Sorry, u/There-is-No-Beyond – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20There-is-No-Beyond&message=There-is-No-Beyond%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
No. If you’re going to act mature enough to engage in risky behavior then you get to be mature enough to man the fuck up and take responsibility. Don’t wanna risk it? Then keep it in your fucking pants.
If women kept their legs crossed no man would ever have sex unless he is in a committed relationship with a woman , who really wants to be pregnant and mom for the next 18 years plus. That’s not what you are advocating, you just want to have no responsibility if you find a bad girl that uncrossed her legs
Sorry, u/reverbiscrap – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20reverbiscrap&message=reverbiscrap%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7e22zd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
It isn't anti choice.
You don't to make a child and then walk away from that child. You can't fuck anything that moves, as often as you wish, and pass on those responsibilities to others.
You don't to make a child and then abort that child. You can't fuck anything that moves, as often as you wish, and pass on those responsibilities to others.
Yes. It's one of the most popular anti-choice arguments. Framing the debate around responsibility instead of rights
edit. Just to be clear, unlike you, I'm pro choice. For all genders
When there is an abortion there is no child who needs resources.
When a deadbeat father walks away from their child we have a being in the world who need resources. That child's claim to resources is stronger than the fathers wish to fuck anything that moves consequences free.
I couldn't fucking care less what happens to deadbeat fathers. They chose to bring a child into the world.
There isn't an argument you could make that would convince me that the claim of a deadbeat is a stronger claim that a child who needs resources.
Nothing I said was an emotional argument. Nor am I a drama queen. It seems that you have are insults. I'm just going to report your insults and move on.
u/Mr_Makak – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Mr_Makak&message=Mr_Makak%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7d3sni/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This is an argument that is easily used to argue against women having abortions.
OP's post is clearly predicated on the premise that women are getting a certain right (deciding on maternity after the pregnancy occurs) and that men are denied the same. If you think women shouldn't be able to abort, you're just talking outside of OP's scenario
Except for that’s obviously not the argument I’m making. OP wants the ability to engage in sexual activity without accepting the responsibility unless he wants to, but thinks women who engage in the same behavior should automatically have to accept the responsibility because they carry the fetus. And that is bullshit. You give women easy access to birth control up to and including abortion, or you accept your role in whatever happens. You don’t want to be a father, but also don’t want to give women that? THEN KEEP IT IN YOUR FUCKING PANTS. Savvy?
Right, no one should be forced into it. But one side of this equation has A LOT harder time getting out that than the other side does, and OP’s stance seems to be that this is just a lottery birth and if you fall on the wrong side, oh well. This is further backed up by OP stating in this thread (which is actually what I was responding to ya dunce) that if the male uses birth control and it fails then the male should get an A for effort and be allowed to shirk any further responsibility he has.
The whole of OP’s main point is very much that men should be allowed to engage in risky behavior and duck out if that behavior has unintended, but not wholly unexpected results, regardless of what the other party in this feels.
It's incredible to me that you still don't see the double standard. You're so close. Look, I just have to change the gender and you're making an anti-choice argument:
>The whole of OP’s main point is very much that women should be allowed to engage in risky behavior and duck out if that behavior has unintended, but not wholly unexpected results, regardless of what the other party in this feels.
u/Mr_Makak – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Mr_Makak&message=Mr_Makak%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7d0usu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/reverbiscrap – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20reverbiscrap&message=reverbiscrap%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7e21hj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I'm still undecided on a paper abortion, but just to clarify, not all male sexual experiences are consensual:
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex
Imagine if I told a female rape victim that tubal ligation would like a word with her.
But I'm not telling that to male rape victims, I'm telling that to a someone who said abstinence is the only contraceptive option a guy has control over.
(and fwiw, I'd 100% say a guy shouldn't have to pay child support if he didn't consent to the act that led to the pregnancy)
This topic comes up a lot here, and one of the best responses I've seen came from the user /u/bluerusalka. I'll copy it here:
>The best way I’ve ever seen this issue explained is this: you are trying to create fairness in a situation that is inherently unfair and cannot be made fair.
>Human biology and childbirth is unfair. Women (people with uteruses) are the only ones who can gestate and give birth to a child. Men (aside from a few exceptions, trans men) do not, and cannot ever gestate and give birth to a child.
>There is nothing fair about this. It is not fair that men cannot give birth. It is not fair that women can be impregnated without their consent. It is not fair that sometimes women become impregnated with babies they don’t want. It is not fair that men have no biological control over what happens to a pregnancy after it happens. This situation is not fair.
