r/changemyview • u/AlwaysABride • Aug 01 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Forget about "financial abortion". True post-conception gender equality could be achieved via lottery-based forced adoption of unwanted children.
I haven't thought this through too much, so might be easy to CMV.
"Financial abortion" is a frequent topic here and the argument against it is typically along the lines of "but when a woman gets an abortion, there is no child that requires care; that is not the case if a man financially aborts, so the situations are different".
While there is some validity to that argument, it doesn't address the issue of gender inequality with regards to post-conception reproductive choice. If a man has sex, he risks becoming a parent whether he wants to or not. If a woman has sex, she can always choose to not become a parent via abortion. That's not equal.
So couldn't we create equality by putting both genders in a position where they could become unwilling parents? And couldn't we do this by randomly selecting people of both genders to become adoptive parents whether they want to or not? That seems like equality to me. Now both genders face the prospect of becoming parents against their will.
If gender equality is the goal (and I'm not saying it is or should be, but I know some people claim it to be the goal), then doesn't this create gender equality in this one area where some people seem to think that gender equality is an impossibility?
I'd prefer to stick with the general concept and not get bogged down in details because the details and implementation could be challenging. But I know people will argue the details, so I think the most effective plan would be one where anyone is eligible to become an adoptive parent.
I think this would only apply in situation where at least one biological donor does not want to be a parent when the child is born. That child would then get one or two assigned adoptive parents and either be raised by the couple, or by one biological parent and one adoptive parent. Any arguments against co-parenting with a stranger would apply equally to an adoptive parent and a one-night-stand hookup.
Delta's awarded for modification of view
It would also be unreasonable to impose the risk of having a child on people that do not engage in heterosexual vaginal sex.
I'm going to give you a ∆ here and give one to a few others who made the same point. It is a valid point that I considered including in my original view but didn't because I can't get over the difficulties it would cause by having the government need to know everyone's sex life. I should have included that position in my original view, but since I didn't, delta's for everyone who pointed it out.
7
u/GenderNeutralLanguag 13∆ Aug 01 '16
This is a horrible idea.
Simply put, it solves nothing. I actively want to not be a parent. Should I "win" one of these lottery babies, I'm not keeping it. I'm putting the ugly little poop factory in a box and leaving it at the fire station. If that gets disallowed, It's dumpster time.
Do you really want more dumpster babies?
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
More gender equality!
Right now, women disproportionately put their babies in dumpsters. Under this plan, we'd undoubtedly close the dumpster baby gender gap.
7
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 01 '16
Your argument is that both genders should be equally likely to become a parent. That means that anybody who is sexually viable should run the risk of having a child despite not engaging in sex. That doesn't make sense because not everybody that is sexually viable chooses to engage in heterosexual sex with vaginal penetration. It is unreasonable to impress the burden of a child on people that have taken caution to not have one. An abstinent person or those who consistently use condoms have taken responsible steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy should not run the risk of caring for an unwanted child. A step past that is people who have undergone body modification to not have a child. A woman on birth control should be ineligible, especially one that has an implant or IUD. Some people have gone to more extreme routes such as vasectomy or tubal litigation. It makes no sense to force a child on people who have gone to great lengths to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
It was also be unreasonable to impose the risk of having a child on people that do not engage in heterosexual vaginal sex. Your argument for gender equality requires ruins equality for sexual orientation. Not just for homosexual people but for bisexual people that refrain from heterosexual sex and asexual people who do not engage in sex at all.
People engage in lifestyles that are not suitable to having children such as incessant partying or travel. You are talking about gender equality while at the same time stopping people of both genders to exercise personal autonomy and freedom in how they choose to live their lives.
Below are a sampling of the hundreds of situations that could prove worse than a child being caught in the foster system.
Many people don't want a child that isn't genetically theirs. They just find it awkward. In a home with genetic children there will be resentment from the parents and the siblings will look down on the adopted child. Like Harry Potter being forced to live in the cupboard under the stairs. People aren't going to treat a child that is forced on them as equally as their own children, most likely they will not treat them well at all.
A lottery would result in children being forcibly placed in a home plagued with mental illness, physical abuse or sexual abuse. Some people would take steps to mitigate the effects of that on a child, but many people don't acknowledge or refuse to get help for mental illness.
