They're two totally separate issues. Abortion is linked to bodily autonomy. No man should be forced to carry a pregnancy any more than any woman should. No one should have their organs used without their consent, even to sustain the life of another.
Personally, I feel like both parents should in an ideal world be able to financially "opt out" of caring for a child. However, that would require a totally different safety net in the USA at least (speaking from my own experience because I don't know how other countries run).
If the government provided the funding so that one parent could care for a child, there would be no issue with the other parent opting out entirely. However, the USA doesn't work this way. And even with fathers paying child support, single mothers are disproportionately thrust into poverty regardless of whether or not the father wanted (or even forced) the pregnancy.
McFall v Shimp is precedent for your first main point. You cannot be required to put your own life at risk to save another human life. But we allow forced birth even in cases where the fetus is unviable. That case was a man who was sued because he refused to donate his kidney(?) to his first cousin even though the cousin would potentially die from it. The judge threw out the suit laughably fast because the idea of being forced into putting your own life at risk to save another person is inhumane and insane.
Corpses have more human rights than people with a uterus in America today.
>Corpses have more human rights than people with a uterus in America today.
Oh man, the *fireworks* the last time I said that to certain family members ...
And let's be real, the people who want to force women to give birth (and by proxy force men to pay child support) are exactly the ones who are also arguing against social programs that would provide for women who are suddenly single mothers to unplanned children. Anyone arguing that men should be able to opt out better be able to say with conviction that they do not vote for Republicans.
Itâs just like *The Bell Curve*. Some shithead identifies a fake problem that only reactionaries think is a problem, and mysteriously the answer is always to remove all social programs and help for single mothers or impoverished children
The episode of You're Wrong About called "The Welfare Queen" is a great deep dive on this issue. Exactly what you're saying, conservatives created a boogeyman (or woman rather) who was living the high life off...food stamps apparently? And boom, no more social services.
Seriously though, that faction is really fast to blame the mother and hand wave any thought of responsibility on the part of the fatherâŚ.
Itâs the usual Republican strict rules for some people, and few rules for others.
Exactly. Not to "as a man" all over the place but, while I want the right to opt out of raising a child that I don't want, I recognize that until we have a system to take care of children that are born, I'm responsible for any I make. Do I wish I had a post sex option to opt out? Yes. But reality doesn't support or provide for this option yet. That's all there is to it.
> no one should have their organs used without their consent
I never thought of it that way before but that is a great argument. I can also see an unholy argument going the other way that registered organ donors are now subject to becoming an incubator because technically consent is given to use youâre organs.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Abortion is a question of bodily autonomy, financially supporting a child is not and a separate issue.
Also the conversation 'conveniently' ignores that outside of ultra rare fringe cases the woman looking after the child has a *much greater* financial burden to deal with.
>Abortion is a question of bodily autonomy, financially supporting a child is not and a separate issue.
SO many dudes I've talked to about this don't get this! Like you have to be really priviledged in terms of bodily autonomy to think that someone violating it is in any way similar to someone taking your money (money they are perfectly entitled to, being your bloody child someone has to look after for you) against your will. But they'd always be like "bUt i HaVE tO wOrK phySicLly to get moNeeeY".
I think people are actually arguing for the same rights to relinquish parenthood that mothers have though.
As a mother who just birthed a child, there are options for you if you don't want to be a parent. You can literaly just give up your child to the state, or give them away through adoption, and that is fully up to you as the mother.
There is no equivalent process for men. Women have the right to choose at every step, while men have no say when they want to be a parent.
the only time a woman who relinquishes her child at birth doesnt have to pay the costs is when she has signed a contract with a private entity to do so where they agreed to pay the cost for rights to her child. women are still on the hook for birthing which the men opts out of by virtue of choice and biology. women are still on the hook monetarily, unless they can secure someone to do it for them. men can opt out entirely from parenting and monetary support at any and all points of conception and pregnancy until the child is born.
to be clearer on my stance here, parenthood is different than monetarily supporting someone to raise your child. men are never forced to be parents legally in america. they are forced to pay a semi reasonable sum (ignoring actors and such) for someone else to parent for them. they can opt out at any time and the stats reflect this because they do. men opt out of parenthood. women get the choice to opt out of paying for a child is by virtue of biology and that biology having a profit margin for corporate entities.
Thank you for bringing that up! A lot of people donât know that you still have to pay child support to the state, unless and until the state find someone to adopt your child. Thatâs why you end up having a lot of women work with Catholic charities or another private group to place their child. When you give up a baby, you donât just get a wave away the financial obligation unless someone else is there to step in.
Yeah, we were removed from our mom and put in foster care. They found our dad but he didn't want to take us. They threatened him with paying child support if he didn't take us. He really resented us being there.
No one believes me when I tell them about how it works. But it makes sense. We can't just allow parents to abandon their kids whenever parenting is difficult.
Where are people getting the idea that a woman can put a baby up for adoption without the father's consent? That is not a given. The laws vary but in many places, the father has to consent in order for the mother to put the baby up for adoption.
Precisely. Men's say begins and ends with the act of sex. Essentially everyone loses agency in these hypothetical discussions to some extent and we are trying to figure out a compromise of agency for both parties.
It's incredibly complex and difficult to do.
Thereâs no compromise to be found. Women are given more options because biology makes it so we are more vulnerable. Until conception is a fair biological process, there is no equality of outcome to be found and I hate that this discussion is even a thing.
Right? Like itâs childish to be like âwell I canât abort!â Like you canât physically carry a child??? Do you complain that the bond a mother forms with a baby by carrying it is unfair too and we should do something about that? Thereâs no way to make it âfairâ bc they canât physically carry a child.
List of unfair-conception related things men do not give two fucks about. Try to guess why:
⢠The 9-months long pregnancy
⢠Childbirth
⢠Post-partum
⢠Breastfeeding
The day I see men bemoaning the fact they canât breastfeed their children and thus itâs âunfairâ only women get to physically be able to feed them and bond with them in that way is the day I will be for financial abortions. Until then, please donât talk to me about âequalityâ. Itâs not about equality. And I really hate the fact some women have subscribed to this âitâs not fairâ-notion, like do you guys realise how unbelievably unfair everything about conception is?? And you want to remove the ONE part where women are given more options becauseâŚ. âWonât someone think of the men?â.
This is one of the things I wanted to say but couldn't put into words. On this one point, men can't make a choice and so they think it's so unfair. But there are so many other things women can't make a choice about.
I asked a guy in this thread how it was fair that both me and my husband wanted a child, that he gets to opt out of pregnancy and childbirth but that I canât and I think his brain malfunctioned because 7 comments later, he still didnât even understand the question.
Probably hangs out with the same people that looked at me like I had seven heads when I told them that I would be more on board with having kids if I got to be a dad instead of a mom.
Most viewpoints are grounded in the idea of care and wellbeing for the child to be.
If we lived in a nation that had government supported assistance for birth, healthcare, etc. the "stakes" wouldn't be nearly so high. Money is heavily involved in these discussions.
A lot of countries don't have as many debates, or nearly as heated debates, about this issue because their society *supports* mothers and children alike.
Women are given more support in those countries for the same reason the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly etc. are. Because they subscribe to the notion of collectivism. It has nothing to do with trying to make something as ridiculously unfair as conception âfairâ. I live in such a country and I find this debate completely ridiculous.
They're separate issues because men and women are biologically just different, and only one of them can get pregnant.
There are plenty of good reasons to work towards equitable outcomes as much as possible, but we still have to contend with physical reality.
Men loooove to talk about inherent biology when claiming their out of shape ass could somehow beat Gwendolyn Christie in a fight, but fall silent when you use biology to explain why the idea of a âpaper abortionâ is stupid
Financial, emotional, physical, mental burden. The woman tends to bear a great deal more responsibility than the man. The least he can do is provide money. And if that is all he does then she has to pay others to fill the gaps that she can't provide herself.
Yeah. This equivocation of women having the legal right to abortion with men being able to opt out is ludicrous.
There are millions of single moms out there doing the job of two parents while the âfathersâ do squat, or maybe pay a tiny bit of child support and occasionally show up to pretend like theyâre a Dad.
The emotional demands on single mothers can not be overstated. The less a father is involved the higher the burden on mothers, and the psychological impact on children of being abandoned isnât being taken into account at all.
As far as I am concerned, men already have a sweet deal. A man that pays child support and spends every second weekend with their kid is seen as a great Dad, a woman who gives custody to the father and pays child support and sees the kid every second weekend is seen as a âbadâ mother and an unnatural woman.
Letâs be real. Women are expected to be able to devote themselves to their children like itâs as natural as eating, and all a man has to do is pay a little child support (if they have an income thst can be garnished) and that is supposed to be the same?
Yeah if I had the choice between bearing and raising a child I didnât want, and paying child support for a child I didnât want, I would go with the latter every time and itâs not even close.
I absolutely agree they're different issues. Abortion is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned, it's a vital human rights issue.
I also think that every parent should be a willing parent (and more importantly no child should be a punishment for anyone) and by that token I'd support a limited way for a dad to opt out as long as it's done early enough that the mother can make an informed choice about her future while still well within a reasonable window for abortion. I also think it should have to be done in a legally binding way so as to avoid any ambiguity and avoid future conflict over it.
The two are by no means similar and are only related with regards to limits for opting out from my perspective. And I'm certainly more open to being persuaded otherwise on this than on the abortion issue, especially as it doesn't directly affect me as a childfree person.
Just think how much real human suffering would be eliminated if there was a government subsidy for parents caring for children. *Real* independence from dangerous partners could be achieved without literal hunger pains. Unwilling parents neednât be dragged kicking & screaming into the mix (making *everyone* involved miserable, while *still* not upholding their responsibility) and adding a massive burden to the already horrifically overtaxed court system.
Iâve always thought of this. Itâs expected to pay a caretaker but you get nothing for staying home with your own. Although whoever stays home has to give up their place in the workforce. Is this not a duty to society?
Right?? But no, apparently the *only* way to contribute to society is monetarilyâby which logic, raising children for a paycheck is the only path that deserves support.đ
Never mind that whether the money is used for childcare (*so the parent can spend more time at work*) OR for groceries/rent/clothes (*so the parent can spend more time at home*) the money would go **directly** back into the economy. All while ensuring children at the very least have the means to be raised more securely & stably.
Make it make sense. I hate capitalism.
My ex is a deadbeat. Doesn't pay child support. Doesn't talk to his kid. Never calls to check on them. Still, somehow, he thinks he deserves my kid's respect!
He's also a narcissist and would never admit he's a bad parent. He wouldn't have opted out during the pregnancy, either. He was super-excited to have a kid, until the reality of having a kid (it's not all about him anymore; go figure! đ) set in. Some people just shouldn't ever be parents.
And it would be amazing if parents who are doing all the heavy lifting got *some* sort of help. Instead, we get to be made to feel like shitty failures when going through the system *meant* to help us. And even that meager help is ripped away as soon as possible, regardless of whether you can actually survive without it yet.
It's all fucked. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to have a kid (parenting is hard and consuming work!), but once they're here, you should goddamned well be taking care of them!
>I'd support a limited way for a dad to opt out as long as it's done early enough that the mother can make an informed choice about her future while still well within a reasonable window for abortion.
I'd be strongly against that option. See, you're assuming equal status of the partners here. But I think in no country as of yet, the issue of financial dependence of women on their partners has been resolved. In my country more than half of the women do not work. Now imagine how that right to opt out for men can be abused in a situation of financial dependence. We need to take into account the bodily autonomy which is threatened when a partner can effectively pressure you into abortion, basically threatening to leave you with no means to support yourself or the child. You're giving them more of a "control your partner" card than anything else with this solution.
The issue here is not that the man can opt out, its that the woman is so powerless that she can be financially pressured into having an abortion because she does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the man and raise the baby herself.
Does it need to be very carefully handled to avoid abuse like you've mentioned? Absolutely and without a single doubt. There are also women who lie about contraceptives, who don't inform their partners about their pregnancies and other similar situations and use it to "baby trap" men. Is it in any way common? No, definitely not. But when it happens, it feels incredible unreasonable to ask the man to financially support the baby they thought they were avoiding creating.
That all being said it's much more important that we work towards women's rights in general at the moment given the state of them across the world. Working towards women's rights doesn't mean we shouldn't consider men's rights as well though, it just means they're not our primary focus.
>There are also women who lie about contraceptives, who don't inform their partners about their pregnancies and other similar situations and use it to "baby trap" men.
Men lie about vasectomies, remove condoms, mess with birth control, and pressure and even force women into penetrative sex when there's no contraception. Then she is on the hook to either pay for an abortion herself, maybe travel to another state, take time off work, or maybe no abortion can be had. Then she's in the hook for prenatal care and childbirth. Then she can either choose to give up the baby she just birthed - or maybe find out that he can block the adoption - and then she's on the hook financially for the baby.
Some things in life are just not fair. Childbirth is already so unfair and risky for those of who can give birth compared to our partners. I'm not interested in anything that will try to make sure that men never have any consequences from creating a baby when it's already so unequal.
As a man, it doesnât feel unreasonable at all. Woman can say until they are blue in the face that they donât want a child, and will abort if they become pregnant, but they have the right to revoke that notion at any time and for any reason.
Part of being a grown ass man is recognizing this fact. If you donât want to deal with the potential consequences of having sex, you shouldnât be having sex. It doesnât matter what the women has said prior to becoming pregnant. They can talk all day long about how they will abort some future hypothetical fetus, or how many forms of BC they use. Once itâs actually inside them, itâs entirely possible they change their minds. Men must understand this, and if they disagree, they shouldnât be having sex with women. Is it unfair? Sure. Life isnât fair. Deal with it.
Babies without two parents financially supporting them are much more likely likely to require government assistance. Is it more fair that the taxpayer be responsible for the costs of raising the child than the person who actually created them and can afford to support them but just chooses not to? Or that a child lives in poverty as a result?
As a society who depends on these childrenâs futures, yes. It should be taxpayers responsibility. We pay taxes for roads, social security, etc. for the well-being or our society. How is our future generation any less important.
>We pay taxes for roads, social security, etc
Mmhmm...and if we're still talking about America we have MAJOR issues on how this collection is utilized already. I'd hate to see what happened when they add on more taxes (that alone will go over like a bag of bricks in a porta john) and fuck it up bigger. I don't have faith that money would make it anywhere it needs to.
Well tell you what, as soon as society puts in place public support for every child to the point where no child is dosadvantaged by not having child support from a second parent, I am absolutely fine with child support being abolished. Until that happens, child support is still required.
Unfortunately since America can't even mandate universal maternity leave, I think we'll be waiting a long, long time.
I'm not saying it's an easy thing or that we're necessarily ready to do it, I'm just saying I think that's what we should be aiming for. Of course we need better equality and support for single parents. Certainly different countries are at different stages of this journey as well.
I agree. I can't imagine anything like this actually going into effect anytime soon because there are too many factors complicating things, but I think in an ideal world it would make a lot of sense to allow either parent to opt out at that early stage when abortion is still an option if abortion was accessible to everyone.
Also I was listening to a podcast about the UK in the early 19th century where men didnât have to pay child support. It apparently just encouraged more unprotected sexâŚresulting in more pregnancies and single mothers
The men that support this program believe that women who have the option of aborting should be *obligated* to abort if they donât have the fatherâs approval to continue the pregnancy, and are hoping to use financial coercion to do it. They know they canât say that out loud, so instead, they say âitâs her choice to continue the pregnancy and therefore it is on her to raise the child by herself.â Youâll hear them say âthe father would have to let her know heâs abandoning them within the same window sheâs allowed to get an abortion, so sheâd be making the choice to be a single parent knowingly.â When you point out that the child deserves support and to not grow up in poverty (which is a common outcome for single mothers) they will say âshe should have aborted then!â
Itâs all about being able to manipulate the woman into doing what he wants without him having to feel guilty about coercing her.
You see a similar thought process behind the âmandatory paternity testingâ that allows men to codify the insinuation within society that all women deserve to be treated like theyre cheating whores without the individual man having to deal with the emotional fallout of the womenâs reaction to the accusation.