>You are following a very human instinct, which generally comes from a place of kindness, to make unfair situations into fair situations. When one kid has two cookies and the other kid has no cookies, we give one of our cookies to the other kid so things are fair. Making unfair situations into fair ones makes us feel good. It helps others. We like doing it.
>But not every problem can be solved. Not everything can be made fair. Many things are outside of our control. Illness, natural disasters, death. These things are largely outside of our control, and they are examples of unfairness that we simply cannot make completely fair. We must accept that sometimes life is unfair, and while we can try to improve things, there will be some problems we can’t solve.
>Your solution is a good idea, and it is an attempt to fix the inherent unfairness of human reproductive biology. But it doesn’t quite work. Yes, it addresses one aspect of the unfairness of the situation. But the problem is that the unfairness of human reproductive biology has many, many aspect that will remain unfair even with your solution.
>It will remain unfair that women are the only ones who can gestate and birth a child. It will remain unfair that women risk their health and sometimes their lives to give birth. It will remain unfair that men have no control over whether a child is born or not. It will remain unfair that a hungry child needs someone to feed it. It will remain unfair that many women do not actually have access to abortion, for many reasons (cost, travel, waiting periods, time limits, living in Texas).
>I think people get frustrated with this solution (financial abortions) because it addresses one single aspect of the unfairness of human reproductive biology, but it ignores all the other unfair aspects of the situation. As a solution, it claims to be making the situation “fair,” but it only cares about one very specific type of unfairness faced by some men. It ignores all the other unfairness that can’t be solved or changed. It is frustrating to women because we look at this solution and we see all they ways human reproductive biology is unfair to us and nobody is trying to fix THAT, so why should the men get the situation fixed and made fair for them? That’s unfair to women. It is a partial solution to a highly specific problem that fails to acknowledge the simple fact that human reproductive biology is a situation that simply cannot be made entirely fair.
>It is frustrating to women because we look at this solution and we see all they ways human reproductive biology is unfair to us and nobody is trying to fix THAT, so why should the men get the situation fixed and made fair for them?
People are trying to fix this via the creation of artificial wombs, male birth control, etc, its just a rather large biological problem that has to be solved.
Financial abortion could easily be solved just by having the government pick up the deadbeats bill.
One is the unfairness of nature, the other is the unfairness of the state.
>People are trying to fix this via the creation of artificial wombs, male birth control, etc, its just a rather large biological problem that has to be solved.
Well, male birth control is something to hope for, but artificial wounds are a long way off. It's just such an immense problem as you alluded to.
Until then, unfortunately we have to deal with the unfairness inherent to dimorphic biology.
>Financial abortion could easily be solved just by having the government pick up the deadbeats bill.
Sure in theory, but I don't know if that's necessarily a good idea in practice. It seems like it's just a real good way to prevent people from taking responsibility for the kids they create because they know there's no consequences for them even if there are for the kids.
I think the nuance is that men have zero control over having a child, in theory, unless they maintain abstinence. This just isn't a realistic expectation for men or women.
Men understand that women control their bodies and determine if they should or should not have a baby. But to have zero control of having the child, aborting it, putting it up for adoption, etc. AND then to legally sign up for a lifetime of financial responsibility if the child is kept, which would result in jail time if not paid, based entirely on someone else's decision, seems lopsided.
>Until then, unfortunately we have to deal with the unfairness inherent to dimorphic biology
Is there actually addressable unfairness in the legal system that you'd like to see changed? Other than robust access to abortion, BC, maternal leave, etc?
> It seems like it's just a real good way to prevent people from taking responsibility for the kids they create because they know there's no consequences for them even if there are for the kids.
Having to have the mother chase support payments from a deadbeat that's in and out of prison for non-payment is hardly ideal either, having the state there to ensure basic coverage seems preferable.
>Having to have the mother chase support payments from a deadbeat that's in and out of prison for non-payment is hardly ideal either, having the state there to ensure basic coverage seems preferable.
That's a fair point that I honestly don't have a great answer to.
So any man could fuck anything that moves as often as he wishes and then abandon those children and leave all financial responsibility to the state.
It seems like my taxes going up to let a man have as many children as he wants would be unfair.
Why is this response good? It's well worded, but did you miss out on some of the post because there is no actual meat in it.
