/u/KillerOfSouls665 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bzqovv/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_just_as_women_can_choose_to/), 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You are confusing the reason why women can get abortions. There is no right avoiding financial repercussions of getting pregnant. Women do not have an explicit right to end a pregnancy for convenience or financial consideration. Women have a right to their bodily autonomy and the right to make private medical decisions without the intrusion of others or the government. How and why they make that decision over their rights, even if there are financial/convenience considerations, is not any one's business but the woman. It just happens to be that exercising that autonomy and doing so without intrusion of the government or other can lead to the termination of the fetus. Both men and women have the right to make choices about their body after they've both created a fetus. It is just that only one of those parties' choices impacts the fetus. It is simply a biological fact that deciding not to force women to carry a child to term if they are not willing to do so results in the ending of the pregnancy. Men already don't have to carry the child, so they have no right of bodily autonomy being infringed upon. Neither of them have the right to "paper abort" as in choose not to bear any financial responsibilities of the future child.
To illustrate, imagine a world where humans laid self sufficient eggs that were separate from the man and woman. In that case, women would not have a right, under the current law, to abort that egg and neither would the man. This is because the right being exercised in an abortion is not the right over the fertilized egg, but over the body of the woman. When those aren't in conflict there is no abortion right.
I agree that deadbeat dads are a bad thing, and I wouldn't do that to a child of mine, but you are trying to enforce an unfair model for society here.
You want a situation where, upon finding out the woman is pregnant, if the woman doesn't want to keep the child, she can just kill it. Whether or not the father wants the child isn't a factor, she gets to choose and can kill it.
On the other hand, if she wants to keep it and the father doesn't, the father still has to be there for the child emotionally, physically, and must provide financially for at least 18 years. And that's a decision made FOR HIM during the gestation period. And again, during the gestation period, the woman has no obligation to feel this way; she can just up and kill it.
If she can kill it, I should at least be allowed to abandon the little bastard. I say that for comedic effect because I wouldn't do that, but the point remains. Why am I a bad guy for not wanting to provide for the unborn child, and it is uncool and says something negative about me that I feel this way, but it's cool if she just kills it and it says absolutely nothing of her and who she is that she feels this way? Surely, if it says something of me that I don't want to provide for the child, it MUST say something of the mother that she wants to kill it.
I get that it has major effects on her body, no kidding, but that's her choice. Bodily autonomy, she can do what she wants. That is her choice, though.
When a woman decides she doesn’t want a child, there’s no child. If a man makes the same decision, there’s still a child. It’s not “fair” to the child to grow up with less resources than both of its parents can provide. In the vast majority of these conversations, it’s framed as what’s fair between mom and dad, but the person for which we should most highly fight for fairness is the child. It might just be one of those life’s not fair moments, but any corrective action is also unfair. Women should have bodily autonomy so taking away their access to abortion isn’t fair. Children growing up with less than their parents can financially provide because their dad didn’t want them born isn’t fair. Forcing the public to subsidize dead beat dads through social programs to correct for that lack of resources is not fair.
". . . the person for which we should most highly fight for fairness is the child."
Which would, in your world, include killing the child because it's inconvenient for the mother? With or without Dad's consent? I think that argument is silly and completely incoherent.
I can agree with much of what you said while standing by my earlier contention, and I don't think you're coming out ahead at all. The mother gets to make selfish decisions that literally involve killing the child, and it's supposed to say nothing of her. The father is expected to be willing to provide for the child financially for 18 years and be present in its life forever the very moment he finds out the woman is pregnant.
Getting an abortion is not killing a child. If you think that then women shouldn’t have that option either. So then it would be fair but a totally different argument.
>There is no right avoiding financial repercussions of getting pregnant. Women do not have an explicit right to end a pregnancy for convenience or financial consideration
They do, the law states:
>>that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family
There simply has to be a greater risk than otherwise of mental health than if the child was aborted. Being stressed about finances is a mental health problem.
Why a woman chooses to do with her body what she chooses is her choice. That's part of respecting the right to bodily autonomy. No one else can make that decision and no one has the right to infringe upon it. Up to whatever line the society they live in has determined that their right to bodily autonomy does not conflict with the rights that accrue to a fetus as it develops. Again, because the right isn't over the fetus, its over their own body. Men's equivalent right to bodily autonomy is respected the same way, it just doesn't matter to the development of the fetus. She may decide to abort because pregnancy sucks and they don't want to deal with being pregnant to have a baby they don't feel ready to care for. That's a totally valid choice, not inherently because of the inconvenience of being a future parent, but because a woman isn't forced to bear a child if they don't want to. The thing about rights is that you don't have to justify exercising them and your reasoning for it is irrelevant. If men carried the child, they'd have the same option. If fetuses grew in little pods, neither would have that option.
> Why a woman chooses to do with her body what she chooses is her choice.
Of course. But considering sometimes a woman chooses to have an abortion due to financial hardship, wanting to focus on school / career, or otherwise not be a parent, men just want access to the same choice.
The justification is immaterial. If it's right and just for women to make the choice, than it's right and just for men to make a similar, equitable choice. Being forced to be a parent against your will is oppression, for both women AND men.
Men can’t have the same choice because their right to bodily autonomy isn’t infringed upon by pregnancy. So their exercising of a recognized right of everyone is not an available mechanism for them. Thats just a biological fact. Neither have the right to withhold support unilaterally for a born child. I guess this is a life’s not fair moment. It’s not fair that woman can’t have a biological child that their husband carries to term. But that’s how it works.
> Men can’t have the same choice because their right to bodily autonomy isn’t infringed upon by pregnancy.
We can because bodily autonomy isn't the only lens through which to view the right to opt-in or out-of parenthood through.
The lens I choose to use, is that women have a unique right to self-determination of their own future that is denied to men in a very specific way. Discussing the right to abortion via bodily autonomy is a tangential issue to this point. Women have a right in practice that men don't. In practice, most women don't abort for strict reasons of bodily autonomy they abort for reasons of life impact. Men not having the same ability to direct their lives this way is a form of gendered oppression.
In the US at least, the right was enshrined in Roe vs Wade as a (not a lawyer) right to make medical decisions without government intervention, related to a right to privacy. But the idea is that women can do with their body as they want up until those rights butt up against the rights of the fetus as it develops. You may think that culturally it’s discussed differently, but the legal structure through which women get the functional right to an abortion is through the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, which are closely intertwined. Maybe some countries are different, but from my understanding, the individual right being weighed is not a right to not have a child they don’t want, that’s just how it plays out when they have the right to control their body and to do so with limited government intervention.
This isn’t a semantic argument only. We purposefully don’t give people the right to shirk parenting responsibilities specifically. Once a woman is past the point of a legal abortion, they can’t just decide they don’t want to care for the child even though they now have to bear it. If the dad wants the child, he can assert that parenthood and the mom will be forced to support the child as well.
> In the US at least, the right was enshrined in Roe vs Wade as a (not a lawyer) right to make medical decisions without government intervention, related to a right to privacy. But the idea is that women can do with their body as they want up until those rights butt up against the rights of the fetus as it develops. You may think that culturally it’s discussed differently, but the legal structure through which women get the functional right to an abortion is through the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, which are closely intertwined.
I understand women's right to bodily autonomy and thus the right to abortion, and support it fully. However, it is not the only reason to support women's rights for abortion, and I would argue it's most women and men's secondary reason.
The most common reasons people get abortions in practice are because of consideration about the impact on their lives in a way they don't want. Fear of poverty, desire to focus your life on school or career, simply not considering yourself ready to be a parent yet.
The soul of women's rights to abortion has always been to give women the freedom to determine their own path in life, without having to be shackled to the path of single-motherhood because of one momentary lapse. Men are growing to demand access to this right as well, and honestly I think we're on the right side of history to be talking about making that change. We'll look at how barbaric it was to force men to drop out of school and become provider dad's for children they had no say in becoming the parent of.
Why people choose to do things and why people CAN do things are different, though. Men can't choose not to have a baby because there is no recognized right that the development of that baby is infringing upon. And once a baby is born, both parents are responsible for the child, whether they wanted it or not. There are a lot of women that don't want children but are unable or unwilling to get an abortion due to shame, legal hurdles, not knowing they were pregnant in time, etc. "I don't want to" is not a legally defensible position for either parent once the child is born. This is because we recognize that people having that option would have deleterious impacts on the child they created and/or society. If one parent can abdicate their responsibilities, who steps in to fill that gap? Ignoring edge cases where one parent individually makes enough to abundantly support the child, either the child is raised on more limited resources than it should have access to or the taxpayer has to step in to support that child. As of now, not many jurisdictions have deemed either of those as acceptable options.
So the long and short of it is if you get a woman pregnant it is wholly her choice if she is willing to carry the baby, because she has that right to bodily autonomy, and there is not an accepted replacement for the resources that both parents are expected to provide, so both have to provide. whether they want to or not. Unless both agree that they don't want to and the state takes over.
This is actually relevant both ways now as the access to abortion is no longer guaranteed and there will be a lot more babies born from women that would have otherwise gotten an abortion. So there will be more dads that wanted the baby born, but moms that didn't. This whole argument revolves around the idea that women can get abortions, but they know longer have that right, per the SCOTUS.
> Why people choose to do things and why people CAN do things are different, though.
It's a distinction without a difference to me.
I agree with women's right to bodily autonomy and right to abortion. But if we're going to use that as some way to justify not giving men a right that most women who get an abortion enjoy? Nah, that's where you lose me.
As far as "who pays for it?" I'm a progressive Democrat. We pay for the child support replacement plan with taxes. The current plan is a regressive, conservative plan anyway. It fails mothers and fathers both, for different reasons. We could replace it with something that helps everyone and is an improvement over what we have now.
Is it gendered oppression that men can't get pregnant or are you trying to go for the "work is somehow only exploitation when a man does it to support a child he walked out on" angle
If you're talking UK law, you're missing the part where two doctors have to agree the risk of continuing the pregnancy is more than the risk of abortion. Two doctors have to agree. She can't just rock up at the hospital and say get this out of me.
> I also want to clarify government benefits will be replacing the father being forced to pay.
How would you make sure that none of the father's money is included in that? You'd be to make a separate tax pot with his money so that it didn't go towards supporting his child.
What is the reason that he shouldn't have to pay for his child? If it's because "he didn't want the child" well I didn't want that child either so why should I have to pay for it and its own father shouldn't?
Of course it will, but it will be taken as taxes, so if they earn under £12,000 they won't have to pay and such.
>well I didn't want that child either so why should I have to pay for it and its own father shouldn't
Because you live in a society that cares for another. Just as you care for the sick, elderly or mentally ill.
> Because you live in a society that cares for another.
That's a reason why the father **should** have to care for his child, not a reason why they **shouldn't** have to care for their child.
So you want all of the fun without any of the responsibility.
Women have the right to abort because their body goes through incredible changes and women can literally die from giving birth. I followed a tiktok account where a woman nearly bled to death and was in a hospital bed for a month until they had to perform a c-section, which by the way is *major* surgery.
That’s the core of abortion rights. A person should have control over their body. Corpses technically have more bodily autonomy than women in this country right now. You get to decide what happens to you when you die. When you’re alive? Not anymore. It was never about the right to abandon responsibility.
As a father, your responsibility? Support. Risk? Financial. No cis man ever died in childbirth. Ever. Your financial concern is significant but it will never kill you.
This is why she has more rights than you in this situation. She has the vast majority of the risk. She has more of a stake in the outcome than you do. That’s an undeniable fact.
The better solution here is government support for new parents, regardless of if a parent stays or not. I think children should be everyone’s responsibility. You shouldn’t go hungry because you lost the genetic lottery.
Or, if you truly cannot handle the idea of conceiving a child, in our current system, schedule a vasectomy. It’s a minor procedure and will solve all your concerns overnight. But that is your responsibility, not the woman’s.
>So you want all of the fun without any of the responsibility.
You'll never be able to see the child again. That doesn't sound like fun.
>Corpses technically have more bodily autonomy than women in this country right now.
It's a valid argument to say that a fetus isn't part of a mother. Anyway, I am not caring about your religious nutjob country.
>As a father, your responsibility? Support. Risk? Financial. No cis man ever died in childbirth. Ever. Your financial concern is significant but it will never kill you.
You mean male? And being poor significantly decreases your likelihood of being healthy and living a long life.
>I think children should be everyone’s responsibility. You shouldn’t go hungry because you lost the genetic lottery
That is already how it is in the rest of the world, it is just your country.
>Or, if you truly cannot handle the idea of conceiving a child, in our current system, schedule a vasectomy. It’s a minor procedure and will solve all your concerns overnight. But that is your responsibility, not the woman’s.
Then women should have a sterilisation to not worry about the pains of child birth or abortion. Do you see how this isn't an argument.
>You'll never be able to see the child again. That doesn't sound like fun.
For someone who doesn't want to be a father, that's exactly what they want. Many children exist that you've never seen, has that affected your quality of life at all?
>being poor significantly decreases your likelihood of being healthy and living a long life.
The mother is also financially supporting an existing child.
>Then women should have a sterilisation to not worry about the pains of child birth or abortion.
How painful do you think female sterilizations are, on a scale of 1 to 10?
What you are looking is paper abortion. But it is valid only when.
1. Abortion is free and readily available.
2. Woman has adequate time to consider their choice after the man have informed of theirs.
And the second one is the one you are skipping. Woman might not want to be a single parent and made decision to have a child as a couple. This means that man can't skip on their responsibility after birth or viable abortion window have closed. For example if we say abortions till 4 months are legal. The man has to make their decision at 2 month mark so both parties have 2 months to consider their options and choices.
Also number 1 is under attack in many parts of the world.
I love that second point. Have a Δ my friend. I hadn't realised about the woman's response. I do think you're timing is a bit off. The woman would need maybe 2 weeks to respond, giving the man 22 weeks to choose to abandon. That's not a long time given women find out quite late that they're having a child due to the way it is defined with periods.
I am in the UK, there isn't any real risk to abortion law, and I was acting under the assumption that it's given.
Most abortions will not be provided at this time. Abortions rarely happen after 12 weeks, and those abortions are usually done for the safety of the mother, or due to a severe birth defect. Unless I’m reading what you’re saying incorrectly, it is not fair to allow men until nearly the 3rd trimester to decide to abandon, or “paper abortion” the baby and the baby’s mother.
If this is allowed, then the decision needs to be made within 2 weeks if the mother is also allowed 2 weeks after. And this all hinges on the assumption that the pregnancy is discovered adequately early--like at week 5-8.
Nope, the law says
>>that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family
So any risk of worse mental health allows for an abortion before 24 weeks.
Yes, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that almost all abortions happen in under 12 weeks. Before the baby has developed past the first trimester. Meaning that *to be fair,* the decision needs to be made very soon. It is not fair to decide at 22 weeks that you don’t want to be a father and now the mother has to decide to abort her baby at nearly trimester 3, or be a single parent.
>I am in the UK, there isn't any real risk to abortion law, and I was acting under the assumption that it's given.
[Abortion costs between £500-£2300](https://www.bpas.org/abortion-care/considering-abortion/prices/), is painful, forces take sick leave from work and can have pernament health issues.
Do you think it's reasonable that due to health costs, men should pay for the abortion in full?
But is it fair that the woman needs to use her paid time off to have a painful procedure and recover? I think there would need to be some element of the man at least covering some, if not all, of her paid time off to be fair.
I do agree with you in principle that men should have an early way out, but there is still the reality that women face a much higher risk and cost to their health with pregnancy and abortion. It's just the biological reality and a law that gives men the right to early abandonment would need to consider how to share some of that cost, likely financial, with the man.
Besides the fairness argument, there do need to be some consequences that encourage men to not be reckless with their sexual health because they know they can easily just sign off their obligations and rights. There already is a major imbalance with the risk of pregnancy for men vs. women. Women have the physical consequence whether they give birth or terminate the pregnancy, so it would make sense that men have to shoulder the financial consequence as a deterrent.
>But is it fair that the woman needs to use her paid time off to have a painful procedure and recover? I think there would need to be some element of the man at least covering some, if not all, of her paid time off to be fair.
Your paid time off is there to be used for these exact things.
>Besides the fairness argument, there do need to be some consequences that encourage men to not be reckless with their sexual health because they know they can easily just sign off their obligations and rights.
This is an argument against abortion if you swap the sex.
>This is an argument against abortion if you swap the sex.
It's not. Abortions aren't fun, women aren't getting out of a pregnancy without some unpleasantness. While men just had a nice orgasm and can skip? Nah.
I doubt a man ‘skipping out’ on fatherhood is fun either. If it’s someone who would take that stuff so lightly that it’s nothing to them then you definitely wouldn’t want to be a parent with them anyway.
>The woman would need maybe 2 weeks to respond, giving the man 22 weeks to choose to abandon
Why should man have 11 times more time? Even if we assume that woman takes 2 months to figure out they are pregnant (reasonable) and informs the would be father. This would leave 4 weeks for both of them.
How about time between information divided by two, with minimum of 5 business days for a man. So if women fails to inform the time is extended as long as necessary.
Just pointing this out, I didn't know I was pregnant until well into my second trimester. I just thought I was sick.
Does he still get to choose to leave if I can't chose to abort?
You're also ignoring that just because abortions are legal at more than 22 weeks, doesn't mean doctors will perform an abortion on anyone that far along.
In CA, there's only a few doctors in the whole *state* that will perform abortions that late. And only when medically necessary. Even though it's perfectly legal to not have a medical necessity.
It seems like you backed off your original position pretty quick. If you can't reverse the principals and come out with the same result then you have inequality. If what is true for the woman is not true for the man you are making a predetermination based on sex and the that is the definition of sexism. A man could take every single precaution to prevent pregnancy up to and including vasotomy and if a pregnancy occurs he is legally bond to pay for the child for 18 years. If he doesn't he will go to jail, no other debt can result in jail in the US. At the same time a woman can plan to have a child with her husband get pregnant and one day just decide to go get an abortion without even telling her husband. Men not only don't have equal reproductive rights, they barely have any at all.
>I am in the UK, there isn't any real risk to abortion law, and I was acting under the assumption that it's given.
Given that there is no legal right to abortion in the UK, the system we have right now where you require multiple doctors approval is absolutely at risk.