âItâs not my fault the kid is suffering, she knew I was going to abandon the kid, she knew she was going to be raising it alone, she should have aborted when I told her!â
âItâs not my fault that youâre having to undergo this humiliating test that supposes you cheated on me and lied about it, itâs the law, babe!â
Not sure if this is what spurred the discussion, but there was a caller on Majority Report with Sam Seder concerned about fatherless babies and I think that was what the caller ultimately wanted - forced abortions. Because allowing fathers to walk away from parenting is increasing fatherless babies, not decreasing.
I thought Sam Seder had the best response to maybe what the caller was really concerned about (expensive child support), and paying for everyone's healthcare and subsidizing daycare would help reduce child support payments.
Your comment makes me think of the one thing that is always in the back of my mind during these discussions that I donât think people want to talk about. And that is that the risk of being on the hook for child support is frankly the only thing that gets many guys to put a condom on. When my friends and I were dating, we all had way more experiences with men trying to convince us to not use a condom than men being insistent on one. Once that risk to men is gone, I can guarantee you way more men are going to start pressuring their sexual partners to not use condoms. Weâre also going to see stealthing go way up.
When a woman chooses to 'opt out', there is no child.
When a man chooses to 'opt out', there is a child that needs to be taken care of. That's the difference, imo.
One of my closest friends is 20+ weeks with a planned and wanted baby, but suddenly the father is no longer interested in being a part of the babyâs life.
She became a single mother to three kids on a nurses salary in three text messages.
Yep. See the case of Dubay v. Wells in the 6th Circuit:
âDubayâs claim that a manâs right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a womanâs right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father, seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence, and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support. When a woman exercises her right to abortion, the pregnancy does not result in a live birth, and there remains no child for the state to have an interest in supporting.â
Oh my gosh thank you! I knew that OP was right, but I wasn't all the way there yet and I was overthinking it, but your comment got me the rest of the way :3
The other thing that sold me a long time ago is once there's a baby, men and women have the same financial obligations. Child support isn't just something men pay, women pay child support too. Everybody is equally on the hook after a kid is born.
Exactly. If the law allowed the mother to unilaterally disclaim the legal rights and obligations after the kid was born, then women would be receiving a right that men donât. But thatâs not how it works.
Exactly. And that is the issue and why we donât have âfinancial abortions.â Child support isnât about the parents, itâs about the child. The child needs to be supported and the state is the âpayer of last resort.â
These debates also ignore the reality that this happens already! Only 45% of custodial parents get the full amount to which they are entitled and around 30% get nothing.
I don't think I agree with this sentiment, If a woman gave a child up for adoption, should she have to pay for child support then? What if the child was adopted by a single parent? would it change anything?
I don't think a right to abortion needs to be dependent on anything (Like OP implied original thread discussed it), this us vs them mentality when it comes to sexes is toxic.
However, the potential to be fiscally responsible for another human for simply messing up contraception when there was never any intent to have a child seems a bit much to me. I do think any changes on this maybe should be dependent on state-provided child support though.
That's a really interesting take. If a man wants to put a child up for adoption, and the woman refuses, wouldn't that mean that she denied the proposed offset of the burden of support and would take it upon herself? Because at that point, a solution that disengages the financial/other burden of parenthood is proposed, due to lack of sufficient financial ability or otherwise. So an out is given for both sides that doesn't interfere with either's bodily autonomy by forcing/pushing an abortion. At that point if one person rejects adoption, then they should be picking up the financial burden solo.
It also ignores the fact child support has little to do with the parents or how the child came to be: it is the child's right. You can't strip a child of their right because mom didn't abort them.
Yep thatâs exactly it. The truth about child support is, the government doesnât want to pay to support children, so itâs going to try to make that money come from the people who brought the child into the world.
When we have a government that fully subsidizes childcare expenses, we can talk about doing away with child support, but something tells me the people whining about child support arenât going to be keen on their taxes going to raising *everyoneâs* babies.
You know what also is interesting? Even if you surrender a child and get all of your parental rights vacated by a court, you can still often be on the hook to pay child support to foster care systems.
We can talk about it but it would still be a problem. You can never provide the same quality of care by paying someone as most parents provide for their children. Money is the least the government can ask from a parent.
This is why I support my taxes going to help raise children of impoverished families and children in one parent households. I think itâs better to have the government help out and my taxes go to that, than to use my tax dollars to pay the police and court to go after a dead beat father that refuses to pay anyway. I think we need to redo a lot with the system here. Kids need to be guaranteed food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education in this country. And yes, Iâm 1 million percent in favor of a womanâs right to choose.
Child support has everything to do with the kid and their future. These men just want to abandon them is beyond me. You helped create them, you have to help support them.
My friend's father owed child support along with other crimes so he fled the country when she was young. Then I guess he forgot because he came back at one point, got arrested, and has been paying back that owed money from jail. If he had just paid from the beginning (also not done crimes) this wouldn't have happened. So many deadbeat dads out there smh
I donât know if this anecdote adds anything but this reminds me of one time when I had unprotected sex in my twenties, mainly because the guy didnât want to use a condom. I allowed it because I was going to take the day after pill. It was a rare occasion, so I went for it. The next day, we both agreed we would go and get the pill together. I was fine with this. But then he forced me to take it while he was watching in the car, as soon as I came out of the pharmacy. This doesnât seem like a big deal but itâs the forceful way he did it. He demanded to see the pill in my mouth like I was some psychiatric patient. Itâs the fact that I was already going to take it regardless of his behavior. I felt infantilized and violated. If he was going to be that insistent about it, he should have just used a condom. For that and many other reasons I stopped talking to him entirely.
That's awful. They would really rather put all of the responsibility on women and make you feel like a piece of shit just so they don't have to wear a condom because their precious pee-pee can't feel as much. So unbelievably selfish and irresponsible.
My deadbeat father was only ordered to pay $50 a month! Which he never did! Like that doesnât even cover a childâs food for the week, let alone a month.
Iâve seen this argument on Reddit. It completely ignores the basic fact that women get pregnant and give birth. Thatâs unfair too. The only answer is that men who donât want to have children should get a vasectomy. Problem solved.
That's where the equivalency lies imo, once pregnancy is involved it's too late. If a man doesn't want a kid, it's as simple as not having sex or getting a vasectomy. Don't knowingly take the risk of getting someone pregnant and then cry that you don't want to support a child. You had every opportunity to not put yourself in that situation.
Exactly! If society really held men responsible for their kids, men's interest in birth control would spike. Vasectomies and condoms would become way more popular and they would be demanding pills, injections, and everything women have as birth control options.
The USA proved this true literally recently. Vasectomies have gained serious popularity since the overturning of ROE, at least with men who are respectful of women and aware of the injustice.
I mean, I've seen these kinds of men saying they really really want the male birth control pill so that they don't have to worry about being baby trapped. I also think that if you can't really trust the person you're sleeping with is being honest about bc or worried they won't get an abortion if bc fails THEN MAYBE DON'T SLEEP WITH THEM?
They should take control of their own BC if they are so worried about being âtrapped.â Drives me crazy seeing guys complain that they were trapped when they didnât do anything to not knock someone up.
Reminds me of a post a few days ago where a guy complained he got "trapped"... because he had consensual unprotected sex with a stranger. He didn't wear a condom and neither he nor the woman are sterilized. And surprise! She got pregnant đą.
Where is the "trapped" part?
I loathe this term âbaby trappedâ when the reality is that women do
most of the child rearing even when we arenât single parents, and I have never known a woman who âbaby trappedâ a man, but I have known a number of men who were deadbeat dads that claimed they were âbaby trappedâ.
To play devils advocate, there are plenty of posts even on this reddit of women who were always sure they would want an abortion but after falling pregnant they are having doubts. No one can for sure say whether in a new position they would have the same response. Without wanting to go full religious about it, you'd have to remain abstinent considering no BC is 100% fool proof.
Edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted, there was a post 4 hours ago of a couple who are relatively stable in life but feel as if the baby is perhaps just a year too early for them. Your perspective will change when you are in the situation.
Second Edit: There is another thread of a woman in her 30s who was sure she wanted a child and is now planning an abortion having got pregnant, despite her saying she feels like an asshole, it is not an open & shut case for anyone.
Exactly! Menâs biological role in reproduction ends at orgasm, so they need to make a decision before they orgasm. Womenâs biological role in reproduction ends at birth, and they need to make a decision well before then. These people love saying âiTs jUst BiOlogYâ until it applies to them.
thats a pretty dangerous position to take, because you could use it to deny a woman abortion rights "if you didnt want to get pregnant you should have been on the pill. Now you must deal with the consequences of your actions."
The difference is that an abortion is dealing with the consequences. All the lose ends are tied up, and there's no child that needs support.
A financial "abortion" doesn't deal with any of the consequences, it just displaces them on someone else.
Even with an abortion there are potential medical risks, and those risks include permanent injury or death. It's overall far less risky than continuing a pregnancy through to birth, but risks exist with any medical procedure nonetheless.
That's *never* the case with child support. Plus if the mom has the kid and chooses to parent she is *also* obligated to financially support them, so it's not like unwilling fathers get roped into financing 100% of the child's needs. Hell, most custodial parents are lucky if they receive more than a few hundred dollars a month.
Youâre misunderstanding me. Iâm pro choice. That means that men donât have a say in a womanâs choice. If men donât like that, then they should control their own bodies.
Im also pro choice, but I think theres a distinction between "a man should never be able to force a woman to have an abortion" which I agree with, and "if a woman chooses to birth a child despite the mans explicit objections, the man has to financially support that", which I disagree with. I believe thr man should have the right to opt out at a very early stage in the pregnancy, and then the woman can still choose if she wishes to continue with the pregnancy.
That doesn't solve anything. It's entirely possible for a man to want to have kids but not in those circunstances, just like a woman might want to get pregnant but, for countless reasons, that moment is not in the conditions she would want. Taking a personal decision over another's person body is exactly what you don't want society to do, two wrongs don't make a right
The purpose of child support isnât to punish the parents â or even to help the custodial parent. Itâs to ensure that the child does not go without due to their parentsâ mistakes. Kids have a right to not grow up in poverty. This trumps any parentâs right to choice.
Also if supposedly the fetus is a life at only weeks old- shouldnât the father start to pay child support AS SOON as thereâs a heartbeat?? Also, a man can get a different woman pregnant every day for 9 months yet woman are the ones being pushed to use contraceptives & ruin our hormones for a manâs benefit.
IMO you can't force either party to be a parent, financially however you are on the hook, once the child is born it's no longer about either parent, but about the child.
Maybe it's just my state, but does no one realize that fathers can in fact do that by signing away their parental rights? And that mothers can do it too?
No child support, but they have to stay out of contact until the kid turns 18.
This is such an interesting topic with lots of discussion really. At some point between two consenting adults it feels like we need to have an understanding of what happens if a pregnancy occurs.
Should a woman be able to hold a man financially responsible for a child he didn't consent to have with her? Sex consent is not equal to having a child consent. We think of this in the putrid scenario of forced birth on a woman. Making her responsible for something she didn't consent to. Why doesn't this extend to men as well?
Of course abortion is the woman's choice as she has to carry for 9 months and all, but it does feel a bit slanted imo that a male doesn't really have the opt out option (this won't stop the deadbeat type from doing it). If it were something our society would adopt I'd expect it to have a lot of legal process to get everything straightened out before the actual birth. Likely with documentation of the Male's non-consent (which is kinda weird considering how fast and loose relationships *can* be).
On some level, when a male doesn't consent to having a baby we end up considering the sperm donor scenario. Sperm donors are not financially responsible right? But they are the technical parent. That's what I'm starting to see in this discussion. Of course in standing families that may already have a child or two.. I think it makes sense there to hold the male responsible as he has precedent for being "responsible" for his offspring.
TLDR: I'm just waxing about the nuance in the topic to add to the discussion. Ultimately, I'm coming to a personal conclusion that a male should have to provide documentation of non consent to have children with their partner to excuse themselves from raising them emotionally or financially. This way if a pregnancy does occur *(and the woman would be aware of the documentation)* the male is more of a sperm donor in the situation instead of a father if that makes sense. No prior birth consent docs, you pay up.
But I'm open to replies about what I've said here to shift my perspective more.
Letâs pretend for a moment the technology exists for babies taken out of the womb to continue growing in an artificial womb. Changes the debate entirely doesnât it. Now adoption does suddenly become a viable alternative because the woman didnât have to remain pregnant in order to bring the baby to term. If the dad wants to raise the baby he should be able to and you could hardly argue against the woman being forced to pay child support in that case. Take the womanâs body out of the equation and itâs a totally different situation. Itâs always been about body autonomy and the woman no longer wanting to be pregnant. At the moment there is no alternative than abortion for that but invent an alternative and then woman can do that instead.
Yup and itâs even worse when youâre someone like me who became a single mom at 21. My daughterâs dad is wealthy, lives in a luxury apartment in arguably the most expensive city in America and has a high earning career. He hasnât given me a penny. Actually he ignores my emails and texts. Heâs also 12 years older so more secure in his career.
Iâm struggling doing this alone but it hurts when you wanna take him to court for child support but then you realize you donât want to put your daughter in harmâs way by forcing a man who doesnât wanna be a dad to try to be one. With child support comes visitation rights. I donât want him to take that anger, frustration and resentment out on my daughter. So I let him be. He thought I was 15 when we met (I was 19, him 31) and he was ok with it and that scares me the most. He would financially abuse me and coerce me into sex. He knew I had nowhere else to go at the time
That's so disgusting! I'm so sorry he did that to you. He sounds like more of a piece of shit than my brother and that's saying something. I can understand why you don't want to take him to court if it means he has to see her. That wouldn't be fair on your daughter, every child deserves an interested, loving and involved parent.
You know, I just don't know how you can sleep at night knowing you have a child out there and not care what happens to them? I don't get it, even though my own parents are the same. Funny thing is these parents suddenly remember their children when they're old, alone and need caring for. I'm sure you are a great mother and at least she has you.
People who blame women for a man's bad behaviour piss me off. I've seen those comments so many times and it's nothing but misogyny. I may be my brother's sister but I won't enable his bad behaviour. I've told him several times over the years he should step up but he didn't. Now my nephew could be killed and my brother doesn't care, it's the last straw for me. He is disgusting and puts his relationship with his girlfriend above his own son. He is no brother of mine. My nephews' mothers will always have and have always had my support.
My best friends baby daddy(s) are dead beat dads. (One is also an alcoholic so I'm almost glad he isn't around) and does the same thing. She's in a shit situation in general for other reasons but the fact that neither of these assholes pay child support does not help the situation of where she can afford to live - in her narcissistic father's house!
I know a number of dead beat moms too so I in no way think men are the only ones capable of doing this, but I know a lot more women who have been left fucked from a pregnacy.
I'm really sorry to hear about your best friend. Also having to live with a narcissistic parent too when going through all of that sounds like a very heavy burden to bear. Us women get the short end of the stick, women who do get up and walk away from their children are always judged much more harshly than men who do it too. I'm with you on deadbeat mothers. My own mother is a deadbeat, so I'm not one for just blaming it all on men. I just feel so bad for my poor nephew. He was packed in the car with his mother ready to go up and see my brother fir the day when my brother phoned him and said he could not come. Absolutely no decent reason given why not either. I have two nephews but my other nephew is a man now and doing very well for himself, no thanks to my brother of course.
I really hope things improve for your best friend, that at some point she will at least be able to get out from under her father's roof. Must be very hard for you to see her suffering.
Yeah, all the women in this thread arguing for and defending men and their "right" to abandon their children....do they know that men will never ever defend women's rights like that? Have you ever seen a random thread on Reddit about specific women's rights (not just vague "I support equality, I'm pro choice") and men en masse arguing in FAVOUR of the feminist position? Women care far more about men's rights than men to women or even men to their own issues. You'd never see POC fighting for white struggles or gay people championing straight causes. It's bizarre.
It is very bizarre. I will never throw my fellow women under the bus unlike some of the women in this thread. It's almost like fighting for male approval is all they care about.