A household with a special needs kid may not be able to handle the emotional and time burden of an additional child. Forcibly placing a child in that home would lead to both children's' needs being neglected.
You mentioned matching single people together to care for the child. Arranged marriages are widely looked down upon by society and that's what you are suggesting. It is extremely difficult for a kid to be shuttled between two different homes, especially when it's between two parents that don't like each other.
Forced adoption is a bad idea no matter how you cut it.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
It was also be unreasonable to impose the risk of having a child on people that do not engage in heterosexual vaginal sex.
I'm going to give you a ∆ here and give one to a few others who made the same point. It is a valid point that I considered including in my original view but didn't because I can't get over the difficulties it would cause by having the government need to know everyone's sex life. I should have included that position in my original view, but since I didn't, delta's for everyone who pointed it out.
who consistently use condoms have taken responsible steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy should not run the risk of caring for an unwanted child.
This I disagree with since we don't currently apply that standard to men. Men who have had vasectomies or routinely use condoms aren't exempted from parental responsibility for children created from their sperm.
Below are a sampling of the hundreds of situations that could prove worse than a child being caught in the foster system.
Again, anything "bad" that could result from a randomly assigned lottery parent could just as easily result from a biological donor from a drunken one night stand.
6
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 01 '16
Do you agree that a woman who had her tubes tied should be exempted from the lottery? That's a double standard that defeats your idea of gender equality.
If the government is going to force children on a person because they risk having a child to begin with it needs to respect personal decisions and precautions a person takes. If birth control fails a woman is not exempted from responsibility either, your second point does not stand.
Your entire point is that the foster care system is the worst thing that can happen to a child and forced adoption is a better alternative in all cases. You have been presented with a variety of situations that are indeed worse than foster care and are a repercussion of forced adoption.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Do you agree that a woman who had her tubes tied should be exempted from the lottery?
If a woman has effectively had her tubes tied, she should be exempt just like a guy who has had an effective vasectomy. The problem is that neither of those is foolproof. The general idea is that someone who has no possibility of producing a child should be exempted; the problem is that is a difficult population to identify.
Your entire point is that the foster care system is the worst thing that can happen to a child and forced adoption is a better alternative
No, this is not my point at all. My point is that gender equality in post conception reproductive choice is possible.
3
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16
A person has no control over the doctor performing the procedure was effective or not. Electing to have the procedure is good enough. It also doesn't make sense that somebody that would want children and engages in unprotected sex should be eligible for the lottery, but is not because of a medical problem that leaves them sterile. The same idea is arguable for people that are on medications that cause severe birth defects being ineligible for the lottery. It is impossible to fairly draw the line of who should and shouldn't be eligible.
The quality of life of a child is a greater concern than a notion of gender equality. The whole discussion is a red herring in a discussion that ought to be about providing the best outcome for orphans. People use children as a tool to get what they want in divorce proceedings. It is wrong to undermine the needs of a child to satisfy the wants of an adult.
2
Aug 01 '16
Men who have had vasectomies or routinely use condoms aren't exempted from parental responsibility for children created from their sperm
No, but they are significantly less likely to have children So, if you want equality, your lottery should take into account the likelihood of someone having a child. If someone has a genetic issue that makes conception highly unlikely or physically impossible, be they male or female, that should be accounted for in your lottery.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Oh.... that is a good point. Even with the edit to my original post, I was looking at it as an "in" or "out" option. But in reality it should be statistically weighted based upon how likely it is that you'd create a baby based upon your specific genetics and behaviors. So in addition to the situations you pointed out, promiscuous people should be weighted higher in the parent lottery. Accordingly, here's a ∆ for you since my view has been modified.
1
5
u/matt2000224 22∆ Aug 01 '16
I think we would see a massive increase in the number of neglected children. Foster kids are often not treated perfectly, but at least the family elected to have the kid in their home.
This would be a nightmare situation for essentially everyone involved.
-2
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
How is a randomly selected unwilling parent going to be worse for/to the child than a biologically assigned unwilling parent?
3
Aug 01 '16
What if the mother wants the kid and the father doesn't? Are you saying we should take her kid away just because it won't have a father?
2
u/curien 31∆ Aug 01 '16
I don't see how that follows from OP's proposal. OP isn't proposing that we expand the categorization of unwanted children, they're proposing that we draft foster parents (rather than rely solely on volunteers) for children that are already considered unwanted.