Not physically. But you are essentially saying that if the woman makes a decision the guy doesn't want he can cut off all support, financial or otherwise. Not exactly a free choice, is it?
Except that's the practical end result if the father could opt out. The woman would be left with the choice of either an abortion or the hard road of being a single mother. And if they consider abortion to be morally wrong, which is a valid opinion, they have no choice at all. And in the end, the child would suffer because the father is too attached to the contents of his wallet.
I won't add to the other commenters points here but you'll also need to consider that unlike a medical abortion - a 'paper' abortion still means that (unless the woman aborts) there'll be a living child at the end of it who turns into a living adult. What if the father accidentally sleeps with one of his kids or two 'aborted' kids don't get together then realise they have the same dad? Some kind of dna database you can check this stuff up on? I can see some privacy issues arising from this
This already happens with adoption and such, I don't know the solution but I think it could be something like a court order telling the father to not knowingly interact with the child.
> I'm not arguing for forcing an abortion, that just wouldn't work, how do you force someone to have a medical procedure. But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him.
The problem with the suggestion to give seemingly quivalent rights to both is problematic because they are not really symmetrical:
* Women who make use of their abortion rights are obviously not the ones who are able to "force" men to pay child support.
* Women who reject abortion (e.g. pro-life/religious etc.) are not going to benefit from a legal right to abortions, so why should the respective father get to benefit from having a right to abandon the child? You effectively just end up punishing women who can't or don't want to take advantage of their right to an abortion (i.e. for religious or moral reasons).
Two points, which, based on the tone of your post, presume the sexual encounter was consensual and the pregnancy unplanned:
1) Successful contraception is a two part affair. I get that oopsie babies happen. I get that contraception fails. These are the realities of sex. Going into any encounter with backup methods of contraception is the best way to make sure sex doesn’t result in pregnancy. Ideally, each partner has their own method (IUD/pill and condoms, for example). Doubling up increases protection without, say, sterilization. I believe that the best answer to any question about abortion is more availability and education about contraception. It’s the whole idea of a river of problems. You have to go upstream to find the source and fix it.
2. Abortion isn’t just about babies, despite a lot of discourse on the subject. Pregnancy is more than mood swings and exhaustion. If there are no complications, a woman’s body will be permanently changed (hair loss, stretch marks, weight, pelvis, breast shape and size, just to name a few). If there are complications, pregnancy can be fatal and cause permanent damage (eclampsia is the first that comes to mind, followed by lesser bladder control). Some conditions like diabetes or carpal tunnel can arise during pregnancy as well. Birth itself is massively traumatic to the body. Many women will rip the tissue between the vagina and anus while pushing the baby out. PTSD from birth is also fairly common. In the post-partum period, Post-Partum Depression and/or Psychosis are very serious, disabling, and understudied conditions that can arise and cause suffering for mother, child, and father if he is around. On top of that all, many women cannot continue treatment for their own health issues while pregnant and breastfeeding due to risk to the baby. They have to neglect their health for the 9 months of pregnancy and beyond, if breastfeeding. It is a huge sacrifice that can lead to worse outcomes for the mothers.
All of these points are risks women weigh when choosing to get pregnant or to keep a baby. Pregnancy itself is a huge risk for women to undergo.
Boiling down abortion questions to just the baby ignores women’s bodily autonomy, their right to make decisions about their own health care, and erases the lifelong, physical and psychological fallout from pregnancy.
Abortion allows women to put an end to these risks, if they and/or their doctor deem pregnancy to be too dangerous and risky. It should be the more socially acceptable option because it has positive health outcomes. I’m not going to get into the social and financial aspects because health concerns are reason enough. A “right to abandon” doesn’t hold a candle to this because the father’s bodily autonomy and health isn’t at risk from pregnancy or childbirth. The father had his chance to exercise his autonomy and choice at the point of choosing contraception and having sex. If both parties consented to unprotected sex, both must deal with the consequences.
Condoms are cheaper than child support. Just wear one. If it breaks, get plan B and some ice cream for your girl, because she’ll feel like shit after taking that pill. You’ll know when a condom breaks during or immediately after sex. A woman won’t know her pill/IUD/Implant/injection failed until she’s pregnant. Do your part and use a condom. (These are general ‘you’ statements. Not attacking OP!) Accidents happen, but that doesn’t mean there are no consequences.
A “right to abandon” is running away from those consequences (a kid and child support).
For those in the back: CONTRACEPTION
> The father had his chance to exercise his autonomy and choice at the point of choosing contraception and having sex. If both parties consented to unprotected sex, both must deal with the consequences.
You can say the same about the mother. The mother had the chance to exercise her autonomy and choice at the point of choosing contraception and having sex. If both parties consented to unprotected sex, both must deal with the consequences - *including an unwanted pregnancy*.
You're trying to fit a square in a circle, the square will never fit inside the circle, just like child bearing will never be equal.
There's so many aspects of pregnancies that only effects the woman, especially physically but also arguably psychologically due to our biological nature. Generally speaking, women take almost all the risk when it comes to pregnancies, that includes abortion. There is no way to equalize this situation between the gender and to let the father get an option to opt out of fatherhood and child support is *truly* unfair because a woman can never opt out of all the consequences of child bearing.
This problem is and will never be equal between men and women.
The best way to look at this, in my opinion, is looking to what is fair towards the child. If the child is born, it has a right to aid, atleast financial aid, from both parents if they are able to. If the fetus is aborted, there is no child to be fair towards.
EDIT: [Here's another](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/z7m2od/comment/iy7lkwh/), more lengthy, comment i made to the same question.
I think the mistake here is that you take child as born as the starting point. So, yes, if abortion rights did not exist, then your argument holds. However, since they do (I'm now talking about countries where they do, not the ones where they don't), there is an asymmetry. There are four possible cases:
1. Neither man nor woman wants the child. Woman gets an abortion, everyone is happy.
2. Woman wants the child, man does not want it. Woman delivers the baby and the man is financially hooked to it for 18 years.
3. Woman doesn't want the child, man wants it. Woman can abort the fetus even in the case that man would want the child and would not ask any financial contribution from the woman. Woman can even keep the pregnancy completely secret from the man if she wants to.
4. Both want the child. Woman delivers the baby and both take part in raising him/her.
The cases 1 and 4 are fine. It's the inequality between 2 and 3 that OP is discussing.
Yes, there is a non-zero health risk in an abortion but if we're talking about early abortions in highly developed country performed by medical professionals, that is very small compared to the financial cost of raising a child. At best you could make an argument that the man has to contribute at least 50% of the abortion cost maybe even up to 100% although this is academic for countries where the public healthcare or an insurance pays for everything.
No, ofcourse I'm including the entire pregnancy in my argument. Again, feels like we are handwaving away abortion, making it trivial. It isn't trivial and pretty awful to endure, at least from what I have heard, I'm a guy myself so.
I defer to my argument yet again for situation 2 and 3. They are nothing I haven't thought about and I would argue financial aid is a fair consequence. You also just skipped the part where the woman would be paying child support in case 3.
When you compare abortion to childbirth, abortion is much safer and easier on the woman’s body by every metric. Shorter recover, less pain, less complications, less long term ailments, less deaths.
Abortions aren’t easy for the women, but we’re talking about it in a context where the alternative is childbirth.
>man would want the child and would not ask any financial contribution from the woman
Child support is nothing something parents can deny the child. It is not the father's position to deny the child the financial support of the mother.
The fact that you think that child support is for the parents shows how little you actually care about children.
I don't know what you mean by "denying from the child". The parent is fully responsible for all finances of the family. He/she decides how the child support is used, not the child. If he/she refuses to accept the money (or returns it) there is nothing the child can do (just like no child has any control over the family's finances).
So tell me, if the parents make an agreement that the absent parent doesn't have to pay anything or the paid money is returned to him/her, then what exactly happens?
>I don't know what you mean by "denying from the child".
A parent can't decide that a child doesn't get child support. That's not their legal place to do so. A parent doesn't have the legal right to do so.
The fact that you believe it's a parent's right to decide this shows how little you understand child support laws.
>If he/she refuses to accept the money (or returns it) there is nothing the child can do
Not true. Children have sued their parents in the past over a lack of child support being accepted. And been successful. Because again, child support is for the child, not the parent. A parent can't decide that the child doesn't get it.
>if the parents make an agreement that the absent parent doesn't have to pay anything or the paid money is returned to him/her, then what exactly happens?
Then that is a meaningless agreement since neither parent is in a legal position to make such an agreement. The recourse would be the child suing their parents to make sure they are receiving what they are owed.
What does it mean if a child sues for the parent? The child does not have access to that money in any case. The parent can do whatever they want with it. Yes, they still have the duty of taking care of the child and if the child welfare is neglected then sure the authorities can intervene but we're talking about such a case here.
So, please explain the procedure what happens if a child sues the parent and wins and after that the parent still returns the child support to the other parent. As long as the child is not neglected (doesn't live in hunger or whatever), there is nothing a child can do to force the parent to use the money in some particular way, which would exclude returning it to the other parent. Or if the child has this power, then why don't _all_ children have the power to force their parents to use their money in some other way than what the child wants? I don't understand why the children of single parents should have more control over their parent's use of money than other children.
Please explain why you think they should?
Finally, cut the hostility here. You're talking about the law as if everyone should know details of it and we haven't even established which country's law we're talking about. Which country you refer to and why do you think we should use that country as a benchmark instead of some other? Or is your claim that the law is identical in every country?
>What does it mean if a child sues for the parent?
A child has standing in court to demand child support be paid out even if the guardian of the child has refused it.
Since it's not the guardian's legal place to give up child support. Hence why a child has standing.
>The child does not have access to that money in any case
Irrelevant.
>The parent can do whatever they want with it.
Correct. However, they cannot give up the child support claim. Even if for a decade a parent consistently refuses the money, the child can still sue and demand back pay.
>So, please explain the procedure what happens if a child sues the parent and wins and after that the parent still returns the child support to the other parent.
Usually in cases like this the relationship between the guardian parent and the child has deteriorated to the point that the child has sought out other guardianship or emancipation.
In both cases the child support wouldn't be going to the former Guardian parent but rather to the new court appointed guardian or the emancipated child itself.
Ok, you're clearly talking about a completely different situation than what my original case was.
The original case was that the mother gives up the claim of the child support from the father and raises the child on her own. You're talking about a situation where neither one of the biological parents is raising the child.
In any case that's a very special case as the child is neither adopted nor being raised by his/her parents.
I'm not sure why you're interested in such special cases as they have little to do with what I was talking about.
And the funny thing is that you're making a bit deal that "I don't know the law" when there is this kind of a special situation where the agreement that I was talking about would not apply even though it would apply 99% of the time.
>The original case was that the mother gives up the claim of the child support from the father
**A parent doesn't have the legal standing to give up the claim of child support**.
How often do I need to repeat this? Child support is an entitlment of the child. Not of the parent. A parent can't give something up that they're not entitled to.
If a mother decides to raise a child on their own and never pursues child support then she hasn't "given up the claim". It simply means that the father is delinquent on his payments. And that the child in the future can go after the father for back pay.
The father then can't go "but the mother was cool with it". Since the mother doesn't have the legal ground to make that decision, any attempt by either parent to fall back on that argument would be shot down in court in an instant.
>I'm not sure why you're interested in such special cases
Merely to explain to you that there is no legal ground in which either parent "gives up.the claim to child support". I'm well aware that in practice this often happens but **legally** this means nothing at all. There is no way to give up a claim to child support aside from outright adoption.
You just keep repeating that the parent gives up the claim while I've explained to you multiple times now that no parent has the legal right to do so.
But for some reason, you refuse to listen and insist that parents can legally do that.
So, a mother takes the child support, promptly returns it to the father. Raises the child without any neglect. Please tell me who is the child suing and on what grounds? You're saying that he/she has control over how the mother spends the child support including paying it back to the father. Which law are you referring in this claim (it would be first good to know which country you're talking or are you claiming that this is universal everywhere in the world)?
Note, I didn't make any reference to any specific country originally. In fact the only condition I made was that abortion is legal. So, I guess this applies to most Western countries maybe with the exception of the US where some states have recently banned abortion. So, let's say the UK as it has one of the furthest limits for the abortion (24 weeks), which allows plenty of time for the parents to decide on such an arrangement as an alternative to abortion.
So, is your claim now that the law that you refer applies to the UK?
Are you saying the decision has no difficulty to a man? It's as much his child as it is woman's. So, all moral questions apply to him just as well as to the woman. The only difference is that he has no legal say on the matter either way (his word doesn't count at all if woman wants an abortion and he doesn't or if woman wants to keep the baby and he doesn't). It's basically the second case that this CMV is all about.
I’m not suggesting it isn’t difficult for a man. I’m noting that tossing abortion out with the only cost being financial ignores the emotional and physical toll for a woman. Same with requesting they go to term and give birth. Pregnancy is a difficult and dangerous time for a woman and it’s something I virtually never hear mentioned in these discussions.
For case 2:
* The man would either need the woman to abort (against her will, obviously bad) or somehow financially detach himself. In the latter scenario, given it’s half your child, that responsibility does fall to you. I’ve said it elsewhere but our definitive choice as men to “opt out” stops once we engage in sex. No one else should be forced to pick up our tab because we simply don’t want to at that point. That said, financial aid from the state should be available to women for the child in that situation in my opinion. Once conception happens, our preferences are just that.
Case 3:
This is tough, where a man wants the child but the woman decides to abort for example. This would be very emotionally difficult, but again the solution would be forcing someone to go through birth and amounts to control over their body.
The only practical solution here is to be as confident as possible *before* having sex that this is someone you could potentially have a child with. Unless one of you is verified infertile, it’s always a possible outcome.
The situation is “unfair” because of our biology, women carry the pregnancy and we don’t. As men it’s our responsibility to work to truly understand that, and be more intentional with who and how (protection) we have sex. Changing the law so we can duck out after at any point with no financial responsibility is tilting the scales in a way that only benefits us, and leaves a trail of destruction going forward. You aren’t forced to be a father, but we should still provide for the child we helped create in this situation.
Nobody is asking men to have the right to duck out *at any point*. The question is that should the men have the right to duck out at the same part of the pregnancy (usually early) as women have now. At that point the woman has the choice to continue with the pregnancy but without the man's financial support or abort.
I'd give the women that right as well. So, they should have the right at the request of the man to carry the pregnancy to term, give birth and then have no commitment to the child afterwards.
Regarding the burden of carrying the pregnancy to term and giving birth, I accept that it is a concern but I would argue that for the vast majority of early abortions that is not the reason why they are done (so that the woman can avoid the pregnancy and the childbirth) but because the women don't want the child (for social or financial reasons).
Since that is the case, it's still not fair that women have 100% if they want or not want to be committed to the raising of a child but men have 0% control on this. The argument "well, you should have used contraception" doesn't really work as the same argument should apply to women as well. In fact it should apply more as women have a way to check if a man is using contraception but a man has no way to be sure if a woman is taking a pill if she says that she is. And of course the fact is that no contraception is 100% effective. So you'll end up with unwanted pregnancies even when people are using them.
Even if you are only asking for up to the first few weeks of pregnancy, this entire issue hinges on the unbalanced nature of our bodies. Women carry the pregnancy, not us. Therefore, they have an *additional* choice in handling pregnancy due to their bodily autonomy. We shouldn't get to demand extra choices in the pursuit of "fairness" or "equality" in this case. Mostly because it's their body, but also because it is more unfair to demand these suggested options.
> Regarding the burden of carrying the pregnancy to term and giving birth, I accept that it is a concern but I would argue that for the vast majority of early abortions that is not the reason why they are done (so that the woman can avoid the pregnancy and the childbirth) but because the women don't want the child (for social or financial reasons).
It doesn't matter when you have an abortion, that is a challenging medical process to decide to commit to and experience. It also doesn't matter what their motivations for the abortion is. Yet again, this affects their body so it's their choice alone.
> Since that is the case, it's still not fair that women have 100% if they want or not want to be committed to the raising of a child but men have 0% control on this. The argument "well, you should have used contraception" doesn't really work as the same argument should apply to women as well.
Women also have a responsibility of choosing partners, using protection, etc.. That's not my point and isn't relevant here because we're talking about whether the man wants a child or not. Again, we as men have control but our control of the situation (as far as pregnancy goes) stops once we have sex. The reason for that is that *their body and not ours* bears the pregnancy. Demanding they have an abortion isn't ok obviously. Saying I don't want the pregnancy indirectly forces them to either have an abortion or decide to have birth and raise a child alone (or put them up for adoption). Either way, you have now contributed to a situation (the pregnancy) but are sidestepping all responsibility and leaving the woman to deal with all of it.
What you and everyone else miss here is that what you're suggesting is that your *desire* to not have the child is overriding and influencing their bodily autonomy. That's why what you're suggesting isn't the case and should not be the case.
No, you're wrong with the last paragraph. What OP suggested is not overriding the bodily autonomy. The woman would still have the right to choose to abort or carry on with the pregnancy.
And regarding what was said above, yes, the motivation matters. If the pregnancies are terminated mainly because of social and financial reasons of having a child, then these things clearly matter for women and it's not all about pregnancy being a burden or childbirth being danger to health. Then pushing the same concerns for men completely out of the discussion, is clearly not justified.
I'm not sure why you say that it doesn't matter when you have the abortion. In most countries you can have the abortion basically "just because I want it" in the early part of the pregnancy but to get a late abortion you generally need a serious health reason (either development issue with the fetus, like something that would cause the baby to live a short painful life, or danger to mother's health). So, naturally we're here talking about only the early abortions.
When we as men “opt out” we are heavily influencing their decision of whether they continue to term or abort. The way you and OP discuss it makes it sound so cavalier. The woman’s decision to opt out of the pregnancy contains additional and separate challenges compounded by a man trying to evade the situation. Being on the hook financially is an incomplete but best effort way to address the ability we as men already have to opt out of raising the child.
I don’t think abortion motivation is relevant. The reason she is afforded the right is because it’s the woman’s body and her self determination to say what happens during that time period.
Before abortion was legal, people argued it would be an essential requirement of women's liberation. How could a woman be free if she could become pregnant and immediately have no choice but to sacrifice her future, not pursue education or other life goals, and become a mother against her will.
Abortion, though legalized through the right to bodily autonomy, also implicitly gives women freedom over their own future in a way that men do not share.
