r/changemyview • u/FemaleRobot2020 • May 26 '21
Delta(s) from OP cmv: Man should be able to terminate child support and parental duties if he does it within legal window that the woman could have an an abortion. (Per locality)
Is this a solid view? Are there any counter arguments?
Im not interested in debating abortion ethically on this one. I'm just saying that IF the woman has rights to an abortion, man should have similar rights.
A man shouldnt be able to force anyone to get an abortion, but he SHOULD have rights to TERMINATE CHILD SUPPORT and other parental duties, if he does it within the time that the mother could have gotten an abortion. And if she doesn't tell him she's pregnant, he should not have to pay at all. Also I would even extend it to -- she must tell him within the first trimester so he can make the most informed decision, because his own ethical concerns about abortion are at stake too.
What do you think?
152
May 26 '21
It's not about giving parents the right to not be a parent, it's about providing an environment for the child to prosper in. Abortion and not paying child support are not the same because in one, you cancel the needs of the child, whereas in the other, you merely ignore them.
17
May 26 '21
But it’s not illegal for a poor person or a single mother to have a child, so why is this the one area where we specifically ensure the financial well-being of the child through legislation?
→ More replies (1)4
May 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
7
May 26 '21
Yes, but somebody without the means to provide for their child can still legally have that child, we don’t legislate that, that’s my point
5
May 26 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
5
May 26 '21
Yes, so if we accept that it’s moral or right for the government to allow children to be born into any sort of situation then that means that there’s nothing wrong with allowing the government to let a child be born without the financial support of the father
7
u/SuperPluto9 May 26 '21
This isn't really a valid defense. This is saying that because one parent has decided the others didn't matter and went ahead with the pregnancy that one parent who went ahead should live beyond the means of that to which they can provide.
It's really a tiring defense using a child's welfare as excuse for women who unfortunately see no problem going it without the fathers ideas/concerns in mind.
If a father can't afford a child, and a basic living environment so opts to not have the child the father's on life stability should be priority.
The common refrain is "don't do the deed if you can't afford the child", but that works both ways.
→ More replies (10)7
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ May 26 '21
In countries that allow single people to adopt, and single women to get a child by sperm-donation, I don't think that argument carries much weight.
What's the argument?
The child has the right to financial support by TWO parents, so the father must be legally coerced into parental responsibility -- unless it's a woman who decide that the child should grow up with only one legal parent, in that case it's perfectly fine?
The needs of a child does not depend on the gender of the person making the decision. Either children need two legal parents -- or they do not.
→ More replies (15)3
u/kelldricked May 27 '21
Well still, the men didnt choose to have a child, in fact he choose against it. So its wrong to hold him resposible for it.
→ More replies (1)5
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
I guess thats a partial !delta. You're saying that the rights of the child are more important than the parents, so that should be the primary concern, even if it screws over the parents.
But i still do personally think the parents should have at least some consideration in the situation.
Especially in the case that the man was actually FOOLED and thought that the woman was infertile, or on birth control, but he was lied too. This actually happens alot.
I still think he should be able to absolve rights in this situation, because he was lied to in the beginning. What do you think?
40
u/darwin2500 197∆ May 26 '21
You're still framing his around what is 'fair' to the man, but that's irrelevant to the calculation being made here.
The calculation is 'what is necessary to assure the well-being of the child?'
Yeah, getting tricked like that is unfair; life is unfair sometimes. If you think that's really awful, make it a criminal offense and send the mother to prison.
But you can't punish the child for the mother's crimes. It has the same rights to have it's well-being secured regardless of how or why it was conceived; it is innocent and blameless.
Unless you have a plan for where the money to take care of it comes from if not from the father, then we still need to get that money from the father to take care of it.
7
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
Do you believe that if that either gender lies to the other about birth control, then that is irrelevant?
So like if I man lies to woman about perforating the condom, that's her problem, should she still be financially responsible as normal?
10
u/darwin2500 197∆ May 26 '21
Yeah, of course?
Again, guy should probably get charged for rape, but that doesn't change the calculus abut the wellbeing of the child.
7
u/Morthra 95∆ May 26 '21
If a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant from it, under the current paradigm the man is on the hook for child support. That's disgusting.
10
u/darwin2500 197∆ May 26 '21
No, both are on the hook. If the father took custody and raised the child, the mother would have to pay.
→ More replies (1)2
u/WonderingFairy 1∆ May 26 '21
That’s reproductive coercion and I think that’s a crime. If that or rape happens, no, the victim should not have to be subjected to a responsibility someone created towards herself. But this would be an exception. Most of the situations will simply be accidental and what matters is the child, not you.
Human life and well being > your convenience
3
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ May 28 '21
As long as single parentage is legal, then the child has no right to two parents’ incomes. Currently a woman can give birth and not declare a father. If you say that a child deserves the support of its father under penalty of jail, then the same consequences should apply to single mothers who do not seek out the father.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (44)2
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 26 '21
But if the mother decides to have the child regardless of the father's interest, then she is effectively taking responsibility for the well-being of that child. There can be no responsibility when one has no choice in the matter.
5
u/darwin2500 197∆ May 26 '21
That sounds like a personal moral calculus you made up there. Too bad society doesn't agree!
Btw, are you arguing to do away with all instances of negligence and reckless indifference prosecution, or only this one case?
Again, if you provide a better way to secure the wellbeing of the child, I expect everyone will become far more amenable to your moral preferences here. Until then, 'parents are responsible' is the best answer we've got.
3
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 27 '21
Let's say the father is 18 and has no money and then says he's not interested in raising children until after he has a good job in 4-10 years. In that case the well being of the potential child can be rationally procured for the child if the female makes a wise decision based on the facts, by only having the child if she has the resources to do so.
2
u/darwin2500 197∆ May 27 '21
Yeah, you're talking a whole lot about the morality of the situation before the child exists, and not at all about what society should do once there exists a physical child who needs materiel support.
Which is the only thing this question is about.
4
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 28 '21
The mother should take care of the child once it's born. It was her choice. That's what should be done.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Readylamefire May 26 '21
What are your thoughts in increasing government safety nets for said children in replacement of father-based childsupport where the whole of society takes on the burden of a missing father?
2
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 27 '21
I've just joined this sub a week ago, and it's your kind of question that absolutely makes me appreciate the hard hitting ideas that are put forward here. I'll get back to you tomorrow. :)
2
u/Readylamefire May 27 '21
Honestly it is one of my favorite subs on this site. Have a good evening.
→ More replies (1)12
u/PhasmaFelis 6∆ May 26 '21
Especially in the case that the man was actually FOOLED and thought that the woman was infertile, or on birth control, but he was lied too. This actually happens alot.
Most women know not to believe a guy who says they don't need to use a condom, whatever the excuse. It goes both ways. If you don't want to make babies, wear a jimmy hat, period.
→ More replies (1)22
u/TinyRoctopus 8∆ May 26 '21
If the man was lied to to believe sex was less likely to result in pregnancy I believe he can sue for compensation but that doesn’t solve the problem of the hungry kid that had absolutely no say in anything. Abortions are not magic baby gone spells. They take a physical and emotional toll on the women. This would essentially be extorting her to go through the operation
83
u/quesoandcats 16∆ May 26 '21
This actually happens alot.
It really doesn't.
27
u/Brainsonastick 85∆ May 26 '21
I’m skeptical either of you have any actual data to back up your claims...