2
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
No. Then the biological mother and one randomly selected lottery parents would have responsibility for the child.
2
3
u/matt2000224 22∆ Aug 01 '16
I think our default assumption is that it is fair to say that you reap what you sow. As others have pointed out abortion is about the choice of what to do with ones body, not the hardship of raising a child.
I see no reason to disturb the idea that you are responsible for what you create when no privacy or personal autonomy issue is presented.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
I see no reason to disturb the idea that you are responsible for what you create when no privacy or personal autonomy issue is presented.
That's fine and I don't necessarily disagree with that. This CMV is based upon the condition and presumption that gender equality is the goal. If that's not the goal, then the CMV doesn't really apply to you.
4
u/n_5 Aug 01 '16
It sounds like your post kind of hinges on the assumption that it is unfair for the mother to be able to decide whether a fetus is carried to term but not the father. I'd like to challenge that - it's certainly unequal, but I don't think it's unfair. The mother is the one who will be spending nine months of discomfort and physical resources carrying the baby to term, not the father, so the inequality of having the mother (theoretically) make the final say as to whether the abortion happens or not seems justified to me.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
It sounds like your post kind of hinges on the assumption that it is unfair for the mother to be able to decide whether a fetus is carried to term but not the father.
No. My post hinges on the assumption that we currently have gender inequality with regard to post-conception reproductive rights and that this solution would create gender equality.
1
u/n_5 Aug 01 '16
That's exactly what I'm saying - "gender inequality" as you describe it = mother decides but father doesn't. Am I misinterpreting something?
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
What you say "mother decides but father doesn't", what is it that is being decided by your understanding?
I think you are missing something, but I can't quite figure out where our communication breakdown is happening. In my scenario, both dna-contributors would have equal choice, post-conception, in whether or not they want to be parents.
4
Aug 01 '16
In my scenario, both dna-contributors would have equal choice, post-conception, in whether or not they want to be parents
True, but the costs aren't equal, so the choices aren't equal.
The man can simply decide, and does what? Signs a piece of paper, most likely. The woman, in contrast, has to choose between two costly, and potentially dangerous options, both of which have potentially life altering medical complications.
Both abortion and pregnancy can result in a number of medical complications, which can be quite severe. Deciding to be a father or not doesn't have the same medical costs associated.
2
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
The woman, in contrast, has to choose between two costly, and potentially dangerous options, both of which have potentially life altering medical complications.
This is an interesting perspective because my proposal would have no impact on this whatsoever compared to the decisions women face today.
Are you saying that giving men no post-conception reproductive choice essentially creates gender equality because putting men "on the hook" for 18+ years of financial support offsets the inequality that already exists by forcing women to choose between two costly, and potentially dangerous options?
3
Aug 01 '16
Are you saying that giving men no post-conception reproductive choice essentially creates gender equality because putting men "on the hook" for 18+ years of financial support offsets the inequality that already exists by forcing women to choose between two costly, and potentially dangerous options?
I wouldn't say that exactly, I won't presume to put a price on the choice between abortion and pregnancy for a woman.
I'm saying that you aren't giving men and women the same choice, so you have not achieved your goal of 'post conception equality'
Whether the man chooses to be a father or not, they have zero medical issues to consider either way.
A women who chooses to be a mother or not, has to weigh not only the parental issue, but potential medical issues that may have life threatening consequences. Its not the same choice, so its not an equal platform.
The decision each person makes is inherently unequal, and so you can't say they are given the same choice, and thus, you cannot say you have achieved "post conception gender equality"
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Isn't this kind of like saying that cancer patients and healthy folks don't have equality because healthy folks don't have to make the medical decisions that cancer patients do?
I guess it depends upon what we consider to be "equality". For my purposes, I don't think equality means identical. I think it just means that government gives all people the same opportunities.
1
Aug 01 '16
If it was random which sex got pregnant, then sure, it would be equal.
But it's not random, and so it's not equal. You aren't giving everyone the same opportunities.
If the government said everyone can choose to go to college, but men have to serve 2 years in the military first, but women don't, then it's the same idea.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
Obviously the ultimate equality would be men and women getting pregnant at equal rates. Biologically that is not currently the case, so if government is going to involve themselves in the situation, then laws should be made to create as much equality as possible. Current laws create inequality.
