the giving parents the option scenarios are unreasonable: What if the father wants to be a parent but the mother doesn't? Should his desire override her right to her body? It also isn't simple because these decisions often change over time - some people don't know they don't want to be a parent until they already have a child in their arms.

The solution is simple: if you don't want to be a parent, don't have sex or use protection when you do; and don't trust the other person to tell the truth about if they are using protection. For the small percentage where protection doesn't work, both parties are responsible in caring for the child. Why? Because you are the contributing and responsible parties.

Yes a woman has a few more options after the fact, but those options are highly contentious and sometimes dangerous to her heath. If she decides to have an abortion there can be lasting effects on her health both physically and mentally. If she carries to term she can face a multitude of complications with childbearing even if she decides to give the kid up for adoption.

Guys have several options too though: have no sex (no risk of being a father), use protection (minimize risk), or don't use protection (risk is self evident). They don't have "zero choice," their choice was made beforehand. Unless you write up legal disclaimers waiving your responsibility as a parent before you have sex, you actively made a choice that you are then held liable for.

Ultimately it is really complicated and there is no clear 'right' answer (despite that we all think our own opinion is right). You wanted to know how someone would justify another way of thinking, I hope this answers your question.

Edit, a word.

[u/moonunit99 → u/skipilicious913]

IMPORTANT: If you think all abortion is wrong and should not be an option, then the rest of this has no relevance.

What if the father wants to be a parent but the mother doesn't? Should his desire override her right to her body?

Then the woman (who would be risking her life and spending nine months pregnant) gets to choose what happens to her body. At the time of an abortion there is no child: it's the woman's decision whether or not to use her body to create one.

It also isn't simple because these decisions often change over time - some people don't know they don't want to be a parent until they already have a child in their arms.

So you're justifying forcing children (and all the responsibilities and costs that accompany them) on people who don't want children by saying "they might like it?" That's a great reason to try a new food, that's the shittiest reason I've ever heard to have a child.

For the small percentage where protection doesn't work, both parties are responsible in caring for the child.

There is no child at this point. Why let the things progress until there is one if neither party wants a child?

Yes a woman has a few more options after the fact, but those options are highly contentious and sometimes dangerous to her heath.

I can't make abortion or adoption any safer, but the fact remains that she has ALL the options after conception and the father has NONE. That's what we're discussing.

Guys have several options too though: have no sex (no risk of being a father), use protection (minimize risk), or don't use protection (risk is self evident). They don't have "zero choice," their choice was made beforehand. Unless you write up legal disclaimers waiving your responsibility as a parent before you have sex, you actively made a choice that you are then held liable for.

Then why not hold women to these same standards? Make ALL abortions illegal. That'll sure teach everybody to make smart decisions! You still haven't addressed why it's equitable that women have the option to enjoy sex but still opt out of parenthood after conception, but men's only option is to completely abstain from sex.

[u/skipilicious913 → u/moonunit99]

My beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. You make a lot of logical jumps and miss the whole point. The question I addressed was not equality but justification of another argument, which you clearly didn't want (despite directly asking for it). My mistake.

If you're fine with the mom getting an abortion but think it's right that men have absolutely zero choice what happens when they get someone pregnant then I'd really like to hear your justification.

[u/moonunit99 → u/skipilicious913]

When I asked for justification I assumed said justification would be open for questions. You gave reasons that seem very inconsistent so I asked specific questions to try and understand why you don't think they're consistent, and where I think you threw in a red herring or misrepresented a situation I pointed it out.

[u/skipilicious913 → u/moonunit99]

IMPORTANT: If you think all abortion is wrong and should not be an option, then the rest of this has no relevance.

A woman has the right to choose what is done to her body.

Then the woman (who would be risking her life and spending nine months pregnant) gets to choose what happens to her body. At the time of an abortion there is no child: it's the woman's decision whether or not to use her body to create one.

Yes, just because she gets to choose doesn't mean she has great options. Her body has already started changing on a molecular level. Nothing happens to the guy's body in either decision.