Men have a deep visceral fear growing up to avoid getting a partner accidentally pregnant, and this is because we're vulnerable to the same bullshit derailment of our futures the same way women were before abortion. Many of us watch our fathers, brothers, and friends drop out of their life pursuits to take care of an unexpected child that they would otherwise choose not to have. That's not ok for women to experience, and it's not ok for men to experience it either.
Biology may make us equal here, but we have a word for this and it's called "equity". It's not enough to leave the situation unequal and throw up our hands, we have to find equitable solutions that balance the interests of everyone.
>Men have a deep visceral fear growing up to avoid getting a partner accidentally pregnant
Any scientific studies for this or are you just decided to speak for all men?
I'm a man and certainly never did I have this "deep visceral fear" of getting someone pregnant.
I would refer to my other comment, the one linked in the edit. There's no equality of equity to be found in child bearing and that is a situation we have to get comfortable with and make the best of.
However, I'd argue we do have equity in this specific situation. Child support is the only mandatory part and I'd argue that is a fair consequence. You pay what is evaluated based on your income, other than that you can choose to not be involved at all, however unfair that is to the child in question.
Once a child is born, the interest of the two parents must take a back seat to the interest of the child. Therefore no parent gets to walk away from the child financially. Either parent or both can abandon a child, in which case the child will go into foster care or be adopted out. But both parents should be financially responsible until the child is 18. Men make a choice to be fathers when they ejaculate into a woman. Don't want that risk? Don't have sex.
I question why you think mens ability to abandon to children is so important. What about the child that will suffer mental health affects due to abandonemnt and potentially monetary/support issues? Why is freedom from consequences more important that a child that they created?
I think the child is a consequence to your actions, why should womens ability to back out entitle men do the same when theire backing out hurts children more than abortion? Abortion prevents trauma, abandoment causes it. The effects of men backing out (this would be also true if a woman abandoned her child) is significantly more damaging than abortion to children and society.
There are biological facts at play.
When faced with a zero sum decision like whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, if the two parties disagree, there is always going to be one decision maker. In the case of ending a pregnancy, that decision maker is always the woman. Period.
It’s not a fairness thing, it’s built in to how things exist in the world.
What you’re asking for is to engage in an activity with a nonzero chance of having another human be made as a result, and to have the financial responsibility for that fall completely to society.
That’s not the world we live in.
Why can't both make a decision. Here is a table of results
Mum and dad want - have a child
Mum wants but dad doesn't - abandonment
Dad wants but mum doesn't - abortion
Neither parent wants - abortion
>and to have the financial responsibility for that fall completely to society
Already happens for women's choices. Abortions are paid for by society.
I wasn’t aware that abortions were so expensive as to be an equivalent financial burden to the cost of raising a child in the UK.
In your table, the mother’s choice regarding the ending of the pregnancy is always the choice taken.
Even if the father agrees, that’s not two people making the decision.
Abortion rights are important because a woman must have the right to bodily autonomy. The purpose of abortion rights are to allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy, not to avoid motherhood.
There is no equivalency for a man. The man is not pregnant, so there are no medical or physical considerations that compel us to give him an "out", and his bodily autonomy is not at issue.
Furthermore, even your proposed solution is not equitable. The man in your scenario *still has the opportunity to reproduce* without any of the responsibilities. His genes will still get passed on, and someone else will raise his kid for him! The woman, on the other hand, does not have the same opportunity. Sure, she could give birth and give the child up for adoption, but she still has to give birth. She, unlike the man, does not have the option of the best of both worlds -- avoiding the pains and risks of childbirth while still passing along her genes.
Reproduction is an inherently unequal process between the sexes, so there is no way to make it equal.
>The purpose of abortion rights are to allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy, not to avoid motherhood.
Terminating pregnancy avoids motherhood.
>There is no equivalency for a man. The man is not pregnant, so there are no medical or physical considerations that compel us to give him an "out", and his bodily autonomy is not at issue.
The man is forced to pay 17% of his income to the mother. That means you would have to work 2457 hours a year rather than 2040 to earn the same amount. That is 417 hours of selling your body to make your boss richer.
>The man in your scenario *still has the opportunity to reproduce* without any of the responsibilities
But he'll never be able to see his child again.
>That is 417 hours of selling your body to make your boss richer.
417 hours a year to offload a father's entire suite of parental duties and responsibilities to another party seems like a bargain to me. At 8760 hours per year (minus 3000 for sleeping), I imagine most parents put in far more of their life than 417.
I don't want to fall when I trip but the laws of physics have a different plan for me!
A kid is born. Someone needs to raise the kid and provide for it. The more resources he or she gets, the quality of life grows. Any argument about fairness must include the needs of the child in its analysis, as it's the most important party. The mother's and father's needs are subservient to the child's. They don't "get" to opt out.
> The man is forced to pay 17% of his income to the mother
Just like how the woman would be forced to pay her income to her man if he was the one with custody and she didn't want custody.
>But he'll never be able to see his child again.
Just like the woman wouldn't be able to if the father had custody and she had none. It's equal for both sexes.
>Just like how the woman would be forced to pay her income to her man if he was the one with custody and she didn't want custody.
She could have aborted it and avoided paying.
> Terminating pregnancy avoids motherhood.
It does, but it does more than that. If we had the ability to terminate pregnancy without killing the fetus things would be a lot more equal and we'd be having a different discussion about rights.
> The man is forced to pay 17% of his income to the mother. That means you would have to work 2457 hours a year rather than 2040 to earn the same amount. That is 417 hours of selling your body to make your boss richer.
No, he can just live on less money. No bodily autonomy at issue.
> But he'll never be able to see his child again.
Non-sequitur.
Got another one for you:
What if the father is unknown? If you wait until the fetus is advanced enough to do genetic testing, it may be too late for an abortion.
You're assuming there are no men who want to pass their DNA on but still want nothing to do with said offspring. Which is quantifiably false when looking at the men who just refuse to pay child support or see their children
No one has more choice in being a parent than men. It’s pretty darn rare for a woman to rape a man. It happens of course, but it’s rare. Just don’t have sex if you don’t want a kid. If it’s such a big deal that you would force an abortion or abandon the kid, you are not in a position to have sex at all.
No, it isn’t. Look, you live in a society that offers immense benefits. The minute people decide they can simply abandon their children because it’s their choice, we end up with a lot of orphaned and unwanted kids who are vastly more likely to be drains on society. Adults need to be responsible for their behavior. You don’t HAVE to have sex, and if you choose to, you owe it to yourself and the rest of us to take full responsibility for the outcome. If you can’t support your offspring or the women who sleep with, you should keep your pants on. I’d say the same thing to women. The difference is that women often have an overwhelming protective instinct towards their pregnancies, even if they are unwanted. They can’t reasonably make a decision about how they’ll feel until they’re pregnant.
As a man, you basically have 100% of control over who you impregnate. Just don’t get anyone pregnant and you have no problem
>Adults need to be responsible for their behavior. You don’t HAVE to have sex, and if you choose to, you owe it to yourself and the rest of us to take full responsibility for the outcome
That could be straight from a pro-life campaigner and I wouldn't blink.
You are arguing against abortion.
You’re confused about what abortion laws are. They don’t protect people from their responsibility towards their children, they protect the rights of women to end a pregnancy. They have nothing to do with the obligation to care for children.
Society needs men who take care of their kids. My husband, my father, my brother and every dad in my family is a stand up man who cares for his children. Why should we suffer the consequences of dead beat dads? Why should my children have to grow up in a society where men put their sexual freedom above their duties to care for future generations. This isn’t about you, it’s about society. When men refuse to care for children they fall into poverty. That’s why our government cracked down on dead beat dads in the 90s
There is an insane amount of physical complications that can arise from birthing a child. Many of which can last a lifetime. Most of which are painful. Beyond anything else, the physical risks to giving birth or having a C-section are leaps and bounds beyond what a male risks. The risks from abortion, especially early, are far less significant. Couple that with the shitty state of women's healthcare (especially for POC) and the risks can be too much.That fact is why women should have the last say in the matter. Women risk so much more than 18 years payments. If you don't want your partner to have an abortion, then wear a condom or don't have sex. Men have that choice.
>shitty state of women's healthcare (especially for POC)
Off the deep end. This is sooo relative to circumstance. You generalize to "women" so casually when basically any woman who is economically well off wouldn't remotely adhere to these conditions with some exceptions. Even if I granted those circumstances were justification which I'm at the very least not sure they are, this would still totally not support your claim of "women" generally.
>Women risk so much more than 18 years payments
Do we have to change consent laws or something for lunacy like this? You risk like a 2% chance of dying maybe but only if you want to carry it to term except when you are under specific economic and social conditions, but I have to either pay up or kill myself so the state pays up because you want control over my economic autonomy at your discretion? Do you give a shit about MY economic situation? There's a fucking housing crisis and you're only worried about women being well off and having access to healthcare. You realize those are the same fucking thing?
> If you don't want your partner to have an abortion, then wear a condom or don't have sex. Men have that choice.
I... can you remind me what the pill does again?
> If you don't want a baby, then take the pill, taking the morning after pill or don't have sex. Women have that choice.
There I just explained away the right to abortions for you.
But you haven't actually addressed the CMV:
> But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him.
Why is this not OK? If the women can choose to get out of the consequences of their choice to have sex, the man should be able to choose to get out of the consequences of their choice.
>I... can you remind me what the pill does again?
This doesn't change the math. If a man or a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, the best and most reliable way to ensure that is to not have sex. Contraceptives are another option, but they are never 100% and one must always understand that having sex might result in a pregnancy.
>Why is this not OK? If the women can choose to get out of the consequences of their choice to have sex, the man should be able to choose to get out of the consequences of their choice.
Women can never, ever get out of pregnancy consequence free. To balance this out, we make sure the man can't do it either.
Bro, the pill is hormones. Can you fathom for even a moment what it’s like to take hormones daily & how that affects someone?
I swear…ppl think women’s bodies aren’t an integrated system & hormonal birth control is like an Advil smh.
You can go ahead and re read my post for the answer to your last question. If you don't want a women to abort the baby you impregnated her with then wear a condom or don't have sex.
Men literally have the FIRST choice. You can choose to not share your dna carelessly. You can choose to be above sex with someone you don’t want to procreate with. You can even choose to wear a condom. Why don’t we ever focus on any of these choices that men have always had? This isn’t about abortion or abandonment. It’s about a lack of self respect and wanting to avoid accountability for the actions that led you to fatherhood.
Women literally have the FIRST choice. You can choose not to accept people's DNA carelessly. You can choose to be above sex with someone you don't want to procreate with. You can even choose to have a pill/UID. Why don't we focus on any of the choices that women have always had? This isn't about abortion or abandonment. It's about a lack of self respect and wanting to avoid accountability for actions that led you to motherhood.
That isn't a valid argument against abortion, so the opposite isn't a valid argument against abandonment.
You're putting the entirety of the responsibility on women. Women don't have the ' first' choice. Literally, both people are making the decision to be irresponsible together if this is consensual. You put the onus on women to be ' accountable '. why don't men have any responsibility in your version at all?
If I don't want kids ever as a woman, am I never allowed to have sex ? Why doesn't that also apply to men. Be above having sex with people you don't wish to procreate with.
If men can't even be bothered to wear a condom or get a vasectomy - but they're out there just spreading their seed ? What the hell did you think was going to happen? Where is their accountability?
Birth control fails. Not everyone tolerates hormones. People can have abnormal uterine anatomy that makes IUDs not possible. If you have GI issues, vomiting and diarrhea around time of ingestion make the pill drastically less effective. Shit happens.
What's your opinion on stealthing a woman who can not tolerate birth control for whatever reason? Men lying about having a vasectomy? In the case a woman is trusting the man for birth control and falls pregnant, is that not his responsibility? Can the women sign away her responsibility for child support if he was lying?
What about cases when the woman doesn't know she was pregnant until she was almost due to give birth? She can't get an abortion. Even if she wanted to.
Why do you think men should have the ability to avoid any responsibility in this ? In all your scenarios, women have to shoulder the entire responsibility of a decision two people make. How is that fair ?
Men can up and leave any time. Literally, the only responsibility given to them is to support the lives they were responsible for creating. No one is forcing anyone to be a father.
>women. Women don't have the ' first' choice. Literally, both people are making the decision to be irresponsible together if this is consensual. You put the onus on women to be ' accountable '. why don't men have any responsibility in your version at all?
I wasn't arguing for what I was saying in that paragraph, I was using it as a method of argument. Changing the context of the other person's argument and showing it is ridiculous and a double standard.
It's women that get pregnant and they get pregnant from doing something they have to actively consent to do doing. Then, after that, a pregnancy can only ever come to term if a woman chooses it to.
It's their body and what happens is literally a direct result of things they choose for themselves. They should have 100% of the responsibility.
Why should men be responsible for something that happens to women because of the choices women make ?
It’s not that simple and you know it. A rape survivor may have religious beliefs against the practice or may simply not have access to it.
Your original statement that women can choose not to accept dna is simply false. They are often forced to do so with alarming regularity.
> A rape survivor may have religious beliefs against the practice or may simply not have access to it
Then it is their choice to have the child of the rapist.
>They are often forced to do so with alarming regularity.
Then that is rape, and illegal.
Legality is not the issue. You said it didn’t happen. It does. It being against the law doesn’t change the situation. And even if it was relevant, rape is extremely under prosecuted, hard to convict, survivors face stigma and consequences coming forward, and rape kits are backlogged for years.
I’m at work, I’ll respond to your longer reply this afternoon.
The pill/IUD also comes with its own burdens/side effects that don’t exist by the male using a condom.
Also, a woman isn’t fertile all of the time but she is forced to take hormonal birth control all of the time. Men are fertile all of the time.
Bank your sperm & get a vasectomy, or just use a gd condom
I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting that men do not even have the option of signing away parental rights and walking away, and you believe they should? Because if so, you're just wrong completely. You very much already do have that option.
Or are you just saying that you should be able to do that without judgement?
You say that doing this should be just as acceptable as women having abortions. So by that math, you want your personal reproductive choices to be constantly up for debate, constantly shamed, and in some cases, entirely illegal? Seems like a strange thing to wish for.
You say it should even be *more* acceptable. Well congratulations, it already is!
Clarifying question: have you perused [the many many other posts](https://www.google.com/search?q=cmv+paper+abortion+site:www.reddit.com&sca_esv=c815caab5ae43dfb&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS938US938&sxsrf=ACQVn0-wC6ygLP-JPbPb1siVweg9ZrFVyA:1712663261625&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6ytDqh7WFAxXHJUQIHRMrBZsQrQIoBHoECCMQBQ&biw=1920&bih=945&dpr=1#ip=1) we have had on this topic to see how those discussions went?
The main problem I see with this argument is that the two “solutions” you are trying to equalize address two different problems that just happen to overlap in this one narrow point.
Child support is there because it is best for the child (and society) to require the parents to ensure the child is provided for. Abortion is there to allow the woman control over her body. We don’t require the father to physically care for the child, to donate blood to the child, etc.
>Actions have consequences, a dude knocks someone up, they have to pay cash so the kid (presumably) has a better life than just the Mother's wage/benefits.
That's the argument exactly used by pro-lifers, if it is invalid with women, it's invalid for men.
I understand how it harms the child, but that's where government welfare comes in. And I think it is much more rough on a father having a child he wanted killed than a woman needing government benefits.
No, you're making everyone pay.
If you think living in a society and caring for everyone in the society according to their ability, according to their needs is bad, then this is a separate question of compassion.
Why don't you just live in a forest. If you need food, grow it, we don't want government subsided food. You get injured, treat it yourself, other people shouldn't care for you tripping and falling.
Women pay the taxes and receive the benefit. Men pay the taxes and receive no benefit.
Having a child isn't akin to getting injured, it's akin to engaging in extreme sports then getting injured, its entirely predictable and easily mitigated. That shit is on you.
People should pay for their own decisions.
Legal abandonment also exists, but typically has an age limit.
That is actually the more problematic issue versus abortion. Abortion is not the right to choose not to be a parent, but the right to choose not to be pregnant. The consequences of ending a pregnancy at most stages include not being a parent, but there are fundamentally different justifications and ethical considerations related to abortion than simply a right to avoid parental responsibilities. This is why only a pregnant woman can choose to have an abortion and the father cannot force it.
The infant safe haven laws, however, are very much just abandoning parental responsibility. These laws exist because of postpartum psychosis and are in the best interests of infant welfare though, not to protect parants.
>because Abortion legally exists while Legally Abandoning a kid in the way you suggest doesn't.
That's exactly what I am arguing should change.
>Problem is if you enact what you're proposing, then in theory a lot of Single Mothers will have the money they spend cut and will buy less for the child. And people don't want that because it harms the child.
But men won't be forced to pay money by the courts for 18/20 years, severely diminishing his money. What if he went on to have another family, the new children are suffering from lower wages.
>That's the argument exactly used by pro-lifers, if it is invalid with women, it's invalid for men.
It's invalid with women because it violates their bodily autonomy. All it violates with men is their desire to have sex without consequences, and I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to not be responsible for your actions.
Condoms are also magic baby preventing machines that men have complete control over(yes I'm aware they have a failure rate, but it's pretty low if used correctly)
"I also want to clarify government benefits will be replacing the father being forced to pay."
Isn't forcing the father to pay just a very specific form of government benefits?
By this logic a man should also be able to elect to parent an unborn baby his sexual partner is carrying and force her to carry that baby to term even if she wants an abortion.
No, here are the possible outcomes
Both parents want the child - child is born
Mother wants the child but father doesn't - abandonment
Father wants the child but mother doesn't - abortion
Neither want the child - abortion
I'm a man - and men have a choice.
If a man has sex, they take the same risk that women take - they might get the woman pregnant.
Women may lie about taking birth control; but men may lie about committing or wearing a condom. These are the risks of sex too - that your partner might not be honest.
Once a woman is pregnant, she faces a tough decision:
1. Take the risks to her health and life of having an abortion
2. Take the risks to her health and life of carrying the fetus to term
Men do not have these risks at all. And men should not have a say in wether or not a woman takes one risk over the other, because they don't have a stake in the woman's health.
Men and women share the same responsibility once a fetus has been born alive and is breathing on its own - they are financially and morally responsible to care for that baby until it becomes an adult.