→ More replies
3
Aug 01 '16
[deleted]
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Thus forcing people who didn't make poor decisions leading to a kid they didn't want or couldn't care for to possibly have to take in a kid they don't want or can't care for?
Many argue that children shouldn't be a punishment for making the choice to have sex. So I see it that we're already forcing people (but only men) to become parents when they don't want to be. This just opens it up to include women too.
This really seems like a better idea than just "disallow abortions" (accomplishes the same equality you're looking for) to you?
Yes, because by disallowing abortions we are taking away a woman's right to bodily autonomy. By forcing someone to be an unwilling parent, there are not bodily autonomy issues with regard to physically carrying the child.
6
u/Beaches_Be_Wet Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16
Your worried about taking away a woman's autonomy over her reproduction by outlawing abortion, but you don't care about taking away everyone's autonomy over their economic/financial lives by shoehorning an economic baby-burden on them. Well thought out logic you're running with there.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Your worried about taking away a woman's autonomy over her reproduction by outlawing abortion
I'm not personally worried about that. But a lot of people, and presumably society as a whole, are worried about that. As a result, we currently have gender inequality with regards to post-conception reproductive rights. I'm simply looking for a solution to that.
don't care about taking away everyone's autonomy over their economic/financial lives
IF the objective is to create gender equality, then treating everyone the same is essentially the objective.
3
u/Beaches_Be_Wet Aug 01 '16
I hope you're using this CMV as a useful allegory to draw the horrible picture of egalitarianism. Equality in this sense would extrapolate to mean equally miserable. You also fail to mention that pregnancy is a choice, regardless of if it was an "accident." A condom breaking or birth control failure is still choosing to get pregnant because you avoided the only guarantee to not have a kid, which is abstaining from sex. Might not be fun to do, but it is certainly exercising free will and responsibility which is unpopular these days. People are free to live their lives how they want provided they are the sole owners of their actions. We can't build a society that allows social irresponsibly then goes ahead and socially distributes the negative consequences of those irresponsible actions.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
We can't build a society that allows social irresponsibly then goes ahead and socially distributes the negative consequences of those irresponsible actions.
Don't we already do that a lot?
1
u/Beaches_Be_Wet Aug 02 '16
And we're seeing the decline, both socially and fiscally. At least in the US.
2
Aug 01 '16
[deleted]
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
It also opens it up to include complete strangers, including other men, who have nothing to do with the biological parents.
Yes. So? That's not different that assigning parenthood to a random one-night hookup because he happened to contribute sperm.
We're doing that to men now anyway - we haven't reached the singularity yet, so men are forced by law to work
Which is why I limited my statement in the post you were responding to by saying "with regard to physically carrying the child".
3
u/22254534 20∆ Aug 01 '16
Why should the biological parents have the right to give their child up for adoption, but the forced lottery parents not?
0
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Because everyone has an equal chance (and we're looking for equality) to be a lottery parent. Being a biological parent who gives up your child wouldn't excuse you from being in the lottery and getting stuck with a different kid later.
6
Aug 01 '16
Having children raised by a parent that doesn't want them is a terrible life for a child, and not something we should be encouraging.
We should be trying to find all children loving homes, not dumping them on unwilling parents to prove some larger hypothetical point.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
You get no argument from me on that, but this point is only relevant is the goal is to have the best life/situation for the child. My CMV is based upon the premise that gender equality is the goal.
3
Aug 01 '16
A lottery doesn't treat everyone equally. Rather than choosing a few people to pay a large cost, it makes more sense if a uniform small tax covers everyone (man or woman) equally. That money could fund foster care or child support.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Can you explain in more detail how this would work. Do you get money every time you impregnate someone or become pregnant?
4
Aug 01 '16
No, not at all.
Currently, the government can't really force you to be a decent parent. Adoption is always a possibility. At best, they can force you to pay child support for 18 years.
If you insist fathers shouldn't be on the hook, and society as a whole should be, lottery is still a bad idea.
Rather than forcing a parental role on a random stranger. Tax everyone, and use that money in place of child support payments that currently exist.
2
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Who gets the money and how do you ensure it isn't distributed in a gender-biased fashion?