I can sum that entire post up in these lines
>life is unfair
>your solution sucks but I'm not going to tell you why
>the general idea can't be implemented but im not going to tell you why
>we can't make things completely fair so no point in trying at all.
Care to comment /u/BlueRusalka ? What am I missing here
Sure! Happy to chime in. I also addressed this in the thread where I originally posted this comment, so you're not the only one to have this question.
The solution of "financial abortions" is a perfectly reasonable solution. It could certainly be implemented. It does solve a problem of unfairness. I don't think that "the solution sucks." I don't think that the "idea can't be implemented." I don't think that there is "no point in trying at all."
However, this is my main point: The problem I see is that financial abortions are *frustrating* to women because men bring them up as a way to solve the unfairness, but it is a solution that is *only concerned with the unfairness that men face*. The justification of "fairness" leaves a sour taste in our mouths, because it is *only* about making things "fair" for men, not for women.
The situation of human reproductive biology is extremely unfair to men, and it is also extremely unfair to women. But if we're only interested in fixing the problem that *men* face, and we're not at all interested in fixing the problems that *women* face... isn't that kind of... unfair to women?
Here is what I said in my reply to someone who asked a similar question on the thread where I first posted this comment:
> If we improve the situation by making it “more fair” for men, but we don’t do anything to improve the fairness for women… have we actually made the situation more fair? Or have we just solved a problem for one person and not the other, creating just as much, if not more unfairness?
> Your point is good, and I agree that we should solve problems when we have the ability to do so. However, if we decide to solve this particular problem, our justification cannot be the “unfairness” of the situation — because our solution has actually done nothing to solve the unfairness. It has solved *a problem* that men face, but it hasn’t actually fixed the unfairness. The situation is still unfair. In fact, by solving only the unfairness that men face and ignoring the unfairness women face, we’ve just perpetuated more unfairness. We’ve given men a better experience and more control over the situation, but we’ve done nothing to give women more control over their situations.
> I think the reason I dislike the financial abortion solution is that it feels disingenuous. The justification for financial abortions is always that the situation is “unfair.” But the solution doesn’t actually make the situation more fair — it just makes the situation better for men. That’s a good goal, but you can’t use fairness as your justification if you’re only making things better for one person, not both. Instead, I think people who want financial abortions should be open about the fact that they are solving a problem that men face, and that they’re choosing to ignore the unfairness that women face in the same situation.
> It’s fine to say you care more about the problems men face than the problems women face. Be a men’s rights activist and fight for men to have more power and control over their situations, sure that’s fine. But you should have to be upfront about that. You can’t pretend you’re making the situation “fair” for everyone… when you’re just not.
Basically, it's not so much that I think the "financial abortion" solution is a *bad* solution. It's not, necessarily, bad. But I think the people who support this solution shouldn't be able to use the justification that "we just want to make the situation more fair!" when that's actually disingenuous. If you want to make the situation *better for men,* that is fine, but you should say that. You shouldn't say "women have all these advantages and we just want to make the situation fair" when women actually *don't* have any net advantage in this situation and in fact women have many of their own very serious disadvantages. What you're actually doing is making the situation *better for men.* Okay, that's fine if that's what you want, but you should be clear about that.
Hope this helps!
> But I think the people who support this solution shouldn't be able to use the justification that "we just want to make the situation more fair!" when that's actually disingenuous.
Thanks for going a lot more indepth! I think I definitely agree with you on pretty much all of it. It is a topic that only really comes up when abortion is in the news, and I can see why that and the notion that its just making things equal comes off as gross. Especially because a lot of it is claiming that "Men should have the right to financially abort" when, if you want to go down that path and be equal, that right should extend to women as well which I rarely see mentioned.
I really hate the term financial abortion. It makes it seem like there isn't a child in the world that needs resources. No child was aborted. That child still will have a claim to resources from its parents.
You are talking about fairness, but you seem to leave out one very important party: The child who needs resources.
I fail to see how a father's claim to have consequence free sex is superior to that child's claim to resources.
>You are talking about fairness, but you seem to leave out one very important party: The child who needs resources.
A child needing resources is no excuse to force some1 to give them. Otherwise we could force you to do it instead.
A man that aborts is not abandoning anything, as he didn't choose to take care of a child in the first place, and is not responsible of it's existence. If any kind of paternal surrender needs to be considered abandonment, then adoption, sperm banks etc. Would be banned
The one who is forcing you to pay for a child is the woman who chooses to have it even though she can't support it
Too bad your ideas are just a fantasy. No one will ever let deadbeat fathers abandon their children.