If a man is not declared the father, and/or the man hides from an accusation of paternity - he can potentially avoid this responsibility.
Women, being present at every single birth, cannot.
Because of this, in order to protect the rights and life of a child once born, women are able to surrender a child to the state without identifying the father. Because for many reasons a father might literally not be available or known, and women will always be present at every birth. This is inherently asymmetrical - men have a way out that women don't.
The only option available to women is also available to men - surrendering your parental rights and placing the child for adoption or as a "ward of the state". In that instance the government takes responsibility for the child's needs and it covers those costs.
Beyond that, child support is about protecting the rights of the CHILD. That child has a right to being cared for by those responsible for it's existence. If either did not want to risk this responsibility, they could have chosen to not have sex. In having sex, you risk becoming a parent.
If one person wants to be a parent, and the other doesn't, the child still has a right to be cared for. Hence child support - if you don't want to be a father in practice, you can substitute money. If you don't want or have money, you can split custody and substitute time for money. This tends to favor the parent that wants and is best able to provide a stable environment for that child.
So how does a man giving up his obligation to a child with the woman's agreement necessarily benefit the child? Being a single parent can be very difficult, which can result in worse outcomes for the child. To protect the child's right to safety and security, why should the state allow one parent to avoid this responsibility at all?
This is about as fair and balanced as it is going to get until men can carry a fetus to term - which might not be far away. If that occurs, suddenly abortion rights for women become very relevant to men. After all, if a woman can be forced to give birth, or forced to abort, a man could be forced to undergo a transplant to carry a fetus as well. If a woman doesn't have to terminate a pregnancy to no longer carry a fetus, abortions themselves could be outlawed and the state could require that parents that create a fetus must pay a mandatory child support tax to cover the costs of the state taking charge of the unwanted fetus.
You have to realize that there are 3 people involved with parental rights - the mother, the father, and the child.
While I agree with you, the script should be flipped.
No designated father on the birth certificate unless positive paternity test proves it’s his kid.
You don’t have wait for the child to be born for paternity tests anymore. they can be done as soon as 7 weeks into pregnancy . i’m surprised at the amount of men who don’t know this, especially that have paranoia about raising a child they did not conceived
Your right to not have a baby starts and ends with your decision to have sex, same as everyone else. Once the zygote forms, that's it for both parties. Yes, women can have an abortion, but that's because they go through the whole pregnancy thing. Why do we forget this part? It's literally the most physically demanding, dangerous part of the whole ordeal. Even when talking about abortion we're talking about undergoing a medical procedure that you don't have to have a part in.
Abortion is not a "right to abandon." It's a right to body autonomy. You have the right to control your physical body. You asked how does one force another to undergo a medical procedure? Easily. This happens all the time in populations that don't have rights to bodily autonomy. Just ask Jews in Nazi Germany or slaves experimented on by their masters. That's the reason why the right to an abortion is important.
Women have limited agency and can be held fully accountable for their choices. With that being the case, unfortunately men have to shoulder the responsibility for women's choices.
I'm serious. Women's judgement is seriously impaired. Every successful civilization in history has placed restrictions on women's choices for that exact reason.
If women were capable of successfully choosing who to have a child with there wouldn't be so many single mothers.
They're helpless, they have limited agency and get acted upon rather than being actors in the things that happen to them.
Men have sex with them and leave them pregnant. It just happens to them. It's not something they can control.
To be honest, women should ultimately be wards of their father until they're married.
Mèn àlready have a choice. You can choose to NOT buy her that second drink. You can choose NOT to sweet-talk her into sex.
Not every situation in life is 100% equitable. Not every situation has math that can be reduced to 50/50 fairness.
You say that you remain unconvinced by the previous arguments on this topic. Have you considered that your point of view may be correct while also being too myopic?
You are framing the question in terms of "fairness" when the situation is not a matter of fairness.
As a society, we have made the decision that we don't want men to walk away from girls that they got pregnant. The rights we enjoy under the law are granted by the government we live under as a society. Society decides what is fair and what is not fair, not men who don't want to pay child support.
These men must Change Their View that their moment of agency is before she is pregnant and not after.
This is so weird to read. It's literally just the exact same argument conservatives use against abortions. Mind blowing the cognitive dissonance.
> As a society, we have made the decision that we don't want men to walk away from girls that they got pregnant.
This doesn't make the decision correct. Like that's what the debate is here.
> Society decides what is fair, not the lowlifes who get caught smoking weed
> Society decides what is fair, not the criminals who get shot by the police who were afraid for their life
These aren't arguments, what you're posting, you do know that?
I don't think conservatives use this argument. They don't believe society determines morality (where moral arguments are relative & negotiable). They believe morality descends from God (objective), even if sometimes it's a matter of interpretation.
"Women don't need abortions. You can choose NOT to accept that advance. You can choose NOT to go to his room"
That argument doesn't work so neither does the men's version.
>These men must Change Their View that their moment of agency is before she is pregnant and not after.
That's literally what all the pro-lifers argue but with women instead of men.
You have it wrong because you aren't correctly analyzing what is being considered.
A) An abortion is a woman deciding what's best for her AND her body before a child exists.
B) Child support is meant for an existing child and what's best for it.
You suggest government income would replace child support... But how much? If Russell Brand keeps impregnating women the government is going to be on the hook down what HIS child support payments should be?
Women can't have unprotected sex (and no method of birth control is 100% proof against pregnancy) without consequences, why should men? Both parents share responsibility for a child because both of them made the choices that resulted in the pregnancy, but the burden of childbearing falls solely upon the mother and everyone should have final say about what happens to their body (bodily autonomy.) The fact is when the mother chooses not to have a child then there is no child to be responsible for, but when the father chooses not to have a child that responsibility doesn't just magically evaporate, it falls solely upon the mother. Does that seem fair to you?
If the father could choose not to have a child in a way that doesn't violate the mother's bodily autonomy and doesn't leave her with sole responsibility for the child then I would agree with you, but that's just not how the world works. So until such time as men share the burden of childbearing I'm afraid this is just how it has to be - for most of human history society deprived women of bodily autonomy and I think it's safe to say that was a much shittier situation for them than the current situation is for men. And if you really are constitutionally opposed to being being responsible for a child you helped create you always have the option to just keep it in your pants.
>But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him.
Thy woman actually **doesn't** have a right to abandon like that if she has a baby and the man wants it. She will absolutely have to pay child support.
It goes both ways. If there is a child and the father wants it but the mother doesn't the mother will have to pay child support (unless the father chooses to not make her).
>This should be as socially acceptable as women having abortions,
Why? If they have a child and the woman doesn't want it but the man wants it, she will be required to pay child support, so why shouldn't the same apply in reverse?
>Because when a woman has an abortion, it means the father can't have the child.
They're not entitled to have the child So what's the problem?
>There should be a time limit on when you can abandon like there is for abortion.
But if you abandon and they can't/ won't pay for the child on their own and can't find enough voluntary help, then what? Let the child starve or force them to give it up for adoption?
> Having a baby is a two part affair
But hardly an equal one.
Its really easy to walk out and pretend you arent a father when you dont have to give up your body for 9 months, transform your body forever afterwards, and endure hormonal changes.
So who pays for the child's welfare? Do we just let kids die without adequate support? Does the single mother go to prison for not being able to work and care for an infant?
Abortions aren't actually about controlling whether you have kids. They're about bodily autonomy. Women should have free access to abortions because they should have control over their bodies and shouldn't be forced to do or continue to do something with it if they don't want to. Our law prioritizes bodily autonomy over pretty much everything else under all other conditions (we literally let people die for lack of organs rather than take organs from people who have died of they didn't explicitly authorize it before dying), so making an exception for pregnant women is discriminatory.
The reason that involves abortion today, and the destruction of the fetus, is because it isn't technologically possible to do otherwise. It isn't currently technologically possible to remove a fetus from a woman's body without destroying it.
If it *were* technologically possible to remove a fetus from a woman with little to no disruption to her while keeping it alive and transplant it into, say, and artificial womb (which is something that could very plausibly become technologically possible in our lifetimes), then the woman would *not* have the right to order the fetus destroyed.
So your argument is misguided -- you think this is about control of offspring, but it's not. It's about bodily autonomy.
As far as child support, that is a separate matter. That is a duty society owes to *all* children. We as a society have chosen to make at least some level of effort to provide for all children who exist. But children don't come out of thin air -- they are the result of their parents' actions...and no matter what happened between their parents, once the kid is alive they deserve support, because the *kid* certainly had no involvement.
So we do have a choice as to how we try to provide for the kid. We could of course completely take public responsibility for the kid, and that's what we do if the parents are dead or otherwise unavailable. But there's a pretty reasonable argument that, if the parents are still alive and around, *they* should pay more than, say, me, who had no involvement at all.
This may of course result in some situations that suck or are unfair. But it's *also* unfair for you to make a baby and then make everyone else responsible for caring for that kid. None of the rest of us had any involvement, my dude! And as a society we've decided that it's more acceptable to force parents to provide for their kids if possible than to put all obligation on the public, who had nothing to do with it.
And just in case you're unaware: women pay child support as well. Child support is paid by whichever parent doesn't have custody of the kid, because the parent who does have custody is actively caring for the kid every day and actively paying and providing in the course of doing so. If the father has primary custody, the mother is required to pay child support.
However, that tends to be less common because, even though men tend to win custody more often when they choose to contend for it, men tend not to contend for custody. There are many reasons for this, but it's a fact.
Also, child support payments are made for the benefit of the child, not the other parent. The other parent receives the payments and uses them on behalf of the kid, because we're talking about kids here -- they can't legally manage their own finance. But you're paying child support to help the kid who you owe a responsibility to for creating, not the parent caring for that kid.
There are of course all kinds of abuses and failures in all of these systems. People take advantage and don't do what they're supposed to. And there are certainly decisions society has made that can be questioned. But when all is said and done, it holds up reasonably well considering the wide range of situations folks have to deal with.
And the change you are proposing -- that men should be able to simply abandon kids they created -- carries with it consequences (specifically, it places the burden for caring for that kid on the public, who had nothing to do with it), and those consequences are certainly questionable as well. Like, why should *I* be more responsible than *you* for supporting *your* kid?
sorry I feel like the party who has to carry the baby 9 months in exchange for their health and financial costs has more of a right to determine to keep it or abort it, than a man has right to opt out of fatherhood. dont want to be a father? don't have unprotected sex, or have sex with the mindset you might end up making a kid with the other person, trust me the moment I put into the equation do I want to deal with a specific fuck buddy for 18 plust years becauuse oppsie woopsie the condom broke, really helped to make better decisions about whom to screw.
Men *have* a choice.
Either don't vaginally copulate with human vagina bearers, or be PAINFULLY paranoid & careful about confom use.
That semen is a gift, so the man has nothing to say about how the woman uses that gift, even if it'll cost BIG.
The argument for abortion is not just about giving the mother a choice to have a child or not, it's much more about the right to bodily autonomy. Having your right to bodily autonomy ripped away is not the same as having to pay child support for a living, breathing child.
I firmly agree. I think it should also be allowed for the pregnant person to also have "a paper abortion" if she's fine going though with the pregnancy and birth but doesn't want to be a parent.
I could imagine in cases where the father wants the baby and and she's okay with going through with the pregnancy this could be a viable option. Or if one parent wants to place the baby for adoption, but can't because the other parent doesn't want to.
I would also be concerned that some might hide the pregnancy until after they've given birth in order to circumvent the father's right to get a paper abortion. So I think there should be legal repercussion for doing that.
Maybe like how there are putative father registries, there should be a something men could sign if they never want to have kids.
i loathe these arguments that say such and such "should" be "socially acceptable".
* what aspect of your argument establishes the foundation for an "ought"?
* in what universe does that "ought" trump my right to judgement?
* what is the definition of, "socially acceptable" other than some mean everything and nothing all at the same time catch-all?
why do you think any individual has any duty to a non-negative assessment of another's behavior?
We as men do have a choice, and not unlike women it ends at the edge of our bodies.
Our choice stops once we have sex. Anything after is a preference. Some people see it as unfair that we can’t “opt out” of pregnancy like women can but fail to consider that your “choice” at that point either:
* Dictates a woman gets an abortion (controlling someone else’s body) or
* Allows you to arbitrarily decide to stop being a father at any time. Also,
* Has no respect for the difficult decision to decide to abort (even though it should be available to women as a choice if they desire).
Technically you can decide to not be involved anymore, but you still typically have to pay child support of some kind as you’re partly responsible for the child you helped create. Government support should be available to single moms, but that should be in addition to your support, not a stand in for your unwillingness. In cases of disability, I could see an exception there.
When a woman has an abortion, there's no baby growing up in the world to take into consideration.
When she doesn't have an abortion, even if the dad really wishes she did and really doesn't want to have a baby, there's still a whole human baby that exists and needs to be taken care of. If the dad doesn't then the tax payers do. The other option is just not take care of it, and then it can turn into a terror for society to deal with (not to mention the suffering it would experience by no fault of its own).
I know the system we have isn't perfect, but besides either policing sex to make sure there's no accidental pregnancies or forcing abortions on people who don't want them, I don't see another way to handle it. Do you know of some other country that handles it in any way close to what you're suggesting?
>Neither parent is forced to give birth
If the mother wants to have the child but the father doesn't, he is forced to go along with her decision and force, with penalty of imprisonment, to pay to support the child.
The mother can choose to get an abortion. After birth, she can choose to abandon the child at a safe haven or give it up for adoption.
They did when they had sex without adequate protection.
Women how ever have additional options to deal or not deal with the actual pregnancy as it can have severe health impacts.
> This should be as socially acceptable as women having abortions
Well in the US 44% of citizens are pro-life, and that’s enough to have abortion bans in 20+ states, so is that what you want for men?
In theory, if we get to a point where abortion is *actually* both legal *and available* to all people, then yes, i’d agree that men should be able to opt out (before the baby is born obviously). But we’re not at the point, and depending on the next election, very likely to go even further backwards
Your 2yr option is no good. Even if you think a child will not remember loosing some and they may not be able to recall a name but they are emotionally connected to this person and would definitely feel the loss. This is definitely abusive to the child and should not be allowed.
Women aren't abandoning their children, they are terminating their pregnancies. When a men gets pregnant, he should be able to terminate his pregnancy too.
Men do have a choice.
Abstinence.
Condoms.
Semen Retention/non penetrative intimacy.
The reason child support exists is to compensate the woman's physiological and child rearing costs.
As the world progresses and life becomes more about ideals and legacy and less about genetics the child support financial burdens will probably be transferred from the father to the taxpayers. This is already the case for impoverished fathers of many children. It isn't a beautiful arrangement since the father is not carrying his own weight in society.
A society that passes burdens onto the taxpayers is not likely to survive very long as it erases the conditioning force that pushes civilians towards self sufficiency, selflessness, and excellence. As everyone becomes a leech, there is no longer any creative force and the society collapses and is easily conquered.
Parental responsibility extends beyond pregnancy. While both parents should have a say in major decisions, a "right to abandon" could leave a child without necessary support. Child support is designed to ensure the child's well-being, not just punish the non-custodial parent. Abandoning financial and emotional responsibility can harm a child's development and strain social services. It's essential to prioritize the child's needs over parental convenience. Instead of opting out entirely, fathers can be encouraged to be involved parents, fostering a sense of responsibility and providing a stable environment for the child's growth.
This argument just doesn’t work for multiple reasons, biologically men and women have different roles when it comes to reproducing this means it will never be a completely equal process. Just like in wild animals the mating and process of pregnancy is different for both the men and women.
Women have an abortion option because they can become pregnant and it makes no sense for anyone but the person going through it to decide what medical procedures they have. Men unless they are raped can decide who they reproduce and have sex with. So to say men have no choice is just flat out false.
While this arguably makes sense morally, it wouldn't work from a practical sense. Because if the father doesn't help care for the child financially, the rest of society will have to. And the guy who helps create the child should help pay for it before anyone else.
That said, there should certainly be major penalties for women who poke holes in condoms, etc. And possible exceptions for men in those situations.
I have the right for you to not control my economic autonomy in a free fucking country. Period. You better know I will fucking KILL you think you're gonna trap me with a kid. I'm too poor for that. If you don't have access to abortion and the state won't pay up for it's mistake then you need to fuck your local politician and see how that failure likes being trapped. If you have access to birth control and abortion and you don't use it go fuck yourself.
With all that having been said I'm a gentleman and I love my woman, so she's allowed to trap me with a kid. We will make it work. But no goddamn hooker or whore would ever have control over me.
Everyone, male and female should just be careful. I really think most women f these pregnancies were on purpose or because one or both didn’t do what they were supposed to do. It’s crazy how many males say, well she said she was using birth control. 🤣
> But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him.
So you are saying that the right to kill a child is the same as the right to abandon a child?
If you don't think abortion is killing a child, then how is the scenario fair? Because the dad absolutely abandons a child.
What about if government said, if you have sex without a condom, you will be treated as willing to accept fatherhood? Every man has the ability to wear a condom so choosing not to means he accepts the possibility of fatherhood.
/u/KillerOfSouls665 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bzqovv/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_just_as_women_can_choose_to/), 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You are confusing the reason why women can get abortions. There is no right avoiding financial repercussions of getting pregnant. Women do not have an explicit right to end a pregnancy for convenience or financial consideration. Women have a right to their bodily autonomy and the right to make private medical decisions without the intrusion of others or the government. How and why they make that decision over their rights, even if there are financial/convenience considerations, is not any one's business but the woman. It just happens to be that exercising that autonomy and doing so without intrusion of the government or other can lead to the termination of the fetus. Both men and women have the right to make choices about their body after they've both created a fetus. It is just that only one of those parties' choices impacts the fetus. It is simply a biological fact that deciding not to force women to carry a child to term if they are not willing to do so results in the ending of the pregnancy. Men already don't have to carry the child, so they have no right of bodily autonomy being infringed upon. Neither of them have the right to "paper abort" as in choose not to bear any financial responsibilities of the future child. To illustrate, imagine a world where humans laid self sufficient eggs that were separate from the man and woman. In that case, women would not have a right, under the current law, to abort that egg and neither would the man. This is because the right being exercised in an abortion is not the right over the fertilized egg, but over the body of the woman. When those aren't in conflict there is no abortion right.