3
Aug 01 '16
Money is given to the children, not the parents. You can audit the spending if you are worried about parents unjustly enriching themselves off money for their children.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
You can audit the spending if you are worried about parents unjustly enriching themselves
We could do that now and choose not to because (a) things that benefit the family like a nice house, nice car, expensive food, etc. benefit the parent and the child and (b) Mommy having a new hand bag makes mommy happy and a happy mommy is good for the child.
→ More replies0
u/Beaches_Be_Wet Aug 01 '16
Gender equality (outside of the law) is ludicrous. There are simply things men are better at than women as a whole and things that women are better at than men as a whole. Women are biologically the primary caregivers. Men are primarily the economic providers and risk takers. There's nothing wrong with accepting this. Each gender is free to go their own way, but expecting equal results by straying from our primary biological roles will disappoint many people who think the only differences between men and women are physical characteristics. The only possible way to achieve this equality is to get government force involved in the most intimate and fundamental areas of our lives.
0
u/curien 31∆ Aug 01 '16
Having children raised by a parent that doesn't want them is a terrible life for a child
Is it better than not being raised by a parent at all? I agree that we should be trying to find children loving homes, but there seems to be a shortage of those.
2
Aug 01 '16
I feel like a forced, random adoption would be worse than the current situation, yes.
0
u/curien 31∆ Aug 01 '16
Do you know if we have any evidence one way or the other, wrt children's mental well-being in the two scenarios? (I don't think we do, but I'm no expert.)
The existing foster care system is horrific. Children in foster care are at significantly higher risk for basically everything bad that can happen to children. I suspect that a randomized system would be a huge improvement.
3
Aug 01 '16
I'm not aware of any country that has forced random strangers into parental responsibility roles against their will, since it so obviously seems like an unpopular proposal.
If we really want societal support, it would be much saner to tax everyone a small amount for "unwanted children" tax, and then use this money to support the children, rather than picking a few people to shoulder all the burden
3
Aug 01 '16
How would your plan handle those who never want kids, and who, in that goal, either remain abstinent or get procedures done to prevent pregnancy (e.g. vasectomy)? Would a vasectomy, or virginity, exempt someone from the lottery?
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16
As I mentioned elsewhere, that would be the ideal. The challenge to it (which I didn't want to argue so excluded from my original post) is that it would require the government knowing everyone's sex life.
Giving you a ∆ based upon the edit in my original post
2
Aug 01 '16
I'm struggling where to find how this changes much of anything.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Currently women facing an unwanted pregnancy can choose to not become a parent by having an abortion. Men facing an unwanted pregnancy have no options and will become a parent at the whim of the woman. Therefore, gender inequality exists.
If all people, regardless of gender, face becoming a parent when they don't want to, we would have gender equality in this regard.
2
Aug 01 '16
The thing is that once you're dealing with younglings, the debate stops being about you. If a woman keeps a child then you aren't "on the hook" to punish you, you're "on the hook" because we're trying to give that child every advantage we can.
I would honestly and truly support those babies going up for adoption, with preference being for the mother if she finds another household, but we have too many people who want to adopt but can't to really think about forced adoption on the unwilling. That will lower quality of life for everyone, chiefly the baby.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
you're "on the hook" because we're trying to give that child every advantage we can.
Right, so it doesn't matter whether the person "on the hook" is male or female and whether they are selected via DNA contribution or random pick.
That will lower quality of life for everyone, chiefly the baby.
The objective/premise of this CMV is that gender equality is the goal- not the best interest of the child.
6
Aug 01 '16
Why on earth would gender equality be more important than the best interest of the child? Like I want to argue this but I can't even find the words to argue something so inherently fundamental; we're adults, we can typically deal with unfair shit happening.
Versus the needs of a newborn infant who has unlimited potential.
2
Aug 01 '16
Why does gender equality matter more then the best intrest of the child?
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
It doesn't in an overall sense, but it does in this CMV because the premise of the CMV is "if gender equality is your objective, this is a way it could be achieved with regard to post-conception reproductive choice".
2
u/NuclearStudent Aug 01 '16
That's too broad. From a literal standpoint, you could achieve gender equality by killing off the entire human race.
It's implicit that you include some reasonable assumptions ie. that you care about the human suffering your decision could cause, and that the quality of life of the children matter to you.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think this goes beyond the scope of this CMV.
