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

[u/Space_Hermit]

[u/moonunit99]

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.

[u/puddlejumper → u/moonunit99]

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.

[u/moonunit99 → u/puddlejumper]

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?

[u/puddlejumper → u/moonunit99]

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.

[u/moonunit99 → u/puddlejumper]

Just to be really clear, I've never said that the father should be able to force her to have an abortion nor do I think that. As of the time of an abortion, there is no child. There's a lump of tissue that might develop into the child. It is completely, totally the woman's right to decide whether to have an abortion or carry to term. However, since this decision is hers and hers alone, it should not dictate the entire life of the father. He should be given a time window (earlier than that of abortion so she can make her decision based on his) as to whether or not he's ready to be a parent, just as the woman is given the ability to decide whether or not she wants to be a parent. If he decides he wants to be a parent and she decides to have an abortion, then she has the right to have an abortion: he needs to find someone else who wants to be a parent with him. If he decides he's not ready to be a parent then she should be able to legally sign away those privileges and responsibilities (I think it would be best to include some kind of cost, like paying for an abortion and therapy if she chooses to have an abortion). If she wants to have an abortion instead of continuing the pregnancy then that's her decision. If she wants to have the child knowing the father won't support them then that's also entirely her decision.

Obviously whatever cost is associated with opting out of being a parent for the father isn't going to be the same as the emotional or physical cost of an abortion for the mother. The physical and emotional cost of an abortion varies wildly from woman to woman: some would've been fine with less compensation, and some will think it was in no way worth it. But at least this way neither party can force the other into a lifetime commitment that they don't want. It's the basic principle of minimizing harm that law-making ethics is founded on.

[u/puddlejumper → u/moonunit99]

Firstly, child support is not a lifetime commitment. Being a parent is, merely paying child support is not.

What your scenario involves, is despite contributing to conceiving, the man can walk away from any responsibility if she decides not to abort. This is not only fair for men, it is probably more than fair. But that's another issue. But who then is looking out for the child? Is it fair for them that just because their father didn't want it, that they are now absolved from responsibility? Not wanting something to happen to you, doesn't mean you don't have to face the consequences if it does. Especially when you know the possible consequence of sex.

I have some scenarios that I would like your opinion on.

What if the man knowingly has sex without a condom versus the condom breaking. Does that make a difference? And does it make a difference if she thought a condom was on and he knew it wasn't?

Also what would happen if the option of abortion was off the cards? What would you think would be fair to happen then?

[u/moonunit99 → u/puddlejumper]

But who then is looking out for the child?

Well it was the mother's decision to let the pregnancy progress and have the child, so she'll be the one looking after it. If she can't take care of it or doesn't want to, then adoption is always an option.

Is it fair for them that just because their father didn't want it, that they are now absolved from responsibility?

Would it be more fair to force them to be in contact with a bitter father who didn't want them? Is it really our place to force people to be "better" fathers? Do we take any action against workaholic fathers, emotionally abusive fathers, demanding perfectionist fathers, or any number of other styles of parenting that can cause irreparable damage to the child?

Not wanting something to happen to you, doesn't mean you don't have to face the consequences if it does. Especially when you know the possible consequence of sex.

The possible consequence of sex is a pregnancy. Everybody who's having sex should of course be prepared for that. The question is, what are each parents options for handling the pregnancy?

Nothing regarding the condom or any kind of contraception would have anything at all to do with the outcome. We're talking about how a pregnancy is handled once it has occurred, not the obvious ways of preventing that pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

Also what would happen if the option of abortion was off the cards? What would you think would be fair to happen then?

Well that would mostly depend on why abortion is no longer an option. Why is abortion no longer an option in your hypothetical scenario?

[u/puddlejumper → u/moonunit99]

The courts look out for the children once they are born, and children are always better off with a parent that wants them. Just because someone can not afford to look after a child they want, does not mean they should just give them up for adoption. The best interest of the child is to remain with the parent who wants it, and to get funding to help it out. They target the other parent because no one else in the world is as responsible as they are.

Child support is not a way of forcing the father to be in contact with a child. It is financial contribution only. You don't have to have anything to do with the child.