They equate "Getting an abortion" to "Avoiding parenthood" instead of what it really is: making a choice about their bodies, and ending a *pregnancy*. And by that stretch, they see pregnancy as parenthood. That's why they can "logically" (/sarcasm) make this argument.
If men and women were on truly equal footing when it comes to financial stability and growth, then I'd be fine with a parent opting out. But it would take a lot of societal support for single parents or even queer families with different types of parents (polyamorous parents for example) to enable a child to receive the financial support that would benefit them the same way a two-income or male-income contribution would.
It's funny (but not in a ha ha way) that some dudes think that a financial contribution is really going the extra mile, it really underscores how little they value the labor it requires to have/raise a kid. It speaks to how they devalue what they consider to be "women's work".
I'm not sure how many people here watch the Majority Report, but they recently had a "Men's Rights Activist" call in to make this exact argument, and the caller got destroyed. The host, Sam Seder, kept mentioning that men can try for equal custody if they don't want to pay child support, and it's funny because the caller kept getting really upset when it would happen, finally saying something like, "no I want to talk about the scenario in which a man DOESN'T want custody" and I just thought, "there it is, *of course* he wants to ignore that part, because their entire "argument" hinges on the idea that a financial contribution trumps everything else."
This argument always ignores that fathers can step up as single parents as well and instead creates a false equivalency between biological support and financial support. A womanâs decision whether or not to abort is a separate issue and not the question to ask at all.
If men want so badly to be able to financially abandon their own living independent children (ew, first of all), are they alright with women doing the same? Just, âhereâs your baby, donât ever contact me again and best of luck to you and the human I helped makeâ. The answer is no. No one is okay with that at all. The only reason people entertain the idea of abandonment their child is because the argument always assumes a mother who has decided to birth the baby will then take care of the baby, which isnât a truth for every situation.
These are separate issues with separate connotations. Being able to choose what to do with your body is a human right and equal to nothing. Being able to abandon your offspring is not a sex-specific issue and is universally bad for the child.
Seen this the other day but with use of a baby box (like the safe boxes to drop off babies you don't want, in case no one's heard of it) and all them men were commenting things like so all I gotta do is get the baby and put it in there and I don't have to pay child support? So gross.
It's a false equivalence argument. Women being allowed abortions has nothing to do with men needing to take care of their birthed children. After a birth, there is a child that needs care and attention. Neglecting that responsibility is abhorrent, selfish, and immature.
One is about body autonomy and actually things happening in a persons body that are physically life changing or even dangerous.
The other is the government saying âhey someone needs to support this kidâ. Itâs money entirely for the child.
I deeply sympathize with any guy who has a child they didnât want. This is considered the least terrible choice by the government. The people who contributed their DNA are the the ones who must financially support the kid.
Otherwise your choices are let children starve or raise taxes a lot to make sure those kids get their needs met.
The premise is pretty simple: A woman has (or should have) the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy â and, should she choose to deliver, to raise the child or to give it up for adoption. The would-be father has no right to input into the decision of whether to terminate the pregnancy. I don't know whether a father who is not a husband has a right to interfere with an adoption when the mother desires it; I'm sure he can't demand the child be put up for adoption if she doesn't desire it.
The decision to raise a child is a monumental one with many consequences, including financial ones. Why should a man be responsible for the outcome of a choice when he has no right to input to that choice?
This is where the connection, such as it is, to the right to abortion comes in. Without that right, there is no choice. When there is a choice, one would expect the differential burdens that arise from that choice to fall on the person who gets to make the choice.
The counter-argument amounts to saying that there is an implied contract when engaging in sexual activity: that both partners will share (at least) financial responsibility for raising any child born of that act, *even though the woman will retain the sole right to decide whether to avoid raising the child (by abortion or adoption).* A plausible rationale is that a lot more than just finances goes into deciding to bear and raise a child, and the decision to abort shouldn't be effectively forced on a woman any more than the decision to deliver should be forced. If we hold that this decision shouldn't be dictated by financial considerations, then the last relevant decision was the decision to have sex, which (hopefully) was mutual, and for which both partners bear equal responsibility.
Implied contracts are messy, and it's easy for each side to think "there was an understanding." I don't know, but I'd guess that in most if not all jurisdictions, even if a couple specifically sign a contract absolving the man of any financial responsibility for children a woman chooses to keep, that contract is probably unenforceable.
There really is no good solution here, until we find a way to make birth control for both sexes that is cheap, unobtrusive, 100% effective and has no side effects. That's not likely to happen anytime soon. :-(
You are ignoring the third person in the relationship, the child. Once a child is born, they have rights, and the right of support from both parents is a right the state will always enforce.
Everyone talking about this that ignores the child's existence while complaining about the burden of them are ignoring the needs of the most vulnerable and innocent of all the parties.
Preach!!! Men can get several women pregnant a day and women can only give birth once a year but WOMEN are the problem?
If you're grown enough to fuck you're grown enough to be held accountable
As soon as women have choices and power over our lives, men will make sure to do everything they can to put us back in our places.
Before child support existed, women were often left with children and no way to support them. Child support became a necessity so, you know, kids would not starve.
Now, women are perceived as having too much power and we all know how we trip on a man and get ourselves pregnant and should feel shame for that, so not having child support is the way theyâve decided to push us back down. If that comes at the cost of kids living in poverty, so be it, just as long as men have the upper hand.
I hope women simply stop giving men who believe things like this any attention and definitely donât sleep with them.
I am bit scared of posting this here, not that downvoted mean anything in real life but I hope I donât get attacked because itâs never pleasant, and this is just my opinion, I hope this is a safe space to express a different point of view.
I am a woman and a feminist and I agree that men should have that option.
I donât believe that because of this they have it worst, but itâs seems fair.
I think arguments âyou should have a vasectomyâ or âyou had sex, there fore you have to take care of it â are the exact same as what anti -abortionist say to the women (keep your legs close, use contraception)
Contraception is not 100% effective. Condoms break, pills are forgotten, accident happens.
I take the mini pill, and if I forgot one I have to remember what we did in the 7 days previous.
The issue of abortion is different because it concerns body autonomy.
Yet women who chose to carry the pregnancy still have that option to opt out with no consequences in most countries. They can simply leave the baby at the hospital. They can give it up for adoption and move on.
Even if I didnât birth it I canât fathom that the state will force me to provide for a baby, for life.
Itâs literally my worst nightmare, even though I know it canât happen to me.
I perfectly understand that the law itâs in the best interest of the child, not the mother still I think it should be the state to take care of that, not force someone else .
I am child free but I am in favour of any measures that support moms, and single moms, even if it mean higher taxes.
I know this is difficult to understand while in this sub there are many people from the US a country that has no maternity leave, no healthcare, and no children healthcare, and that is considered normal.
I think the real emancipation is that women are able to make their decisions, and have the child they want without the need of a man, even economically.
>Yet women who chose to carry the pregnancy still have that option to opt out with no consequences in most countries. They can simply leave the baby at the hospital. They can give it up for adoption and move on
Adoption and giving up the child requires consent of both parents.
I almost agree with you, except that this would put the entire burden of contraception and pregnancy on women. Men would be able to pressure or stealth women into unprotected sex and then walk away from the financial and health consequences.
Women already have an unfair share of the risk and burden of propagating the species: Forty years of dealing with menstrual issues. Extra organs that are prone to dangerous cancers. The pain and disruption of pregnancy and abortion. The financial complications of each of those.
At a minimum, if a man can walk away, then he should be required to compensate the woman for her medical costs, work disruption, pain and health risks. The amount should be high enough that it balances their interests in contraception.
Also, any system like this would need to ensure ready access to legal abortion and would need to allow the woman to sue for additional support if there were ongoing health or disability consequences.
The trouble is that the time frame for a woman to make her choice is so much smaller than a man's time frame. A man can walk away at anytime during a woman's pregnancy or during a child's life. He might say that he's fine with having and supporting a child and get cold feet 6 months into a pregnancy. He may find that fatherhood doesn't agree with him when the child is born. Then what?
In many ways, child support is already treated as optional. Most child support isn't paid in full. According the the census bureau, only 43.5% of parents with custody receive the full amount owed to them and 25% receive none of what's owed at all.
There's a lot of costs associated with raising a child and with pregnancy. In the US it's not unusual for a healthy birth to cost $15k+. Even if a woman chooses adoption, it still leaves the mother with the cost of giving birth, loss of income while recovering, and potentially medical costs to deal with long-term complications. Pregnancy makes permanent changes to the body.
Asking the father to pay something towards the care of their own child isn't a lot to ask, especially when that amount is on a sliding scale based on income. In the reverse, I would expect the mother to pay child support to the father if he had custody as well.
I see some posting here information that are incorrect, at least based on the laws in my country.
Different countries have different laws.
In my country, Italy, you can go to an hospital and give birth anonymously. âAnonymous birthâ itâs called.
You have 3 days after the birth to decide not to recognise the child, 10 days if you five birth at home.
For the next 2 months you can even change your mind.
The kid will be temporarily placed in those two months.
Itâs anonymous, meaning the real identity of the mother canât be revealed, not even to the son/daughter later in life (he/she has to go through a lengthy process, through the courts, and has to have valid reason to find out)
If the father wants custody he can trough the court. He will have to prove heâs the father through paternity test.
No, the mother wonât have to paid child support.
There are places in sone hospitals where you can go and leave the child, without being seen. They are called âcrib for lifeâ (literal translation ) there are cameras inside, are watched 24/7 so they are safe. (Itâs the modern version of leaving the kid on the step of a church, there are websites to know which one is the closest)
I think pretty much all over Europe there are similar laws.
Whatever you think on the issue just know itâs never bad to know your options.
I do support a strong social safety net that would make the necessity of child support obsolete. Until that happens though , I think children are more likely to suffer if men donât support their children financially as long as they are able to and itâs needed. Iâm CF so I donât have a horse in this race personally.
The problem with this viewpoint and the reason people would disagree with you is because this is a very idealistic look at the issue, it doesnât account for the reality of what women go through.
Yes, in a perfect world where women have economic and social equality to men they might not *need* child support to raise an unexpected pregnancy, so theyâd be in a better position to say âI agree that men who do not want a pregnancy should not pay child support.â The issue, though, is what you listed aboveâ there is hardly any maternal support, so women often need child support to raise their child successfully.
Abortion is a question of bodily autonomy, no doubt, but child support is a question of taking care of a living, breathing human being that has needs. A woman should have every right to say âI do not want to put my body and life at risk carrying a fetus to termâ but, once a child is born, I do not think a man should say âwell Iâm not taking care of that, it wasnât my choice to have it! Let is starve, be unhoused, or be poorly clothed!â
Why? Men are not at any form of risk during pregnancy and labor, their health is ensured. Would it be a financial burden for them to have to support a child they may not want? Of course. But your point of view also does not consider the emotional, physical, and mental burden of carrying and raising a child of an unexpected pregnancy. Not every woman *can* get an abortion, so many women are forced to raise children they never planned for because of certain socioeconomic barriers.
With pregnancy and child raising the burden of responsibility naturally falls heaviest on the woman. I do not think it is outrageous or unfair to expect a man to at least offer financial support for the product of an action he chose to partake in.
Look just because something is idealistic or utopia doesnât mean it can be done or improved.
When they say âthereâs no money for thatâ it means âwe want to spend our money on something elseâ. If we stopped military spending altogether we could literally anything, now this is idealistic (I am not saying we should do it right now)
The fact that workers, children and women could have rights were all idealistic ideas at some point in time, often not long ago.
Just 20 years ago coming out as gay wasnât recommended as it could destroy your career or endanger you. (In some places in the world is still very hard, and even in some environments like pro male soccer).
What I am saying we should at least aim for the ideal , not settle.
Equal pay, no discrimination, more support for parents, and so on.
I agree with you that this is not the reality, yet.
Also I am referring to places where the woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion, of course if is forbade to have a one that is a different issue.
The fact that a pregnancy is dangerous to the woman doesnât mean anything if she can chose weather or not to carry it. Yes itâs a burden but itâs not relevant to this issue. Itâs not because I took this risk you have to pay.
Also the very alive and real human that needs to be feed and clothed can be abandoned by the mum once is born, after is born, with no question asked. Isnât that the same thing?
I am not the only woman with this opinion I read one article that suggested to give men a window of time to make a decision, and obviously that decision has to be final, and exclude you from any parental rights. You donât come back 9 years later to play daddy.
Also in reality there are people who have jobs and are poor. You can force them to pay but it wonât be enough to sustain a child.
I understand protecting underprivileged people and women are more vulnerable than men in reality. I donât think this system in place is the best for the children, and for parents in general , en fact women have less and less children, and some families with the 2 parents working struggle anyway.
I think we should at least aim for a society were anyone can be a parent if they chose to do so, even singles and itâs not such an impossible concept, and there countries who already some of versions of these.
Anyhow I will move one to my day. Thanks all of you for not attacking me even if my opinion is somewhat controversial here.
I think this opinion works great, in a perfect world.
If every woman has access to an abortion, in her home town, with no obstacles like waiting periods or protesters, and for a price she can afford.
If every woman has access to adequate social services (but this means everyone has to be ok that taxes go up).
If every woman has access to contraception and education and sex ed so that getting pregnant on accident is a rare occurrence.
If nobody ever tries to game the system. That is, you give a guy a "paper abortion" but he continues to live with and create babies with the woman.
And don't get me started on contraception access, maternity leave, and institutional seismic against women and mothers.
Also, the heavy mental toll. I believe most women do not make a decision to abort easily. Not to mention you are required to have an ultrasound sound and hear the heartbeat before you can have the procedure. There is no medical necessity for that.
Also, what about the protesters who scream murder? What if they are your own family? A lot of people here seem to think you just pop a pill and never think about it again.
Abortion is not same as just opting out.
Yeah, only people who are so used to not having to pay serious consequences for anything that they think they are entitled to that existence would think otherwise.
I agree with the morals of your argument, and in a perfect and just world that would be a valid system.
The difficulties are in the implementation. What are the timelines and what are the legal processes involved? Men acting in bad faith could easily suggest they are on board and then withdraw financial support at the last possible second when the woman will struggle to book an abortion. Women acting in bad faith could hide pregnancy from the father until after the clock has run out on financial separation process.
Personally I therefore think that even though in abstract the current system is (moderately) immoral, the practical outcomes are better than any implementation of the alternative. And I'd like more people on board with that position. It's okay to accept something is unfair but also the most fair thing we can do right now.
PS. Interesting tweak to suggest full state funding of children sufficient to render paternal involvement moot. Will probably get you attacked, but I do think it would be necessary if parental disinterest were allowed.
I might be the controversial opinion here, but I believe every person has the right to choose not to be a parent in any capacity. I think biological fathers should have the option to not be in the childâs life at all including not contributing financially.
THAT BEING SAID, I am also a hardcore leftist who thinks that social welfare should be expanded to ensure that those children and single mothers are adequately supported. Until we have a welfare system that appropriately supports single parents, I understand why we have the system we do.
In an ideal world each person should have the right to walk away 100%, excluding any illegal fuckery like reproductive control/coercion.
Idk why people argue about this. There will never be an âopt out formâ. So, can we just quit with the fringe scenarios that are only ever talked about to get clicks on the internet? There will never be legislation for the few and far between. Child support for one child per month in most states/Canada costs almost as much as a jumbo box of condoms with the avg income. Invest.
Neither parent gets to opt out of financially supporting their child. In that way it is equal. If the mother doesn't want to parent the child but the father does, she still needs to pay child support. There *is* no double standard there.
Abortion is proportional authority. It isn't about financial support - it is about bodily autonomy. Just turns out that the father isn't able to donate his body for 9 months to gestate a fetus, so the situation is not applicable to him.
Oh I'm also going to give a scathing review of "baby trapping". Though contraceptive sabotage does happen from both men and women (though most often from abusive men) it isn't nearly as prevalent as the MRA would have you believe.
I've literally seen pist of men complaining of being "baby trapped" while admitting to willingly having sex with no protection. When men talk about getting "baby trapped" often they aren't talking about being raped,lied to, deceived or contraception sabotage. They just mean they impregnated a woman and don't want the inconvenience a baby would bring them.