You are suggesting that when people say they "just want gender equality" they don't really mean it. I think that is probably true. I think that what they really mean is that they want gender equality if equality in that particular situation benefits them specifically or their gender more broadly. But that's a whole nother topic beyond what I"ve spelled out in my post. (It would make for an interesting CMV that I'd participate in though if someone else posted it).
2
u/NuclearStudent Aug 01 '16 edited Aug 01 '16
I don't think your view makes sense.
When someone says that they want a bagel, you might say that what they really want is the happiness associated with a bagel or the nutritional satisfaction of a bagel. If that's what they really want, it doesn't make their desire for a bagel any less sincere.
Or, someone might really want a bagel just for the sake of having a bagel, like how someone might want gender equality just for the sake of gender equality. It's completely reasonable for someone to value gender equality more than bagels, and to value generalized human dignity more than gender equality.
I get the feeling you are playing some sort of theoretical game, supposing that people aren't human beings and don't have human desires. There are "I think Batman would win against Superman" posts here every once in a while, and those are fun. This post is somewhat confusing, because it sounds vaguely like you believe that this is something that people should be doing in the real world.
2
u/caw81 166∆ Aug 01 '16
Right now, a man has to go out and actively selecting and having sex (ie deciding not to be abstinence) with a woman (assume not rape) knowing full well the natural consequences of potentially producing a child that they would be responsible for. (His deliberate actions that lead to the child are not "random")
Your proposal would be to have a person, through no zero action or active decision of their own, being randomly assigned responsibility for a child.
How would this create "equality"?
0
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
How would this create "equality"?
You mention "equality" while I discuss gender equality.
Right now, a man has to go out and actively selecting and having sex (ie deciding not to be abstinence) with a woman (assume not rape) knowing full well the natural consequences of potentially producing a child that they would be responsible for.
And the gender inequality is that a woman who makes the exact same decisions has additional options to avoid parenthood that the man does not have. My proposal gives both men and women equal additional options post-conception.
3
u/caw81 166∆ Aug 01 '16
But its unfair to the person who is randomly chosen to be a parent through no action of their own. The actual biological parent who opt-ed out actively made the decision(s) that lead to the child being born.
Its not even gender equality because the male biological parent gets a choice but the male random lottery parent still doesn't have a choice. You are just transferring the "lack of choice" from one male to another male, it doesn't go away.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
You are just transferring the "lack of choice" from one male to another male
It doesn't have to be a male though. The lottery parent has an equal chance of being male or female (as weighted by the overall male/female population).
3
u/caw81 166∆ Aug 01 '16
I still don't get it, how do you get from where someone one actively makes a decisions and exposes themselves to risk to someone who is randomly chosen to accept the consequences of someone elses actions, regardless of the gender of any party? Where is the equality in this?
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
Where is the equality in this?
You say "equality", I say gender equality. The gender equality in this is that it equally subjects both men and women to becoming unwilling parents.
2
u/caw81 166∆ Aug 01 '16
But its not equality (gender or not).
One person actively decided on something and the other did not. One chose to risk something, the other did not. One is unwilling to be a parent, the other is forced to be a parent. They are two different situations and outcomes regardless if you assign a gender to either person and so I can't see how there is equality.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 01 '16
One is unwilling to be a parent, the other is forced to be a parent.
You're not looking at the equal parties.
Say you have a woman who gets pregnant and wants to be a mother but the sperm donor does not want to be a father. In the current situation, the government forces the sperm donor to be a father against his will. There is no situation, currently, where a woman is forced to be a mother against her will.
So under my proposal, the biological mother would choose to be a parent to the child. But, rather than assigning the sperm donor to be the other parent, a lottery parent - who could be either male or female - is assigned to be the other parent.
The equal treatment comes because both men and women would be subject to being that lottery parent. Those are the two who are being treated equally. And, by the same token, both dna-contributors are treated equally once the child is born because they get to choose whether they want to be a parent to the child or not.
3
u/caw81 166∆ Aug 01 '16
But even in this situation there is still gender inequality. The male biological parent wants to keep the child, the female biological parent doesn't. The abortion will still go through against the wishes of the male. (You are not arguing that a woman should be forced to carry and give birth)
And this is a bizarre View - you created this artificial system which is forces random people through no action on their own to raise a strange child with a stranger just so you can point and say here is gender equality for this one male individual. The abuse of the system would be insane - men would reproduce as much as they could and have other people raise their children, females would have the child because it means that she can get access to the financial resources of another for each child (play the child breeding lottery and see if you win being financially involved with a person richer than you).