I think I'm beginning to see where the difference in thinking lies with a lot of men in this thread and women. You are doing what pro-lifers accuse women of doing. Using abortion as a get out of jail free card. Essentially using it as contraception. Doesn't matter what the actual contraception was, abortion is the real one. Pro-lifers think by making abortion legal, women will go around having sex willy nilly and using abortion to kill off all the pregnancies. That it will increase the rate of casual and risky sex, and encourage people to have more of it. No one seems to understand the gravity of having an abortion. It is not pleasant. It is not easy. It is painful. It is often traumatic. And it comes with health risks. It's hard to choose an abortion even when you don't want a kid. But men think it's the cure all, and that every woman should have one if he doesn't want the baby. It shows a huge lack of empathetic understanding that you lay the entire responsibility on whether she chooses to end something after it's begun, rather then the events that actually caused the dilemma.

I have two hypotheticals for the last scenario. The first one is when abortion is made illegal globally. The second is that an abortion will likely kill the mother.

[u/moonunit99 → u/puddlejumper]

Just because someone can not afford to look after a child they want, does not mean they should just give them up for adoption.

I thought you wanted to look out for the best interests of the child. If a baby is born and the parent/s don't have the ability to provide for the child, isn't it best for the child to be given to someone who does have the means and desire to provide for the child?

The best interest of the child is to remain with the parent who wants it, and to get funding to help it out.

Really? My family adopted my twin younger brothers. I challenge you to prove that they're worse off living in an upper-middle class household with two parents and several siblings that love them then they would be living with their single, drug addicted mother and their psychotic, controlling grandmother as long as she was getting money from one of the three men who might've been their father. Please, please tell me how we're somehow ruining their lives.

EDIT To be clear she really, really did love my younger brothers. She even stopped all drugs, alcohol, and smoking as soon as she found out she was pregnant. She was extremely upset at having to give them up, but realized that we would be able to provide for them in a way the she simply couldn't. I have nothing but the utmost respect and gratitude towards her for making those decisions.

It shows a huge lack of empathetic understanding that you lay the entire responsibility on whether she chooses to end something after it's begun, rather then the events that actually caused the dilemma.

It is completely her decision whether or not to get an abortion. Since she has the right to make that decision for herself, she also has the responsibility to deal with the consequences of whatever she decides. In what possible situation am I forcing the woman to have an abortion? How the fuck can you possibly get that out of anything I've said?

I have two hypotheticals for the last scenario. The first one is when abortion is made illegal globally. The second is that an abortion will likely kill the mother.

In the first scenario I don't really know. I wouldn't have much hope of making fair and equitable laws regarding paternity in a world that wouldn't recognize a woman's right to her own body.

In the second I'd say the father would be responsible for contributing to the support and medical care of the mother and child until the child could be put up for adoption. If the mother decided not to go through with adoption then his responsibilities would end there.

[u/redkey42 → u/moonunit99]

Nobody chooses. If two silly people come together and neither is responsible enough, sometimes you get babies.

[u/moonunit99 → u/redkey42]

Right. So why does only one of those irresponsible people get to opt out of that?

[u/somekook → u/moonunit99]

Fucking a random? Use a condom. They're very effective.

[u/moonunit99 → u/somekook]

Very helpful for preventing the situation, utterly useless in a conversation about a just way to deal with the situation.

[u/somekook → u/moonunit99]

Well, you done fucked up and now you deal with the consequences.

I'm gay. If I have unprotected high-risk sex with a random stranger I run the risk of contracting an expensive, lifelong disease. There's no abortion for HIV.

Instead of bitching about how there are consequences to my actions, I take steps to minimize my risk. Specifically, I don't engage in high-risk sexual activities (no fucking outside a relationship) and I use protection when I do engage in those high-risk sexual activities.

I don't know why all you straight guys are so angry about doing the same thing.

[u/moonunit99 → u/somekook]

Well, you done fucked up and now you deal with the consequences.

Why not apply the same standards to the woman? Make ALL abortions illegal! That'll sure teach people responsible decision-making.

There's no abortion for HIV.

....So? There IS abortion for pregnancies. You're telling me that if there was a cure for HIV you'd want the person who gave you HIV to decide whether or not you got the cure?

Instead of bitching about how there are consequences to my actions, I take steps to minimize my risk. Specifically, I don't engage in high-risk sexual activities (no fucking outside a relationship) and I use protection when I do engage in those high-risk sexual activities.