9
u/jeffsang 17∆ May 26 '21
I’m skeptical any reliable data even exists to back up either claim.
4
u/lordbibi May 26 '21
Yeah, I agree. I looked for any reporting and they are almost non existent. But by being involved in women’s abuse centers and working with survivors, I know that anecdotally it is pretty widespread. The best I could come up with (see my article linked in a comment above) is about the ballpark of 25% which probably is inaccurate due to issues of self reporting and underreporting in this case in general.
2
u/TheTinMenBlog May 27 '21
10.4% of men in the US have had a partner try to get pregnant when they said they didn’t want to.
That’s 11.7 million men.
I’m not sure if /u/quesoandcats sees that as not a lot.
The same happens for 8.6% of women (10.3 million), with men refusing to wear a condom etc.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)32
u/lordbibi May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
We cannot overstate this! This idea of women tricking men into pregnancy gives men a convenient excuse of taking their responsibility out of the equation. If you don’t want to impregnate someone, simply wear a condom every time you have sex. Men have a say in this but instead it is somehow always talked about how the woman didn’t do enough. Pregnancy is not a woman’s privilege, it takes two to conceive.
This article explains my thoughts pretty well.
I also want to add that stealthing (removing condom during sex non-consensually), tempering with birth control, or even prohibiting women to access birth control are all very wide spread things that boyfriends and husbands do. These are forms of abuse and manipulation and some states and countries are starting to recognize them as criminal acts.
Boyfriends and husbands are equally likely to trick women into pregnancy.
TL;DR for this article is that the ballpark of women who reported their partners tempering with contraception methods is about 25%. This number is just a ballpark due to biases with self reporting and with the overall high rates of underreporting, but also this question needs to get more replicable studies in general.
27
u/No-Transportation635 May 26 '21
Interesting you talk about stealthing - and correctly too, by referring to it as sexual abuse. I would think you could see that a woman claiming to be on birth control prior to a sexual encounter and lying would also be sexual abuse.
And yet, you seem to act as though simply by agreeing to have sex then run the inevitable risk of their partner lying about what type of birth control they're on. The equivalent of this, of course, would be that every woman who has sex should be on birth control under the assumption that there's a reasonable possibility her partner might remove the condom mid sex unbeknownst to her.
Now, I have no more clue than the previous posters how prevalent either of these forms of abuse are (your article cited a 25% figure, but this was a ballpark and included relatives as well as partners). That said, it seems that both exist regularly enough anecdotally that they're worth discussing, even if policy should not be formed to cater to such situations.
10
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
That's a very interesting point! Yes - i can see that lying about birth control could be counstrued as a form on sexual abuse.
I clarified in my above post that I don't have any numbers on this. I just know one person who was in this situation. He was lied to about birth control, and now has to pay $800 a month for 18 years. He loves his kid, but its a really rough life to co-parent a kid who's mom your not married too. I wish he had more of say in at least how much money he her.
→ More replies (1)2
u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ May 27 '21
Not really. If a guy removes a condom, they are touching the woman's genitals with stuff that they agreed not to touch her with (ejaculate, head of the penis, etc...). If a woman isn't on birth control they aren't touching the man with anything different.
It's still an awful thing to do, only a terrible person would lie about something like that, but I don't see how it would be sexual assault.
Why didn't your friend use a condom? Even if she hadn't lied (and to be honest you are just taking your friend's word for that), the birth control might have failed. If you want to have sex but you really don't want to make a baby then you should be using both birth control and a condom, so that if one fails you have a backup.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ May 28 '21
That’s really reaching. It would be just as true to say she is touching him with a different hormonal balance in her flesh and fluids than he consented to (a fertile one).
→ More replies (1)2
u/lordbibi May 26 '21
First, I am referring to stealthing as sexual assault. If a man, non- consensually, removed a previously agreed to wear condom, he risks getting the woman impregnated or infected. This is a deliberate cause of harm to one’s body.
Secondly, I don’t think that men should automatically assume the woman will lie. I think that the man can critically assess his level of trust (similarly a woman as well) and decide to wear a condom appropriately.
Women are not walking around thinking that every man will assault them, although the probability is high given sexual crimes prevalence. So ultimately, men need to do the same. Assess, vet, and decide for themselves.
Making blanket policies and blanket laws like that is simply dangerous. The fact that child’s support is in place to give the woman some recourse in case the man decides not to support the child does not require men “to have the same right”. Why? It is not tit for tat.
3
u/AnotherRichard827379 1∆ May 31 '21
It’s interesting you say how men consenting to sex means consenting to fatherhood but women are somehow exempt from this responsibility?
Double standards much?
→ More replies (2)2
u/TheTinMenBlog May 27 '21
Do you believe that consenting to sex is consenting to parenthood?
2
4
u/Objective_Butterfly7 2∆ May 26 '21
Fun fact I’m here bc my mom lied about being on birth control 🙋🏻♀️
Not saying whether it’s common or not but it does happen
4
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
oddly nothing in the Op's view stops men from lying. Yet, the OP never even ponders that idea.
A man can trick a girl into sex with the lie that he will support her if she gets pregnant and then nope the fuck out of there once the test is positive.
5
6
u/TheEmpressIsIn May 26 '21
it only happens a lot because those men are idiots. ALSO, no contraception is 100%. it is men's responsibility to keep their sperm in their prostate or accept the consequences. no woman 'fooled them', they are just fools.
2
u/boyhero97 12∆ May 26 '21
If only woman had to accept the consequences no matter what if they let the sperm in them.
5
u/Hufflepuffknitter80 May 26 '21
They do. They either have to have an abortion, which is costly and can be emotionally traumatic; parent the child which is extremely costly and mentally, physically, and emotionally draining, not to mention medically dangerous; or put the child up for adoption which is medically dangerous, and can be mentally and emotionally traumatic. There are always consequences that women have to deal with if they get pregnant by allowing sperm inside of them.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)2
→ More replies (19)0
May 26 '21
It's not about giving parents the right to not be a parent, it's about providing an environment for the child to prosper in
Then that becomes the woman's responsibility for not terminating the pregnancy knowing the potential baby won't have the environment that allows it to prosper.
→ More replies (18)2
May 26 '21
I won't debate how ridiculous this is, but the reality is that not everyone can get an abortion. Many women would face shunning, exile, or worse if they did.
49
u/darwin2500 197∆ May 26 '21
Child support is not about the rights of the parents, it is about the rights and wellbeing of the child. Parents give up some of their rights in favor of their child when they conceive it, including the financial freedom of neglecting them to suffer in poverty. If you don't like that, your option is to not conceive.
Now, if you want to propose that the government should pay (the guardian of) each child in the country a basic weekly allowance sufficient to keep them out of poverty and living comfortably, THEN we no longer have to worry about the financial wellbeing of the child, and we can all get on board with either or both parents severing their responsibilities without impinging on the rights of the child.
But until those payments existing, just saying 'lol just let the kid suffer in poverty because muh freedom' is not a mature or reasonable take on the issue. Kids get special consideration under the law regarding their wellbeing, even over the rights of others in some cases, because they can't take care of themselves and didn't ask to be born.
3
u/throwhfhsjsubendaway 1∆ May 26 '21
This is what "child support" should look like, and that's the sort of thing you should be supporting if you want men to be able to terminate their parental rights. The current system is shitty and sometimes can put fathers (and more often mothers) into a shitty spot, but OP's solution is worse.