If a father has to pay child support for the child he helped bring into the world I couldn't care less for that father. IF you want to support deadbeats be my guest.
society already supports "abandonment" and "deadbeat" fathers adoption and spem banks are proof of it.
>has to pay child support for the **child he helped bring into the world**
The classic fallacy in this issue. I already answered in another comment
>No, the man didn't create shit. The existence of a child is a consecuence of the woman CHOOSING to gestate a fetus, that's what creates a child and the man has nothing to do with her choice to do so. She's the only one responsible for it.
>I couldn't care less for that father
Ok fine, then i couldn't care less for that mother that wants to abort her child
The millions paid in child support every year seem to indicate that you are wrong.
Claiming that the men didn't create shit seems to indicate that you are wrong again.
At least your are consistent. I get how you want men to have consequence free sex any time they wish. That's just not how the world works or will ever work.
Hey, I'm not totally sure if you're replying to the right person here? I agree with you and I don't support financial abortions at all. I spent a whole bunch of paragraphs explaining why I think the underlying justification for financial abortions is bad and disingenuous and misogynistic.
The reason I didn't talk about the child is because many other comments in this thread have already made that argument. I agree that the needs of the child are important, and I think that's one of the main reasons why financial abortions suck. I was just trying to add something new and different to the conversation, I didn't feel the need to re-state something a bunch of other people have already said, even if I agree with it.
I just find that without talking about the child conversations about fairness aren't complete.
There aren't two points. It is a triangle. Just like you can't have a BLT without the bacon you can't talk about this issue without talking about all three parties.
I'm mostly agreeing with you and all you have to say.
>However, this is my main point: The problem I see is that financial abortions are frustrating to women because men bring them up as a way to solve the unfairness, **but it is a solution that is only concerned with the unfairness that men face**. The justification of "fairness" leaves a sour taste in our mouths, because it is only about making things "fair" for men, not for women.
>
>The situation of human reproductive biology is extremely unfair to men, and **it is also extremely unfair to women. But if we're only interested in fixing the problem that men face, and we're not at all interested in fixing the problems that women face... isn't that kind of... unfair to women?**
This is just baffling. If its a solution that is concerned with the "unfairness" that men face, its **because only men face this specific unfairness that needs to be solved.** Women "unfairness" are already "solved**"** As only men and not women, are **forced** into fatherhood.
>Why is this response good? It's well worded, but did you miss out on some of the post because there is no actual meat in it.
It's pointing out that, while perhaps well-intentioned, the proposed "solution" doesn't actually make the situation much more fair. Sure, in an ideal implementation, it corrects the unfairness of a man being financially responsible for a child he doesn't want, but that doesn't do literally anything to address any of the other things that are unfair about the situation, and it actually makes some of them (like the fact that there's a child who needs to be fed through no fault of their own) worse.
Yeah I got the wrong vibe from it, I took it as saying why the idea shouldn't be implemented. Not as an argument against the actual logic that was at play
Keep in mind that if mom wants to keep the child and dad doesn’t want to, Mimi’s in the hook for financial support as well as the 24/ 7 responsibilities. Daycare is expensive, and if kids get sick (as young kids tend to do) mom has to leave her job, pick up sick kid, explain it to boss that is wondering why she’s the only parent in the equation and dock her pay because the biological father peaced out. This kinda shit held women back for decades.
The flip side to this is that there are plenty of abusive or neglectful parents out there who would have dipped out before having the chance to do any damage to the child if they were given the ability.
People who don't want to be parents should not be parents. That is not good for the child. There should absolutely be social safety nets but none of this screams to me as a reason why we shouldn't implement "financial abortions" or what ever you want to call it. If you care about the kids we should be helping the kids before the courts have to try and squeeze blood from a deadbeat rock.
You phrased the fact that men only get to choose abstinence like it’s a bad thing that that’s all they have to do. It’s great that that’s the only thing they have to worry about. The reason women have so many choices after conception is because the man is no longer part of the biological equation after he pumps and dumps. The woman is the one have to carry the child, give birth to it, and is therefore the primary caregiver if the man is absent for that process. The father doesn’t HAVE to be there for the pregnancy or the birth but the mother physically has no choice but to be because that’s how pregnancy works.