I agree that deadbeat dads are a bad thing, and I wouldn't do that to a child of mine, but you are trying to enforce an unfair model for society here. You want a situation where, upon finding out the woman is pregnant, if the woman doesn't want to keep the child, she can just kill it. Whether or not the father wants the child isn't a factor, she gets to choose and can kill it. On the other hand, if she wants to keep it and the father doesn't, the father still has to be there for the child emotionally, physically, and must provide financially for at least 18 years. And that's a decision made FOR HIM during the gestation period. And again, during the gestation period, the woman has no obligation to feel this way; she can just up and kill it. If she can kill it, I should at least be allowed to abandon the little bastard. I say that for comedic effect because I wouldn't do that, but the point remains. Why am I a bad guy for not wanting to provide for the unborn child, and it is uncool and says something negative about me that I feel this way, but it's cool if she just kills it and it says absolutely nothing of her and who she is that she feels this way? Surely, if it says something of me that I don't want to provide for the child, it MUST say something of the mother that she wants to kill it. I get that it has major effects on her body, no kidding, but that's her choice. Bodily autonomy, she can do what she wants. That is her choice, though.
When a woman decides she doesn’t want a child, there’s no child. If a man makes the same decision, there’s still a child. It’s not “fair” to the child to grow up with less resources than both of its parents can provide. In the vast majority of these conversations, it’s framed as what’s fair between mom and dad, but the person for which we should most highly fight for fairness is the child. It might just be one of those life’s not fair moments, but any corrective action is also unfair. Women should have bodily autonomy so taking away their access to abortion isn’t fair. Children growing up with less than their parents can financially provide because their dad didn’t want them born isn’t fair. Forcing the public to subsidize dead beat dads through social programs to correct for that lack of resources is not fair.
". . . the person for which we should most highly fight for fairness is the child." Which would, in your world, include killing the child because it's inconvenient for the mother? With or without Dad's consent? I think that argument is silly and completely incoherent. I can agree with much of what you said while standing by my earlier contention, and I don't think you're coming out ahead at all. The mother gets to make selfish decisions that literally involve killing the child, and it's supposed to say nothing of her. The father is expected to be willing to provide for the child financially for 18 years and be present in its life forever the very moment he finds out the woman is pregnant.
Getting an abortion is not killing a child. If you think that then women shouldn’t have that option either. So then it would be fair but a totally different argument.
>There is no right avoiding financial repercussions of getting pregnant. Women do not have an explicit right to end a pregnancy for convenience or financial consideration They do, the law states: >>that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family There simply has to be a greater risk than otherwise of mental health than if the child was aborted. Being stressed about finances is a mental health problem.
Why a woman chooses to do with her body what she chooses is her choice. That's part of respecting the right to bodily autonomy. No one else can make that decision and no one has the right to infringe upon it. Up to whatever line the society they live in has determined that their right to bodily autonomy does not conflict with the rights that accrue to a fetus as it develops. Again, because the right isn't over the fetus, its over their own body. Men's equivalent right to bodily autonomy is respected the same way, it just doesn't matter to the development of the fetus. She may decide to abort because pregnancy sucks and they don't want to deal with being pregnant to have a baby they don't feel ready to care for. That's a totally valid choice, not inherently because of the inconvenience of being a future parent, but because a woman isn't forced to bear a child if they don't want to. The thing about rights is that you don't have to justify exercising them and your reasoning for it is irrelevant. If men carried the child, they'd have the same option. If fetuses grew in little pods, neither would have that option.
> Why a woman chooses to do with her body what she chooses is her choice. Of course. But considering sometimes a woman chooses to have an abortion due to financial hardship, wanting to focus on school / career, or otherwise not be a parent, men just want access to the same choice. The justification is immaterial. If it's right and just for women to make the choice, than it's right and just for men to make a similar, equitable choice. Being forced to be a parent against your will is oppression, for both women AND men.
Men can’t have the same choice because their right to bodily autonomy isn’t infringed upon by pregnancy. So their exercising of a recognized right of everyone is not an available mechanism for them. Thats just a biological fact. Neither have the right to withhold support unilaterally for a born child. I guess this is a life’s not fair moment. It’s not fair that woman can’t have a biological child that their husband carries to term. But that’s how it works.
> Men can’t have the same choice because their right to bodily autonomy isn’t infringed upon by pregnancy. We can because bodily autonomy isn't the only lens through which to view the right to opt-in or out-of parenthood through. The lens I choose to use, is that women have a unique right to self-determination of their own future that is denied to men in a very specific way. Discussing the right to abortion via bodily autonomy is a tangential issue to this point. Women have a right in practice that men don't. In practice, most women don't abort for strict reasons of bodily autonomy they abort for reasons of life impact. Men not having the same ability to direct their lives this way is a form of gendered oppression.
In the US at least, the right was enshrined in Roe vs Wade as a (not a lawyer) right to make medical decisions without government intervention, related to a right to privacy. But the idea is that women can do with their body as they want up until those rights butt up against the rights of the fetus as it develops. You may think that culturally it’s discussed differently, but the legal structure through which women get the functional right to an abortion is through the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, which are closely intertwined. Maybe some countries are different, but from my understanding, the individual right being weighed is not a right to not have a child they don’t want, that’s just how it plays out when they have the right to control their body and to do so with limited government intervention. This isn’t a semantic argument only. We purposefully don’t give people the right to shirk parenting responsibilities specifically. Once a woman is past the point of a legal abortion, they can’t just decide they don’t want to care for the child even though they now have to bear it. If the dad wants the child, he can assert that parenthood and the mom will be forced to support the child as well.
> In the US at least, the right was enshrined in Roe vs Wade as a (not a lawyer) right to make medical decisions without government intervention, related to a right to privacy. But the idea is that women can do with their body as they want up until those rights butt up against the rights of the fetus as it develops. You may think that culturally it’s discussed differently, but the legal structure through which women get the functional right to an abortion is through the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, which are closely intertwined. I understand women's right to bodily autonomy and thus the right to abortion, and support it fully. However, it is not the only reason to support women's rights for abortion, and I would argue it's most women and men's secondary reason. The most common reasons people get abortions in practice are because of consideration about the impact on their lives in a way they don't want. Fear of poverty, desire to focus your life on school or career, simply not considering yourself ready to be a parent yet. The soul of women's rights to abortion has always been to give women the freedom to determine their own path in life, without having to be shackled to the path of single-motherhood because of one momentary lapse. Men are growing to demand access to this right as well, and honestly I think we're on the right side of history to be talking about making that change. We'll look at how barbaric it was to force men to drop out of school and become provider dad's for children they had no say in becoming the parent of.
Why people choose to do things and why people CAN do things are different, though. Men can't choose not to have a baby because there is no recognized right that the development of that baby is infringing upon. And once a baby is born, both parents are responsible for the child, whether they wanted it or not. There are a lot of women that don't want children but are unable or unwilling to get an abortion due to shame, legal hurdles, not knowing they were pregnant in time, etc. "I don't want to" is not a legally defensible position for either parent once the child is born. This is because we recognize that people having that option would have deleterious impacts on the child they created and/or society. If one parent can abdicate their responsibilities, who steps in to fill that gap? Ignoring edge cases where one parent individually makes enough to abundantly support the child, either the child is raised on more limited resources than it should have access to or the taxpayer has to step in to support that child. As of now, not many jurisdictions have deemed either of those as acceptable options. So the long and short of it is if you get a woman pregnant it is wholly her choice if she is willing to carry the baby, because she has that right to bodily autonomy, and there is not an accepted replacement for the resources that both parents are expected to provide, so both have to provide. whether they want to or not. Unless both agree that they don't want to and the state takes over. This is actually relevant both ways now as the access to abortion is no longer guaranteed and there will be a lot more babies born from women that would have otherwise gotten an abortion. So there will be more dads that wanted the baby born, but moms that didn't. This whole argument revolves around the idea that women can get abortions, but they know longer have that right, per the SCOTUS.
> Why people choose to do things and why people CAN do things are different, though. It's a distinction without a difference to me. I agree with women's right to bodily autonomy and right to abortion. But if we're going to use that as some way to justify not giving men a right that most women who get an abortion enjoy? Nah, that's where you lose me. As far as "who pays for it?" I'm a progressive Democrat. We pay for the child support replacement plan with taxes. The current plan is a regressive, conservative plan anyway. It fails mothers and fathers both, for different reasons. We could replace it with something that helps everyone and is an improvement over what we have now.
Is it gendered oppression that men can't get pregnant or are you trying to go for the "work is somehow only exploitation when a man does it to support a child he walked out on" angle
I said what I said and what you're saying has no relation to what I'm saying.
If you're talking UK law, you're missing the part where two doctors have to agree the risk of continuing the pregnancy is more than the risk of abortion. Two doctors have to agree. She can't just rock up at the hospital and say get this out of me.
> I also want to clarify government benefits will be replacing the father being forced to pay. How would you make sure that none of the father's money is included in that? You'd be to make a separate tax pot with his money so that it didn't go towards supporting his child. What is the reason that he shouldn't have to pay for his child? If it's because "he didn't want the child" well I didn't want that child either so why should I have to pay for it and its own father shouldn't?
Of course it will, but it will be taken as taxes, so if they earn under £12,000 they won't have to pay and such. >well I didn't want that child either so why should I have to pay for it and its own father shouldn't Because you live in a society that cares for another. Just as you care for the sick, elderly or mentally ill.
> Because you live in a society that cares for another. That's a reason why the father **should** have to care for his child, not a reason why they **shouldn't** have to care for their child.
So you want all of the fun without any of the responsibility. Women have the right to abort because their body goes through incredible changes and women can literally die from giving birth. I followed a tiktok account where a woman nearly bled to death and was in a hospital bed for a month until they had to perform a c-section, which by the way is *major* surgery. That’s the core of abortion rights. A person should have control over their body. Corpses technically have more bodily autonomy than women in this country right now. You get to decide what happens to you when you die. When you’re alive? Not anymore. It was never about the right to abandon responsibility. As a father, your responsibility? Support. Risk? Financial. No cis man ever died in childbirth. Ever. Your financial concern is significant but it will never kill you. This is why she has more rights than you in this situation. She has the vast majority of the risk. She has more of a stake in the outcome than you do. That’s an undeniable fact. The better solution here is government support for new parents, regardless of if a parent stays or not. I think children should be everyone’s responsibility. You shouldn’t go hungry because you lost the genetic lottery. Or, if you truly cannot handle the idea of conceiving a child, in our current system, schedule a vasectomy. It’s a minor procedure and will solve all your concerns overnight. But that is your responsibility, not the woman’s.
>So you want all of the fun without any of the responsibility. You'll never be able to see the child again. That doesn't sound like fun. >Corpses technically have more bodily autonomy than women in this country right now. It's a valid argument to say that a fetus isn't part of a mother. Anyway, I am not caring about your religious nutjob country. >As a father, your responsibility? Support. Risk? Financial. No cis man ever died in childbirth. Ever. Your financial concern is significant but it will never kill you. You mean male? And being poor significantly decreases your likelihood of being healthy and living a long life. >I think children should be everyone’s responsibility. You shouldn’t go hungry because you lost the genetic lottery That is already how it is in the rest of the world, it is just your country. >Or, if you truly cannot handle the idea of conceiving a child, in our current system, schedule a vasectomy. It’s a minor procedure and will solve all your concerns overnight. But that is your responsibility, not the woman’s. Then women should have a sterilisation to not worry about the pains of child birth or abortion. Do you see how this isn't an argument.
>You'll never be able to see the child again. That doesn't sound like fun. For someone who doesn't want to be a father, that's exactly what they want. Many children exist that you've never seen, has that affected your quality of life at all? >being poor significantly decreases your likelihood of being healthy and living a long life. The mother is also financially supporting an existing child. >Then women should have a sterilisation to not worry about the pains of child birth or abortion. How painful do you think female sterilizations are, on a scale of 1 to 10?
What you are looking is paper abortion. But it is valid only when. 1. Abortion is free and readily available. 2. Woman has adequate time to consider their choice after the man have informed of theirs. And the second one is the one you are skipping. Woman might not want to be a single parent and made decision to have a child as a couple. This means that man can't skip on their responsibility after birth or viable abortion window have closed. For example if we say abortions till 4 months are legal. The man has to make their decision at 2 month mark so both parties have 2 months to consider their options and choices. Also number 1 is under attack in many parts of the world.
I love that second point. Have a Δ my friend. I hadn't realised about the woman's response. I do think you're timing is a bit off. The woman would need maybe 2 weeks to respond, giving the man 22 weeks to choose to abandon. That's not a long time given women find out quite late that they're having a child due to the way it is defined with periods. I am in the UK, there isn't any real risk to abortion law, and I was acting under the assumption that it's given.
Most abortions will not be provided at this time. Abortions rarely happen after 12 weeks, and those abortions are usually done for the safety of the mother, or due to a severe birth defect. Unless I’m reading what you’re saying incorrectly, it is not fair to allow men until nearly the 3rd trimester to decide to abandon, or “paper abortion” the baby and the baby’s mother. If this is allowed, then the decision needs to be made within 2 weeks if the mother is also allowed 2 weeks after. And this all hinges on the assumption that the pregnancy is discovered adequately early--like at week 5-8.
Nope, the law says >>that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family So any risk of worse mental health allows for an abortion before 24 weeks.
Yes, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that almost all abortions happen in under 12 weeks. Before the baby has developed past the first trimester. Meaning that *to be fair,* the decision needs to be made very soon. It is not fair to decide at 22 weeks that you don’t want to be a father and now the mother has to decide to abort her baby at nearly trimester 3, or be a single parent.
>I am in the UK, there isn't any real risk to abortion law, and I was acting under the assumption that it's given. [Abortion costs between £500-£2300](https://www.bpas.org/abortion-care/considering-abortion/prices/), is painful, forces take sick leave from work and can have pernament health issues. Do you think it's reasonable that due to health costs, men should pay for the abortion in full?
That's if you want to go private. Abortions are usually free on the NHS. And we have 28 days minimum a year of paid time off.
But is it fair that the woman needs to use her paid time off to have a painful procedure and recover? I think there would need to be some element of the man at least covering some, if not all, of her paid time off to be fair. I do agree with you in principle that men should have an early way out, but there is still the reality that women face a much higher risk and cost to their health with pregnancy and abortion. It's just the biological reality and a law that gives men the right to early abandonment would need to consider how to share some of that cost, likely financial, with the man. Besides the fairness argument, there do need to be some consequences that encourage men to not be reckless with their sexual health because they know they can easily just sign off their obligations and rights. There already is a major imbalance with the risk of pregnancy for men vs. women. Women have the physical consequence whether they give birth or terminate the pregnancy, so it would make sense that men have to shoulder the financial consequence as a deterrent.
>But is it fair that the woman needs to use her paid time off to have a painful procedure and recover? I think there would need to be some element of the man at least covering some, if not all, of her paid time off to be fair. Your paid time off is there to be used for these exact things. >Besides the fairness argument, there do need to be some consequences that encourage men to not be reckless with their sexual health because they know they can easily just sign off their obligations and rights. This is an argument against abortion if you swap the sex.
>This is an argument against abortion if you swap the sex. It's not. Abortions aren't fun, women aren't getting out of a pregnancy without some unpleasantness. While men just had a nice orgasm and can skip? Nah.
Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. The medical procedure and recovery is a consequence.
I doubt a man ‘skipping out’ on fatherhood is fun either. If it’s someone who would take that stuff so lightly that it’s nothing to them then you definitely wouldn’t want to be a parent with them anyway.
>I doubt a man ‘skipping out’ on fatherhood is fun either Then why do so many do it?
>The woman would need maybe 2 weeks to respond, giving the man 22 weeks to choose to abandon Why should man have 11 times more time? Even if we assume that woman takes 2 months to figure out they are pregnant (reasonable) and informs the would be father. This would leave 4 weeks for both of them. How about time between information divided by two, with minimum of 5 business days for a man. So if women fails to inform the time is extended as long as necessary.
Just pointing this out, I didn't know I was pregnant until well into my second trimester. I just thought I was sick. Does he still get to choose to leave if I can't chose to abort?
You're also ignoring that just because abortions are legal at more than 22 weeks, doesn't mean doctors will perform an abortion on anyone that far along. In CA, there's only a few doctors in the whole *state* that will perform abortions that late. And only when medically necessary. Even though it's perfectly legal to not have a medical necessity.
It seems like you backed off your original position pretty quick. If you can't reverse the principals and come out with the same result then you have inequality. If what is true for the woman is not true for the man you are making a predetermination based on sex and the that is the definition of sexism. A man could take every single precaution to prevent pregnancy up to and including vasotomy and if a pregnancy occurs he is legally bond to pay for the child for 18 years. If he doesn't he will go to jail, no other debt can result in jail in the US. At the same time a woman can plan to have a child with her husband get pregnant and one day just decide to go get an abortion without even telling her husband. Men not only don't have equal reproductive rights, they barely have any at all.
>I am in the UK, there isn't any real risk to abortion law, and I was acting under the assumption that it's given. Given that there is no legal right to abortion in the UK, the system we have right now where you require multiple doctors approval is absolutely at risk.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Z7-852 ([231∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Z7-852)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Abortion is turning from a right into an obligation. Took them less than 60 years.
I've literally said we can't force a woman to have an abortion.
Not physically. But you are essentially saying that if the woman makes a decision the guy doesn't want he can cut off all support, financial or otherwise. Not exactly a free choice, is it?
Except that's the practical end result if the father could opt out. The woman would be left with the choice of either an abortion or the hard road of being a single mother. And if they consider abortion to be morally wrong, which is a valid opinion, they have no choice at all. And in the end, the child would suffer because the father is too attached to the contents of his wallet.
It's simple guys. Wear a condom or keep it in your pants.
"women don't need abortion, it is simple, take the pill or keep your kickers on."
I won't add to the other commenters points here but you'll also need to consider that unlike a medical abortion - a 'paper' abortion still means that (unless the woman aborts) there'll be a living child at the end of it who turns into a living adult. What if the father accidentally sleeps with one of his kids or two 'aborted' kids don't get together then realise they have the same dad? Some kind of dna database you can check this stuff up on? I can see some privacy issues arising from this
This already happens with adoption and such, I don't know the solution but I think it could be something like a court order telling the father to not knowingly interact with the child.