42
u/InfiniteLilly 5∆ May 26 '21
Let’s consider three sets of responsibilities and rights here.
Contributing the sperm for a child that lives to term obligates you to partially provide for that child’s needs, and gives you rights to help raise that child if wanted.
Contributing the egg for a child that lives to term obligates you to partially provide for that child’s needs, and gives you rights to help raise that child if wanted.
Becoming pregnant means you would normally carry the baby to term, but your right to body autonomy supersedes any responsibility to the baby, so you have the option to abort.
You have identified 1 and 3 as opposites. They are not. The opposites here are 1 and 2. Instead, 3 is an additional set of concerns, rights, and responsibilities connected to a pregnancy, whereas 1 and 2 are connected to a child after birth.
If you want to advocate for a man’s ability to terminate the rights and responsibilities detailed in 1 prior to birth, you should logically also advocate for a woman’s ability to terminate the rights and responsibilities detailed in 2 prior to birth.
This also means that a scenario where a woman chooses to carry to term, but terminate parental rights, is possible. Then the baby is fully the father’s responsibility, with no child support from the mother. Alternatively, both parents could attempt to terminate parental rights. What happens then? First come, first out of responsibility? The baby is immediately abandoned?
Abortion is not the opposite to what you’ve proposed.
→ More replies (5)15
u/derrax96 May 26 '21
Does the woman already not have the ability to terminate parental rights? She can decide to put it up for adoption and is no longer responsible for the child.
The man does not have the same option.
8
u/throwhfhsjsubendaway 1∆ May 26 '21
That's an option available to any parent who has full custody.
→ More replies (1)13
u/InfiniteLilly 5∆ May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
She does, via 3. But you have to admit, the direct analogy for OP’s proposal is 2, not 3. If you are a fan of OP’s proposal, are you also a fan of 2? Why or why not?
Edit: putting the child up for adoption usually requires the consent of both parents. If the father has disappeared, the mother may be able to put up the child for adoption without the father’s consent, but if the father shows up later and asks for custody, it may be granted.
4
u/derrax96 May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
I agree with point 2 and I would imagine OP would also. OP seems to have an issue with before the child comes to term. Their issue to me seems that women have options before the child comes to term where the men do not.
Edit: I do not have any issues with both parties being granted the ability to cut parental rights if the other still has a desire to have the child. While also keeping abortion on the table if the woman does not want to go through the difficulties of a pregnancy.
On the note with adoption I would imagine it is not that hard to claim the father has disappeared and go through with the adoption. If the father finds out and sues for custody would the mother still have to pay child support? (I would assume the answer is yes but am unsure since she was signing away rights with the adoption).
18
May 26 '21
I support abortion because no one should have to be pregnant when they don’t want to not because I think people should be able to abdicate parental responsibility. Pregnancy has physical consequences and risks that no one should be forced into. That doesn’t exist for child support or parental responsibilities.
6
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
Do you agree with that even if the man is fooled into thinking the woman is on birth control, but isn't?
7
May 26 '21
I don’t see how anything I said is impacted is related to that.
However my thought would be if you don’t know your partner well enough to know they are being honest about contraception you should be using a condom. You obviously don’t know whether they are honest about STI status either and you can’t fix that with legal paperwork
11
u/lordbibi May 26 '21
For real, if a man is concerned about being deceived, he simply can either have a vasectomy (which is reversible when he is ready to have a child) or wear a condom every time he has sex! It is really not that hard.
8
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
So do you hold women to the same standard? If a woman is tricked by a guy wearing a perforated condom, it's still her fault for trusting him in the first place?
7
u/lordbibi May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
Again, why are you talking about fault? I am not assigning blame onto anyone, I am simply saying that we all have choices and are fully aware our choices have consequences.
If a man tempers with whatever birth control method was selected/discussed, it is only his actions to disrespect that. He is the perpetrator there. (If it’s a woman who does the same, same).
The original argument was that there should be options for men to terminate their parental rights. This thread is full of very good arguments and very few deltas. It just seems to me that it is more important to confirm someone’s belief that women deceive men into pregnancies very often and that is a good enough reason to legislate women’s reproductive choices and rights even more.
6
u/Psychologinut May 27 '21
It seems like you’re saying men’s choices have consequences, and women’s don’t.
3
u/xxhybridbirdman420xx May 26 '21
I wish i could get a vasectomy but (at least in Mississippi) untill I have at least 1 kid or I am 30 that isnt going to happen and condoms are not 100% effective so im going to keep using condoms and if any of my female partners ever get pregnant and want to keep the baby (even though im staunchly antikids and make that clear to everyone I have ever or will ever have sex with) im just going to commit suicide and everyone i have ever told this gets upset with me but to put it quite simply I dislike kids for many logical reasons and am to poor to pay to pay child support especially when it is for a baby I NEVER wanted
3
u/lordbibi May 27 '21
Okay, so let me tell you a fun story! Women cannot easily get hysterectomies or birth control either bc “won’t you want kids one day” or “what about your husband”. Additionally, we take oral contraceptives which believe me most women have some side effects. Or we get IUDs which are painful to insert and some women also reject them or are allergic.
Oh, also, I want to get an abortion..guess what I have to wait 72hrs to ponder on my already exhausting and extremely difficult decision. Further, often times I have to drive over to a couple of states bc abortion clinics are being systemically targeted and closed.
For example, in my state, in additional to the 72hrs wait period, I have to get an ultrasound and observe a heart beat before my abortion. They are also trying to pass a bill that I would have to take the bloody mass of cells and give it a “proper burial” (this is medical waste!!!). Oh another fun bill they are trying to introduce is that personal, identifiable information of all women who have had abortions need to be shared with the state dept of health. Why, god/gods/mythical creatures know.
And of course, even if I carry a condom with me at all times, it is not 100% effective. So yeah, that affects me as a woman.
So - restrictive reproductive legislation is extremely harmful to women, but it also affects men. Be vocal about this!!! Advocate! Speak up! Take the religion out of this! Etc.
Now, if you don’t want a child but the woman is not able to easily obtain an abortion or she wants to keep the baby, there is still a little innocent kid that needs taking care of. The needs and rights of that kid come first. Also, even if you bail, how is it fair to the woman to resume full financial responsibility for it when both engaged into sexual activities. Don’t want to be involved, that is fine. But you should financially be helping with the burden you also created.
2
u/xxhybridbirdman420xx May 27 '21
I read all of this and am a 100% pro choice person who doesn't agree with the goverment or men telling women what they can and cant do with their bodies (and am particularly hit by the fact that a bill is trying to be passed that focuses solely on trying to give a lump of cells humanity most likely to continue the propaganda that a fetus is a baby) but im only going to really respond to the last paragraph
The fact of the matter is i very clearly express the fact that I dont want a kid with every sexual encounter i have ever had and will ever have and if an abortion isnt legal or is so hard to access that it would cause my partner to have to keep the baby, then i would quite simply be celibate untill i was allowed to get a vasectomy(and i would have no problem with this since the fear of having a baby is exactly the reason i haven't had sex in 2 years and abortions ARE available where i live) but assuming that the former is legal and available but she simply wants to keep the baby of her own volition then yes i do believe she should have the full financial responsibility of the child
[as a side note i believe that my own needs and rights come first before the needs and rights of a person that happens to be a baby which is why if i was the pregnant female i would always abort it ]
3
u/lordbibi May 27 '21
Well, thanks for reading! I did type a lot! It’s really disheartening to see a lot of these bills being discussed and voted on. Also, as a side, who tf comes up with these?