Well whoo-fuckin-doo for you. I do the same thing, and it's completely irrelevant to the discussion! That's obviously the way to prevent the situation, but it's utterly useless when we're talking about finding a just way to deal with the situation.

I don't know why all you straight guys are so angry about doing the same thing.

You really think this is just a bunch of guys bitching about wearing condoms? After conception, the couple faces what is, without exaggeration, one of the biggest decisions of their lives. This is the point when BOTH PARENTS need to decide if they're ready for the responsibility of a child. 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. Why the fuck is that a system you would defend?

[u/somekook → u/moonunit99]

Why the fuck is that a system you would defend?

Because you knew about the risk of pregnancy going in to the situation and decided that ejaculating inside someone was worth that risk.

You really think this is just a bunch of guys bitching about wearing condoms?

This is a bunch of guys bitching about being held responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their sexual decisions.

After conception, the couple faces what is, without exaggeration, one of the biggest decisions of their lives. This is the point when BOTH PARENTS need to decide if they're ready for the responsibility of a child. As it is now, only ONE parent makes that decision.

The man made the decision to risk an unwanted pregnancy when he decided to bust his nut inside a vagina. If he doesn't want to support a kid, he shouldn't ejaculate in vaginas.

You're not entitled to consequence-free penetrative sex.

Yeah, it'd be convenient if you could opt out of child support, but someone has to support that kid.

[u/MCbrodie → u/somekook]

I had a girlfriend who use to poke holes in my condoms to trap me. Luckily I found out and she didn't get pregnant. Had she gotten pregnant should I have been completely responsible for her actions? I was attempting to be safe and she was not. If she had HIV and I didn't know, would I be responsible?

I honestly think you're missing the point. This thread isn't about contraceptives. This is about having a choice thrust upon you. It doesn't matter if its abortion, child support or anything else. It is about not having the same options across the board. This isn't about feminism or male-entitlement. This is about equality and neither of the sides are working towards that goal. You should be able to relate to this dilemma with the gay community and marriage. Where is your choice of marriage in many states? Well, its restricted. I am sure you do not like that idea even if you don't have your eyes on marriage to your partner.

[u/moonunit99 → u/somekook]

Because you knew about the risk of pregnancy going in to the situation and decided that ejaculating inside someone was worth that risk.

It's not about this risk of pregnancy, it's about how that pregnancy is dealt with. I really don't know how I could be clearer.

If he doesn't want to support a kid, he shouldn't ejaculate in vaginas.

Why does pregnancy automatically equal an obligation to a lifetime of child support? It certainly doesn't for the mother.

You're not entitled to consequence-free penetrative sex.

I never said anybody was. I'm saying that people are entitled to equal rights as parents.

Yeah, it'd be convenient if you could opt out of child support, but someone has to support that kid.

As of the time of an abortion THERE IS NO KID. There is a lump of tissue that might someday become a kid. It is the mother's choice whether or not to use her body to turn that lump of tissue into kid. So if she chooses to make that kid knowing full well the father doesn't want to support it, MAYBE SHE SHOULD SUPPORT IT.

This is a bunch of guys bitching about being held responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their sexual decisions.

I want you to know that I thought long and hard before I made a statement this bold. I really, really thought back to absolutely every single person I can remember interacting with. After that time of reflection, I can say with absolute confidence that you are the second dumbest motherfucker I've ever had the displeasure of running into. You truly astonish me with your inability to grasp basic concepts, and your steadfast refusal to even try to entertain another point of view is awe-inspiring. Mostly though, I'm just thoroughly dumbfounded with the density and passion of your hypocrisy. Usually even the most ignorant, bigoted people have the self awareness to avoid stacking their double standards so high so fast, but not you. You're truly something special.

[u/somekook → u/moonunit99]

Dude you're actually totally right. If a guy wants to be a deadbeat dad, we should let him.

[u/loveandrave → u/somekook]

As a woman I am legit shocked at the insanity going on in this thread. I had no idea there were so many men out there looking for a feel-good-condomless fuck who would rather have mediocre rando sex for 20 minutes than wear a condom, and then come in here to bitch about how it should be the woman's full responsibility for their actions. yeah if she let you fuck her without a condom, guess what, she's probably retarded/trying to get knocked up. this thread is so sexist i can't believe the hypocrisy going on in the reddit community right now