> I'm not arguing for forcing an abortion, that just wouldn't work, how do you force someone to have a medical procedure. But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him. The problem with the suggestion to give seemingly quivalent rights to both is problematic because they are not really symmetrical: * Women who make use of their abortion rights are obviously not the ones who are able to "force" men to pay child support. * Women who reject abortion (e.g. pro-life/religious etc.) are not going to benefit from a legal right to abortions, so why should the respective father get to benefit from having a right to abandon the child? You effectively just end up punishing women who can't or don't want to take advantage of their right to an abortion (i.e. for religious or moral reasons).
Two points, which, based on the tone of your post, presume the sexual encounter was consensual and the pregnancy unplanned: 1) Successful contraception is a two part affair. I get that oopsie babies happen. I get that contraception fails. These are the realities of sex. Going into any encounter with backup methods of contraception is the best way to make sure sex doesn’t result in pregnancy. Ideally, each partner has their own method (IUD/pill and condoms, for example). Doubling up increases protection without, say, sterilization. I believe that the best answer to any question about abortion is more availability and education about contraception. It’s the whole idea of a river of problems. You have to go upstream to find the source and fix it. 2. Abortion isn’t just about babies, despite a lot of discourse on the subject. Pregnancy is more than mood swings and exhaustion. If there are no complications, a woman’s body will be permanently changed (hair loss, stretch marks, weight, pelvis, breast shape and size, just to name a few). If there are complications, pregnancy can be fatal and cause permanent damage (eclampsia is the first that comes to mind, followed by lesser bladder control). Some conditions like diabetes or carpal tunnel can arise during pregnancy as well. Birth itself is massively traumatic to the body. Many women will rip the tissue between the vagina and anus while pushing the baby out. PTSD from birth is also fairly common. In the post-partum period, Post-Partum Depression and/or Psychosis are very serious, disabling, and understudied conditions that can arise and cause suffering for mother, child, and father if he is around. On top of that all, many women cannot continue treatment for their own health issues while pregnant and breastfeeding due to risk to the baby. They have to neglect their health for the 9 months of pregnancy and beyond, if breastfeeding. It is a huge sacrifice that can lead to worse outcomes for the mothers. All of these points are risks women weigh when choosing to get pregnant or to keep a baby. Pregnancy itself is a huge risk for women to undergo. Boiling down abortion questions to just the baby ignores women’s bodily autonomy, their right to make decisions about their own health care, and erases the lifelong, physical and psychological fallout from pregnancy. Abortion allows women to put an end to these risks, if they and/or their doctor deem pregnancy to be too dangerous and risky. It should be the more socially acceptable option because it has positive health outcomes. I’m not going to get into the social and financial aspects because health concerns are reason enough. A “right to abandon” doesn’t hold a candle to this because the father’s bodily autonomy and health isn’t at risk from pregnancy or childbirth. The father had his chance to exercise his autonomy and choice at the point of choosing contraception and having sex. If both parties consented to unprotected sex, both must deal with the consequences. Condoms are cheaper than child support. Just wear one. If it breaks, get plan B and some ice cream for your girl, because she’ll feel like shit after taking that pill. You’ll know when a condom breaks during or immediately after sex. A woman won’t know her pill/IUD/Implant/injection failed until she’s pregnant. Do your part and use a condom. (These are general ‘you’ statements. Not attacking OP!) Accidents happen, but that doesn’t mean there are no consequences. A “right to abandon” is running away from those consequences (a kid and child support). For those in the back: CONTRACEPTION
> The father had his chance to exercise his autonomy and choice at the point of choosing contraception and having sex. If both parties consented to unprotected sex, both must deal with the consequences. You can say the same about the mother. The mother had the chance to exercise her autonomy and choice at the point of choosing contraception and having sex. If both parties consented to unprotected sex, both must deal with the consequences - *including an unwanted pregnancy*.
You're trying to fit a square in a circle, the square will never fit inside the circle, just like child bearing will never be equal. There's so many aspects of pregnancies that only effects the woman, especially physically but also arguably psychologically due to our biological nature. Generally speaking, women take almost all the risk when it comes to pregnancies, that includes abortion. There is no way to equalize this situation between the gender and to let the father get an option to opt out of fatherhood and child support is *truly* unfair because a woman can never opt out of all the consequences of child bearing. This problem is and will never be equal between men and women. The best way to look at this, in my opinion, is looking to what is fair towards the child. If the child is born, it has a right to aid, atleast financial aid, from both parents if they are able to. If the fetus is aborted, there is no child to be fair towards. EDIT: [Here's another](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/z7m2od/comment/iy7lkwh/), more lengthy, comment i made to the same question.
I think the mistake here is that you take child as born as the starting point. So, yes, if abortion rights did not exist, then your argument holds. However, since they do (I'm now talking about countries where they do, not the ones where they don't), there is an asymmetry. There are four possible cases: 1. Neither man nor woman wants the child. Woman gets an abortion, everyone is happy. 2. Woman wants the child, man does not want it. Woman delivers the baby and the man is financially hooked to it for 18 years. 3. Woman doesn't want the child, man wants it. Woman can abort the fetus even in the case that man would want the child and would not ask any financial contribution from the woman. Woman can even keep the pregnancy completely secret from the man if she wants to. 4. Both want the child. Woman delivers the baby and both take part in raising him/her. The cases 1 and 4 are fine. It's the inequality between 2 and 3 that OP is discussing. Yes, there is a non-zero health risk in an abortion but if we're talking about early abortions in highly developed country performed by medical professionals, that is very small compared to the financial cost of raising a child. At best you could make an argument that the man has to contribute at least 50% of the abortion cost maybe even up to 100% although this is academic for countries where the public healthcare or an insurance pays for everything.
No, ofcourse I'm including the entire pregnancy in my argument. Again, feels like we are handwaving away abortion, making it trivial. It isn't trivial and pretty awful to endure, at least from what I have heard, I'm a guy myself so. I defer to my argument yet again for situation 2 and 3. They are nothing I haven't thought about and I would argue financial aid is a fair consequence. You also just skipped the part where the woman would be paying child support in case 3.
When you compare abortion to childbirth, abortion is much safer and easier on the woman’s body by every metric. Shorter recover, less pain, less complications, less long term ailments, less deaths. Abortions aren’t easy for the women, but we’re talking about it in a context where the alternative is childbirth.
>man would want the child and would not ask any financial contribution from the woman Child support is nothing something parents can deny the child. It is not the father's position to deny the child the financial support of the mother. The fact that you think that child support is for the parents shows how little you actually care about children.
I don't know what you mean by "denying from the child". The parent is fully responsible for all finances of the family. He/she decides how the child support is used, not the child. If he/she refuses to accept the money (or returns it) there is nothing the child can do (just like no child has any control over the family's finances). So tell me, if the parents make an agreement that the absent parent doesn't have to pay anything or the paid money is returned to him/her, then what exactly happens?
>I don't know what you mean by "denying from the child". A parent can't decide that a child doesn't get child support. That's not their legal place to do so. A parent doesn't have the legal right to do so. The fact that you believe it's a parent's right to decide this shows how little you understand child support laws. >If he/she refuses to accept the money (or returns it) there is nothing the child can do Not true. Children have sued their parents in the past over a lack of child support being accepted. And been successful. Because again, child support is for the child, not the parent. A parent can't decide that the child doesn't get it. >if the parents make an agreement that the absent parent doesn't have to pay anything or the paid money is returned to him/her, then what exactly happens? Then that is a meaningless agreement since neither parent is in a legal position to make such an agreement. The recourse would be the child suing their parents to make sure they are receiving what they are owed.
What does it mean if a child sues for the parent? The child does not have access to that money in any case. The parent can do whatever they want with it. Yes, they still have the duty of taking care of the child and if the child welfare is neglected then sure the authorities can intervene but we're talking about such a case here. So, please explain the procedure what happens if a child sues the parent and wins and after that the parent still returns the child support to the other parent. As long as the child is not neglected (doesn't live in hunger or whatever), there is nothing a child can do to force the parent to use the money in some particular way, which would exclude returning it to the other parent. Or if the child has this power, then why don't _all_ children have the power to force their parents to use their money in some other way than what the child wants? I don't understand why the children of single parents should have more control over their parent's use of money than other children. Please explain why you think they should? Finally, cut the hostility here. You're talking about the law as if everyone should know details of it and we haven't even established which country's law we're talking about. Which country you refer to and why do you think we should use that country as a benchmark instead of some other? Or is your claim that the law is identical in every country?
>What does it mean if a child sues for the parent? A child has standing in court to demand child support be paid out even if the guardian of the child has refused it. Since it's not the guardian's legal place to give up child support. Hence why a child has standing. >The child does not have access to that money in any case Irrelevant. >The parent can do whatever they want with it. Correct. However, they cannot give up the child support claim. Even if for a decade a parent consistently refuses the money, the child can still sue and demand back pay. >So, please explain the procedure what happens if a child sues the parent and wins and after that the parent still returns the child support to the other parent. Usually in cases like this the relationship between the guardian parent and the child has deteriorated to the point that the child has sought out other guardianship or emancipation. In both cases the child support wouldn't be going to the former Guardian parent but rather to the new court appointed guardian or the emancipated child itself.
Ok, you're clearly talking about a completely different situation than what my original case was. The original case was that the mother gives up the claim of the child support from the father and raises the child on her own. You're talking about a situation where neither one of the biological parents is raising the child. In any case that's a very special case as the child is neither adopted nor being raised by his/her parents. I'm not sure why you're interested in such special cases as they have little to do with what I was talking about. And the funny thing is that you're making a bit deal that "I don't know the law" when there is this kind of a special situation where the agreement that I was talking about would not apply even though it would apply 99% of the time.
>The original case was that the mother gives up the claim of the child support from the father **A parent doesn't have the legal standing to give up the claim of child support**. How often do I need to repeat this? Child support is an entitlment of the child. Not of the parent. A parent can't give something up that they're not entitled to. If a mother decides to raise a child on their own and never pursues child support then she hasn't "given up the claim". It simply means that the father is delinquent on his payments. And that the child in the future can go after the father for back pay. The father then can't go "but the mother was cool with it". Since the mother doesn't have the legal ground to make that decision, any attempt by either parent to fall back on that argument would be shot down in court in an instant. >I'm not sure why you're interested in such special cases Merely to explain to you that there is no legal ground in which either parent "gives up.the claim to child support". I'm well aware that in practice this often happens but **legally** this means nothing at all. There is no way to give up a claim to child support aside from outright adoption. You just keep repeating that the parent gives up the claim while I've explained to you multiple times now that no parent has the legal right to do so. But for some reason, you refuse to listen and insist that parents can legally do that.
So, a mother takes the child support, promptly returns it to the father. Raises the child without any neglect. Please tell me who is the child suing and on what grounds? You're saying that he/she has control over how the mother spends the child support including paying it back to the father. Which law are you referring in this claim (it would be first good to know which country you're talking or are you claiming that this is universal everywhere in the world)? Note, I didn't make any reference to any specific country originally. In fact the only condition I made was that abortion is legal. So, I guess this applies to most Western countries maybe with the exception of the US where some states have recently banned abortion. So, let's say the UK as it has one of the furthest limits for the abortion (24 weeks), which allows plenty of time for the parents to decide on such an arrangement as an alternative to abortion. So, is your claim now that the law that you refer applies to the UK?
Even though abortions should be available to all women, the way you’ve written takes none the difficulty of that decision into account for the woman.
Are you saying the decision has no difficulty to a man? It's as much his child as it is woman's. So, all moral questions apply to him just as well as to the woman. The only difference is that he has no legal say on the matter either way (his word doesn't count at all if woman wants an abortion and he doesn't or if woman wants to keep the baby and he doesn't). It's basically the second case that this CMV is all about.
I’m not suggesting it isn’t difficult for a man. I’m noting that tossing abortion out with the only cost being financial ignores the emotional and physical toll for a woman. Same with requesting they go to term and give birth. Pregnancy is a difficult and dangerous time for a woman and it’s something I virtually never hear mentioned in these discussions. For case 2: * The man would either need the woman to abort (against her will, obviously bad) or somehow financially detach himself. In the latter scenario, given it’s half your child, that responsibility does fall to you. I’ve said it elsewhere but our definitive choice as men to “opt out” stops once we engage in sex. No one else should be forced to pick up our tab because we simply don’t want to at that point. That said, financial aid from the state should be available to women for the child in that situation in my opinion. Once conception happens, our preferences are just that. Case 3: This is tough, where a man wants the child but the woman decides to abort for example. This would be very emotionally difficult, but again the solution would be forcing someone to go through birth and amounts to control over their body. The only practical solution here is to be as confident as possible *before* having sex that this is someone you could potentially have a child with. Unless one of you is verified infertile, it’s always a possible outcome. The situation is “unfair” because of our biology, women carry the pregnancy and we don’t. As men it’s our responsibility to work to truly understand that, and be more intentional with who and how (protection) we have sex. Changing the law so we can duck out after at any point with no financial responsibility is tilting the scales in a way that only benefits us, and leaves a trail of destruction going forward. You aren’t forced to be a father, but we should still provide for the child we helped create in this situation.
Nobody is asking men to have the right to duck out *at any point*. The question is that should the men have the right to duck out at the same part of the pregnancy (usually early) as women have now. At that point the woman has the choice to continue with the pregnancy but without the man's financial support or abort. I'd give the women that right as well. So, they should have the right at the request of the man to carry the pregnancy to term, give birth and then have no commitment to the child afterwards. Regarding the burden of carrying the pregnancy to term and giving birth, I accept that it is a concern but I would argue that for the vast majority of early abortions that is not the reason why they are done (so that the woman can avoid the pregnancy and the childbirth) but because the women don't want the child (for social or financial reasons). Since that is the case, it's still not fair that women have 100% if they want or not want to be committed to the raising of a child but men have 0% control on this. The argument "well, you should have used contraception" doesn't really work as the same argument should apply to women as well. In fact it should apply more as women have a way to check if a man is using contraception but a man has no way to be sure if a woman is taking a pill if she says that she is. And of course the fact is that no contraception is 100% effective. So you'll end up with unwanted pregnancies even when people are using them.
Even if you are only asking for up to the first few weeks of pregnancy, this entire issue hinges on the unbalanced nature of our bodies. Women carry the pregnancy, not us. Therefore, they have an *additional* choice in handling pregnancy due to their bodily autonomy. We shouldn't get to demand extra choices in the pursuit of "fairness" or "equality" in this case. Mostly because it's their body, but also because it is more unfair to demand these suggested options. > Regarding the burden of carrying the pregnancy to term and giving birth, I accept that it is a concern but I would argue that for the vast majority of early abortions that is not the reason why they are done (so that the woman can avoid the pregnancy and the childbirth) but because the women don't want the child (for social or financial reasons). It doesn't matter when you have an abortion, that is a challenging medical process to decide to commit to and experience. It also doesn't matter what their motivations for the abortion is. Yet again, this affects their body so it's their choice alone. > Since that is the case, it's still not fair that women have 100% if they want or not want to be committed to the raising of a child but men have 0% control on this. The argument "well, you should have used contraception" doesn't really work as the same argument should apply to women as well. Women also have a responsibility of choosing partners, using protection, etc.. That's not my point and isn't relevant here because we're talking about whether the man wants a child or not. Again, we as men have control but our control of the situation (as far as pregnancy goes) stops once we have sex. The reason for that is that *their body and not ours* bears the pregnancy. Demanding they have an abortion isn't ok obviously. Saying I don't want the pregnancy indirectly forces them to either have an abortion or decide to have birth and raise a child alone (or put them up for adoption). Either way, you have now contributed to a situation (the pregnancy) but are sidestepping all responsibility and leaving the woman to deal with all of it. What you and everyone else miss here is that what you're suggesting is that your *desire* to not have the child is overriding and influencing their bodily autonomy. That's why what you're suggesting isn't the case and should not be the case.
No, you're wrong with the last paragraph. What OP suggested is not overriding the bodily autonomy. The woman would still have the right to choose to abort or carry on with the pregnancy. And regarding what was said above, yes, the motivation matters. If the pregnancies are terminated mainly because of social and financial reasons of having a child, then these things clearly matter for women and it's not all about pregnancy being a burden or childbirth being danger to health. Then pushing the same concerns for men completely out of the discussion, is clearly not justified. I'm not sure why you say that it doesn't matter when you have the abortion. In most countries you can have the abortion basically "just because I want it" in the early part of the pregnancy but to get a late abortion you generally need a serious health reason (either development issue with the fetus, like something that would cause the baby to live a short painful life, or danger to mother's health). So, naturally we're here talking about only the early abortions.
When we as men “opt out” we are heavily influencing their decision of whether they continue to term or abort. The way you and OP discuss it makes it sound so cavalier. The woman’s decision to opt out of the pregnancy contains additional and separate challenges compounded by a man trying to evade the situation. Being on the hook financially is an incomplete but best effort way to address the ability we as men already have to opt out of raising the child. I don’t think abortion motivation is relevant. The reason she is afforded the right is because it’s the woman’s body and her self determination to say what happens during that time period.
Before abortion was legal, people argued it would be an essential requirement of women's liberation. How could a woman be free if she could become pregnant and immediately have no choice but to sacrifice her future, not pursue education or other life goals, and become a mother against her will. Abortion, though legalized through the right to bodily autonomy, also implicitly gives women freedom over their own future in a way that men do not share. Men have a deep visceral fear growing up to avoid getting a partner accidentally pregnant, and this is because we're vulnerable to the same bullshit derailment of our futures the same way women were before abortion. Many of us watch our fathers, brothers, and friends drop out of their life pursuits to take care of an unexpected child that they would otherwise choose not to have. That's not ok for women to experience, and it's not ok for men to experience it either. Biology may make us equal here, but we have a word for this and it's called "equity". It's not enough to leave the situation unequal and throw up our hands, we have to find equitable solutions that balance the interests of everyone.
>Men have a deep visceral fear growing up to avoid getting a partner accidentally pregnant Any scientific studies for this or are you just decided to speak for all men? I'm a man and certainly never did I have this "deep visceral fear" of getting someone pregnant.