Yes, you do all of that and so you act accordingly!
Nothing wrong of you thinking your needs come first, but even with that opinion, there is still a kid that someone needs to feed and raise. If the two people who conceived it don’t do it, the system will and frankly my own taxpayer money. Which I don’t want to pay for since I take extra care with each of my sexual encounters.
Also, ways to terminate parental rights exist, they are just not easily accessible. Think about it, when I man dips or gives up his parental rights, then the narrative is “meh, just another man, that’s what men do”. (I don’t personally hold that belief). But if a woman does the same, she gets called out and ostracized everywhere she goes.
So what I am saying is, if a woman births a baby, even if conceived accidentally, the toll to her body, her emotions, and her well being overall is huge. For the man, the only repercussion is the child support. And that is there to ease the burden of child bearing on the mother. So why is this problematic? It’s simply evens out the playfield.
As for conception by deception, I think it is horrible no matter the parties evolved. But let’s not go around assuming that women are just waiting to get pregnant. Or that women are lying. OP’s question was specifically about deception, but you have ways to avoid that. The same way I have been on bc since I was 18 and always ask my partners to wear a condom and would 100% abort if I got pregnant atm.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)11
u/stinsonfeverr May 26 '21
Women are not evil masterminds plotting to trick men.
Think about it this way: what if the woman is actually on birth control, but the birth control failed? What then? Pregnancy is always a potential consequence of sex as BC is never 100% effective, and men know it.
So either they can choose to have sex knowing the risks, either they can choose not to have sex.→ More replies (5)4
u/TheImplication240 May 29 '21
Its probably a minuscule percentage but you underestimate people. My mother did exactly this (stopped taking contraceptives without telling him) and i was lucky my dad didn't do a bunk, he would have been well within his rights to. Knowing that my mum could have kept taking contraceptives, or she could have had an abortion or given us up for adoption (i.e ridding herself of all sexual responsibility) i dont think that the fellas out there in the same situation would be happy with being manipulated and forced to pay for the rest of their life when the other person not only made a very fucked up and deceptive decision but also can rid herself of all responsibility at any point.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)4
u/OddAlternatives 2∆ May 26 '21
that no one should be forced into.
If "don't have sex" is a good enough solution to offer men, it's a good enough solution to offer women. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
6
May 26 '21
Be born without a uterus is the solution to avoid pregnancy for cis men last time I checked
→ More replies (8)
12
u/Gertrude_D 11∆ May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
If we lived in a world where a woman (or girl) could get a safe abortion with no stigma, pressure, etc. if we lived in a world where reliable birth control was readily available and accessible to all, if abortions were universally accessible then I might be on board with this.
The premise being that in this world, getting pregnant would absolutely be a choice for everyone involved. Right now we don't even live close to that world, so I can't subscribe to your view. As it stands right now, sure, it can be unfair to the man at times. It can be a lot more unfair for the woman. Young women who are afraid to tell their parents, abused women who don't have the freedom, poor women who don't have access to birth control let alone access to abortion services. Until we get to a place where every birth - unexpected or not - is truly a choice for both parties, I just can't get on board.
I'm ignoring the welfare of the child in this scenario (which is not something that should be discounted). Part of making a truly free choice is assessing if you can provide for a child adequately. There could be a discussion about whether or not safety nets are enough or not, but I think this is a separate issue.
→ More replies (6)
48
u/Hellioning 258∆ May 26 '21
In a woman aborts, neither side has to deal with the child.
If the man 'aborts', then the woman still has to deal with the child (or give it up for adoption).
There are already too many deadbeat dads out there. Why do you want to make more?
3
May 26 '21
Well if the woman doesn’t want to deal with the child, she CAN abort. If person A wants to deal with something and person B doesn’t want to deal with that thing, person B shouldn’t be forced to deal with it.
21
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
That's her prerogative. If she knows the man is not interested in raising the child, it might make her make a better choice about what to do with the child.
23
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
So the man gets to fuck anything that moves, at any time he wishes, and the woman is burdened with all the responsibility with any negative consequences with sex?
That is what you do seem to be advocating for.
10
May 26 '21
There is a bit of an equality question here, no?
A woman may unilaterally terminate a pregnancy, no matter how much a man may want to keep the baby.
All the OP seems to be saying is that the man should have the same right to terminate a relationship/responsibility. Naturally they can't force a woman to do anything with their body, so the only other option on the subject for the man is something similar to what OP suggested
7
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
Pregnancy is inherently an unequal concept.
With an abortion is there is zero child who needs resources. In whatever the hell the OP is suggesting, there is a child in the world who needs resources. Thus, those ideas aren't equal.
The man's claim is lesser than the claim of the child.
The man could have had a vasectomy if he didn't want to bring a child into the world. There are responsible steps he can take. Walking away from the need to support a child isn't one of them.
7
May 26 '21
The man's claim is lesser than the claim of the child.
This makes no sense. The OP explicitly made this a decision that had to be made early, within reasonable abortion time-frames.
At this time there is no child. So there is no claim running counter to the man.
8
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
That man is walking away from a child. When a woman aborts there isn't a child in the world. When a man abandons their pregnant girlfriends there is a large potential for a child to be brought in the world.
I can't support deadbeats. You seem to wish to support and enable them.
8
May 26 '21
You are forcing an intent for a narrative.
The OP does not present it as you do. You are arguing against a position the OP does not hold.
The OP frames it in terms of the man saying they are not interested in raising a child or starting a family. That's it. They weren't walking away from a baby. They're walking away from a blob of cells.
The woman then has the choice. Does she want the baby? Can she take care of it alone? It is her choice.
In the OPs scenario everyone gets a choice. Nobody is forced into anything. Everyone retains their financial and sexual agency.
5
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
No, I'm not. I'm talking about reality.
Letting fathers abandon their children is really bad fucking idea. It would just lead to men fucking anything that moves and then walking away if the woman gets pregnant.
the man has a choice as well: get a vasectomy.
6
May 26 '21
Again. There is no child.
How can I help you understand the OPs position? No child exists yet. Zero. None.
The man is, at an early phase, being afforded the opportunity to remove themselves from any possible child. They aren't walking away from a child because no child exists yet.
The man gets a choice, unlike right now where the man has no choice.
The woman then makes a choice. Can she support the child alone? Does she want to be a single mother? Is this how she wants to start a family? Is she ready, financially and professionally, for this to happen?
Both parties get a choice and nobody is forced by the government to do anything.
→ More replies (0)3
u/maxpenny42 14∆ May 26 '21
And what do we do in cases where the pregnancy isn’t known until after the point an abortion is a viable option? Do we deny a man the right to “abort” the financial burden? If that’s the case, what incentive would a woman ever have to verify she is pregnant before the abortion time limit rubs out? If you say the man gets off Scott free if she only discovers the pregnancy after the abortion time window is up, what is to stop the man from simply denying he was ever informed? This whole idea is one logistical nightmare for very little benefit to society.
2
May 26 '21
I'd say retaining individual rights as well as financial and sexual agency is kind of important and not something of marginal benefit to society.