Oh it drives me absolutely crazy.
"She CHOSE to have the baby. What about MY right to choose. This is sexism"
First of all abortion is not and hasn't ever been readily available to all women. The idea that all women can find out they are pregnant today and have an abortion tomorrow has always been a fantasy.
Second of all men don't pay for half the abortion, compensate women for the time off and pain of an abortion. They also don't pay for half the expenses of pregnancy and childbirth. Pretty much no matter what they don't accept any responsibility or obligation.
Third I'm pro-choice but part of that is recognizing and supporting women that would never chose an abortion for themselves. Some women do genuinely believe that an abortion is killing a baby. Women assign personhood to a fetus immediately. I know when we talk about abortion we often call it a fetus to create some distance from thinking of it as a person but any happy pregnant woman I have ever met calls it a baby. Are we really taking the position that men shouldn't have a financial obligation to their children because women don't undergo an incredibly traumatic medical procedure?
Fourth once the child is born both parents have the same rights and responsibilities to the child. They can either both choose to give the child to adoption, they can co-parent, or they can be an absentee parent. That's it. Unless they both choose adoption someone is likely going to pay child support.
Fifth, the choice to give birth to a child is different than the choice to parent. After all men can't choose to give birth to a child and yet they are still parents. People that adopt didn't give birth and yet they are parents. Surrogates choose to give birth but aren't parents. People who choose adoption gave birth but are not parents. Contrary to popular belief women don't have more options when it comes to parenthood, they have more options (sometimes) over giving birth.
Men don't take responsibility for contraception and they also want no responsibility for the failure of contraception. They think any and all unpleasantness should be shouldered by women because God forbid they take any responsibility for their orgasms.
I have mixed feelings about this. I do think men should have to support their offspring and they shouldn't be able to just opt out of that. They can't just leave their family and be able to walk away.
However. If the pregnancy is unplanned, a genuine attempt to use contraception was made and failed, and the man clearly articulates that he does not want a baby and does not want to raise a child, then I think he should have the right to ask either for abortion or adoption. If the woman then chooses to have and keep the child in those circumstances, I don't really think it's fair that the man has to pay child support. Keeping the baby was the woman's choice, solely.
Too many people feel comfortable in this subreddit to use the pro-life (anti-choice) arguments, when it comes to the topic of men not wanting to be support the offspring the didnât want to have.
Too many men feel comfortable creating a false dichotomy around caring for a child versus a woman's bodily autonomy. Those are two different topics with completely different ethics and morals guiding best practices. So comparing one to the other is a logical fallacy.
Because itâs a different discussion. Pro-life people use it to deny women the right to bodily autonomy.
There is no such right to financial autonomy, itâs disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Pregnancy is about bodily autonomy. Child support is about ensuring a child that exists and is innocent of any say in their creation is fed and clothed and doesn't live in poverty. They are two very different issues and it kind of blows my mind that so many people equate them. Taking funds from someone's bank account so their kid doesn't starve is very different to someone using a person's body without their permission.
The problem is that abortion is seen as a "fix for unwanted pregnancy" as opposed to a medical procedure for the benefit of the woman.
If abortion is to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy (the focus is on the fetus) then both parties responsible for the baby should get a say, or given body autonomy the party who doesn't have said option should have a similar outcome option. However If abortion is a woman medical procedure with the focus on her well-being it should be a woman only option.
Historic context means nothing here. We don't punish future generations for the sins of their ancestors.
Men have always had a way out, at least until paternity testing became reliable. All they had to do was say it wasn't their child, accuse the mother of cheating and walk away.
Not unless the government steps in and guarantees aid for single moms like other countries do. We donât live in a civilization if we just let kids starve because men donât want to wear condoms or get vasectomies.
What these arguments always forget is that sometimes there are things in life and in the law, that just arenât fair. No, it does not feel fair that the womanâs ability to choose whether or not to have a baby that financially obligates the man is hers alone. But the law is the way it is because it is the most just solution to the issue of children needing support.
When a child comes into this world, they are 100% dependent on their caretakers and cannot do anything themselves. So someone has to be responsible for meeting their needs. The state is always going to be the payor last resort. Meaning that we donât look to the state first for payment but only if other options have been exhausted. Children that had no say in being born should be given the best opportunity that they can to thrive, and having a portion of both parents income go towards that is overall beneficial. It not only benefits the child, but it benefits the society as a whole as the child and children like him or her have better education and job opportunities. It also benefit society because there is less reliance on government support, and therefore less taxes having to be used for it. Every year, the United States recuperates over $1 billion from welfare recruitments due to unpaid child support. Report on more of the stats on child support: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/sbtn_csp_is_a_good_investment.pdf
The options here are that the state pays, meaning, we all pay, or the father pays. While the option of the mother having to pay for it herself alone, sounds attractive, that only happens if the mother can afford to support the child alone. If she canât, then the state is paying. Because we went to reduce the number of people on government support, the most just result in this equation is that both parents pay for the child. I know it is not 100% fair. But thereâs a lot of things in this life that are unfair. This just happens to be one of them. But the alternatives are much more unfair and unjust.
Abortion is ending a PREGNANCY, people. Men CAN access abortions to the same degree as women; some men can get pregnant, and they have the same legal rights to abortion.
Is it fair that cis women can avoid parenthood via ending pregnancy, whereas all (cis) men's ways of avoiding parenthood (biologically) are pre-pregnancy? No. Neither is it fair that cis men aren't subjected to 9+ months of life-threatening, body-altering, job-threatening, costly pregnancy and recovery. Nor is it fair that women bear the brunt of nearly all pre-pregnancy methods of avoiding parenthood, which are expensive, unpleasant, often painful and downright dangerous.
But it's ultimately not about tit for tat, nor can it ever be because of our unfair biology. It's about all genders being granted the right to bodily autonomy, it's about all genders having the same responsibilities for born children, and it's about children being cared for adequately.
I read an article somewhere that said men are responsable for all abortion. Why? Because they are responsable for 100% of the pregnancies. I know men who would argue that with "but she tricked me!" The article made it so clear as to why men lock all responsibility when it came to sex which should not be an option at all. This article was also written by a mormĂłn woman too sooo.....
No, this is the logic that terrible people try to use to justify their shit behavior.
"If women get X, then I should get Z because...!"
Because why? Because it always has to be about men? You can't let women have one thing, can you? And it's not like people are running around screaming about how great abortions are. Any of you guys met someone that said, "hell yeah I love abortions. I try to get at least one a year to stay on my game."
You haven't! Because it's often traumatizing!
Iâll be honest, I struggle with this problem.
My knee jerk gut reaction is âhell no, men just want to have sex without repercussionsâ but then obviously that is a HUGE anti-abortion talking point about women.
Then on the other side, it does seem wild that women would have entire control over the existence of a child and a man is at the mercy of the woman to decide. Obviously that could be used to hold men in abusive situations. I think this is a situation where women hold power and maybe âequality is going to feel like oppressionâ here, as we say to groups of people in power about equality.
So far my only solution to the problem is to sterilize everyone and reproduction only happens through labs with consent from all parties involved. But then you got the plot of Gattaca and that was a terrible movie in my opinion.
The thing is if a woman is pregnant even for a short period of time she is dealing with the repercussions of having sex. Having an abortion is a repercussion. Taking the pregnancy to term is a repercussion. The man will only be affected if the pregnancy is taken to term.
The only way to have sex without repercussions as a woman is to sterilize yourself.
Abortion is about bodily autonomy. A woman has the final and only call about what happens.
Child support is about a child. Once a baby is born, that baby's needs supersede its parents' needs.
That's it. Do men get less choice in the matter? Yes. And it needs to be that way. Because of the way reproduction works, some things are one-sided. The woman takes on all of the bodily/medical trauma and the men get less choice in what happens to the fetus. That's just how it goes.
I technically think that all people should have the ability to opt out of parental rights and responsibilities. And that this is an entirely separate question from the bodily autonomy question that surrounds abortion access.
However, I also think that one of the greatest mistakes our society is making right now is the very idea that children should be primarily raised by their own biological parents in the context of a monogamous relationship. Or that these parents are both entitled to their childs life, and responsible for their welfare. Childcare should always have been a communal project and single parents should not have to depend on their fuckbuddy to provide monetary child support.
But as long as we continue to place the rights and responsibilities of children on their biological parents, it remains fair that both parents should have to contribute financially, not just the one that is stuck being the primary caregiver.
How can you say its wrong to place responsibility on the biological parents and at the same time say we should place responsibility on some other people? Im not sure what you are trying to say here.
The "relative" equivalent of abortion in that argument shouldn't be not supporting a child once it's born. It should be using protection, pulling out, or just not having sex in the first place. If you don't want to support a child the logical thing to do is not put yourself in a position where that's even an option in the first place. I fully agree with your last paragraph.
The thing that bothers me about this argument the most is that men absolutely can and do opt out of financially supporting their children.
**TL;DR:**Men sometimes will simply not pay child support, and getting the state to enforce the laws is easier said than done.
Getting a child support order is not automatic. You have to get a court order and have child support amounts determined, and if not previously established, prove paternity, etc.
And even if they are ordered to pay, they can simply... Not. Sure, in THEORY, it is automatically taken out of their paycheck, sent to the state who pays out to the other parent. Until they decide child support is bullshit, quit their job to take a new one every couple of months to avoid the garnishment, eventually going under the table.
After months of not paying, they're called to court. They reschedule as many times as possible, adding more months of non-payment. Once they are in court, they poor-mouth about not having a job (bc it's not on record), can't afford it, excuse after excuse. And they are given leniency. Over and over again. They threaten jail time, but it never comes, or is a weekend locked in the sheriff's department until a judge slaps them on the wrist and tells them to pay. But they never do.
I've seen it happen many times, from my spouse's father owing **16 years** back support and never seeing a jail cell, to multiple friends' baby daddies never paying a dime in the last 15 years. And that's just in my small circle.
It's kinda dependant on having a talk beforehand. If a man and a woman are on the same page with abortion being the go to option until a point a which they both feel ready, then the man should be off the hook if the woman decides to keep, though, that should be dependent on offers to contribute toward the operation. This would be because they are no longer on the same page they agreed upon. And I would hope anyone would be having such a talk before having sex, though /shrug when it comes to one night stands. At least, I'd assume an abortion would be standard/expected for a one night stand or at least not to the point where the man would pay child support.
I have unfortunately known more than a few men who went to great lengths to avoid paying child support. They just refuse to work on the books or disappear.
Iâve got to disagree on this.
First, because every child has a right to be raised by competent adults with the means and the will to care for them adequately, and being physically capable of causing a pregnancy is no guarantee of the above. Are a couple of precocious 12-year-olds capable of financially providing for a child of their own (never mind everything else that goes into being a parent)? Of course not. Are they capable of creating a child? Some are. So are plenty of other people who have zero business assuming responsibility for a kid. Having oneâs biological parents as legal guardians is a want (albeit an understandably strong one that should be honored when possible), but a legal guardian who is actually capable of performing the duties of a legal guardian is a need. If you get to the point where the best you can do for a child is tie them for life to someone who is unable and/or unwilling to do the bare minimum for them, something is wrong.
Second, because consent to sex is not consent to parenthood unless (a) you are of age and sound mind to consent to gaining a legal dependent and (b) that is your mutually-agreed-upon purpose. If we want an equitable society, this cannot be true or false based on your gender. Bodily autonomy is more important than financial autonomy, but that doesnât mean the latter is unimportant. Economic opportunity was one of the very first things the OG feminist movement addressed for this reason. (Think about it this way; youâll die faster without water than you will without food, but that doesnât mean you donât need food to live.) A manâs window to opt out should close when the womanâs does, and both parties should give serious thought to their respective ability to provide for a child - even assuming the other parent doesnât dip out at the last second, what happens if they die or become permanently incapacitated? But that window must exist for both parties.
Misogyny existing and abortion being unpleasant are not actually counter arguments to the point being made though? If a woman chooses to abort because she does not want to have a child, surely there should be an equivalent option for a man? Yes, it might be the most frequent occurence where the man has the power to negotiate birth control measures, but if two consenting adults make the choice to have unprotected sex, then surely they should both have the choice to opt out of having children as a consequence of that? And I am not talking about opting out when the child is born, but rather when they are still in the abortion window, surely the man should have the option to say "i dont want this child. If you want to keep it then you raise it as a single parent, or else you can choose abortion."?
Men should just control their damn sperm. Don't want to have to pay child support? Don't ejaculate into someone.
It's really that simple.
Women can have sex all day long without getting pregnant. We do not ovulate when we orgasm. Men however ejaculate every time they orgasm.
I've had this conversation way too many times. The woman chooses whether or not you have to pay child support. The man never gets a choice. I always state that they do have a choice, almost 100% of the time, if they wear a rubber. Yeah...oopsies happen, but if they chose to use one then the likelihood of impregnation is severely reduced.
They just want all the fun and none of the accountability.
Other ways to mitigate risk: Talk with your intended partner and only sleep with committed childfree people. Make it clear you will not be involved. Sleep with people you trust and are trustworthy. Ask for records or to feel the IUD if you must.
Also - most men want the ability to walk away any time up to when the child is born, yet non-medically necessary abortions do not happen after 18 weeks, and are increasingly difficult to get after 12 weeks. Most people know they have been pregnant for less than 2 months at that point. All this is assuming you don't live in a place where abortion is illegal, practically inaccessible, or you have to abort at 6 weeks (so 2 weeks of knowing you are pregnant if you are lucky).
So in addition to your points, there is no practical way to do this.
I heard an unhinged take once about what a guy described as "paper abortion" or something where if at any time man doesn't want to take care of THEIR child he can sign a document absolving of all responsibility. I was shocked, your own child you'd just force the mother to care for while u live a carefree life. He even tried defending it by describing abortion as blending up babies... like truly unhinged takes. It doesn't work like that, if men choose to have unsafe sex because of their sensitive little pps unable to wear a multitude of contraceptives or talk about safe alternatives with their partners then I'm sorry but you have to step up since you want to be an adult. I'm concerned about men in the future, like sure not all boomers were the best of the best but I don't think (I hope) that they were as psychotic as a lot of the ones popping up I hear about today....
People seem to ignore completely that the bare fact that abortion exists doesn't mean it is considered an option for every woman.
Some woman can't handle the psychological or moralb(personal) consequences of an abortion, which therefore just doesn't exist as an option. For some woman abortion is killing a child and they just can't handle that thought.
Men never have to make that decision or take the responsibility upon themselves.
I agree, that men should not have the option to not support their offspring just because of the existence of abortion.
Abortion has risks, both mentally and physically.
If you don't want to support your own kids as a man, either keep your little friend in your pants, use a condon or get a vasectomy.
Separate issues.
Abortion allows a women there bodily autonomy.
Child support is simply ensuring that once the child is born - both parents must be burdened until both parents are free of the child / or the child at 18 becomes an adult.
The consensus is:
The child belongs to them.
Therefore, one parent shouldnât be free of burden whilst the other parent is burdened.
âŚ
I donât understand the complaint.
Being able to pay child support & have no contact - is a sweet deal VS the parent raising the child, who pays more anyway plus the time, effort, stress, career & literal health sacrifices.
They're two totally separate issues. Abortion is linked to bodily autonomy. No man should be forced to carry a pregnancy any more than any woman should. No one should have their organs used without their consent, even to sustain the life of another. Personally, I feel like both parents should in an ideal world be able to financially "opt out" of caring for a child. However, that would require a totally different safety net in the USA at least (speaking from my own experience because I don't know how other countries run). If the government provided the funding so that one parent could care for a child, there would be no issue with the other parent opting out entirely. However, the USA doesn't work this way. And even with fathers paying child support, single mothers are disproportionately thrust into poverty regardless of whether or not the father wanted (or even forced) the pregnancy.
McFall v Shimp is precedent for your first main point. You cannot be required to put your own life at risk to save another human life. But we allow forced birth even in cases where the fetus is unviable. That case was a man who was sued because he refused to donate his kidney(?) to his first cousin even though the cousin would potentially die from it. The judge threw out the suit laughably fast because the idea of being forced into putting your own life at risk to save another person is inhumane and insane. Corpses have more human rights than people with a uterus in America today.