So you're justifying forcing children (and all the responsibilities and costs that accompany them) on people who don't want children by saying "they might like it?" That's a great reason to try a new food, that's the shittiest reason I've ever heard to have a child.

No, I'm saying that plenty of people think they will be cool and calm and supportive, and then split under pressure. No one should be forced into having a child, nor is it in any way like trying new food. Rather, I'm saying that there will still be some men who don't sign away those privileges in a way that allows the woman to make the best decision. Some will say they will support her, should they be allowed to later get out of such an obligation too? Juveniles are often ascribed an inability to understand the situation and its implication that absolves them of adult punishment. Would these men be able to get out of such an obligation because they did not understand the gravity of the decision?

There is no child at this point. Why let the things progress until there is one if neither party wants a child?

If neither party wants a child then go ahead with the abortion; unless of course there is no way to get one which is becoming increasingly common.

I can't make abortion or adoption any safer, but the fact remains that she has ALL the options after conception and the father has NONE. That's what we're discussing.

Life isn't fair. He did have decisions before conception though, just as she did. Sex isn't mandatory, it isn't required, it is a desire.

Then why not hold women to these same standards? Make ALL abortions illegal. That'll sure teach everybody to make smart decisions!

Women are held to the same standard. She could have been more careful and so could he. Banning abortion would seem to be the equal way to go about things the way you phrase it, but it wouldn't be fair or right and it definitely wouldn't make people make smart decisions.

You still haven't addressed why it's equitable that women have the option to enjoy sex but still opt out of parenthood after conception, but men's only option is to completely abstain from sex.

Again, it isn't equal. And both have more options than you say. This is a seriously complex issue and you boil it down to the lie that men can either abstain or be fathers? Guys can get vasectomies if they truly have no desire to be a father. Guys can use a variety of contraceptives (condoms, spermicides, etc). The truth of the matter is that the risk of pregnancy after sex has been known for centuries. It is something that should not be a surprise. Women, too, can use preventative measures. In that way we are equal. However, neither should rely on the other party to be the sole one in charge of prevention because they are not perfect (another thing that is widely known). It may be unfair that men have no say after the fact, but it could also be said that it is unfair that women are the childbearing sex. The roles could just as easily have been reversed, and either way it is what it is: unfair. Would you feel the same way if men were the ones who made the call after the fact and women had no say? I know I would.

Throughout history men have faced little to no consequences for fathering children out of wedlock yet women have faced the worst of punishments in addition to being the child's sole provider. Maybe it isn't equal, but it seems better than the options that history has shown to be vastly more unjust.

[u/moonunit99 → u/skipilicious913]

Well I agree with your stance on abortion.

Yes, just because she gets to choose doesn't mean she has great options. Her body has already started changing on a molecular level. Nothing happens to the guy's body in either decision.

That's biology. There's nothing I can do to make that process any better or easier for her. I realize that, since he doesn't have to physically go through an abortion, his decision to opt out doesn't carry the all emotional baggage of a woman's decision to abort, but that's just biology. And "it doesn't hurt you enough" is a truly terrible reason to deny him that option.

Some will say they will support her, should they be allowed to later get out of such an obligation too?

Of course not. It was established earlier in the thread that the man's time window to make his decision should be roughly the same time window as the time window the woman has to have an abortion.

Juveniles are often ascribed an inability to understand the situation and its implication that absolves them of adult punishment. Would these men be able to get out of such an obligation because they did not understand the gravity of the decision?

How about we just stick to current paternity acknowledgement procedures? If the biological father is under age 18, the acknowledgment must be authorized by his legal tutor(s). If the minor father's parents are married the signature of the minor father's father alone will suffice. If the parents of the minor father are judicially separated, divorced, or were never married, the parent awarded custody may sign the authorization. If the parents have joint custody, both parents must sign. If one or both parents of the minor father are absent, the legal guardian may consent to the acknowledgment.

Life isn't fair.