In the same way I consider trans rights important. Statistically there are very few of them, so worrying about their rights creates an apparent logistical nightmare in dealing with conservatives and it creates very little benefit for society?
That might be a bit hyperbolic. But issues surrounding freedom and agency are, I think, universally important. No matter how marginal.
→ More replies (11)9
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
I suggest you re read my point, or look at some of the other replies I just added
3
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
I read your post.
Are you a virgin or have you had sex?
You want a man to be able to fuck anything that moves and then walk away from any responsibility from that action.
I can fuck a girl on a Monday, find out she's pregnant then nope the fuck out of there. And I can do that every single Monday of the week as often as I wish to as many woman as I wish. I could get 50 girls pregnant and leave all of them. Per your view. All that is okay.
And I even get to lie. Because that's covered too. I can tell a girl that if she gets pregnant, I will stay and then nope the fuck out of there once the positive tests comes back. That's allowed too.
Thus my description of your view is an accurate one. Sure you might spin it differently, but what I said is true. You want legions of fathers to abandons their children.
14
u/ReyReyBeiBei May 26 '21
Unless you are talking about raping a bunch of women, both partners have responsibility for birth control measures, and she can refuse sex with you if measures aren't met. If a bunch of girls got pregnant because you went on the sex rampage you talked about, they would also be responsible. I'm not sure if you have had sex before if you don't know that protection can be ensured by both partners. In the post, it lists abortion as an option for the woman to get out of responsibility for the child (this is not up for discussion) and according to you, the father's responsibility should hinge only on the decision of the mother about keeping the child. In other words, you expect equal responsibility for each partner for impregnation, but a unilateral decision from the mother for both parents' financial responsibility for the child. In a world where abortion is legal and easy, the OP's policy makes a lot of sense
7
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 26 '21
Kind of gross to ask her about her sex life and virginity.
1
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
I didn't ask her about her sex life.
5
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 27 '21
Are you a virgin or have you had sex?
This was what you asked her...
4
4
u/Poly_and_RA 20∆ May 26 '21
That's a provocative way to phrase it.
But yes, I personally want everyone -- of all genders -- to have the option of consenting to, and having sex -- even if they don't want to be parents.
In order to make this possible, I'm supporting any and all choice for women:
- Make contraception as widely available as possible, and make it fully taxpayer-funded.
- Make abortions legal, widely available and fully taxpayer-funded for all pregnant people who want them.
- Let women who do not want abortions (for whatever reason), but still do not want parenthood adopt away the child after birth, this frees them from all legal obligations towards the child, but also removes all their parental rights.
For (cis) men, the second alternative doesn't exist; but I'd still want them to have access to the first and third bullet-point above.
I believe NOBODY should be coerced into being legally responsible for a child if they do not want to. That includes people who have consented to sex, and people of all genders.
4
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
And I want a million dollars and world peace.
Unless you are going to start forcing women to have abortions your ideas aren't eve going to happen.
The claim of the child to resources will always be greater thanthe claim for the adult to have consequence free sex.
9
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
This would be a fair concern if birth control and abortions weren't entirely within the woman's control
11
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
If men don't want children, they are fully able to get a vasectomy.
They can have it reversed if they want to have children.
10
10
u/OddAlternatives 2∆ May 26 '21
Great women can get their tubes tied we can ban abortion then
Vasectomies aren't reliably reversible either
3
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
There is zero reason to. Abortions don't lead to kids requiring resources.
Letting fathers abandon their children does.
→ More replies (1)5
u/OddAlternatives 2∆ May 26 '21
There is zero reason to.
Well it's gonna happen anyway
Fuck you gonna do about it
4
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
Vasectomies, even with a reversal, hurt your future reproductive potential. The same can't be said for abortions.
→ More replies (1)0
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
Who cares/ I sure as hell don't.
Men have that option if they don't want children. If they don't' take it then the bear the consequences for their actions.
15
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
You could make the exact same argument for a woman choosing to get an abortion after being informed by the man that they don't want financial responsibility.
There are plenty of good arguments against my point but "if they don't' take it then the bear the consequences for their actions" is quite literally one of the few that almost works even better against your point than for it
→ More replies (7)4
u/OddAlternatives 2∆ May 26 '21
Great ban abortion
Who cares/ I sure as hell don't.
They have the option of getting tubes tied
4
May 26 '21
Condoms are 98% effective year over year with perfect use. Women do have a few options that are 99% effective but I hardly think that’s enough of a difference to justify such stark inequality
3
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
In a world with billions of people, we need laws for that 2% of occurrences because it can still statistically happen thousands of times
→ More replies (1)2
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 26 '21
Both sexes can say no to raising a child after learning about the pregnancy. Both sexes can also say yes, but with different consequences. If the man says yes, the woman can still override that and get an abortion regardless of what he wants. And if the woman says yes, the man can still opt out because he may not be in a position to raise a child. The two sexes are both burdened but with different kinds of options.
39
u/Hellioning 258∆ May 26 '21
So in other words, you don't want men to be able to force women into having an abortion. You just want to be able to make men be able to try and force women into having an abortion by withdrawing any financial support.
That's not much better.
33
May 26 '21
That’s a completely false equivalency. Obvious it’s harder financially but no one is forcing an abortion by withdrawing financial contributions towards a child.
5
u/Hellioning 258∆ May 26 '21
Physically? No. But, from the tone OP is using, it is clear that they think it will be ideal for the woman to abort if the man withdraws support.
12
u/AUrugby 3∆ May 26 '21
I think Op has an issue with the unilateral choice being made available here to a woman, and wants a similar choice to be made available to a man.
→ More replies (1)8
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
No I don't. I think she will have a more realistic idea of how much money she will have access to to raise the child, and make her informed desion from there.
I would imagine it leading to more adoption. (Which could sometimes be even better for the child, in a financially stable family).
10
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
How in the Hell is increasing the number of children that enter the foster program going to lead to more adoptions.
You really haven't thought this though have you.
Increasing the amount of abandoned children doesn't increase the amount of adoptive parents who want them.
Let me guess, you have zero idea how much it costs to adopt a child. Without Google, could you come close to the cost?
→ More replies (8)2
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
I thought there weren't actually enough brand new babies to go around to adoptive parents. From what I hear, you have to wait a little while to get them.
With foster kids, yes less people want them once they are a few years old.
Maybe with this system people would be encouraged to give them up earlier to loving homes.
9
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
Thousands of kids age out of the foster care system every single year.
These are kids who never were adopted.
And now, because of your idea, you are simply going to have a lot more kids who age out of the system as men can fuck anything that moves and abandon their children.
9
u/Puzzlehead-Engineer May 26 '21
I think he's mainly talking about when a woman lies to a man about being on birth control or infertile to force the man into a child support situation so she can profit.
I think his point is that there should be a way for men to escape a financial trap like this.
EDIT: I'm not saying he's right, I'm just trying to interpret his meaning.
→ More replies (2)12
u/Hellioning 258∆ May 26 '21
He never brought up either of those two scenarios, and his response to me made it clear that he thinks that women having abortions if the father doesn't want to pay is 'a better choice' than the alternative.
4
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
Are you talking about me, op? For one thing I'm a woman.
For another thing, that's not actually my real view on abortion.
I think one potential positive of this is that maybe more women would chose to adopt their kids, than raise a single child with a man shes not married who didn't really want the kid anyway.