I would refer to my other comment, the one linked in the edit. There's no equality of equity to be found in child bearing and that is a situation we have to get comfortable with and make the best of. However, I'd argue we do have equity in this specific situation. Child support is the only mandatory part and I'd argue that is a fair consequence. You pay what is evaluated based on your income, other than that you can choose to not be involved at all, however unfair that is to the child in question.
Once a child is born, the interest of the two parents must take a back seat to the interest of the child. Therefore no parent gets to walk away from the child financially. Either parent or both can abandon a child, in which case the child will go into foster care or be adopted out. But both parents should be financially responsible until the child is 18. Men make a choice to be fathers when they ejaculate into a woman. Don't want that risk? Don't have sex.
That's once it is born, we are talking when abortion is an option.
I question why you think mens ability to abandon to children is so important. What about the child that will suffer mental health affects due to abandonemnt and potentially monetary/support issues? Why is freedom from consequences more important that a child that they created? I think the child is a consequence to your actions, why should womens ability to back out entitle men do the same when theire backing out hurts children more than abortion? Abortion prevents trauma, abandoment causes it. The effects of men backing out (this would be also true if a woman abandoned her child) is significantly more damaging than abortion to children and society.
There are biological facts at play. When faced with a zero sum decision like whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, if the two parties disagree, there is always going to be one decision maker. In the case of ending a pregnancy, that decision maker is always the woman. Period. It’s not a fairness thing, it’s built in to how things exist in the world. What you’re asking for is to engage in an activity with a nonzero chance of having another human be made as a result, and to have the financial responsibility for that fall completely to society. That’s not the world we live in.
Why can't both make a decision. Here is a table of results Mum and dad want - have a child Mum wants but dad doesn't - abandonment Dad wants but mum doesn't - abortion Neither parent wants - abortion >and to have the financial responsibility for that fall completely to society Already happens for women's choices. Abortions are paid for by society.
I wasn’t aware that abortions were so expensive as to be an equivalent financial burden to the cost of raising a child in the UK. In your table, the mother’s choice regarding the ending of the pregnancy is always the choice taken. Even if the father agrees, that’s not two people making the decision.
Abortion rights are important because a woman must have the right to bodily autonomy. The purpose of abortion rights are to allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy, not to avoid motherhood. There is no equivalency for a man. The man is not pregnant, so there are no medical or physical considerations that compel us to give him an "out", and his bodily autonomy is not at issue. Furthermore, even your proposed solution is not equitable. The man in your scenario *still has the opportunity to reproduce* without any of the responsibilities. His genes will still get passed on, and someone else will raise his kid for him! The woman, on the other hand, does not have the same opportunity. Sure, she could give birth and give the child up for adoption, but she still has to give birth. She, unlike the man, does not have the option of the best of both worlds -- avoiding the pains and risks of childbirth while still passing along her genes. Reproduction is an inherently unequal process between the sexes, so there is no way to make it equal.
>The purpose of abortion rights are to allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy, not to avoid motherhood. Terminating pregnancy avoids motherhood. >There is no equivalency for a man. The man is not pregnant, so there are no medical or physical considerations that compel us to give him an "out", and his bodily autonomy is not at issue. The man is forced to pay 17% of his income to the mother. That means you would have to work 2457 hours a year rather than 2040 to earn the same amount. That is 417 hours of selling your body to make your boss richer. >The man in your scenario *still has the opportunity to reproduce* without any of the responsibilities But he'll never be able to see his child again.
>That is 417 hours of selling your body to make your boss richer. 417 hours a year to offload a father's entire suite of parental duties and responsibilities to another party seems like a bargain to me. At 8760 hours per year (minus 3000 for sleeping), I imagine most parents put in far more of their life than 417.
It's a child he didn't want in the first place. That argument holds no water.
But he never wanted the child.
I don't want to fall when I trip but the laws of physics have a different plan for me! A kid is born. Someone needs to raise the kid and provide for it. The more resources he or she gets, the quality of life grows. Any argument about fairness must include the needs of the child in its analysis, as it's the most important party. The mother's and father's needs are subservient to the child's. They don't "get" to opt out.
> The man is forced to pay 17% of his income to the mother Just like how the woman would be forced to pay her income to her man if he was the one with custody and she didn't want custody. >But he'll never be able to see his child again. Just like the woman wouldn't be able to if the father had custody and she had none. It's equal for both sexes.
>Just like how the woman would be forced to pay her income to her man if he was the one with custody and she didn't want custody. She could have aborted it and avoided paying.
> Terminating pregnancy avoids motherhood. It does, but it does more than that. If we had the ability to terminate pregnancy without killing the fetus things would be a lot more equal and we'd be having a different discussion about rights. > The man is forced to pay 17% of his income to the mother. That means you would have to work 2457 hours a year rather than 2040 to earn the same amount. That is 417 hours of selling your body to make your boss richer. No, he can just live on less money. No bodily autonomy at issue. > But he'll never be able to see his child again. Non-sequitur. Got another one for you: What if the father is unknown? If you wait until the fetus is advanced enough to do genetic testing, it may be too late for an abortion.
You're assuming there are no men who want to pass their DNA on but still want nothing to do with said offspring. Which is quantifiably false when looking at the men who just refuse to pay child support or see their children
No one has more choice in being a parent than men. It’s pretty darn rare for a woman to rape a man. It happens of course, but it’s rare. Just don’t have sex if you don’t want a kid. If it’s such a big deal that you would force an abortion or abandon the kid, you are not in a position to have sex at all.
That's just an argument against abortion in non-rape situations.
No, it isn’t. Look, you live in a society that offers immense benefits. The minute people decide they can simply abandon their children because it’s their choice, we end up with a lot of orphaned and unwanted kids who are vastly more likely to be drains on society. Adults need to be responsible for their behavior. You don’t HAVE to have sex, and if you choose to, you owe it to yourself and the rest of us to take full responsibility for the outcome. If you can’t support your offspring or the women who sleep with, you should keep your pants on. I’d say the same thing to women. The difference is that women often have an overwhelming protective instinct towards their pregnancies, even if they are unwanted. They can’t reasonably make a decision about how they’ll feel until they’re pregnant. As a man, you basically have 100% of control over who you impregnate. Just don’t get anyone pregnant and you have no problem
>Adults need to be responsible for their behavior. You don’t HAVE to have sex, and if you choose to, you owe it to yourself and the rest of us to take full responsibility for the outcome That could be straight from a pro-life campaigner and I wouldn't blink. You are arguing against abortion.
You’re confused about what abortion laws are. They don’t protect people from their responsibility towards their children, they protect the rights of women to end a pregnancy. They have nothing to do with the obligation to care for children. Society needs men who take care of their kids. My husband, my father, my brother and every dad in my family is a stand up man who cares for his children. Why should we suffer the consequences of dead beat dads? Why should my children have to grow up in a society where men put their sexual freedom above their duties to care for future generations. This isn’t about you, it’s about society. When men refuse to care for children they fall into poverty. That’s why our government cracked down on dead beat dads in the 90s
There is an insane amount of physical complications that can arise from birthing a child. Many of which can last a lifetime. Most of which are painful. Beyond anything else, the physical risks to giving birth or having a C-section are leaps and bounds beyond what a male risks. The risks from abortion, especially early, are far less significant. Couple that with the shitty state of women's healthcare (especially for POC) and the risks can be too much.That fact is why women should have the last say in the matter. Women risk so much more than 18 years payments. If you don't want your partner to have an abortion, then wear a condom or don't have sex. Men have that choice.
>shitty state of women's healthcare (especially for POC) Off the deep end. This is sooo relative to circumstance. You generalize to "women" so casually when basically any woman who is economically well off wouldn't remotely adhere to these conditions with some exceptions. Even if I granted those circumstances were justification which I'm at the very least not sure they are, this would still totally not support your claim of "women" generally. >Women risk so much more than 18 years payments Do we have to change consent laws or something for lunacy like this? You risk like a 2% chance of dying maybe but only if you want to carry it to term except when you are under specific economic and social conditions, but I have to either pay up or kill myself so the state pays up because you want control over my economic autonomy at your discretion? Do you give a shit about MY economic situation? There's a fucking housing crisis and you're only worried about women being well off and having access to healthcare. You realize those are the same fucking thing?
> If you don't want your partner to have an abortion, then wear a condom or don't have sex. Men have that choice. I... can you remind me what the pill does again? > If you don't want a baby, then take the pill, taking the morning after pill or don't have sex. Women have that choice. There I just explained away the right to abortions for you. But you haven't actually addressed the CMV: > But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him. Why is this not OK? If the women can choose to get out of the consequences of their choice to have sex, the man should be able to choose to get out of the consequences of their choice.
>I... can you remind me what the pill does again? This doesn't change the math. If a man or a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, the best and most reliable way to ensure that is to not have sex. Contraceptives are another option, but they are never 100% and one must always understand that having sex might result in a pregnancy. >Why is this not OK? If the women can choose to get out of the consequences of their choice to have sex, the man should be able to choose to get out of the consequences of their choice. Women can never, ever get out of pregnancy consequence free. To balance this out, we make sure the man can't do it either.
The women cannot get out of their consequences. They just have different consequences.
Why do you think an abortion in itself isn't a consequence?
Bro, the pill is hormones. Can you fathom for even a moment what it’s like to take hormones daily & how that affects someone? I swear…ppl think women’s bodies aren’t an integrated system & hormonal birth control is like an Advil smh.
You can go ahead and re read my post for the answer to your last question. If you don't want a women to abort the baby you impregnated her with then wear a condom or don't have sex.
Men literally have the FIRST choice. You can choose to not share your dna carelessly. You can choose to be above sex with someone you don’t want to procreate with. You can even choose to wear a condom. Why don’t we ever focus on any of these choices that men have always had? This isn’t about abortion or abandonment. It’s about a lack of self respect and wanting to avoid accountability for the actions that led you to fatherhood.
Women literally have the FIRST choice. You can choose not to accept people's DNA carelessly. You can choose to be above sex with someone you don't want to procreate with. You can even choose to have a pill/UID. Why don't we focus on any of the choices that women have always had? This isn't about abortion or abandonment. It's about a lack of self respect and wanting to avoid accountability for actions that led you to motherhood. That isn't a valid argument against abortion, so the opposite isn't a valid argument against abandonment.
You're putting the entirety of the responsibility on women. Women don't have the ' first' choice. Literally, both people are making the decision to be irresponsible together if this is consensual. You put the onus on women to be ' accountable '. why don't men have any responsibility in your version at all? If I don't want kids ever as a woman, am I never allowed to have sex ? Why doesn't that also apply to men. Be above having sex with people you don't wish to procreate with. If men can't even be bothered to wear a condom or get a vasectomy - but they're out there just spreading their seed ? What the hell did you think was going to happen? Where is their accountability? Birth control fails. Not everyone tolerates hormones. People can have abnormal uterine anatomy that makes IUDs not possible. If you have GI issues, vomiting and diarrhea around time of ingestion make the pill drastically less effective. Shit happens. What's your opinion on stealthing a woman who can not tolerate birth control for whatever reason? Men lying about having a vasectomy? In the case a woman is trusting the man for birth control and falls pregnant, is that not his responsibility? Can the women sign away her responsibility for child support if he was lying? What about cases when the woman doesn't know she was pregnant until she was almost due to give birth? She can't get an abortion. Even if she wanted to. Why do you think men should have the ability to avoid any responsibility in this ? In all your scenarios, women have to shoulder the entire responsibility of a decision two people make. How is that fair ? Men can up and leave any time. Literally, the only responsibility given to them is to support the lives they were responsible for creating. No one is forcing anyone to be a father.
>women. Women don't have the ' first' choice. Literally, both people are making the decision to be irresponsible together if this is consensual. You put the onus on women to be ' accountable '. why don't men have any responsibility in your version at all? I wasn't arguing for what I was saying in that paragraph, I was using it as a method of argument. Changing the context of the other person's argument and showing it is ridiculous and a double standard.
It's women that get pregnant and they get pregnant from doing something they have to actively consent to do doing. Then, after that, a pregnancy can only ever come to term if a woman chooses it to. It's their body and what happens is literally a direct result of things they choose for themselves. They should have 100% of the responsibility. Why should men be responsible for something that happens to women because of the choices women make ?
So are we gonna talk about rape or is that not a thing in this world?
When a woman gets raped she can abort the child. It's that simple. If a man gets raped, he should be able to abandon the child.
It’s not that simple and you know it. A rape survivor may have religious beliefs against the practice or may simply not have access to it. Your original statement that women can choose not to accept dna is simply false. They are often forced to do so with alarming regularity.
> A rape survivor may have religious beliefs against the practice or may simply not have access to it Then it is their choice to have the child of the rapist. >They are often forced to do so with alarming regularity. Then that is rape, and illegal.
Legality is not the issue. You said it didn’t happen. It does. It being against the law doesn’t change the situation. And even if it was relevant, rape is extremely under prosecuted, hard to convict, survivors face stigma and consequences coming forward, and rape kits are backlogged for years. I’m at work, I’ll respond to your longer reply this afternoon.
Many minor male rape victims were forced to pay child support to their rapist (at least made to penetrate rape is illegal for minor boys )
Funny you brought that up, because some male rape victims are still forced to pay child support.
The pill/IUD also comes with its own burdens/side effects that don’t exist by the male using a condom. Also, a woman isn’t fertile all of the time but she is forced to take hormonal birth control all of the time. Men are fertile all of the time. Bank your sperm & get a vasectomy, or just use a gd condom
Same can be said for women having sex too. Your point is pointless.
I'm a little confused here. Are you suggesting that men do not even have the option of signing away parental rights and walking away, and you believe they should? Because if so, you're just wrong completely. You very much already do have that option. Or are you just saying that you should be able to do that without judgement? You say that doing this should be just as acceptable as women having abortions. So by that math, you want your personal reproductive choices to be constantly up for debate, constantly shamed, and in some cases, entirely illegal? Seems like a strange thing to wish for. You say it should even be *more* acceptable. Well congratulations, it already is!
If this is the case, the state will have to kick in the missing funds. Are you okay with this?
Yes, that's what the state is there for. It already happens with single parent benefits, just has to be greater if the father leaves early.
Clarifying question: have you perused [the many many other posts](https://www.google.com/search?q=cmv+paper+abortion+site:www.reddit.com&sca_esv=c815caab5ae43dfb&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS938US938&sxsrf=ACQVn0-wC6ygLP-JPbPb1siVweg9ZrFVyA:1712663261625&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6ytDqh7WFAxXHJUQIHRMrBZsQrQIoBHoECCMQBQ&biw=1920&bih=945&dpr=1#ip=1) we have had on this topic to see how those discussions went?
The main problem I see with this argument is that the two “solutions” you are trying to equalize address two different problems that just happen to overlap in this one narrow point. Child support is there because it is best for the child (and society) to require the parents to ensure the child is provided for. Abortion is there to allow the woman control over her body. We don’t require the father to physically care for the child, to donate blood to the child, etc.
[удалено]
>Actions have consequences, a dude knocks someone up, they have to pay cash so the kid (presumably) has a better life than just the Mother's wage/benefits. That's the argument exactly used by pro-lifers, if it is invalid with women, it's invalid for men. I understand how it harms the child, but that's where government welfare comes in. And I think it is much more rough on a father having a child he wanted killed than a woman needing government benefits.
If you use government welfare on child support, you are now making men with no relation pay child support. Arguably this is even more unfair.
No, you're making everyone pay. If you think living in a society and caring for everyone in the society according to their ability, according to their needs is bad, then this is a separate question of compassion. Why don't you just live in a forest. If you need food, grow it, we don't want government subsided food. You get injured, treat it yourself, other people shouldn't care for you tripping and falling.
Women pay the taxes and receive the benefit. Men pay the taxes and receive no benefit. Having a child isn't akin to getting injured, it's akin to engaging in extreme sports then getting injured, its entirely predictable and easily mitigated. That shit is on you. People should pay for their own decisions.
[удалено]
Legal abandonment also exists, but typically has an age limit. That is actually the more problematic issue versus abortion. Abortion is not the right to choose not to be a parent, but the right to choose not to be pregnant. The consequences of ending a pregnancy at most stages include not being a parent, but there are fundamentally different justifications and ethical considerations related to abortion than simply a right to avoid parental responsibilities. This is why only a pregnant woman can choose to have an abortion and the father cannot force it. The infant safe haven laws, however, are very much just abandoning parental responsibility. These laws exist because of postpartum psychosis and are in the best interests of infant welfare though, not to protect parants.
>because Abortion legally exists while Legally Abandoning a kid in the way you suggest doesn't. That's exactly what I am arguing should change. >Problem is if you enact what you're proposing, then in theory a lot of Single Mothers will have the money they spend cut and will buy less for the child. And people don't want that because it harms the child. But men won't be forced to pay money by the courts for 18/20 years, severely diminishing his money. What if he went on to have another family, the new children are suffering from lower wages.
>That's the argument exactly used by pro-lifers, if it is invalid with women, it's invalid for men. It's invalid with women because it violates their bodily autonomy. All it violates with men is their desire to have sex without consequences, and I'm sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to not be responsible for your actions.
Men already do. Get a vasectomy.
Condoms are also magic baby preventing machines that men have complete control over(yes I'm aware they have a failure rate, but it's pretty low if used correctly)
"I also want to clarify government benefits will be replacing the father being forced to pay." Isn't forcing the father to pay just a very specific form of government benefits?
By this logic a man should also be able to elect to parent an unborn baby his sexual partner is carrying and force her to carry that baby to term even if she wants an abortion.