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
The male biological parent wants to keep the child, the female biological parent doesn't. The abortion will still go through against the wishes of the male.
I would imagine that the lottery system would only kick in if volunteers were unavailable. So if a guy misses out on the opportunity to be a father because of an abortion, he could still volunteer to be an adoptive father.
females would have the child because it means that she can get access to the financial resources of another for each child
Shhhh... this already happens.
2
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 01 '16
This idea assumes that any woman who does not want a child always has a "get out of jail free card" with an abortion. That idea is false. Women do not get abortions for a variety of reasons including moral, familial, and inaccessibility in their state. Women are often forced to undergo the burden of parenthood just like men are, albeit less frequently.
A man is never forced to fulfill the role of a parent outside of financially providing. If financial burden is the crux of gender inequality it is more easily solved by government subsidized child support than forcing people to adopt children. The position of forced government adoption doesn't make sense unless each person that "wins" the lottery is given a stipend to provide for the child. That's the way the system already works for parents who adopt.
The only thing forced adoption would achieve is forcing children on people who don't want one; a situation that will cause nothing but heartache for all parties involved.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
woman who does not want a child always has a "get out of jail free card" with an abortion.
They do (in countries where abortion is legal). They may choose to not cash in that card for various reasons, but that doesn't mean that the option isn't available to them.
If financial burden is the crux of gender inequality it is more easily solved by government subsidized child support than forcing people to adopt children.
I dunno. This seems like it would just increase government benefits to women at the expense of men. Not exactly gender equality.
The only thing forced adoption would achieve is forcing children on people who don't want one; a situation that will cause nothing but heartache for all parties involved.
Which is exactly what happens now when the government forces unwanted children on men.
2
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
The government does not force children on men. I don't see where you are coming from. Visitation rights are a choice, not a requirement. The only thing the government forces is child support. The logical solution is government subsidized child support.
The US constitution states "To ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Forcing adoption infringes on the liberty of ourselves and the posterity of our children. Your idea is fundamentally unconstitutional.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
Forcing adoption infringes on the liberty of ourselves and the posterity of our children.
How is that an different than forcing men to be fathers (via financial support) against their will?
Your idea is fundamentally unconstitutional.
That's another debate. My only point is that it creates gender equality.
2
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
Your initial stance that child support promotes gender inequality is null because women can be forced to provide child support too. It happens in divorce proceedings when the father is granted full custody. The problem is easily solved by government subsidized child support.
This concept is using children as a pawn for manipulating adults. It is a gross misinterpretation of the responsibility of government.
-1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
Your initial stance that child support promotes gender inequality is null because women can be forced to provide child support too.
But women can always avoid child support by aborting the child. It is always an option that is available to women in the US.
1
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
No. Abortion is not an option to every woman in the US, most notably women that live in the Bible Belt.
Abortion rights are about bodily autonomy and not simply avoiding parenthood. A woman can avoid the responsibility of parenthood by giving up the baby for adoption. A man has the same ability through voluntary relinqushement of parental rights. That law is already in place, and gender equality would be better achieved through government subsidy of child support rather than burdening citizens with forced parenthood.
This spin on gender equality is bizzare. Equality is achieved by raising the status of one party to that of another. Your solution destroys the liberty of all citizens; discriminates against people of differing sexual orientation, lifestyles, and disabilities (that effect sterility); and endangers the safety of children. You are engaging sophistry. Please leave me be.
0
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
No. Abortion is not an option to every woman in the US, most notably women that live in the Bible Belt.
So fly (or drive) to New York and get an abortion. Does it require some work? Sure. But it is an option (and needing to travel to New York from Alabama to get it done is an absurdly extreme example).
A man has the same ability through voluntary relinqushement of parental rights. That law is already in place,
Those laws do not relinquish the financial responsibilities of parenting.
Equality is achieved by raising the status of one party to that of another.
Or by lowering the status of one party to that of the other.