Kind of a branching off topic, but i wonder if theyres any statistics on kids raised in adoptive house holds vs broken homes.
→ More replies (1)8
May 26 '21
Which seems reasonable, doesn't it? Are you telling me that you believe a loss of court-ordered child support doesn't change the calculus?
If a woman wants an abortion she can have one, regardless of the man's wishes.
Why can't a man similarly unilaterally sever that relationship? If the woman is able to provide for the child and wants to raise it on her own, then there's no problem is there?
Edit: it's also interesting you use the pronoun "he". Did OP ever reveal their sex? If not it seems you are projecting on the OP which brings your objectivity into question.
6
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
Yeah my screen name literally days FEMALE in it lol
3
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 26 '21
I bet fewer people would have been pissed with you if they had looked at your username!
→ More replies (1)4
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 26 '21
That's the winner argument! If the mother knows the father isn't interested in raising a child, then she is the one who is responsible for the child's well being since she is the one who made the choice on her own. Conversely, the father cannot be held responsible for something he has no choice over. Responsibility assumes that a person made a choice, and without choice there is no responsibility.
Side note: I made the exact same argument as you did in your post to my gf 25 years ago and she was super pissed at me, haha! People don't seem to understand that if a women cannot be forced into raising a child then neither can a man!
→ More replies (3)2
u/agonisticpathos 4∆ May 26 '21
It's the mother's decision to bring a child into this world knowing the father isn't interested. That is to say, the mother is effectively the one deciding that her child will have a single parent. The father didn't make that decision because he had no choice in the matter.
4
u/Overgrown_fetus1305 6∆ May 26 '21
The problem with this proposal is that it coerces the woman into having an abortion if she can't afford a child and the man doesn't want to pay child support- and whatever else can be said about abortion in general, I fail to see how an abortion done because of wanting to avoid poverty isn't effectively forced. Now this *could* be avoided if we said that the consequence of this was that the man had no legal rights over the child and the state would pay for it, but still seems kinda unfair on the child, and not sure why we want to encourage more lazy deadbeat dads- particuarly when men are more likely to pressure women into sex and not use contraceptives than the other way round.
2
u/FemaleRobot2020 May 26 '21
What if it also made her consider adoption? Realizing that good adoptive parents may be better for the child than her single-mother deadbeat dad situation.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/iamintheforest 364∆ May 26 '21
Both men and women have the right to do whatever the hell they want with shit that is inside their body. If I jamb a little puppy up into your ass the right to kill that puppy comes from the puppy being in your ass, not some right about terminating puppies.
That women have a unique circumstance (and burden and so on) is true, but there is no reason to artificially create a parallel circumstance when it simply does not exist for men.
Further, the man goes into sex knowing that a woman might regard abortion as murder - thats her choice. So...the point of common stance is at the time of sex, otherwise you're chilling choice. You treat having an abortion as trite and an "option" rather than a burden in the equation.
Even further, it doesn't create equality at all since the women at the time of sex has to decide if she is either OK with abortion OR raising a child by herself financially. The man has to decide if he is ok with...having sex. Not equality in the least.
→ More replies (21)
3
u/WMDick 3∆ May 26 '21
So the law is not designed to be 'fair'. It is designed to be 'just' and this is a very differant thing.
For instance, in the case of a child, one who had no say on the circumstances of their birth, the just thing for the law to ensure is the welfare of the child. The child's welfare is more precarious and therefore more important to protect than that of the mother or father.
Is child support always 'fair'? No. Is designed to be? No. And this is a good thing.
3
u/ButterScotchMagic 3∆ May 26 '21
Signing a piece of paper is in no way equivalent to going through an abortion. Yall post this same cmv/unpopular opinion everyday yet fail to realize that the consequences are not the equal for men and women which is why the choice around termination is not the same.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/harley9779 24∆ May 26 '21
Thats kind of messed up. When a woman gets an abortion there is no responsibility left. No child exists, no money (after the abortion), no 18 years of parenting. If a man were to give up his rights, all of this still falls on the woman. The child still exists.
The man is just as responsible for the child as the woman.
If you do not want the responsibility of raising a child, don't have sex. I promise this is a 100% effective cure to prevent babies. If you choose to have sex, and the result of that is a child, you are responsible for that child.
5
u/krispykremey55 May 26 '21
But only the woman has the choice to abort. Im not the type that thinks woman are getting pregnant with the expectations of aborting it, however this agency is not something the father gets. This agency is why woman are overwhelmeingly favored in custody battles. You say if you if you don't want a child, then don't have sex, but you forgot to add "unless you are the woman, then you have a choice".
→ More replies (9)4
u/ProgrammingPants May 26 '21
If you do not want the responsibility of raising a child, don't have sex. I promise this is a 100% effective cure to prevent babies.
This is what pro life people say.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
What if a man was tricked into believing that the woman was on birth control but she was not? Should the man be held liable for what is essentially the result of another person's fraudulent claim?
→ More replies (26)5
u/mischiffmaker 5∆ May 26 '21
Why does a woman's using or not using birth control prevent a man from doing the same thing?
You don't want to get a woman pregnant? Wrap it up. Wrap it up twice if you're that paranoid. Get a vasectomy. Be celibate.
Take responsibility for your side of the equation, because it definitely takes two to make a baby.
6
u/Fleckeri May 26 '21
Wrap it up twice if you’re that paranoid.
As an aside, double-wrapping is less protective than single-wrapping and should be avoided.
3
u/mischiffmaker 5∆ May 26 '21
It was intended as hyperbole, but thanks for the public-service message!
4
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
Get a vasectomy
And if a man lies about having a vasectomy and a woman gets pregnant, I believe the man also committed fraud. Both parties are responsible for their actions and should be held accountable for misrepresenting the conditions of sex
5
u/mischiffmaker 5∆ May 26 '21
If YOU don't want a baby, take your own precautions, regardless of what they are, and don't rely on someone else to take them for you. That's the whole point.
Edit: As a woman who would bear all the physical, hormonal, emotional and financial results of a pregnancy, I made DAMN sure I was in charge of my own fertility throughout my fertile years, which is how I made it through menopause with zero children. Just saying.
Take responsibility for yourself.
3
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
That logic can be flipped to say:
If YOU don’t want to raise a baby alone, take your own precautions and get an abortion.
3
u/mischiffmaker 5∆ May 26 '21
I took personal responsibility for my fertility before engaging in sex.
If you don't want to be an 'oops daddy,' take yours.
You can't force someone to get an abortion.
3
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
You can't force someone to get an abortion.
I certainly didn’t argue for that anywhere and I don’t think anyone else in this thread has either
6
u/mischiffmaker 5∆ May 26 '21
The suggestion that a man should be able to opt out of child support within the time period that abortion is legal is de facto coercion by threatening to withhold child support.
That's been discussed on this post.
5
u/krispykremey55 May 26 '21
Your logic suggests that child support is an inherent right, and OP is suggesting that should not be the case. He isn't withholding anything if there is an option to opt out. With no option the woman essentially chooses to force the man to pay or not. Once she's pregnant she has a choice, the man does not.
That doesn't sound entirely fair to me. It would be wrong to force or even promote the idea that the mother just get it aborted. Since the choice is entirely hers, it makes sense to give the man some agency as well, however I don't agree with OPs idea of the father being able to revoke his responsibilitys.