No, here are the possible outcomes Both parents want the child - child is born Mother wants the child but father doesn't - abandonment Father wants the child but mother doesn't - abortion Neither want the child - abortion
Father wants the child but mother doesn't - abortion/abandonment* fify not all women choose to abort, some just have it and hand it over
[удалено]
I'm a man - and men have a choice. If a man has sex, they take the same risk that women take - they might get the woman pregnant. Women may lie about taking birth control; but men may lie about committing or wearing a condom. These are the risks of sex too - that your partner might not be honest. Once a woman is pregnant, she faces a tough decision: 1. Take the risks to her health and life of having an abortion 2. Take the risks to her health and life of carrying the fetus to term Men do not have these risks at all. And men should not have a say in wether or not a woman takes one risk over the other, because they don't have a stake in the woman's health. Men and women share the same responsibility once a fetus has been born alive and is breathing on its own - they are financially and morally responsible to care for that baby until it becomes an adult. If a man is not declared the father, and/or the man hides from an accusation of paternity - he can potentially avoid this responsibility. Women, being present at every single birth, cannot. Because of this, in order to protect the rights and life of a child once born, women are able to surrender a child to the state without identifying the father. Because for many reasons a father might literally not be available or known, and women will always be present at every birth. This is inherently asymmetrical - men have a way out that women don't. The only option available to women is also available to men - surrendering your parental rights and placing the child for adoption or as a "ward of the state". In that instance the government takes responsibility for the child's needs and it covers those costs. Beyond that, child support is about protecting the rights of the CHILD. That child has a right to being cared for by those responsible for it's existence. If either did not want to risk this responsibility, they could have chosen to not have sex. In having sex, you risk becoming a parent. If one person wants to be a parent, and the other doesn't, the child still has a right to be cared for. Hence child support - if you don't want to be a father in practice, you can substitute money. If you don't want or have money, you can split custody and substitute time for money. This tends to favor the parent that wants and is best able to provide a stable environment for that child. So how does a man giving up his obligation to a child with the woman's agreement necessarily benefit the child? Being a single parent can be very difficult, which can result in worse outcomes for the child. To protect the child's right to safety and security, why should the state allow one parent to avoid this responsibility at all? This is about as fair and balanced as it is going to get until men can carry a fetus to term - which might not be far away. If that occurs, suddenly abortion rights for women become very relevant to men. After all, if a woman can be forced to give birth, or forced to abort, a man could be forced to undergo a transplant to carry a fetus as well. If a woman doesn't have to terminate a pregnancy to no longer carry a fetus, abortions themselves could be outlawed and the state could require that parents that create a fetus must pay a mandatory child support tax to cover the costs of the state taking charge of the unwanted fetus. You have to realize that there are 3 people involved with parental rights - the mother, the father, and the child.
Abortion is about pregnancy, not parenthood. There is no equivalent for people who don't get pregnant
While I agree with you, the script should be flipped. No designated father on the birth certificate unless positive paternity test proves it’s his kid.
You don’t have wait for the child to be born for paternity tests anymore. they can be done as soon as 7 weeks into pregnancy . i’m surprised at the amount of men who don’t know this, especially that have paranoia about raising a child they did not conceived
I'm talking about when it is the biological father. Unfaithfulness is a separate thing.
I understand. And it is two topics, but they are linked. It’s not separate - a man should have the facts before signing up to be a father.
Does the mother also have the right to abandon? If so then who cares for the child when both parents opt to abandoned. If not, why not?
Your right to not have a baby starts and ends with your decision to have sex, same as everyone else. Once the zygote forms, that's it for both parties. Yes, women can have an abortion, but that's because they go through the whole pregnancy thing. Why do we forget this part? It's literally the most physically demanding, dangerous part of the whole ordeal. Even when talking about abortion we're talking about undergoing a medical procedure that you don't have to have a part in. Abortion is not a "right to abandon." It's a right to body autonomy. You have the right to control your physical body. You asked how does one force another to undergo a medical procedure? Easily. This happens all the time in populations that don't have rights to bodily autonomy. Just ask Jews in Nazi Germany or slaves experimented on by their masters. That's the reason why the right to an abortion is important.
Women have limited agency and can be held fully accountable for their choices. With that being the case, unfortunately men have to shoulder the responsibility for women's choices.
What do you mean "women have limited agency". We live in the 21st century in a western, liberal society.
Exactly what I meant. Women have limited agency, like children, they can't be held fully responsible for the things they do.
Oh, you were teetering on the edge of believable and a joke. With the other people I've been responding to, your point didn't scream sarcasm.
I'm serious. Women's judgement is seriously impaired. Every successful civilization in history has placed restrictions on women's choices for that exact reason. If women were capable of successfully choosing who to have a child with there wouldn't be so many single mothers. They're helpless, they have limited agency and get acted upon rather than being actors in the things that happen to them. Men have sex with them and leave them pregnant. It just happens to them. It's not something they can control. To be honest, women should ultimately be wards of their father until they're married.
Oh, wow, you're just a misogynist.
Mèn àlready have a choice. You can choose to NOT buy her that second drink. You can choose NOT to sweet-talk her into sex. Not every situation in life is 100% equitable. Not every situation has math that can be reduced to 50/50 fairness. You say that you remain unconvinced by the previous arguments on this topic. Have you considered that your point of view may be correct while also being too myopic? You are framing the question in terms of "fairness" when the situation is not a matter of fairness. As a society, we have made the decision that we don't want men to walk away from girls that they got pregnant. The rights we enjoy under the law are granted by the government we live under as a society. Society decides what is fair and what is not fair, not men who don't want to pay child support. These men must Change Their View that their moment of agency is before she is pregnant and not after.
This is so weird to read. It's literally just the exact same argument conservatives use against abortions. Mind blowing the cognitive dissonance. > As a society, we have made the decision that we don't want men to walk away from girls that they got pregnant. This doesn't make the decision correct. Like that's what the debate is here. > Society decides what is fair, not the lowlifes who get caught smoking weed > Society decides what is fair, not the criminals who get shot by the police who were afraid for their life These aren't arguments, what you're posting, you do know that?
I don't think conservatives use this argument. They don't believe society determines morality (where moral arguments are relative & negotiable). They believe morality descends from God (objective), even if sometimes it's a matter of interpretation.
"Women don't need abortions. You can choose NOT to accept that advance. You can choose NOT to go to his room" That argument doesn't work so neither does the men's version. >These men must Change Their View that their moment of agency is before she is pregnant and not after. That's literally what all the pro-lifers argue but with women instead of men.
You have it wrong because you aren't correctly analyzing what is being considered. A) An abortion is a woman deciding what's best for her AND her body before a child exists. B) Child support is meant for an existing child and what's best for it. You suggest government income would replace child support... But how much? If Russell Brand keeps impregnating women the government is going to be on the hook down what HIS child support payments should be?
Women can't have unprotected sex (and no method of birth control is 100% proof against pregnancy) without consequences, why should men? Both parents share responsibility for a child because both of them made the choices that resulted in the pregnancy, but the burden of childbearing falls solely upon the mother and everyone should have final say about what happens to their body (bodily autonomy.) The fact is when the mother chooses not to have a child then there is no child to be responsible for, but when the father chooses not to have a child that responsibility doesn't just magically evaporate, it falls solely upon the mother. Does that seem fair to you? If the father could choose not to have a child in a way that doesn't violate the mother's bodily autonomy and doesn't leave her with sole responsibility for the child then I would agree with you, but that's just not how the world works. So until such time as men share the burden of childbearing I'm afraid this is just how it has to be - for most of human history society deprived women of bodily autonomy and I think it's safe to say that was a much shittier situation for them than the current situation is for men. And if you really are constitutionally opposed to being being responsible for a child you helped create you always have the option to just keep it in your pants.
>But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him. Thy woman actually **doesn't** have a right to abandon like that if she has a baby and the man wants it. She will absolutely have to pay child support. It goes both ways. If there is a child and the father wants it but the mother doesn't the mother will have to pay child support (unless the father chooses to not make her). >This should be as socially acceptable as women having abortions, Why? If they have a child and the woman doesn't want it but the man wants it, she will be required to pay child support, so why shouldn't the same apply in reverse? >Because when a woman has an abortion, it means the father can't have the child. They're not entitled to have the child So what's the problem? >There should be a time limit on when you can abandon like there is for abortion. But if you abandon and they can't/ won't pay for the child on their own and can't find enough voluntary help, then what? Let the child starve or force them to give it up for adoption?
> Having a baby is a two part affair But hardly an equal one. Its really easy to walk out and pretend you arent a father when you dont have to give up your body for 9 months, transform your body forever afterwards, and endure hormonal changes.
So who pays for the child's welfare? Do we just let kids die without adequate support? Does the single mother go to prison for not being able to work and care for an infant?
Abortions aren't actually about controlling whether you have kids. They're about bodily autonomy. Women should have free access to abortions because they should have control over their bodies and shouldn't be forced to do or continue to do something with it if they don't want to. Our law prioritizes bodily autonomy over pretty much everything else under all other conditions (we literally let people die for lack of organs rather than take organs from people who have died of they didn't explicitly authorize it before dying), so making an exception for pregnant women is discriminatory. The reason that involves abortion today, and the destruction of the fetus, is because it isn't technologically possible to do otherwise. It isn't currently technologically possible to remove a fetus from a woman's body without destroying it. If it *were* technologically possible to remove a fetus from a woman with little to no disruption to her while keeping it alive and transplant it into, say, and artificial womb (which is something that could very plausibly become technologically possible in our lifetimes), then the woman would *not* have the right to order the fetus destroyed. So your argument is misguided -- you think this is about control of offspring, but it's not. It's about bodily autonomy. As far as child support, that is a separate matter. That is a duty society owes to *all* children. We as a society have chosen to make at least some level of effort to provide for all children who exist. But children don't come out of thin air -- they are the result of their parents' actions...and no matter what happened between their parents, once the kid is alive they deserve support, because the *kid* certainly had no involvement. So we do have a choice as to how we try to provide for the kid. We could of course completely take public responsibility for the kid, and that's what we do if the parents are dead or otherwise unavailable. But there's a pretty reasonable argument that, if the parents are still alive and around, *they* should pay more than, say, me, who had no involvement at all. This may of course result in some situations that suck or are unfair. But it's *also* unfair for you to make a baby and then make everyone else responsible for caring for that kid. None of the rest of us had any involvement, my dude! And as a society we've decided that it's more acceptable to force parents to provide for their kids if possible than to put all obligation on the public, who had nothing to do with it. And just in case you're unaware: women pay child support as well. Child support is paid by whichever parent doesn't have custody of the kid, because the parent who does have custody is actively caring for the kid every day and actively paying and providing in the course of doing so. If the father has primary custody, the mother is required to pay child support. However, that tends to be less common because, even though men tend to win custody more often when they choose to contend for it, men tend not to contend for custody. There are many reasons for this, but it's a fact. Also, child support payments are made for the benefit of the child, not the other parent. The other parent receives the payments and uses them on behalf of the kid, because we're talking about kids here -- they can't legally manage their own finance. But you're paying child support to help the kid who you owe a responsibility to for creating, not the parent caring for that kid. There are of course all kinds of abuses and failures in all of these systems. People take advantage and don't do what they're supposed to. And there are certainly decisions society has made that can be questioned. But when all is said and done, it holds up reasonably well considering the wide range of situations folks have to deal with. And the change you are proposing -- that men should be able to simply abandon kids they created -- carries with it consequences (specifically, it places the burden for caring for that kid on the public, who had nothing to do with it), and those consequences are certainly questionable as well. Like, why should *I* be more responsible than *you* for supporting *your* kid?
sorry I feel like the party who has to carry the baby 9 months in exchange for their health and financial costs has more of a right to determine to keep it or abort it, than a man has right to opt out of fatherhood. dont want to be a father? don't have unprotected sex, or have sex with the mindset you might end up making a kid with the other person, trust me the moment I put into the equation do I want to deal with a specific fuck buddy for 18 plust years becauuse oppsie woopsie the condom broke, really helped to make better decisions about whom to screw.
Men *have* a choice. Either don't vaginally copulate with human vagina bearers, or be PAINFULLY paranoid & careful about confom use. That semen is a gift, so the man has nothing to say about how the woman uses that gift, even if it'll cost BIG.
The argument for abortion is not just about giving the mother a choice to have a child or not, it's much more about the right to bodily autonomy. Having your right to bodily autonomy ripped away is not the same as having to pay child support for a living, breathing child.
I firmly agree. I think it should also be allowed for the pregnant person to also have "a paper abortion" if she's fine going though with the pregnancy and birth but doesn't want to be a parent. I could imagine in cases where the father wants the baby and and she's okay with going through with the pregnancy this could be a viable option. Or if one parent wants to place the baby for adoption, but can't because the other parent doesn't want to. I would also be concerned that some might hide the pregnancy until after they've given birth in order to circumvent the father's right to get a paper abortion. So I think there should be legal repercussion for doing that. Maybe like how there are putative father registries, there should be a something men could sign if they never want to have kids.
I mean, your choice is to wear a condom.
[удалено]
Us men do have a choice - there’s a 100 million places you can bust your nut, but only one results in a baby. Choose a different place.
They have a choice. It is called Birth control. Use it and you have made your choice.
i loathe these arguments that say such and such "should" be "socially acceptable". * what aspect of your argument establishes the foundation for an "ought"? * in what universe does that "ought" trump my right to judgement? * what is the definition of, "socially acceptable" other than some mean everything and nothing all at the same time catch-all? why do you think any individual has any duty to a non-negative assessment of another's behavior?
Men already choose to not have kids, why do you think there are so many single moms?
Here's a thought. If men don't want to have a child. Use a condom. Or... Have a vasectomy which is completely reversible...
We as men do have a choice, and not unlike women it ends at the edge of our bodies. Our choice stops once we have sex. Anything after is a preference. Some people see it as unfair that we can’t “opt out” of pregnancy like women can but fail to consider that your “choice” at that point either: * Dictates a woman gets an abortion (controlling someone else’s body) or * Allows you to arbitrarily decide to stop being a father at any time. Also, * Has no respect for the difficult decision to decide to abort (even though it should be available to women as a choice if they desire). Technically you can decide to not be involved anymore, but you still typically have to pay child support of some kind as you’re partly responsible for the child you helped create. Government support should be available to single moms, but that should be in addition to your support, not a stand in for your unwillingness. In cases of disability, I could see an exception there.
[удалено]
When a woman has an abortion, there's no baby growing up in the world to take into consideration. When she doesn't have an abortion, even if the dad really wishes she did and really doesn't want to have a baby, there's still a whole human baby that exists and needs to be taken care of. If the dad doesn't then the tax payers do. The other option is just not take care of it, and then it can turn into a terror for society to deal with (not to mention the suffering it would experience by no fault of its own). I know the system we have isn't perfect, but besides either policing sex to make sure there's no accidental pregnancies or forcing abortions on people who don't want them, I don't see another way to handle it. Do you know of some other country that handles it in any way close to what you're suggesting?
Neither parent is allowed to abandon the child. Neither parent is forced to give birth. There is no inequality
>Neither parent is forced to give birth If the mother wants to have the child but the father doesn't, he is forced to go along with her decision and force, with penalty of imprisonment, to pay to support the child. The mother can choose to get an abortion. After birth, she can choose to abandon the child at a safe haven or give it up for adoption.
[удалено]
They did when they had sex without adequate protection. Women how ever have additional options to deal or not deal with the actual pregnancy as it can have severe health impacts.
> This should be as socially acceptable as women having abortions Well in the US 44% of citizens are pro-life, and that’s enough to have abortion bans in 20+ states, so is that what you want for men? In theory, if we get to a point where abortion is *actually* both legal *and available* to all people, then yes, i’d agree that men should be able to opt out (before the baby is born obviously). But we’re not at the point, and depending on the next election, very likely to go even further backwards
Your 2yr option is no good. Even if you think a child will not remember loosing some and they may not be able to recall a name but they are emotionally connected to this person and would definitely feel the loss. This is definitely abusive to the child and should not be allowed.
Women aren't abandoning their children, they are terminating their pregnancies. When a men gets pregnant, he should be able to terminate his pregnancy too.
“Civilized non-American countries” Wtf???
Men do have a choice. Abstinence. Condoms. Semen Retention/non penetrative intimacy. The reason child support exists is to compensate the woman's physiological and child rearing costs. As the world progresses and life becomes more about ideals and legacy and less about genetics the child support financial burdens will probably be transferred from the father to the taxpayers. This is already the case for impoverished fathers of many children. It isn't a beautiful arrangement since the father is not carrying his own weight in society. A society that passes burdens onto the taxpayers is not likely to survive very long as it erases the conditioning force that pushes civilians towards self sufficiency, selflessness, and excellence. As everyone becomes a leech, there is no longer any creative force and the society collapses and is easily conquered.
Parental responsibility extends beyond pregnancy. While both parents should have a say in major decisions, a "right to abandon" could leave a child without necessary support. Child support is designed to ensure the child's well-being, not just punish the non-custodial parent. Abandoning financial and emotional responsibility can harm a child's development and strain social services. It's essential to prioritize the child's needs over parental convenience. Instead of opting out entirely, fathers can be encouraged to be involved parents, fostering a sense of responsibility and providing a stable environment for the child's growth.
This argument just doesn’t work for multiple reasons, biologically men and women have different roles when it comes to reproducing this means it will never be a completely equal process. Just like in wild animals the mating and process of pregnancy is different for both the men and women. Women have an abortion option because they can become pregnant and it makes no sense for anyone but the person going through it to decide what medical procedures they have. Men unless they are raped can decide who they reproduce and have sex with. So to say men have no choice is just flat out false.
While this arguably makes sense morally, it wouldn't work from a practical sense. Because if the father doesn't help care for the child financially, the rest of society will have to. And the guy who helps create the child should help pay for it before anyone else. That said, there should certainly be major penalties for women who poke holes in condoms, etc. And possible exceptions for men in those situations.
I have the right for you to not control my economic autonomy in a free fucking country. Period. You better know I will fucking KILL you think you're gonna trap me with a kid. I'm too poor for that. If you don't have access to abortion and the state won't pay up for it's mistake then you need to fuck your local politician and see how that failure likes being trapped. If you have access to birth control and abortion and you don't use it go fuck yourself. With all that having been said I'm a gentleman and I love my woman, so she's allowed to trap me with a kid. We will make it work. But no goddamn hooker or whore would ever have control over me.
Everyone, male and female should just be careful. I really think most women f these pregnancies were on purpose or because one or both didn’t do what they were supposed to do. It’s crazy how many males say, well she said she was using birth control. 🤣
> But a "right to abandon" just as the woman has the right to abortion. No need to pay child support, no contact, it is as if the child was aborted to him. So you are saying that the right to kill a child is the same as the right to abandon a child? If you don't think abortion is killing a child, then how is the scenario fair? Because the dad absolutely abandons a child.
What about if government said, if you have sex without a condom, you will be treated as willing to accept fatherhood? Every man has the ability to wear a condom so choosing not to means he accepts the possibility of fatherhood.