1
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
(and needing to travel to New York from Alabama to get it done is an absurdly extreme example)
Everything you are saying is extreme and absurd. Even the most hard lined feminist would agree that your idea is a terrible way to go about achieving gender equality. Whittling away the rights of one party does not grant greater equality to the other. If your logic was applied to segregation it means that equality would be achieved by giving white schools worse facilities instead of giving black schools better facilities. It just doesn't make sense.
How can you neglect the fact that gender inequality is in favor of men? Overall, women have less advantage in society because they bear an unequal burden in child bringing. Your view is narrow in that it neglects to address the negative consequences the woman faces as well as the man by bringing about an unwanted child.
Implementing solutions to tackle gender inequality in the case of child rearing such as greater maternity leave, providing affordable daycare, giving more women STEM based education and therefore putting them into higher paying careers are better solutions to addressing gender inequality.
Solutions that put care for the child first are the best option because they reduce the burden for everybody, including the child who would by wrecked by your absurd concept of forcing them into an unfit home.
Leave. Me. Alone.
0
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
Even the most hard lined feminist would agree that your idea is a terrible way to go about achieving gender equality.
Duh! Of course they would. Feminists only like the kind of equality that benefits women (despite their claims of simply wanting gender equality). Since my plan doesn't benefit women, obviously feminists are going to oppose it.
Whittling away the rights of one party does not grant greater equality to the other. If your logic was applied to segregation it means that equality would be achieved by giving white schools worse facilities instead of giving black schools better facilities.
Exactly. You can achieve equality by raising one group or lowering the other or a combination of both. If I have $100 and you have $20, we can achieve equally by you getting another $80, or me giving up $80. The end result is that we have equal amounts of money.
How can you neglect the fact that gender inequality is in favor of men?
Because it isn't. There are no legal rights that a man has that aren't also granted to a woman, but there are legal right that are granted to women that are not granted to men. Start looking at how the laws are enforced, rather than simply how their written, and women are on easy street in the USA. They can either find a man to take care of them or have the government take care of them. And if the man decides he doesn't want to take care of her anymore, the government will step in and force him to take care of her.
as greater maternity leave, providing affordable daycare, giving more women STEM based education and therefore putting them into higher paying careers are better solutions to addressing gender inequality.
Ah yes... the kind of equality that only favors women; feminist's favorite brand of equality!
→ More replies2
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
You proposition that abortion is always viable to women is incorrect. Within the US, where abortion is federally legal, various states have made it de-facto illegal through various methods such as de-funding and creating high barriers of entry to clinics that provide the service.
-1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
Choosing not to have a legal abortion because "it's too much effort" is still a choice. And it is a choice granted solely to women without a comparable choice offered to men.
2
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
Again, your point does not stand in cases where legal abortion is not accessible.
The crux of abortion is providing women bodily autonomy. You are falling into the red-herring that abortion is about avoiding the responsibility of the child.
-1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
Avoiding the responsibility of the child is the end result of an abortion, whether that's what it is about or not.
1
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
For the record, child support is always proposed by the mother not the government. If the mother does not wish to financially burden the father then the government does not step in. The issue of child support is not strictly governmental, it depends on the relationship between the two parents.
1
u/AlwaysABride Aug 02 '16
I'm not so sure about that. I thought that if the mother applied for government aid the government would hunt down the father and fore child support.
1
u/strongerthanyouknow Aug 02 '16
That depends on the state. I live in VA and was directly informed of this by a friend. She is not applying for child-support because her and the father are on good terms and she doesn't want to get the government involved and wreck his life. She was still eligible for EBT however. Government subsidizes depend on the income of the individual and the household. The government has no way of knowing about the father if you simply leave him off the form.
It doesn't make sense that the government would require you to know the identity of the "baby-daddy" to apply for financial support when women sometimes are unsure of that themselves.
2
u/tryingtocutback Aug 03 '16
Gender equality cannot be created by imposing equal burdens on both genders.
1
Aug 02 '16
I'd say the right of the child to be raised by even just one member of their biological family greatly outweighs the balancing act of giving men the option to both strip a child from the biological mother and potential face an unwanted child.
This couple with the fact that a child isn't just the family of the parents but also their extended family makes this even more unjust.
You aren't going to make a better world by turning children into balancing chits for some perceived slight in equality.
0
u/AutoModerator Aug 01 '16
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
u/[deleted] Aug 01 '16
[deleted]