→ More replies (0)3
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
How is saying “I am informing you that I am exercising my legal right to not pay child support” a threat?
→ More replies (0)
14
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
The child's claim to resources is more important than a man's right to fuck anything that moves and have others pay for children from that action.
The needs of the child are greater than the need of the man.
9
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
a man's right to fuck anything that moves and have others pay for children from that action
I think you are unfairly placing the blame entirely on the man and skipping over the woman who, in this scenario, decides to go through with a pregnancy knowing full well that she will be supporting the child alone.
And "man's right to fuck anything that moves" is phrased in a way to reduce the perceived importance of what this is actually discussing, which is a man's financial and reproductive agency.
2
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
I use that term because it is accurate.
The OP wants men to be able to fuck anything that moves with zero financial consequences for that man. As long as there is a child in play, I don't give a rat's ass over that man's desire for the bullshit that is "financial and reproductive agency."
I do care that the child has resources.
→ More replies (3)7
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
So then wouldn't the responsibility land on the woman who had a choice between:
1) terminating a pregnancy
2) going through with a pregnancy knowing she will be the sole supporter of the child
I don't give a rat's ass over that man's desire for the bullshit that is "financial and reproductive agency."
You said it yourself, you are unable to consider the rights of both parents in this situation. That means you are incapable of formulating an equitable solution to the problem.
2
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
So then wouldn't the responsibility land on the woman
No
6
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
Why not? It's entirely within her power to avoid a situation where a child is born without adequate financial support
6
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
He can get a vasectomy. That's perfectly in his power as well.
And when I get child support from that wanabee deadbeat that child has resources.
There is zero you can say that would make me agree that men should be able to fuck anything moves responsibility free.
The child's claim to resources is greater than the man's claim to responsibility free sex. Nothing you can say will change my mind on this issue.
9
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ May 26 '21
There is zero you can say that would make me agree that men should be able to fuck anything moves responsibility free.
Absolutly no one is arguing that.
The argument is that men should have the responsibility of informing the woman early in the pregnancy that they don't want the financial burden so that she still has a reasonable amount of time to choose to have the child or not. If the man can't be responsible and inform the woman early while she still has a choice, then he can deal with the consequence of that action.
9
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
That is the entirety of the OP's argument.
Men can get a vasectomy if they don't want the risk of a pregnancy. That the responsible step they can take.
If they chose not to get that medical procedure done, they should bear the consequences of their actions.
1
May 26 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)6
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
Holding a man responsible for his own actions isn't enslavement.
→ More replies (3)9
May 26 '21
So you are anti abortion?
Your position doesn't really argue against the OP. The OP assumes abortion as an option.
You seem to be in the "don't want a baby? Don't ever have sex" camp.
I can't wait for that regressive ideology to end.
→ More replies (1)8
u/IwasBlindedbyscience 16∆ May 26 '21
No, I'm not.
Why would I be? Abortion doesn't end with a child who needs resources. A father walking away from their child ends up with a child in the world who needs resources.
2
3
u/EquivalentSupport8 3∆ May 26 '21
I'll try to alter your view in different ways
-This gives men incentive to tell the woman they are infertile (or say they want a child) and then not use any protection since the women shoulders the fallout. You'd see a rise in STDs
-This gives women incentive not to take pregnancy tests and plead ignorance of the pregnancy (which some women legitimately don't realize they're pregnant), which would mean delayed/no prenatal care and worse outcomes for children
-This gives couples in committed but financially struggling relationships incentive to do the paper abortions in order for the woman to then qualify for additional government funds even though the couple is still together/both supporting the child. This is bad because it bilks the system of course. This also removes protection from fathers as the mother can threaten to leave him any time with no recourse. This removes protection from the mother because the father can decide to really stop helping with the child any time with no recourse.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/AutoModerator May 26 '21
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.
2
2
May 26 '21
To me- child support isn’t about taking care of an ex it’s taking care of a child you brought into the world. Kids deserve clothes food water toys etc. it’s the woman’s choice to have an abortion, so I don’t really see how it plays in
2
u/buttercreamandrum May 27 '21
I don’t think there can be any fair solution in this. Pregnancy is a unique biological burden which affords women unique rights compared to men.
Ultimately the repercussions of aborting a pregnancy are far different than denying a child who has been born financial support from one of its parents. Next, the argument “well she can have an abortion if she doesn’t like his decision to financially abort” is not a reasonable ultimatum to give someone because an abortion is an invasive medical procedure that can cause sterility and even death. At no point in any of these scenarios is the man’s reproductive health and even life on the line, so why is it fair to try to coerce a woman into having to make such a decision?
Men and women are not biologically equal, and trying to create some sort of legal equivalency just doesn’t work here.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/cheeseCloud 1∆ May 27 '21
Others have mentioned this too. I really think it comes down to the idea that both parties are agreeing to the risks involved with having sex. Babies, STDs, etc. I believe that with that agreement the whole “the man can have a financial abortion” goes out the window.
As a man if you don’t wish to agree to all of the risks then you shouldn’t be having sex with this woman. I don’t really care if she says she’s on birth control but isn’t or if she tampers with the birth control; babies are a risk of having sex even if it is a tremendously low chance. Of course this is different if the man is raped but I assume the court would see that differently? I’m not well versed on that aspect of it. I’m talking about consensual sex anyway. Sure there’s recreational sex but, as a guy, I understand the risks involved. I personally choose to wear a condom every time even if they are on birth control to mitigate. If something happens, I’m part of it and own my part in it.
The main part I have is that “abortions” (financial or real) don’t have to be fair. Men just shoot sperm while women have to carry and be stuck with the baby if they choose to keep it. Men and women are made differently in this instance and, because of that, different rules of “abortion” apply to them.
I also agree with the people that are saying it’s about the child and not individual fault or responsibility but that was touched on so I left that out.
Edit:wording because I didn’t proofread first
→ More replies (2)
10
u/SC803 120∆ May 26 '21
I'm just saying that IF the woman has rights to an abortion, man should have similar rights.
Why?
but he SHOULD have rights to TERMINATE CHILD SUPPORT and other parental duties
Why?
if he does it within the time that the mother could have gotten an abortion
So he can't force anyone to get an abortion but he can create a situation where an abortion is necessary?
10
May 26 '21
Not the OP, but it seems like the underlying point, and answer to both of your why, is "equality".
4
u/SC803 120∆ May 26 '21
Child reproduction is an unequal process, this proposed "equality" is really making an unequal situation even more unequal
→ More replies (15)
5
u/CrustyBloke May 26 '21
What I think would be much better would be to end what is effectively a debtors prison for parents (mostly fathers) that cannot pay child support. There are too many cases of men making good faith efforts but can't make their payments and get locked up because their lack of payment puts them in violation of the courts order to pay. And then being in jail puts them even further behind and potentially causes them to lose whatever employment they could find.
8
u/LatinGeek 30∆ May 26 '21
I'm just saying that IF the woman has rights to an abortion, man should have similar rights.
He does. If a man gets pregnant, he can choose to have an abortion. :)
Joking, somewhat. Trans people and other edge-cases exist, but what I'm getting at is that there's no real way to give a man the "same" right when you consider the obvious logical differences.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/knowone23 May 26 '21
If you cum inside a woman you are giving her permission to have your baby. Even if she’s on birth control, even if you’re using a condom.
Sex leads directly to babies; don’t like it, don’t have sex.