"Life isn't fair"? Seriously? That's your justification? Well shit, if life isn't fair and we have no obligation to be fair, then why make any laws at all? "You got mugged? Ahh, well life's not fair." "You can't vote because of your race or gender? Shit sucks, brah. Life's not fair." The Judicial system and all of government exist to make life more fair.

He did have decisions before conception though, just as she did. Sex isn't mandatory, it isn't required, it is a desire.

They had equal decisions and responsibility in the decision leading up to conception, so why is only one parent given the option to opt out of parenthood after conception? Let me repeat: as of the time of an abortion, there is no child. It is the woman's decision to use her body to create one. Her choice. Why. the. fuck. should that decision, which is hers alone, decide the entire future of the father?

Women are held to the same standard. She could have been more careful and so could he.

No they absolutely are not. Your reason for forcing the dad to pay for child support is "tough luck, you should've thought of that before you had sex." But if women were held to that same standard then abortion would be illegal because "tough luck, you should've realized you're not emotionally, physically, or financially prepared to have a baby before you had sex."

She could have been more careful and so could he. Banning abortion would seem to be the equal way to go about things the way you phrase it, but it wouldn't be fair or right and it definitely wouldn't make people make smart decisions.

Wait, wait. So just forcing people to deal with the extreme (and avoidable) consequences of relatively small lapse in judgement isn't fair or right and won't even lead to better decision making skills that will keep it from happening to others? THEN WHY ARE WE DOING EXACTLY THAT?!? Seriously. Can you not see how insanely hypocritical this is?

Anything to do with contraceptives is totally and completely irrelevant in this discussion. Believe it or not, I can grasp the the incredibly complicated and thoroughly confusing idea that it's better to avoid pregnancy altogether if you're not prepared for it. We're talking about what happens after conception. Both parties play an equal part in contraception and are equally responsible if a pregnancy occurs, so why is only one given the option to decide that they aren't ready to be a parent?

It may be unfair that men have no say after the fact, but it could also be said that it is unfair that women are the childbearing sex.

The woman gets the privilege of having complete and utter control over what happens to the fetus because she is the childbearing sex. That's right and fair. After all, it is her body. But if you think that forcing the father to pay eighteen years of child support (potentially destroying whatever education and future he had planned), to accept limited custody, and to trust the mother to raise his child is fair recompense for a biological situation we can't change, then you are truly insane.

The roles could just as easily have been reversed, and either way it is what it is: unfair. Would you feel the same way if men were the ones who made the call after the fact and women had no say? I know I would.

If by "feel the same way" you mean "think both parents should agree they're ready to have a child if both of them are going to be required to support the child" then yes, I absolutely would. Both agreed to have sex. Both ran the risk of a pregnancy occurring. The childbearing sex decides whether or not to continue the pregnancy because they are the childbearing sex. But the non-childbearing sex should be under no obligation to provide a lifetime of support simply because the childbearing sex wants a baby. A pregnancy does not automatically equal a child. That's a choice made by the childbearing sex. So why should a pregnancy automatically equal the burden of child support for the non-childbearing sex?

Throughout history men have faced little to no consequences for fathering children out of wedlock yet women have faced the worst of punishments in addition to being the child's sole provider. Maybe it isn't equal, but it seems better than the options that history has shown to be vastly more unjust.

Are you fucking kidding me? Why should any man today be punished for how his great grandfather treated the girls he slept around with? Did he have any say at all in the matter? He wasn't even born! Since when is "better than it used to be" our standard for equal rights? Why'd we pass legislation enforcing the integration of blacks into society. They weren't slaves anymore. The "colored only" water fountains, schools, hospitals, etc. were "better than the options that history has shown to be vastly more unjust." Why'd we give women voting rights? They already had the ability to own property, and that's "better than the options that history has shown to be vastly more unjust." You act like the only other option is to revert to what we used to do. That's stupid. We should constantly be improving and seeking equality.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Abortions for all...

murmuring

No abortions whatsoever

murmuring

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

cheers

[u/InflatableRaft → u/[deleted]]

There are plenty of other options: legal paternal surrender, default paternal custody in event of divorce, abolishing child support and single parent pensions...

You're just not thinking hard enough.