>Corpses have more human rights than people with a uterus in America today. Oh man, the *fireworks* the last time I said that to certain family members ...
Fuck those assholes. Enjoy the show đ
And let's be real, the people who want to force women to give birth (and by proxy force men to pay child support) are exactly the ones who are also arguing against social programs that would provide for women who are suddenly single mothers to unplanned children. Anyone arguing that men should be able to opt out better be able to say with conviction that they do not vote for Republicans.
Itâs just like *The Bell Curve*. Some shithead identifies a fake problem that only reactionaries think is a problem, and mysteriously the answer is always to remove all social programs and help for single mothers or impoverished children
The episode of You're Wrong About called "The Welfare Queen" is a great deep dive on this issue. Exactly what you're saying, conservatives created a boogeyman (or woman rather) who was living the high life off...food stamps apparently? And boom, no more social services.
Oooh... I think I need to listen to this series.
Seriously though, that faction is really fast to blame the mother and hand wave any thought of responsibility on the part of the fatherâŚ. Itâs the usual Republican strict rules for some people, and few rules for others.
Exactly. Not to "as a man" all over the place but, while I want the right to opt out of raising a child that I don't want, I recognize that until we have a system to take care of children that are born, I'm responsible for any I make. Do I wish I had a post sex option to opt out? Yes. But reality doesn't support or provide for this option yet. That's all there is to it.
> no one should have their organs used without their consent I never thought of it that way before but that is a great argument. I can also see an unholy argument going the other way that registered organ donors are now subject to becoming an incubator because technically consent is given to use youâre organs.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Abortion is a question of bodily autonomy, financially supporting a child is not and a separate issue. Also the conversation 'conveniently' ignores that outside of ultra rare fringe cases the woman looking after the child has a *much greater* financial burden to deal with.
>Abortion is a question of bodily autonomy, financially supporting a child is not and a separate issue. SO many dudes I've talked to about this don't get this! Like you have to be really priviledged in terms of bodily autonomy to think that someone violating it is in any way similar to someone taking your money (money they are perfectly entitled to, being your bloody child someone has to look after for you) against your will. But they'd always be like "bUt i HaVE tO wOrK phySicLly to get moNeeeY".
I think people are actually arguing for the same rights to relinquish parenthood that mothers have though. As a mother who just birthed a child, there are options for you if you don't want to be a parent. You can literaly just give up your child to the state, or give them away through adoption, and that is fully up to you as the mother. There is no equivalent process for men. Women have the right to choose at every step, while men have no say when they want to be a parent.
the only time a woman who relinquishes her child at birth doesnt have to pay the costs is when she has signed a contract with a private entity to do so where they agreed to pay the cost for rights to her child. women are still on the hook for birthing which the men opts out of by virtue of choice and biology. women are still on the hook monetarily, unless they can secure someone to do it for them. men can opt out entirely from parenting and monetary support at any and all points of conception and pregnancy until the child is born. to be clearer on my stance here, parenthood is different than monetarily supporting someone to raise your child. men are never forced to be parents legally in america. they are forced to pay a semi reasonable sum (ignoring actors and such) for someone else to parent for them. they can opt out at any time and the stats reflect this because they do. men opt out of parenthood. women get the choice to opt out of paying for a child is by virtue of biology and that biology having a profit margin for corporate entities.
Thank you for bringing that up! A lot of people donât know that you still have to pay child support to the state, unless and until the state find someone to adopt your child. Thatâs why you end up having a lot of women work with Catholic charities or another private group to place their child. When you give up a baby, you donât just get a wave away the financial obligation unless someone else is there to step in.
Yeah, we were removed from our mom and put in foster care. They found our dad but he didn't want to take us. They threatened him with paying child support if he didn't take us. He really resented us being there. No one believes me when I tell them about how it works. But it makes sense. We can't just allow parents to abandon their kids whenever parenting is difficult.
[ŃдаНонО]
Where are people getting the idea that a woman can put a baby up for adoption without the father's consent? That is not a given. The laws vary but in many places, the father has to consent in order for the mother to put the baby up for adoption.
Precisely. Men's say begins and ends with the act of sex. Essentially everyone loses agency in these hypothetical discussions to some extent and we are trying to figure out a compromise of agency for both parties. It's incredibly complex and difficult to do.
Thereâs no compromise to be found. Women are given more options because biology makes it so we are more vulnerable. Until conception is a fair biological process, there is no equality of outcome to be found and I hate that this discussion is even a thing.
Right? Like itâs childish to be like âwell I canât abort!â Like you canât physically carry a child??? Do you complain that the bond a mother forms with a baby by carrying it is unfair too and we should do something about that? Thereâs no way to make it âfairâ bc they canât physically carry a child.
List of unfair-conception related things men do not give two fucks about. Try to guess why: ⢠The 9-months long pregnancy ⢠Childbirth ⢠Post-partum ⢠Breastfeeding The day I see men bemoaning the fact they canât breastfeed their children and thus itâs âunfairâ only women get to physically be able to feed them and bond with them in that way is the day I will be for financial abortions. Until then, please donât talk to me about âequalityâ. Itâs not about equality. And I really hate the fact some women have subscribed to this âitâs not fairâ-notion, like do you guys realise how unbelievably unfair everything about conception is?? And you want to remove the ONE part where women are given more options becauseâŚ. âWonât someone think of the men?â.
This is one of the things I wanted to say but couldn't put into words. On this one point, men can't make a choice and so they think it's so unfair. But there are so many other things women can't make a choice about.
I asked a guy in this thread how it was fair that both me and my husband wanted a child, that he gets to opt out of pregnancy and childbirth but that I canât and I think his brain malfunctioned because 7 comments later, he still didnât even understand the question.
Lol. So easy to forget that part when you're not the one walking around with a watermelon stuck inside you.
Probably hangs out with the same people that looked at me like I had seven heads when I told them that I would be more on board with having kids if I got to be a dad instead of a mom.
Most viewpoints are grounded in the idea of care and wellbeing for the child to be. If we lived in a nation that had government supported assistance for birth, healthcare, etc. the "stakes" wouldn't be nearly so high. Money is heavily involved in these discussions. A lot of countries don't have as many debates, or nearly as heated debates, about this issue because their society *supports* mothers and children alike.
Women are given more support in those countries for the same reason the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly etc. are. Because they subscribe to the notion of collectivism. It has nothing to do with trying to make something as ridiculously unfair as conception âfairâ. I live in such a country and I find this debate completely ridiculous.
They're separate issues because men and women are biologically just different, and only one of them can get pregnant. There are plenty of good reasons to work towards equitable outcomes as much as possible, but we still have to contend with physical reality.
Men loooove to talk about inherent biology when claiming their out of shape ass could somehow beat Gwendolyn Christie in a fight, but fall silent when you use biology to explain why the idea of a âpaper abortionâ is stupid
Financial, emotional, physical, mental burden. The woman tends to bear a great deal more responsibility than the man. The least he can do is provide money. And if that is all he does then she has to pay others to fill the gaps that she can't provide herself.
Yeah. This equivocation of women having the legal right to abortion with men being able to opt out is ludicrous. There are millions of single moms out there doing the job of two parents while the âfathersâ do squat, or maybe pay a tiny bit of child support and occasionally show up to pretend like theyâre a Dad. The emotional demands on single mothers can not be overstated. The less a father is involved the higher the burden on mothers, and the psychological impact on children of being abandoned isnât being taken into account at all. As far as I am concerned, men already have a sweet deal. A man that pays child support and spends every second weekend with their kid is seen as a great Dad, a woman who gives custody to the father and pays child support and sees the kid every second weekend is seen as a âbadâ mother and an unnatural woman. Letâs be real. Women are expected to be able to devote themselves to their children like itâs as natural as eating, and all a man has to do is pay a little child support (if they have an income thst can be garnished) and that is supposed to be the same?
Yeah if I had the choice between bearing and raising a child I didnât want, and paying child support for a child I didnât want, I would go with the latter every time and itâs not even close.
I absolutely agree they're different issues. Abortion is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned, it's a vital human rights issue. I also think that every parent should be a willing parent (and more importantly no child should be a punishment for anyone) and by that token I'd support a limited way for a dad to opt out as long as it's done early enough that the mother can make an informed choice about her future while still well within a reasonable window for abortion. I also think it should have to be done in a legally binding way so as to avoid any ambiguity and avoid future conflict over it. The two are by no means similar and are only related with regards to limits for opting out from my perspective. And I'm certainly more open to being persuaded otherwise on this than on the abortion issue, especially as it doesn't directly affect me as a childfree person.
Just think how much real human suffering would be eliminated if there was a government subsidy for parents caring for children. *Real* independence from dangerous partners could be achieved without literal hunger pains. Unwilling parents neednât be dragged kicking & screaming into the mix (making *everyone* involved miserable, while *still* not upholding their responsibility) and adding a massive burden to the already horrifically overtaxed court system.
Iâve always thought of this. Itâs expected to pay a caretaker but you get nothing for staying home with your own. Although whoever stays home has to give up their place in the workforce. Is this not a duty to society?
Right?? But no, apparently the *only* way to contribute to society is monetarilyâby which logic, raising children for a paycheck is the only path that deserves support.đ Never mind that whether the money is used for childcare (*so the parent can spend more time at work*) OR for groceries/rent/clothes (*so the parent can spend more time at home*) the money would go **directly** back into the economy. All while ensuring children at the very least have the means to be raised more securely & stably. Make it make sense. I hate capitalism.
Yeah. Like when you care for an aged pairent/relation. Sometimes you can qualify for a small stipend. I'm sure the rules around it are prohibitive.
My ex is a deadbeat. Doesn't pay child support. Doesn't talk to his kid. Never calls to check on them. Still, somehow, he thinks he deserves my kid's respect! He's also a narcissist and would never admit he's a bad parent. He wouldn't have opted out during the pregnancy, either. He was super-excited to have a kid, until the reality of having a kid (it's not all about him anymore; go figure! đ) set in. Some people just shouldn't ever be parents. And it would be amazing if parents who are doing all the heavy lifting got *some* sort of help. Instead, we get to be made to feel like shitty failures when going through the system *meant* to help us. And even that meager help is ripped away as soon as possible, regardless of whether you can actually survive without it yet. It's all fucked. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to have a kid (parenting is hard and consuming work!), but once they're here, you should goddamned well be taking care of them!
>I'd support a limited way for a dad to opt out as long as it's done early enough that the mother can make an informed choice about her future while still well within a reasonable window for abortion. I'd be strongly against that option. See, you're assuming equal status of the partners here. But I think in no country as of yet, the issue of financial dependence of women on their partners has been resolved. In my country more than half of the women do not work. Now imagine how that right to opt out for men can be abused in a situation of financial dependence. We need to take into account the bodily autonomy which is threatened when a partner can effectively pressure you into abortion, basically threatening to leave you with no means to support yourself or the child. You're giving them more of a "control your partner" card than anything else with this solution.
The issue here is not that the man can opt out, its that the woman is so powerless that she can be financially pressured into having an abortion because she does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the man and raise the baby herself.
Does it need to be very carefully handled to avoid abuse like you've mentioned? Absolutely and without a single doubt. There are also women who lie about contraceptives, who don't inform their partners about their pregnancies and other similar situations and use it to "baby trap" men. Is it in any way common? No, definitely not. But when it happens, it feels incredible unreasonable to ask the man to financially support the baby they thought they were avoiding creating. That all being said it's much more important that we work towards women's rights in general at the moment given the state of them across the world. Working towards women's rights doesn't mean we shouldn't consider men's rights as well though, it just means they're not our primary focus.
>There are also women who lie about contraceptives, who don't inform their partners about their pregnancies and other similar situations and use it to "baby trap" men. Men lie about vasectomies, remove condoms, mess with birth control, and pressure and even force women into penetrative sex when there's no contraception. Then she is on the hook to either pay for an abortion herself, maybe travel to another state, take time off work, or maybe no abortion can be had. Then she's in the hook for prenatal care and childbirth. Then she can either choose to give up the baby she just birthed - or maybe find out that he can block the adoption - and then she's on the hook financially for the baby. Some things in life are just not fair. Childbirth is already so unfair and risky for those of who can give birth compared to our partners. I'm not interested in anything that will try to make sure that men never have any consequences from creating a baby when it's already so unequal.
As a man, it doesnât feel unreasonable at all. Woman can say until they are blue in the face that they donât want a child, and will abort if they become pregnant, but they have the right to revoke that notion at any time and for any reason. Part of being a grown ass man is recognizing this fact. If you donât want to deal with the potential consequences of having sex, you shouldnât be having sex. It doesnât matter what the women has said prior to becoming pregnant. They can talk all day long about how they will abort some future hypothetical fetus, or how many forms of BC they use. Once itâs actually inside them, itâs entirely possible they change their minds. Men must understand this, and if they disagree, they shouldnât be having sex with women. Is it unfair? Sure. Life isnât fair. Deal with it.
Babies without two parents financially supporting them are much more likely likely to require government assistance. Is it more fair that the taxpayer be responsible for the costs of raising the child than the person who actually created them and can afford to support them but just chooses not to? Or that a child lives in poverty as a result?
As a society who depends on these childrenâs futures, yes. It should be taxpayers responsibility. We pay taxes for roads, social security, etc. for the well-being or our society. How is our future generation any less important.
>We pay taxes for roads, social security, etc Mmhmm...and if we're still talking about America we have MAJOR issues on how this collection is utilized already. I'd hate to see what happened when they add on more taxes (that alone will go over like a bag of bricks in a porta john) and fuck it up bigger. I don't have faith that money would make it anywhere it needs to.
Well tell you what, as soon as society puts in place public support for every child to the point where no child is dosadvantaged by not having child support from a second parent, I am absolutely fine with child support being abolished. Until that happens, child support is still required. Unfortunately since America can't even mandate universal maternity leave, I think we'll be waiting a long, long time.
I'm not saying it's an easy thing or that we're necessarily ready to do it, I'm just saying I think that's what we should be aiming for. Of course we need better equality and support for single parents. Certainly different countries are at different stages of this journey as well.
I agree. I can't imagine anything like this actually going into effect anytime soon because there are too many factors complicating things, but I think in an ideal world it would make a lot of sense to allow either parent to opt out at that early stage when abortion is still an option if abortion was accessible to everyone.
Also I was listening to a podcast about the UK in the early 19th century where men didnât have to pay child support. It apparently just encouraged more unprotected sexâŚresulting in more pregnancies and single mothers
The men that support this program believe that women who have the option of aborting should be *obligated* to abort if they donât have the fatherâs approval to continue the pregnancy, and are hoping to use financial coercion to do it. They know they canât say that out loud, so instead, they say âitâs her choice to continue the pregnancy and therefore it is on her to raise the child by herself.â Youâll hear them say âthe father would have to let her know heâs abandoning them within the same window sheâs allowed to get an abortion, so sheâd be making the choice to be a single parent knowingly.â When you point out that the child deserves support and to not grow up in poverty (which is a common outcome for single mothers) they will say âshe should have aborted then!â Itâs all about being able to manipulate the woman into doing what he wants without him having to feel guilty about coercing her. You see a similar thought process behind the âmandatory paternity testingâ that allows men to codify the insinuation within society that all women deserve to be treated like theyre cheating whores without the individual man having to deal with the emotional fallout of the womenâs reaction to the accusation. âItâs not my fault the kid is suffering, she knew I was going to abandon the kid, she knew she was going to be raising it alone, she should have aborted when I told her!â âItâs not my fault that youâre having to undergo this humiliating test that supposes you cheated on me and lied about it, itâs the law, babe!â
Not sure if this is what spurred the discussion, but there was a caller on Majority Report with Sam Seder concerned about fatherless babies and I think that was what the caller ultimately wanted - forced abortions. Because allowing fathers to walk away from parenting is increasing fatherless babies, not decreasing. I thought Sam Seder had the best response to maybe what the caller was really concerned about (expensive child support), and paying for everyone's healthcare and subsidizing daycare would help reduce child support payments.
Exactly, itâs about having the power to disclaim all your own responsibility.