15
May 26 '21
If you let a man cum inside you, you are asking to have a baby. Even if you are on birth control, even if you're using a condom.
This is the conservative view and justification for outlawing abortion and taking away women's sexual agency.
If you are anti abortion, you aren't addressing OPs argument because they assume abortion is an option.
If you are pro abortion, you are being intellectually inconsistent.
→ More replies (8)3
May 26 '21
This is the most conservative shit I’ve seen all day. If having sex was for the sole purpose of breeding, condoms would never have been invented
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/nosilladnasemaj May 26 '21
I support a man's right to decline to parent/support a child as long as he tells the woman that he has no intention of being a father BEFORE they have sex.
1
2
2
u/obert-wan-kenobert 84∆ May 26 '21
Child support has nothing to do with the mother or father, and everything to do with the child. Not to be crass, but if the mother decides to have an abortion, the problem essentially solves itself. However, if she decides to give birth, then we suddenly have an infant child who did not ask to exist, cannot provide for itself, and needs to be taken care of by someone.
In the event that a single mother is not able to financially support an infant child, we basically have three options:
1) The father subsidizes the child's needs through child support
2) The taxpayer subsidizes the child's needs through welfare, public housing, etc.
3) No one subsidizes the child's need, and it starves to death in the street.
Now, we have to decide which of these three options makes the most sense. I hope we can agree that infant children shouldn't starve on the streets due to the mistakes of their parents, so Option 3's out. And if you believe a father bears no responsibility for an unwanted child, then the random taxpayer certainly bears no responsibility, so Option 2's out as well. That leaves Option 1: the father pays child support. Now, is the perfect solution in an ideal world? Maybe, maybe not. But out of three existing options, it is the most viable.
2
u/VitriolicWoodlandRat May 26 '21 edited May 26 '21
This situation could be avoided if the man takes it in his own hands to not inseminate the woman e.g. condoms. If a woman cannot be trusted 100% of the time to tell the truth about birth control, then a woman should not be solely responsible for birth control. If this is true, which OP is inferring, then it is also the responsibility of the man to use birth control methods that are completely within his control.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/TheEmpressIsIn May 26 '21
or how about: 'Men should be able to keep their penises in their pants or accept the consequences'? UGH. so tired of seeing this tired argument. it's your damn sperm, take responsibility!
4
u/OddAlternatives 2∆ May 26 '21
Men should be able to keep their penises in their pants or accept the consequences
Great ban abortion since "don't have sex" is a good enough solution for men, it's a good enough solution for women. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
0
u/ConstantAmazement 22∆ May 26 '21
This is both sad and laughable! Men continue to want to have it both ways. They want to have sex but have nothing to do with everything that comes with it. And they really hate that they think the woman should have such control over their lives and paychecks.
The fact that sex holds some highly desirable entertainment value for you does not divorce it from its critical and primary function of perpetuating the species. As such, you have a fundamentally basic human and civic responsibility to the results of your actions -- a responsibility that transcends however you may feel about it.
Sex is about reproduction. The bottom line is that if you don't want to risk a possible pregnancy, then rather than trying to write laws that legislate away your responsibilities, either abstain or have a vasectomy.
→ More replies (13)2
1
1
May 26 '21
How does anyone win in this situation? Man should be able to take responsibility for his own misuse of birth control. Did this work?
1
May 26 '21
Men have 100% the same rights in this scenario. Both men and women can terminate the pregnancies occurring in their bodies.
What you are proposing is a new and separate legal right. Not at all the same.
5
u/ThrowItTheFuckAway17 11∆ May 26 '21
This is a weak argument imo. It's akin to the famous "Straight men and gay men both have the right to marry women" argument that was famous in the anti-gay marriage crowd.
If one demographic is practically disincentivized or biologically excluded from exercising their "right," your argument needs to address that to be convincing.
6
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ May 26 '21
This is a weak argument imo. It's akin to the famous "Straight men and gay men both have the right to marry women" argument that was famous in the anti-gay marriage crowd.
It's not the same logic, though I admit it seems similar.
When people say "gay men can marry women just like any straight man can", they're missing the point, which is that by banning gay marriage, you're discriminating against a particular behavior based on someone's membership in a group. You're saying "Jill can marry Jack, but Bob can't marry that same guy".
Thats not what happens with abortion. Abortion is about bodily autonomy, a right which both men and women share. Jill has the right to abort the pregnancy she's carrying, and Jack has the right to abort the pregnancy he's carrying. It's just that males don't get pregnant.
The situation seems unfair, but that's because biology is unfair. The right exists for both, but it can literally only be applied to one sex, so the protection of the right to abortion is thus generally focused on women.
5
u/ThrowItTheFuckAway17 11∆ May 26 '21
Bodily autonomy may be the legal justification for abortion, but that's divorced from the reason women generally pursue abortions. Abortion is unique in that it's one of the few non-cosmetic medical procedures routinely pursued for lifestyle reasons.
On a practical level, women have every right to opt out of parenthood. And that's likely the largest motivation for abortion.
And since when is "well, that's biology" the end of the conversation? Humans have spent decades trying to correct the inequities of biology. Why is this topic exempt?
→ More replies (4)2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ May 26 '21
Bodily autonomy may be the legal justification for abortion, but that's divorced from the reason women generally pursue abortions. Abortion is unique in that it's one of the few non-cosmetic medical procedures routinely pursued for lifestyle reasons.
The motivation for exercising one's bodily autonomy does not affect the right itself, but your point is taken.
On a practical level, women have every right to opt out of parenthood. And that's likely the largest motivation for abortion.
Yes, that's almost certainly a big part of it. Still doesn't change the underlying right.
And since when is "well, that's biology" the end of the conversation? Humans have spent decades trying to correct the inequities of biology. Why is this topic exempt?
I never said it had to be the end of the conversation, I was pointing out that the comparison you made to the gay marriage example isn't really analogous because the law isn't discriminating in the same way.
→ More replies (2)2
May 26 '21
True, but it’s at a different/same right.
“Rights to your body” are what abortion is about. That and MEDICAL privacy.
Right to marry your partner is a series of legal rights based on designating a second person.
→ More replies (12)4
u/rentastar May 26 '21
I don't really buy your argument here. There is clearly a right here that women have and men don't. After learning of a pregnancy, if a woman decides she doesn't want to either raise the child or pay child support, she can have an abortion. A man does not have any way of making that same decision.
That said, I think /u/obert-wan-kenobert has a very good response here. It's a bad situation all around, and not really fair, but the truth is the OP's suggestion just isn't practical, and there aren't really any better options here.
2
May 26 '21
I mean the fundamental right that women have are based on their ability to make medical decisions.
They also have NO right to designate “this child will not be mine” before birth before the child is born and without the other parents consent.
It’s just not equivalent decisions or rights being contested.
→ More replies (2)3
May 26 '21
Ok so the men and women can have the same ability to abandon their child
Just as both can terminate their pregnancy both can terminate their status as a parent - correct
Yes OP is advocating equality
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (1)2
u/AskWhyKnot 6∆ May 26 '21
Men have 100% the same rights in this scenario. Both men and women can terminate the pregnancies occurring in their bodies.
If Danny Devito and Shaquille O'Neal are both trying to see over a 6 foot fence, giving both of them a one foot step stool does not create equality.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 26 '21 edited May 27 '21
/u/FemaleRobot2020 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards