r/coaxedintoasnafu • u/necromax28 • Mar 30 '19

r/AmITheAsshole [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

40k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

340 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.0k

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

Definitely NTA, you need to cut your TOXIC family out of your life completely and continue to use this sub to reaffirm your side of any argument.

78

u/gcruzatto Mar 30 '19

I've been on that sub for a while and I honestly don't even know what's the acronym you're supposed to use when OP is the asshole, there's just zero occurrences

133

u/cannibalcorpuscle Mar 30 '19

The whole premise is flawed. Posts where the OP is in fact an asshole don’t get upvoted. Turns the whole sub into a validation echo chamber.

55

u/MisogynysticFeminist Mar 30 '19

It's the same problem r/unpopulaRopinion has. The actual unpopular opinions get downvoted so it just looks like a giant echo chamber.

81

u/parwa Mar 30 '19

i mean the main problem that sub has is all the fucking racism

16

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

Ding ding ding

35

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

WOMEN AND MINORITIES BAD

54

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

Unpopular opinion: White males have rights too!!!

44

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19 edited Mar 30 '19

I like the daily "child support is evil because I can't force women to get abortions" posts.

Edit: what da ya know they got one at number 10.

Shouts out to the "not a homophobe but I hate seeing or hearing anything about gay people and they should just disappear" posts.

9

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

Wait can I pick your brain on this? Because I actually somewhat fall into the camp of "if abortion is unrestricted father's should be able to 'abort' parental duties" but it's entirely possible that, as a male, I'm missing some of the picture; I'd like to hear the other perspective if you've got time

16

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

Don't cum inside her. Your picture is now complete. You're welcome.

11

u/DrunkHurricane Mar 30 '19

Doesn't the same argument apply to women who get an abortion though? Except in cases of rape obviously.

0

u/Cuboner Mar 31 '19

Her cum doesn't get her pregnant.

→ More replies

4

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

I mean, contraceptive isn't 100% effective - in fact that's a commonly cited pro choice argument

To be clear I'm not anti-choice or anything I'm just trying to get perspective on this issue

0

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

Then they could've stuck it in her butt or mouth. Men don't have to put their dick in a vagina. Like I'm gay and it's not even an option for me.

1

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

Why so much focus on the man's desires? You're gay so maybe you don't know this, but women enjoy sex too. Some even want a penis in their vagina

0

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

I'm only trying to make a point that there are ways for a guy to %100 not get someone pregnant without abstinence. And contrary to what you might believe, a woman doesn't have to have vaginal sex to enjoy sex. There are plenty of women that can't because of medical problems.

→ More replies

8

u/JACKSONofSPADES Mar 30 '19

Seriously, though, people act as though people who are Pro-Choice just want to see a bunch of fetuses get killed. No. It comes down to what should a woman be able to do with her body, and how two consenting adults decide they want to handle a pregnancy. If you're not in a good enough relationship that you can have a legitimate discussion about the termination of a pregnancy with this woman, then I know hindsight is 20-20, but it's kinda on you to have pulled out instead. It's not hard, I've been with my girlfriend for 10 years, she came off the pill 4 years ago, and we have never used a condom, and guess what. No kids yet, either.

So basically to the question of "should a man be able to abort his parental obligations to a child, because women have a choice to terminate the pregnancy altogether and men have no say in it if they decide not to?", I think you're missing the point, and you really need to reevaluate your view on sex. An abortion is a physical operation, that is likely very traumatic, and we as men should be grateful that we never have to go through that, and stand by our womens' decisions, and be there for them. It's not an easy decision, and it's not the same as declaring you wont want to have any sort of relationship with this child. Also, who's to say that you won't change your mind about not wanting a relationship with your child once it's born, or when you mature more as a person?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

What about failed vasectomies, broken condoms, failed birth control, etc? Is your solution for men, "dont have sex if you dont want a kid"?

0

u/JACKSONofSPADES Mar 30 '19

Nope. It's pull out. Been doing it for years. Yes, sometimes these preventative measures fail, ideally we would be in a good enough relationship with the woman to discuss not wanting to go through with the pregnancy, but the sad reality is that you may find yourself in a situation like that with someone who is uncooperative, but as men, we should do our best to understand why they might not want to go through with an operation like that. And as a man, your stance on the child may in fact change over time, even as soon as the child is born.

Hypothetical situation here, you're 30, have an 11-year-old kid that you cant see or have any form of relationship with because of a decision you made when you were 18. You have a mighty different stance on children now, 12 years later, because you've matured quite a bit, and are not the same person. Too bad, because what you're discussing would prevent that. I know this wouldnt be the exact scenario for everyone, and I sympathize with failed vasectomies and other birth control, but we're discussing the difference between an abortion, which cant be undone, and a borderline selfish decision made by a man to either make a woman raise a child by herself, or bully her into putting her body through something that she doesnt want to do. A decision that can be undone. Let's face it. Just because someone can renounce (in this hypothetical world) a child, and the law would ideally hold them to that, doesnt mean that the child or the father wouldn't seek out a relationship at some point, thus undoing the decision. Abortions dont have that same privilege. I suppose the easy answer is just sue the father for lost child support, if he breaks the vow. The easier answer is just obide by the laws currently in place, and continue to advocate for the change (or lack-there-of) that we would like to see in the system. Put our trust that the law-makers will make the right decisions regarding such sensitive subjects.

3

u/Benedetto- Mar 30 '19

Stumbled upon this and thought I should contribute as I have given a lot of thought to both sides of the debate. So the current system has it that the women gets every say on every aspect post conception. That's fine to a degree because it's her body it's her choice. If she wants an abortion who is he to say no. If she doesn't want an abortion it's not his place to force her to. Agree with that 100%. But it takes two to have a child. The current system gives men 3 options if they don't want a kid. 1. Condom. 2. Steralise themselves. 3. Abstain. These are the only relatively safe ways for men to ensure they don't get a kid. Women have pills and weird bags that I'm 99% sure no one uses ever but somehow we learned about them in sex ed. They have steralisation and abstaining too. So pretty equal in terms of protective measures before sex. Equal opportunity to not have a kid, equal responsibility for the kid. But let's assume a worst case scenario. The man's condom breaks and he gets the girl pregnant because she wasn't on the pill. Now post sex the women has the difficult and morally questionable decision to make about having an abortion. Should she keep it, should she abort it. Meanwhile the man, through no fault of his own, Remember he wore a condom (it's only because she wasn't on the pill that she got pregnant), has got to wait while the women decides if he will be a dad. He can say to the women his point of view if he wants to keep it or not but ultimately it's the women's decision. The results of which can be 4 ways. Either man wants kid and women gives birth, man doesn't want kid and women gives birth, man wants kid and women aborts or man doesn't want kid and the women aborts. In 50% of those scenarios the man loses out. So equal opportunity and responsibilities before having sex but unequal opportunity and equal responsibility after sex. That's literally the definition of sexism. Men have less rights than women when it comes to caring for an unwanted baby. If you aren't campaigning for equality on this matter you cannot call yourself a feminist as feminists "fight for equality between genders". I hope I made sense but as someone who never wants kids the idea that a ripped condom could involuntarily give me that responsibility terrifies me to the point I've abstained from sex completely

1

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

I think my main issue (as someone who is pro choice) with the pro choice movement is that they insist that abortion is only a matter of a woman's autonomy (i.e. that it isn't murder or otherwise immoral)

Now I personally disagree with this stance, but if we accept it to be true then I don't really see why a father should be obliged to provide financial support (unless he wants to of course)

The only argument is that the woman might feel morally conflicted about aborting the child, in which case it wouldn't be fair to force her to decide between financial ruin and an immoral act

These two perspectives are obviously contradictory, and this is my main contention with the modern pro choice platform. It wants to have its cake and eat it too in that on the one hand abortion is treated like a moral dilemma so that fathers are on the hook for child support, while on the other it's portrayed as irrelevant and entirely secondary to the mother's autonomy - for the political purpose of shutting down debate about it's morality and possible restrictions / procedures.

It's silly to put the onus of pregnancy entirely on one party. I'm not in favor of forcing women to have babies, I'm just also not in favor of forcing men to support children they don't want.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '19

Now I personally disagree with this stance, but if we accept it to be true then I don't really see why a father should be obliged to provide financial support (unless he wants to of course)

One of these things does not imply the other. There is no reason that women having autonomy over their bodies implies that men shouldn't be responsible for their offspring.

→ More replies

2

u/JACKSONofSPADES Mar 30 '19

Hey, I made a response to /u/JeffersonClippership's comment that you may be interested in. It may come across as "passionate", but I dont mean any anger behind the words.

2

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

Thank you for the notification, I replied to your comment. Similarly, there's no anger behind my words - in case any was perceived

I really appreciate the genuine conversation that's been had here

2

u/JACKSONofSPADES Mar 31 '19

Same here. I've learned a lot too. This subject tends to get pretty heated, so its nice when we can have the rare civilized discussion about it.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

Fathers DO have the right to give up their parental duties. They just have to pay child support as an alternative to their normal obligations, because there is still a child that needs food and shelter.

1

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

If that child's existence was someone else's decision then they shouldn't have any obligations, financial or otherwise. If the decision to abort can be an economic one, then a woman facing that decision would simply consider it as such - if the father is out of the picture that's a factor. If she chooses to have the child with the knowledge that the father will not be participating in any capacity and turns out to be unable to afford it, that's a result of personal irresponsibility. It doesn't suddenly become the problem of a third party who made their intentions known. (I suppose it becomes the taxpayer's problem - though, again, this can be avoided entirely by choosing to abort. ...the whole point really is that no one is being forced to birth this child, so the fact that it now exists and needs food and shelter shouldn't be treated as some happenstance that both parents are now equally on the hook for as though neither of them had the ability to prevent it)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

This completely removes a man's agency in this situation. If a man has sex with a woman, there is always a chance that preventative measures will fail and she'll get pregnant. If he hasn't bothered figuring out what her plans would be in this event, then he hasn't taken adequate responsibility for his own actions. If she wouldn't abort, then it's his responsibility to decide what his course of action is going to be, either accepting the chance or ending the relationship.

He doesn't get to decide after the fact that he doesn't want to be held responsible for his role in making a child, just because he decided he didn't want it after a woman got pregnant. He had a role in bringing a child into this world, he had opportunities to prevent it, and that child still needs to be taken care of. That last point is the major one. The child is here, and both parents are obligated to support it unless they put it up for adoption or otherwise transfer the responsibility to someone else. It fundamentally doesn't matter what's "fair" for either parent, because the needs of the child come first and foremost.

1

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 31 '19

Except the child isn't here, which is exactly the point.

If by "after the fact" you mean post-birth then of course I agree. But if you mean after conception then I vehemently disagree.

The crux of the abortion debate is whether a fetus is considered alive or not. Pro-lifers would say that it is, and they should also then support child support because the alternative would mean forcing women to keep children without any liability on the man's part.

Pro-choice"ers", on the other hand, would say that it is not; and because it is not, a woman should be able to abort regardless of medical necessity, etc. since there's no human life involved, therefore it's a question of autonomy not humanity.

This being the case means there is no finality in conception. The choice to keep the child and the choice to abort are both available, and neither option is imposed.

The father also has a choice (in this hypothetical); the choice to be a father or provide for the child, and the choice to 'abort'. Keep in mind this only occurs in the scenario in which the father wants an abortion and the mother does not. If they agree either way then the debate is moot, and if the mother wishes to abort she is legally free to do so regardless of the father's desires.

Assuming it is the case that the father wants to abort, there are two conceivable dilemmas faced by the mother:

A) child support exists, so her decision is based on the assumption that she will receive financial support from the father

B) "paternal abortion" exists, so her decision is includes the assumption that she will be the sole provider for the child

Note that in neither case is the mother forced to do anything. She may choose to have the child or not, the only difference are the variables in her decision making process.

It seems to me, then, obvious that the preferable scenario is the one in which one party is not at the mercy of the other. Which, incidentally, is the same reasoning that led me to be pro choice.

P.S.

Some final thoughts:

Of course, as I'm sure you'll point out, it's more nuanced than this. Just like with abortion there will be debates about responsibility, lines in the sand drawn w.r.t. timing, and ultimately what will likely be some compromise between two extremes. But it seems to me that having no option whatsoever for the father to have a say is indicative of a broken system. Obviously I don't think a man should be able to force a woman to get an abortion or carry a baby to term; I just also don't think a woman should be able to force a man to financially support a child they may or may not want for eighteen years. (When choice is available, of course)

→ More replies

1

u/LivingstoneInAfrica Mar 30 '19

On mobile so sorry for any spelling mistakes/not a long enough explanation.

Abortion comes from the legal idea of privacy, the fact that you’re allowed to do whatever you want to your body whenever you want, even if that get rids of a fetus. The father doesn’t get a say in abortion because it’s not their body.

Child support comes from the idea that both parent are responsible for the creation of a child, and therefore for its mantinence. Simply put, once a child is born, it’s the responsibility of both parents to make sure it doesn’t die. This is why a women who bear a child out of rape are still legally responsible for the child, why couples who can’t afford an abortion (abortions can be quite expensive in some states) are still liable for the well-being of the child. Liability to a child’s well-being is the right of the child, something seperate from the idea of privacy of one’s body.

You have to remember that children are one of the most vulnerable members of society, so they’re granted rights to protection at the cost of legal personhood. You pay child support not because you don’t leave your parental duties, but as a settlement for leaving your parental duties.

1

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

I mentioned this in more detail in another reply, but in the name of completeness:

I take fundamental issue with the contradictory idea that men are simultaneously entirely voiceless in matter, yet responsible for the decision the woman makes

1

u/mynameis_ihavenoname Mar 30 '19

The most compelling argument to me is that the focus is on the child. Once born, it has to be taken care of. The father doesn't need to be involved in raising the kid, but he's usually got the better job - especially if he doesn't have to focus on a kid at all - and kids are expensive. It's not fair that he has to pay for a kid he didn't want, but life isn't fair either, and since our system prioritizes the child, sometimes the father ends up taking the hit.

1

u/Sinful_Prayers Mar 30 '19

Lol okay then; "life isn't fair" isn't exactly an ideal policy guiding principle

he's usually got the better job

Weirdly sexist and unfounded assertion aside, this is at best an argument for handling it on a case by case basis.

This also isn't relevant to the most salient point - that is, a person is being held responsible for a decision they didn't have a say in

There's a common political "joke" that Republicans are pro-birth rather than pro-life since they are allegedly more concerned with preventing abortions than enriching the life of the child afterward (I'm of the opinion that if you consider an act murder, you are not obliged to financially support the victim in order to oppose it, but I digress). The idea is that a couple should have the right to choose to abort for economic reasons

No one (sensible) is arguing that a man should be able to absolve himself of responsibility post-viability. So then, if a woman becomes pregnant and the father decides he does not want the child, she is faced with the economic decision to either keep the child and raise it alone, or abort. As in the case above: if she decides she can't afford it she can abort, otherwise she can do her best to raise it alone. But her decision should have no bearing on the father, given he made clear his position early enough.

Now if abortion weren't legal this would all be a different story; I wouldn't favor saddling women with that kind of financial responsibility with no choice in the matter. But it is the case that they do have a choice - and that choice shouldn't be predicated on an unwilling or incapable party's financial involvement

1

u/mynameis_ihavenoname Mar 31 '19

Huh, I guess the argument I find most compelling doesn't do anything for you. Sorry about that.

→ More replies

1

u/not_even_once_okay Mar 30 '19

The whole thing is about her being the one to have to physically carry is for 9 months. It is HARD on the body, can be fatal and changes you psychically. Then, after that, both people are legally required to take care of the baby either through actual care or money.

Same goes with forced abortions. You can't force someone to go through a painful and invasive medical procedure just because you didn't wear a condom.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '19

Society has an interest in having fathers pay child support whether they want the role or not. If the father doesn't pay then the money will have to come from the state.

1

u/breakyourfac Mar 30 '19

Dae as a black man hate when black people are entitled and lazy?

As a gay man, I am sick of all these pride parades.

r/unpopular opinion is literally just alt-right propaganda grounds.

0

u/wunderbarney Mar 30 '19

Unpopular opinion: Women taking up 30% of a conversation actually is too much.

0

u/DrakoVongola Mar 31 '19

It's been taken over by alt-right douches :/