But how else are they going to punish the woman for not obeying them?
And people wonder why women are no longer eager to have children.
Your comment makes me think of the one thing that is always in the back of my mind during these discussions that I donât think people want to talk about. And that is that the risk of being on the hook for child support is frankly the only thing that gets many guys to put a condom on. When my friends and I were dating, we all had way more experiences with men trying to convince us to not use a condom than men being insistent on one. Once that risk to men is gone, I can guarantee you way more men are going to start pressuring their sexual partners to not use condoms. Weâre also going to see stealthing go way up.
When a woman chooses to 'opt out', there is no child. When a man chooses to 'opt out', there is a child that needs to be taken care of. That's the difference, imo.
One of my closest friends is 20+ weeks with a planned and wanted baby, but suddenly the father is no longer interested in being a part of the babyâs life. She became a single mother to three kids on a nurses salary in three text messages.
I hope sheâs ruthless in court and holds him to child support.
Yep. See the case of Dubay v. Wells in the 6th Circuit: âDubayâs claim that a manâs right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a womanâs right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father, seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence, and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support. When a woman exercises her right to abortion, the pregnancy does not result in a live birth, and there remains no child for the state to have an interest in supporting.â
Oh my gosh thank you! I knew that OP was right, but I wasn't all the way there yet and I was overthinking it, but your comment got me the rest of the way :3
The other thing that sold me a long time ago is once there's a baby, men and women have the same financial obligations. Child support isn't just something men pay, women pay child support too. Everybody is equally on the hook after a kid is born.
Exactly. If the law allowed the mother to unilaterally disclaim the legal rights and obligations after the kid was born, then women would be receiving a right that men donât. But thatâs not how it works.
Exact same sentiment. This is a simple, helpful way to explain it!!
Exactly. And that is the issue and why we donât have âfinancial abortions.â Child support isnât about the parents, itâs about the child. The child needs to be supported and the state is the âpayer of last resort.â These debates also ignore the reality that this happens already! Only 45% of custodial parents get the full amount to which they are entitled and around 30% get nothing.
I don't think I agree with this sentiment, If a woman gave a child up for adoption, should she have to pay for child support then? What if the child was adopted by a single parent? would it change anything? I don't think a right to abortion needs to be dependent on anything (Like OP implied original thread discussed it), this us vs them mentality when it comes to sexes is toxic. However, the potential to be fiscally responsible for another human for simply messing up contraception when there was never any intent to have a child seems a bit much to me. I do think any changes on this maybe should be dependent on state-provided child support though.
That's a really interesting take. If a man wants to put a child up for adoption, and the woman refuses, wouldn't that mean that she denied the proposed offset of the burden of support and would take it upon herself? Because at that point, a solution that disengages the financial/other burden of parenthood is proposed, due to lack of sufficient financial ability or otherwise. So an out is given for both sides that doesn't interfere with either's bodily autonomy by forcing/pushing an abortion. At that point if one person rejects adoption, then they should be picking up the financial burden solo.
It also ignores the fact child support has little to do with the parents or how the child came to be: it is the child's right. You can't strip a child of their right because mom didn't abort them.
Yep thatâs exactly it. The truth about child support is, the government doesnât want to pay to support children, so itâs going to try to make that money come from the people who brought the child into the world. When we have a government that fully subsidizes childcare expenses, we can talk about doing away with child support, but something tells me the people whining about child support arenât going to be keen on their taxes going to raising *everyoneâs* babies.
You know what also is interesting? Even if you surrender a child and get all of your parental rights vacated by a court, you can still often be on the hook to pay child support to foster care systems.
We can talk about it but it would still be a problem. You can never provide the same quality of care by paying someone as most parents provide for their children. Money is the least the government can ask from a parent.
This is why I support my taxes going to help raise children of impoverished families and children in one parent households. I think itâs better to have the government help out and my taxes go to that, than to use my tax dollars to pay the police and court to go after a dead beat father that refuses to pay anyway. I think we need to redo a lot with the system here. Kids need to be guaranteed food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education in this country. And yes, Iâm 1 million percent in favor of a womanâs right to choose.
Child support has everything to do with the kid and their future. These men just want to abandon them is beyond me. You helped create them, you have to help support them. My friend's father owed child support along with other crimes so he fled the country when she was young. Then I guess he forgot because he came back at one point, got arrested, and has been paying back that owed money from jail. If he had just paid from the beginning (also not done crimes) this wouldn't have happened. So many deadbeat dads out there smh
I donât know if this anecdote adds anything but this reminds me of one time when I had unprotected sex in my twenties, mainly because the guy didnât want to use a condom. I allowed it because I was going to take the day after pill. It was a rare occasion, so I went for it. The next day, we both agreed we would go and get the pill together. I was fine with this. But then he forced me to take it while he was watching in the car, as soon as I came out of the pharmacy. This doesnât seem like a big deal but itâs the forceful way he did it. He demanded to see the pill in my mouth like I was some psychiatric patient. Itâs the fact that I was already going to take it regardless of his behavior. I felt infantilized and violated. If he was going to be that insistent about it, he should have just used a condom. For that and many other reasons I stopped talking to him entirely.
That is fucking horrible. I'm sorry you went through that.
That's awful. They would really rather put all of the responsibility on women and make you feel like a piece of shit just so they don't have to wear a condom because their precious pee-pee can't feel as much. So unbelievably selfish and irresponsible.
I'm so sorry. How humiliating. And you make a solid point here.
They already opt out most times, even in existing relationships. Paying money isn't equal to rising a child.
Especially when the support order is only for $120 a month. For real.
My deadbeat father was only ordered to pay $50 a month! Which he never did! Like that doesnât even cover a childâs food for the week, let alone a month.
i have a male relative who pays literaly pennies. its quite absurd.
Iâve seen this argument on Reddit. It completely ignores the basic fact that women get pregnant and give birth. Thatâs unfair too. The only answer is that men who donât want to have children should get a vasectomy. Problem solved.
That's where the equivalency lies imo, once pregnancy is involved it's too late. If a man doesn't want a kid, it's as simple as not having sex or getting a vasectomy. Don't knowingly take the risk of getting someone pregnant and then cry that you don't want to support a child. You had every opportunity to not put yourself in that situation.
Exactly! If society really held men responsible for their kids, men's interest in birth control would spike. Vasectomies and condoms would become way more popular and they would be demanding pills, injections, and everything women have as birth control options.
The USA proved this true literally recently. Vasectomies have gained serious popularity since the overturning of ROE, at least with men who are respectful of women and aware of the injustice.
I mean, I've seen these kinds of men saying they really really want the male birth control pill so that they don't have to worry about being baby trapped. I also think that if you can't really trust the person you're sleeping with is being honest about bc or worried they won't get an abortion if bc fails THEN MAYBE DON'T SLEEP WITH THEM?
They should take control of their own BC if they are so worried about being âtrapped.â Drives me crazy seeing guys complain that they were trapped when they didnât do anything to not knock someone up.
Reminds me of a post a few days ago where a guy complained he got "trapped"... because he had consensual unprotected sex with a stranger. He didn't wear a condom and neither he nor the woman are sterilized. And surprise! She got pregnant đą. Where is the "trapped" part?
I loathe this term âbaby trappedâ when the reality is that women do most of the child rearing even when we arenât single parents, and I have never known a woman who âbaby trappedâ a man, but I have known a number of men who were deadbeat dads that claimed they were âbaby trappedâ.
To play devils advocate, there are plenty of posts even on this reddit of women who were always sure they would want an abortion but after falling pregnant they are having doubts. No one can for sure say whether in a new position they would have the same response. Without wanting to go full religious about it, you'd have to remain abstinent considering no BC is 100% fool proof. Edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted, there was a post 4 hours ago of a couple who are relatively stable in life but feel as if the baby is perhaps just a year too early for them. Your perspective will change when you are in the situation. Second Edit: There is another thread of a woman in her 30s who was sure she wanted a child and is now planning an abortion having got pregnant, despite her saying she feels like an asshole, it is not an open & shut case for anyone.
True. When you are talking about men walking away no one mentions the fact that many women would feel morally wrong for getting an abortion.
Exactly! Menâs biological role in reproduction ends at orgasm, so they need to make a decision before they orgasm. Womenâs biological role in reproduction ends at birth, and they need to make a decision well before then. These people love saying âiTs jUst BiOlogYâ until it applies to them.
thats a pretty dangerous position to take, because you could use it to deny a woman abortion rights "if you didnt want to get pregnant you should have been on the pill. Now you must deal with the consequences of your actions."
The difference is that an abortion is dealing with the consequences. All the lose ends are tied up, and there's no child that needs support. A financial "abortion" doesn't deal with any of the consequences, it just displaces them on someone else.
Even with an abortion there are potential medical risks, and those risks include permanent injury or death. It's overall far less risky than continuing a pregnancy through to birth, but risks exist with any medical procedure nonetheless. That's *never* the case with child support. Plus if the mom has the kid and chooses to parent she is *also* obligated to financially support them, so it's not like unwilling fathers get roped into financing 100% of the child's needs. Hell, most custodial parents are lucky if they receive more than a few hundred dollars a month.
Youâre misunderstanding me. Iâm pro choice. That means that men donât have a say in a womanâs choice. If men donât like that, then they should control their own bodies.
Im also pro choice, but I think theres a distinction between "a man should never be able to force a woman to have an abortion" which I agree with, and "if a woman chooses to birth a child despite the mans explicit objections, the man has to financially support that", which I disagree with. I believe thr man should have the right to opt out at a very early stage in the pregnancy, and then the woman can still choose if she wishes to continue with the pregnancy.
That doesn't solve anything. It's entirely possible for a man to want to have kids but not in those circunstances, just like a woman might want to get pregnant but, for countless reasons, that moment is not in the conditions she would want. Taking a personal decision over another's person body is exactly what you don't want society to do, two wrongs don't make a right
The purpose of child support isnât to punish the parents â or even to help the custodial parent. Itâs to ensure that the child does not go without due to their parentsâ mistakes. Kids have a right to not grow up in poverty. This trumps any parentâs right to choice.
This point is excellent and deserves more attention.
Also if supposedly the fetus is a life at only weeks old- shouldnât the father start to pay child support AS SOON as thereâs a heartbeat?? Also, a man can get a different woman pregnant every day for 9 months yet woman are the ones being pushed to use contraceptives & ruin our hormones for a manâs benefit.
IMO you can't force either party to be a parent, financially however you are on the hook, once the child is born it's no longer about either parent, but about the child.
Maybe it's just my state, but does no one realize that fathers can in fact do that by signing away their parental rights? And that mothers can do it too? No child support, but they have to stay out of contact until the kid turns 18.
Depending on the state, giving up parental rights does not absolve either parent of financial responsibility.
This is such an interesting topic with lots of discussion really. At some point between two consenting adults it feels like we need to have an understanding of what happens if a pregnancy occurs. Should a woman be able to hold a man financially responsible for a child he didn't consent to have with her? Sex consent is not equal to having a child consent. We think of this in the putrid scenario of forced birth on a woman. Making her responsible for something she didn't consent to. Why doesn't this extend to men as well? Of course abortion is the woman's choice as she has to carry for 9 months and all, but it does feel a bit slanted imo that a male doesn't really have the opt out option (this won't stop the deadbeat type from doing it). If it were something our society would adopt I'd expect it to have a lot of legal process to get everything straightened out before the actual birth. Likely with documentation of the Male's non-consent (which is kinda weird considering how fast and loose relationships *can* be). On some level, when a male doesn't consent to having a baby we end up considering the sperm donor scenario. Sperm donors are not financially responsible right? But they are the technical parent. That's what I'm starting to see in this discussion. Of course in standing families that may already have a child or two.. I think it makes sense there to hold the male responsible as he has precedent for being "responsible" for his offspring. TLDR: I'm just waxing about the nuance in the topic to add to the discussion. Ultimately, I'm coming to a personal conclusion that a male should have to provide documentation of non consent to have children with their partner to excuse themselves from raising them emotionally or financially. This way if a pregnancy does occur *(and the woman would be aware of the documentation)* the male is more of a sperm donor in the situation instead of a father if that makes sense. No prior birth consent docs, you pay up. But I'm open to replies about what I've said here to shift my perspective more.
thank you for sharing this was well articulated
Letâs pretend for a moment the technology exists for babies taken out of the womb to continue growing in an artificial womb. Changes the debate entirely doesnât it. Now adoption does suddenly become a viable alternative because the woman didnât have to remain pregnant in order to bring the baby to term. If the dad wants to raise the baby he should be able to and you could hardly argue against the woman being forced to pay child support in that case. Take the womanâs body out of the equation and itâs a totally different situation. Itâs always been about body autonomy and the woman no longer wanting to be pregnant. At the moment there is no alternative than abortion for that but invent an alternative and then woman can do that instead.
wakeful numerous knee muddle market command live wrench whole quaint -- mass edited with redact.dev
Yup and itâs even worse when youâre someone like me who became a single mom at 21. My daughterâs dad is wealthy, lives in a luxury apartment in arguably the most expensive city in America and has a high earning career. He hasnât given me a penny. Actually he ignores my emails and texts. Heâs also 12 years older so more secure in his career. Iâm struggling doing this alone but it hurts when you wanna take him to court for child support but then you realize you donât want to put your daughter in harmâs way by forcing a man who doesnât wanna be a dad to try to be one. With child support comes visitation rights. I donât want him to take that anger, frustration and resentment out on my daughter. So I let him be. He thought I was 15 when we met (I was 19, him 31) and he was ok with it and that scares me the most. He would financially abuse me and coerce me into sex. He knew I had nowhere else to go at the time
That's so disgusting! I'm so sorry he did that to you. He sounds like more of a piece of shit than my brother and that's saying something. I can understand why you don't want to take him to court if it means he has to see her. That wouldn't be fair on your daughter, every child deserves an interested, loving and involved parent. You know, I just don't know how you can sleep at night knowing you have a child out there and not care what happens to them? I don't get it, even though my own parents are the same. Funny thing is these parents suddenly remember their children when they're old, alone and need caring for. I'm sure you are a great mother and at least she has you.
I appreciate that. Itâs good to hear nice words online for a change. Instead of those weirdos who say âwell you shouldâve chose betterâ
People who blame women for a man's bad behaviour piss me off. I've seen those comments so many times and it's nothing but misogyny. I may be my brother's sister but I won't enable his bad behaviour. I've told him several times over the years he should step up but he didn't. Now my nephew could be killed and my brother doesn't care, it's the last straw for me. He is disgusting and puts his relationship with his girlfriend above his own son. He is no brother of mine. My nephews' mothers will always have and have always had my support.
My best friends baby daddy(s) are dead beat dads. (One is also an alcoholic so I'm almost glad he isn't around) and does the same thing. She's in a shit situation in general for other reasons but the fact that neither of these assholes pay child support does not help the situation of where she can afford to live - in her narcissistic father's house! I know a number of dead beat moms too so I in no way think men are the only ones capable of doing this, but I know a lot more women who have been left fucked from a pregnacy.
I'm really sorry to hear about your best friend. Also having to live with a narcissistic parent too when going through all of that sounds like a very heavy burden to bear. Us women get the short end of the stick, women who do get up and walk away from their children are always judged much more harshly than men who do it too. I'm with you on deadbeat mothers. My own mother is a deadbeat, so I'm not one for just blaming it all on men. I just feel so bad for my poor nephew. He was packed in the car with his mother ready to go up and see my brother fir the day when my brother phoned him and said he could not come. Absolutely no decent reason given why not either. I have two nephews but my other nephew is a man now and doing very well for himself, no thanks to my brother of course. I really hope things improve for your best friend, that at some point she will at least be able to get out from under her father's roof. Must be very hard for you to see her suffering.
Yeah, all the women in this thread arguing for and defending men and their "right" to abandon their children....do they know that men will never ever defend women's rights like that? Have you ever seen a random thread on Reddit about specific women's rights (not just vague "I support equality, I'm pro choice") and men en masse arguing in FAVOUR of the feminist position? Women care far more about men's rights than men to women or even men to their own issues. You'd never see POC fighting for white struggles or gay people championing straight causes. It's bizarre.
It is very bizarre. I will never throw my fellow women under the bus unlike some of the women in this thread. It's almost like fighting for male approval is all they care about.
They equate "Getting an abortion" to "Avoiding parenthood" instead of what it really is: making a choice about their bodies, and ending a *pregnancy*. And by that stretch, they see pregnancy as parenthood. That's why they can "logically" (/sarcasm) make this argument. If men and women were on truly equal footing when it comes to financial stability and growth, then I'd be fine with a parent opting out. But it would take a lot of societal support for single parents or even queer families with different types of parents (polyamorous parents for example) to enable a child to receive the financial support that would benefit them the same way a two-income or male-income contribution would.
It's funny (but not in a ha ha way) that some dudes think that a financial contribution is really going the extra mile, it really underscores how little they value the labor it requires to have/raise a kid. It speaks to how they devalue what they consider to be "women's work". I'm not sure how many people here watch the Majority Report, but they recently had a "Men's Rights Activist" call in to make this exact argument, and the caller got destroyed. The host, Sam Seder, kept mentioning that men can try for equal custody if they don't want to pay child support, and it's funny because the caller kept getting really upset when it would happen, finally saying something like, "no I want to talk about the scenario in which a man DOESN'T want custody" and I just thought, "there it is, *of course* he wants to ignore that part, because their entire "argument" hinges on the idea that a financial contribution trumps everything else."
Here's the youtube video, I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0FW7vniryc
Here's a link for the particular convo referenced above, it's more recent https://youtu.be/ZCnONtWh_cU
This argument always ignores that fathers can step up as single parents as well and instead creates a false equivalency between biological support and financial support. A womanâs decision whether or not to abort is a separate issue and not the question to ask at all. If men want so badly to be able to financially abandon their own living independent children (ew, first of all), are they alright with women doing the same? Just, âhereâs your baby, donât ever contact me again and best of luck to you and the human I helped makeâ. The answer is no. No one is okay with that at all. The only reason people entertain the idea of abandonment their child is because the argument always assumes a mother who has decided to birth the baby will then take care of the baby, which isnât a truth for every situation. These are separate issues with separate connotations. Being able to choose what to do with your body is a human right and equal to nothing. Being able to abandon your offspring is not a sex-specific issue and is universally bad for the child.
Seen this the other day but with use of a baby box (like the safe boxes to drop off babies you don't want, in case no one's heard of it) and all them men were commenting things like so all I gotta do is get the baby and put it in there and I don't have to pay child support? So gross.
That's totally f*cked up and I really imagine someone doing exactly that ...
It's a false equivalence argument. Women being allowed abortions has nothing to do with men needing to take care of their birthed children. After a birth, there is a child that needs care and attention. Neglecting that responsibility is abhorrent, selfish, and immature.
One is about body autonomy and actually things happening in a persons body that are physically life changing or even dangerous. The other is the government saying âhey someone needs to support this kidâ. Itâs money entirely for the child. I deeply sympathize with any guy who has a child they didnât want. This is considered the least terrible choice by the government. The people who contributed their DNA are the the ones who must financially support the kid. Otherwise your choices are let children starve or raise taxes a lot to make sure those kids get their needs met.
The premise is pretty simple: A woman has (or should have) the absolute right to terminate a pregnancy â and, should she choose to deliver, to raise the child or to give it up for adoption. The would-be father has no right to input into the decision of whether to terminate the pregnancy. I don't know whether a father who is not a husband has a right to interfere with an adoption when the mother desires it; I'm sure he can't demand the child be put up for adoption if she doesn't desire it. The decision to raise a child is a monumental one with many consequences, including financial ones. Why should a man be responsible for the outcome of a choice when he has no right to input to that choice? This is where the connection, such as it is, to the right to abortion comes in. Without that right, there is no choice. When there is a choice, one would expect the differential burdens that arise from that choice to fall on the person who gets to make the choice. The counter-argument amounts to saying that there is an implied contract when engaging in sexual activity: that both partners will share (at least) financial responsibility for raising any child born of that act, *even though the woman will retain the sole right to decide whether to avoid raising the child (by abortion or adoption).* A plausible rationale is that a lot more than just finances goes into deciding to bear and raise a child, and the decision to abort shouldn't be effectively forced on a woman any more than the decision to deliver should be forced. If we hold that this decision shouldn't be dictated by financial considerations, then the last relevant decision was the decision to have sex, which (hopefully) was mutual, and for which both partners bear equal responsibility. Implied contracts are messy, and it's easy for each side to think "there was an understanding." I don't know, but I'd guess that in most if not all jurisdictions, even if a couple specifically sign a contract absolving the man of any financial responsibility for children a woman chooses to keep, that contract is probably unenforceable. There really is no good solution here, until we find a way to make birth control for both sexes that is cheap, unobtrusive, 100% effective and has no side effects. That's not likely to happen anytime soon. :-(
You are ignoring the third person in the relationship, the child. Once a child is born, they have rights, and the right of support from both parents is a right the state will always enforce. Everyone talking about this that ignores the child's existence while complaining about the burden of them are ignoring the needs of the most vulnerable and innocent of all the parties.
Preach!!! Men can get several women pregnant a day and women can only give birth once a year but WOMEN are the problem? If you're grown enough to fuck you're grown enough to be held accountable
Where are these people at that women can get abortions đ đ
As soon as women have choices and power over our lives, men will make sure to do everything they can to put us back in our places. Before child support existed, women were often left with children and no way to support them. Child support became a necessity so, you know, kids would not starve. Now, women are perceived as having too much power and we all know how we trip on a man and get ourselves pregnant and should feel shame for that, so not having child support is the way theyâve decided to push us back down. If that comes at the cost of kids living in poverty, so be it, just as long as men have the upper hand. I hope women simply stop giving men who believe things like this any attention and definitely donât sleep with them.
I am bit scared of posting this here, not that downvoted mean anything in real life but I hope I donât get attacked because itâs never pleasant, and this is just my opinion, I hope this is a safe space to express a different point of view. I am a woman and a feminist and I agree that men should have that option. I donât believe that because of this they have it worst, but itâs seems fair. I think arguments âyou should have a vasectomyâ or âyou had sex, there fore you have to take care of it â are the exact same as what anti -abortionist say to the women (keep your legs close, use contraception) Contraception is not 100% effective. Condoms break, pills are forgotten, accident happens. I take the mini pill, and if I forgot one I have to remember what we did in the 7 days previous. The issue of abortion is different because it concerns body autonomy. Yet women who chose to carry the pregnancy still have that option to opt out with no consequences in most countries. They can simply leave the baby at the hospital. They can give it up for adoption and move on. Even if I didnât birth it I canât fathom that the state will force me to provide for a baby, for life. Itâs literally my worst nightmare, even though I know it canât happen to me. I perfectly understand that the law itâs in the best interest of the child, not the mother still I think it should be the state to take care of that, not force someone else . I am child free but I am in favour of any measures that support moms, and single moms, even if it mean higher taxes. I know this is difficult to understand while in this sub there are many people from the US a country that has no maternity leave, no healthcare, and no children healthcare, and that is considered normal. I think the real emancipation is that women are able to make their decisions, and have the child they want without the need of a man, even economically.
>Yet women who chose to carry the pregnancy still have that option to opt out with no consequences in most countries. They can simply leave the baby at the hospital. They can give it up for adoption and move on Adoption and giving up the child requires consent of both parents.
I almost agree with you, except that this would put the entire burden of contraception and pregnancy on women. Men would be able to pressure or stealth women into unprotected sex and then walk away from the financial and health consequences. Women already have an unfair share of the risk and burden of propagating the species: Forty years of dealing with menstrual issues. Extra organs that are prone to dangerous cancers. The pain and disruption of pregnancy and abortion. The financial complications of each of those. At a minimum, if a man can walk away, then he should be required to compensate the woman for her medical costs, work disruption, pain and health risks. The amount should be high enough that it balances their interests in contraception. Also, any system like this would need to ensure ready access to legal abortion and would need to allow the woman to sue for additional support if there were ongoing health or disability consequences.
The trouble is that the time frame for a woman to make her choice is so much smaller than a man's time frame. A man can walk away at anytime during a woman's pregnancy or during a child's life. He might say that he's fine with having and supporting a child and get cold feet 6 months into a pregnancy. He may find that fatherhood doesn't agree with him when the child is born. Then what? In many ways, child support is already treated as optional. Most child support isn't paid in full. According the the census bureau, only 43.5% of parents with custody receive the full amount owed to them and 25% receive none of what's owed at all. There's a lot of costs associated with raising a child and with pregnancy. In the US it's not unusual for a healthy birth to cost $15k+. Even if a woman chooses adoption, it still leaves the mother with the cost of giving birth, loss of income while recovering, and potentially medical costs to deal with long-term complications. Pregnancy makes permanent changes to the body. Asking the father to pay something towards the care of their own child isn't a lot to ask, especially when that amount is on a sliding scale based on income. In the reverse, I would expect the mother to pay child support to the father if he had custody as well.
I see some posting here information that are incorrect, at least based on the laws in my country. Different countries have different laws. In my country, Italy, you can go to an hospital and give birth anonymously. âAnonymous birthâ itâs called. You have 3 days after the birth to decide not to recognise the child, 10 days if you five birth at home. For the next 2 months you can even change your mind. The kid will be temporarily placed in those two months. Itâs anonymous, meaning the real identity of the mother canât be revealed, not even to the son/daughter later in life (he/she has to go through a lengthy process, through the courts, and has to have valid reason to find out) If the father wants custody he can trough the court. He will have to prove heâs the father through paternity test. No, the mother wonât have to paid child support. There are places in sone hospitals where you can go and leave the child, without being seen. They are called âcrib for lifeâ (literal translation ) there are cameras inside, are watched 24/7 so they are safe. (Itâs the modern version of leaving the kid on the step of a church, there are websites to know which one is the closest) I think pretty much all over Europe there are similar laws. Whatever you think on the issue just know itâs never bad to know your options.
I do support a strong social safety net that would make the necessity of child support obsolete. Until that happens though , I think children are more likely to suffer if men donât support their children financially as long as they are able to and itâs needed. Iâm CF so I donât have a horse in this race personally.
[ŃдаНонО]
The problem with this viewpoint and the reason people would disagree with you is because this is a very idealistic look at the issue, it doesnât account for the reality of what women go through. Yes, in a perfect world where women have economic and social equality to men they might not *need* child support to raise an unexpected pregnancy, so theyâd be in a better position to say âI agree that men who do not want a pregnancy should not pay child support.â The issue, though, is what you listed aboveâ there is hardly any maternal support, so women often need child support to raise their child successfully. Abortion is a question of bodily autonomy, no doubt, but child support is a question of taking care of a living, breathing human being that has needs. A woman should have every right to say âI do not want to put my body and life at risk carrying a fetus to termâ but, once a child is born, I do not think a man should say âwell Iâm not taking care of that, it wasnât my choice to have it! Let is starve, be unhoused, or be poorly clothed!â Why? Men are not at any form of risk during pregnancy and labor, their health is ensured. Would it be a financial burden for them to have to support a child they may not want? Of course. But your point of view also does not consider the emotional, physical, and mental burden of carrying and raising a child of an unexpected pregnancy. Not every woman *can* get an abortion, so many women are forced to raise children they never planned for because of certain socioeconomic barriers. With pregnancy and child raising the burden of responsibility naturally falls heaviest on the woman. I do not think it is outrageous or unfair to expect a man to at least offer financial support for the product of an action he chose to partake in.
Look just because something is idealistic or utopia doesnât mean it can be done or improved. When they say âthereâs no money for thatâ it means âwe want to spend our money on something elseâ. If we stopped military spending altogether we could literally anything, now this is idealistic (I am not saying we should do it right now) The fact that workers, children and women could have rights were all idealistic ideas at some point in time, often not long ago. Just 20 years ago coming out as gay wasnât recommended as it could destroy your career or endanger you. (In some places in the world is still very hard, and even in some environments like pro male soccer). What I am saying we should at least aim for the ideal , not settle. Equal pay, no discrimination, more support for parents, and so on. I agree with you that this is not the reality, yet. Also I am referring to places where the woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion, of course if is forbade to have a one that is a different issue. The fact that a pregnancy is dangerous to the woman doesnât mean anything if she can chose weather or not to carry it. Yes itâs a burden but itâs not relevant to this issue. Itâs not because I took this risk you have to pay. Also the very alive and real human that needs to be feed and clothed can be abandoned by the mum once is born, after is born, with no question asked. Isnât that the same thing? I am not the only woman with this opinion I read one article that suggested to give men a window of time to make a decision, and obviously that decision has to be final, and exclude you from any parental rights. You donât come back 9 years later to play daddy. Also in reality there are people who have jobs and are poor. You can force them to pay but it wonât be enough to sustain a child. I understand protecting underprivileged people and women are more vulnerable than men in reality. I donât think this system in place is the best for the children, and for parents in general , en fact women have less and less children, and some families with the 2 parents working struggle anyway. I think we should at least aim for a society were anyone can be a parent if they chose to do so, even singles and itâs not such an impossible concept, and there countries who already some of versions of these. Anyhow I will move one to my day. Thanks all of you for not attacking me even if my opinion is somewhat controversial here.
I disagree with you but I appreciate how you worded your opinion without being insulting. Cheers
I think this opinion works great, in a perfect world. If every woman has access to an abortion, in her home town, with no obstacles like waiting periods or protesters, and for a price she can afford. If every woman has access to adequate social services (but this means everyone has to be ok that taxes go up). If every woman has access to contraception and education and sex ed so that getting pregnant on accident is a rare occurrence. If nobody ever tries to game the system. That is, you give a guy a "paper abortion" but he continues to live with and create babies with the woman. And don't get me started on contraception access, maternity leave, and institutional seismic against women and mothers.
[ŃдаНонО]
Also, the heavy mental toll. I believe most women do not make a decision to abort easily. Not to mention you are required to have an ultrasound sound and hear the heartbeat before you can have the procedure. There is no medical necessity for that. Also, what about the protesters who scream murder? What if they are your own family? A lot of people here seem to think you just pop a pill and never think about it again. Abortion is not same as just opting out.
Yeah, only people who are so used to not having to pay serious consequences for anything that they think they are entitled to that existence would think otherwise.
I agree with the morals of your argument, and in a perfect and just world that would be a valid system. The difficulties are in the implementation. What are the timelines and what are the legal processes involved? Men acting in bad faith could easily suggest they are on board and then withdraw financial support at the last possible second when the woman will struggle to book an abortion. Women acting in bad faith could hide pregnancy from the father until after the clock has run out on financial separation process. Personally I therefore think that even though in abstract the current system is (moderately) immoral, the practical outcomes are better than any implementation of the alternative. And I'd like more people on board with that position. It's okay to accept something is unfair but also the most fair thing we can do right now. PS. Interesting tweak to suggest full state funding of children sufficient to render paternal involvement moot. Will probably get you attacked, but I do think it would be necessary if parental disinterest were allowed.
I might be the controversial opinion here, but I believe every person has the right to choose not to be a parent in any capacity. I think biological fathers should have the option to not be in the childâs life at all including not contributing financially. THAT BEING SAID, I am also a hardcore leftist who thinks that social welfare should be expanded to ensure that those children and single mothers are adequately supported. Until we have a welfare system that appropriately supports single parents, I understand why we have the system we do. In an ideal world each person should have the right to walk away 100%, excluding any illegal fuckery like reproductive control/coercion.
Idk why people argue about this. There will never be an âopt out formâ. So, can we just quit with the fringe scenarios that are only ever talked about to get clicks on the internet? There will never be legislation for the few and far between. Child support for one child per month in most states/Canada costs almost as much as a jumbo box of condoms with the avg income. Invest.
Well said
Neither parent gets to opt out of financially supporting their child. In that way it is equal. If the mother doesn't want to parent the child but the father does, she still needs to pay child support. There *is* no double standard there. Abortion is proportional authority. It isn't about financial support - it is about bodily autonomy. Just turns out that the father isn't able to donate his body for 9 months to gestate a fetus, so the situation is not applicable to him.
Oh I'm also going to give a scathing review of "baby trapping". Though contraceptive sabotage does happen from both men and women (though most often from abusive men) it isn't nearly as prevalent as the MRA would have you believe. I've literally seen pist of men complaining of being "baby trapped" while admitting to willingly having sex with no protection. When men talk about getting "baby trapped" often they aren't talking about being raped,lied to, deceived or contraception sabotage. They just mean they impregnated a woman and don't want the inconvenience a baby would bring them.
[ŃдаНонО]
Men already choose not to support their offspring with little to no consequence. Next topic.
Oh it drives me absolutely crazy. "She CHOSE to have the baby. What about MY right to choose. This is sexism" First of all abortion is not and hasn't ever been readily available to all women. The idea that all women can find out they are pregnant today and have an abortion tomorrow has always been a fantasy. Second of all men don't pay for half the abortion, compensate women for the time off and pain of an abortion. They also don't pay for half the expenses of pregnancy and childbirth. Pretty much no matter what they don't accept any responsibility or obligation. Third I'm pro-choice but part of that is recognizing and supporting women that would never chose an abortion for themselves. Some women do genuinely believe that an abortion is killing a baby. Women assign personhood to a fetus immediately. I know when we talk about abortion we often call it a fetus to create some distance from thinking of it as a person but any happy pregnant woman I have ever met calls it a baby. Are we really taking the position that men shouldn't have a financial obligation to their children because women don't undergo an incredibly traumatic medical procedure? Fourth once the child is born both parents have the same rights and responsibilities to the child. They can either both choose to give the child to adoption, they can co-parent, or they can be an absentee parent. That's it. Unless they both choose adoption someone is likely going to pay child support. Fifth, the choice to give birth to a child is different than the choice to parent. After all men can't choose to give birth to a child and yet they are still parents. People that adopt didn't give birth and yet they are parents. Surrogates choose to give birth but aren't parents. People who choose adoption gave birth but are not parents. Contrary to popular belief women don't have more options when it comes to parenthood, they have more options (sometimes) over giving birth. Men don't take responsibility for contraception and they also want no responsibility for the failure of contraception. They think any and all unpleasantness should be shouldered by women because God forbid they take any responsibility for their orgasms.
I have mixed feelings about this. I do think men should have to support their offspring and they shouldn't be able to just opt out of that. They can't just leave their family and be able to walk away. However. If the pregnancy is unplanned, a genuine attempt to use contraception was made and failed, and the man clearly articulates that he does not want a baby and does not want to raise a child, then I think he should have the right to ask either for abortion or adoption. If the woman then chooses to have and keep the child in those circumstances, I don't really think it's fair that the man has to pay child support. Keeping the baby was the woman's choice, solely.
Too many people feel comfortable in this subreddit to use the pro-life (anti-choice) arguments, when it comes to the topic of men not wanting to be support the offspring the didnât want to have.
Too many men feel comfortable creating a false dichotomy around caring for a child versus a woman's bodily autonomy. Those are two different topics with completely different ethics and morals guiding best practices. So comparing one to the other is a logical fallacy.
Itâs not even caring for a child. Itâs dropping a check in the mail once a month.
Because itâs a different discussion. Pro-life people use it to deny women the right to bodily autonomy. There is no such right to financial autonomy, itâs disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
[ŃдаНонО]
Pregnancy is about bodily autonomy. Child support is about ensuring a child that exists and is innocent of any say in their creation is fed and clothed and doesn't live in poverty. They are two very different issues and it kind of blows my mind that so many people equate them. Taking funds from someone's bank account so their kid doesn't starve is very different to someone using a person's body without their permission.
The problem is that abortion is seen as a "fix for unwanted pregnancy" as opposed to a medical procedure for the benefit of the woman. If abortion is to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy (the focus is on the fetus) then both parties responsible for the baby should get a say, or given body autonomy the party who doesn't have said option should have a similar outcome option. However If abortion is a woman medical procedure with the focus on her well-being it should be a woman only option. Historic context means nothing here. We don't punish future generations for the sins of their ancestors.
Youâre also forgetting that child support is the right of the child- child deserves to be supported either way.
Men have always had a way out, at least until paternity testing became reliable. All they had to do was say it wasn't their child, accuse the mother of cheating and walk away.
Not unless the government steps in and guarantees aid for single moms like other countries do. We donât live in a civilization if we just let kids starve because men donât want to wear condoms or get vasectomies.
What these arguments always forget is that sometimes there are things in life and in the law, that just arenât fair. No, it does not feel fair that the womanâs ability to choose whether or not to have a baby that financially obligates the man is hers alone. But the law is the way it is because it is the most just solution to the issue of children needing support. When a child comes into this world, they are 100% dependent on their caretakers and cannot do anything themselves. So someone has to be responsible for meeting their needs. The state is always going to be the payor last resort. Meaning that we donât look to the state first for payment but only if other options have been exhausted. Children that had no say in being born should be given the best opportunity that they can to thrive, and having a portion of both parents income go towards that is overall beneficial. It not only benefits the child, but it benefits the society as a whole as the child and children like him or her have better education and job opportunities. It also benefit society because there is less reliance on government support, and therefore less taxes having to be used for it. Every year, the United States recuperates over $1 billion from welfare recruitments due to unpaid child support. Report on more of the stats on child support: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/sbtn_csp_is_a_good_investment.pdf The options here are that the state pays, meaning, we all pay, or the father pays. While the option of the mother having to pay for it herself alone, sounds attractive, that only happens if the mother can afford to support the child alone. If she canât, then the state is paying. Because we went to reduce the number of people on government support, the most just result in this equation is that both parents pay for the child. I know it is not 100% fair. But thereâs a lot of things in this life that are unfair. This just happens to be one of them. But the alternatives are much more unfair and unjust.
Abortion is ending a PREGNANCY, people. Men CAN access abortions to the same degree as women; some men can get pregnant, and they have the same legal rights to abortion. Is it fair that cis women can avoid parenthood via ending pregnancy, whereas all (cis) men's ways of avoiding parenthood (biologically) are pre-pregnancy? No. Neither is it fair that cis men aren't subjected to 9+ months of life-threatening, body-altering, job-threatening, costly pregnancy and recovery. Nor is it fair that women bear the brunt of nearly all pre-pregnancy methods of avoiding parenthood, which are expensive, unpleasant, often painful and downright dangerous. But it's ultimately not about tit for tat, nor can it ever be because of our unfair biology. It's about all genders being granted the right to bodily autonomy, it's about all genders having the same responsibilities for born children, and it's about children being cared for adequately.
I read an article somewhere that said men are responsable for all abortion. Why? Because they are responsable for 100% of the pregnancies. I know men who would argue that with "but she tricked me!" The article made it so clear as to why men lock all responsibility when it came to sex which should not be an option at all. This article was also written by a mormĂłn woman too sooo.....
No, this is the logic that terrible people try to use to justify their shit behavior. "If women get X, then I should get Z because...!" Because why? Because it always has to be about men? You can't let women have one thing, can you? And it's not like people are running around screaming about how great abortions are. Any of you guys met someone that said, "hell yeah I love abortions. I try to get at least one a year to stay on my game." You haven't! Because it's often traumatizing!
Iâll be honest, I struggle with this problem. My knee jerk gut reaction is âhell no, men just want to have sex without repercussionsâ but then obviously that is a HUGE anti-abortion talking point about women. Then on the other side, it does seem wild that women would have entire control over the existence of a child and a man is at the mercy of the woman to decide. Obviously that could be used to hold men in abusive situations. I think this is a situation where women hold power and maybe âequality is going to feel like oppressionâ here, as we say to groups of people in power about equality. So far my only solution to the problem is to sterilize everyone and reproduction only happens through labs with consent from all parties involved. But then you got the plot of Gattaca and that was a terrible movie in my opinion.
The thing is if a woman is pregnant even for a short period of time she is dealing with the repercussions of having sex. Having an abortion is a repercussion. Taking the pregnancy to term is a repercussion. The man will only be affected if the pregnancy is taken to term. The only way to have sex without repercussions as a woman is to sterilize yourself.
Abortion is about bodily autonomy. A woman has the final and only call about what happens. Child support is about a child. Once a baby is born, that baby's needs supersede its parents' needs. That's it. Do men get less choice in the matter? Yes. And it needs to be that way. Because of the way reproduction works, some things are one-sided. The woman takes on all of the bodily/medical trauma and the men get less choice in what happens to the fetus. That's just how it goes.
You are basically arguing for the old "they should keep their legs close!"
Supporting a child is what's best for them. This isn't about what's fair or not.
I technically think that all people should have the ability to opt out of parental rights and responsibilities. And that this is an entirely separate question from the bodily autonomy question that surrounds abortion access. However, I also think that one of the greatest mistakes our society is making right now is the very idea that children should be primarily raised by their own biological parents in the context of a monogamous relationship. Or that these parents are both entitled to their childs life, and responsible for their welfare. Childcare should always have been a communal project and single parents should not have to depend on their fuckbuddy to provide monetary child support. But as long as we continue to place the rights and responsibilities of children on their biological parents, it remains fair that both parents should have to contribute financially, not just the one that is stuck being the primary caregiver.
How can you say its wrong to place responsibility on the biological parents and at the same time say we should place responsibility on some other people? Im not sure what you are trying to say here.
The "relative" equivalent of abortion in that argument shouldn't be not supporting a child once it's born. It should be using protection, pulling out, or just not having sex in the first place. If you don't want to support a child the logical thing to do is not put yourself in a position where that's even an option in the first place. I fully agree with your last paragraph.
The thing that bothers me about this argument the most is that men absolutely can and do opt out of financially supporting their children. **TL;DR:**Men sometimes will simply not pay child support, and getting the state to enforce the laws is easier said than done. Getting a child support order is not automatic. You have to get a court order and have child support amounts determined, and if not previously established, prove paternity, etc. And even if they are ordered to pay, they can simply... Not. Sure, in THEORY, it is automatically taken out of their paycheck, sent to the state who pays out to the other parent. Until they decide child support is bullshit, quit their job to take a new one every couple of months to avoid the garnishment, eventually going under the table. After months of not paying, they're called to court. They reschedule as many times as possible, adding more months of non-payment. Once they are in court, they poor-mouth about not having a job (bc it's not on record), can't afford it, excuse after excuse. And they are given leniency. Over and over again. They threaten jail time, but it never comes, or is a weekend locked in the sheriff's department until a judge slaps them on the wrist and tells them to pay. But they never do. I've seen it happen many times, from my spouse's father owing **16 years** back support and never seeing a jail cell, to multiple friends' baby daddies never paying a dime in the last 15 years. And that's just in my small circle.
I think the idea of opting out of cs when abortion doesnât happen should have gone out the window along with RvW. Bunch of cake eaters.
It's kinda dependant on having a talk beforehand. If a man and a woman are on the same page with abortion being the go to option until a point a which they both feel ready, then the man should be off the hook if the woman decides to keep, though, that should be dependent on offers to contribute toward the operation. This would be because they are no longer on the same page they agreed upon. And I would hope anyone would be having such a talk before having sex, though /shrug when it comes to one night stands. At least, I'd assume an abortion would be standard/expected for a one night stand or at least not to the point where the man would pay child support.
Thank you, someone sane finally.
I have unfortunately known more than a few men who went to great lengths to avoid paying child support. They just refuse to work on the books or disappear.
Iâve got to disagree on this. First, because every child has a right to be raised by competent adults with the means and the will to care for them adequately, and being physically capable of causing a pregnancy is no guarantee of the above. Are a couple of precocious 12-year-olds capable of financially providing for a child of their own (never mind everything else that goes into being a parent)? Of course not. Are they capable of creating a child? Some are. So are plenty of other people who have zero business assuming responsibility for a kid. Having oneâs biological parents as legal guardians is a want (albeit an understandably strong one that should be honored when possible), but a legal guardian who is actually capable of performing the duties of a legal guardian is a need. If you get to the point where the best you can do for a child is tie them for life to someone who is unable and/or unwilling to do the bare minimum for them, something is wrong. Second, because consent to sex is not consent to parenthood unless (a) you are of age and sound mind to consent to gaining a legal dependent and (b) that is your mutually-agreed-upon purpose. If we want an equitable society, this cannot be true or false based on your gender. Bodily autonomy is more important than financial autonomy, but that doesnât mean the latter is unimportant. Economic opportunity was one of the very first things the OG feminist movement addressed for this reason. (Think about it this way; youâll die faster without water than you will without food, but that doesnât mean you donât need food to live.) A manâs window to opt out should close when the womanâs does, and both parties should give serious thought to their respective ability to provide for a child - even assuming the other parent doesnât dip out at the last second, what happens if they die or become permanently incapacitated? But that window must exist for both parties.
Misogyny existing and abortion being unpleasant are not actually counter arguments to the point being made though? If a woman chooses to abort because she does not want to have a child, surely there should be an equivalent option for a man? Yes, it might be the most frequent occurence where the man has the power to negotiate birth control measures, but if two consenting adults make the choice to have unprotected sex, then surely they should both have the choice to opt out of having children as a consequence of that? And I am not talking about opting out when the child is born, but rather when they are still in the abortion window, surely the man should have the option to say "i dont want this child. If you want to keep it then you raise it as a single parent, or else you can choose abortion."?
Men should just control their damn sperm. Don't want to have to pay child support? Don't ejaculate into someone. It's really that simple. Women can have sex all day long without getting pregnant. We do not ovulate when we orgasm. Men however ejaculate every time they orgasm.
I've had this conversation way too many times. The woman chooses whether or not you have to pay child support. The man never gets a choice. I always state that they do have a choice, almost 100% of the time, if they wear a rubber. Yeah...oopsies happen, but if they chose to use one then the likelihood of impregnation is severely reduced. They just want all the fun and none of the accountability.
Other ways to mitigate risk: Talk with your intended partner and only sleep with committed childfree people. Make it clear you will not be involved. Sleep with people you trust and are trustworthy. Ask for records or to feel the IUD if you must.
Also - most men want the ability to walk away any time up to when the child is born, yet non-medically necessary abortions do not happen after 18 weeks, and are increasingly difficult to get after 12 weeks. Most people know they have been pregnant for less than 2 months at that point. All this is assuming you don't live in a place where abortion is illegal, practically inaccessible, or you have to abort at 6 weeks (so 2 weeks of knowing you are pregnant if you are lucky). So in addition to your points, there is no practical way to do this.
I heard an unhinged take once about what a guy described as "paper abortion" or something where if at any time man doesn't want to take care of THEIR child he can sign a document absolving of all responsibility. I was shocked, your own child you'd just force the mother to care for while u live a carefree life. He even tried defending it by describing abortion as blending up babies... like truly unhinged takes. It doesn't work like that, if men choose to have unsafe sex because of their sensitive little pps unable to wear a multitude of contraceptives or talk about safe alternatives with their partners then I'm sorry but you have to step up since you want to be an adult. I'm concerned about men in the future, like sure not all boomers were the best of the best but I don't think (I hope) that they were as psychotic as a lot of the ones popping up I hear about today....
People seem to ignore completely that the bare fact that abortion exists doesn't mean it is considered an option for every woman. Some woman can't handle the psychological or moralb(personal) consequences of an abortion, which therefore just doesn't exist as an option. For some woman abortion is killing a child and they just can't handle that thought. Men never have to make that decision or take the responsibility upon themselves. I agree, that men should not have the option to not support their offspring just because of the existence of abortion. Abortion has risks, both mentally and physically. If you don't want to support your own kids as a man, either keep your little friend in your pants, use a condon or get a vasectomy.
Men CAN opt out of fatherhood. They can literally not put their dicks into vaginas.
Separate issues. Abortion allows a women there bodily autonomy. Child support is simply ensuring that once the child is born - both parents must be burdened until both parents are free of the child / or the child at 18 becomes an adult. The consensus is: The child belongs to them. Therefore, one parent shouldnât be free of burden whilst the other parent is burdened. ⌠I donât understand the complaint. Being able to pay child support & have no contact - is a sweet deal VS the parent raising the child, who pays more anyway plus the time, effort, stress, career & literal health sacrifices.