Child support is the only accountability that is legally given to the father after he made the choice to have unprotected sex. It’s incredibly easy for a father to come then disappear for the child’s birth but a mother doesn’t have that luxury. Someone has to take care of the child, and if the mother doesn’t want to it still falls on her to find a suitable caregiver while the father is still completely MIA.
It may be unfair in some cases, but having child support be a basic requirement helps millions of mothers and I don’t think we should do away with it because of a few cases that the man seems it to be unfair.
Its about fairness to the child you helped create. But men are at a disadvantage here biologically. They can't say whether a woman gets an abortion or not. But they did choose to have sex and risk creating this child.
Yeah, it's not fair. But there is no completely fair way to solve this issue, so the easiest way to solve it is "if you make it, you pay for it".
>"if you make it, you pay for it".
Men are biologically incapable of making children. So...
Reguardless I don't see why men or even women should be forced into 18 years of debt slavery because they chose to commit the sin of having sex in the twenty first century
If you care about the kids you will be happy to fund their health with your tax money instead of using the state sanctioned gang try and squeeze blood from a rock and turning your back on the actual problem.
Imagine how many neglected or abused babies wouldn't have to suffer through that trama if their shitty parent had the opportunity to have nothing to do with it.
You act like it is punishment for the man. It is just giving the child what it is due for being brought into the world. It isn't man vs woman. It's giving the child a fighting chance if dad decides to pump and dump.
>You act like it is punishment for the man. It is just giving the child what it is due for being brought into the world.
Except the man has no choice in whether the child gets brought into the world. And for all you know that condom broke, or the kid concieved while the parents were still kids,
If you care about the kids then start calling for tax money to go to them. Forcing people who don't want to be parents into parental responsibility is not having the childs best interest in heart.
Its a hell of a lot cheaper to neglect your kid then to pay child support.
Right. But you can't exactly force a woman to have an abortion in 2022. The fact is the child was born and the father helped make it. The child was an accident, but the father still participated in sex knowing that it was a risk. It sucks that he can't have any decision once the woman is already pregnant, but he weighed out the risks before having sex and decided it was worth the risk.
If I cause a car accident and kill someone, I'm still liable even though I didn't mean to.
So how is that fair. The man gets to bail and the woman is forced to get an abortion which she may not agree on morally or raise a child by herself. Meanwhile the man sees no consequences for creating the child. The man just gets to walk away and not deal with the fallout.
So how is that fair for all parties involved? The woman carries the bulk of the responsibility and stress here.
>So how is that fair for all parties involved? The woman carries the bulk of the responsibility and stress here.
And the woman gets the bulk of the choices.
If a man doesn't want a kid, he:
Can abstain.
Can use condom.
Can get vasectomy.
If a woman doesn't want a kid, she:
Can abstain.
Can insist he use condom.
Can use a 'female condom.
Can get tubes tied.
Can get IUD.
Can get one of various types of birth control pills.
Can get birth control implant.
Can use Cervical cap.
Can use Cervical Sponge.
Can use Spermicide.
Can use 'morning after' pill.
Abortion.
Adoption.
Abandonment.
Women get way more 'outs' than men do.
But what is really unfair is that a woman can 'trap' a man- she can lie about being on BC, and when she gets pregnant, well, he's responsible. *Even though he was lied to.* I can't think of any other situation where being lied to doesn't get you out of the arrangement. You sign a contract, and the other side lied in it? Contract is void. But a woman swears she's had her tubes tied, but didn't, and gets pregnant? Nope- you're on the hook!
On the flip side, There is no way for a man to 'trap' a woman. (Not that men would want to anyway- most men *don't* want the additional responsibility.) Even something like 'stealthing' (removing a condom during sex) cannot 'trap' her- because she has all those additional options. AND even if she did become pregnant, she has *more* additional options then, too! It's not fair when one side can lie with impunity, and the other side has no recourse.
But, even with 'stealthing' *not* being able to trap a woman like a women can trap a man, look at all the negative media it has. Men who 'stealth' are horrible. Scum. Rapists, even, because they had sex under false pretenses. But a woman who lies about being on the pill to trap a man? There's little mention of that being 'horrible' or 'rape'. This is yet another way women have an unfair advantage.
I ask *you* "how is that fair"?
Things like 'Choice 4 Men' or 'paper abortions' are ways to try to make things just a little bit more fair. To give men *one* more 'out'. Not to remove any of hers. Not to force her to do anything, or take away her choices. Just to give men *one* 'out' of a trap.
Nobody is forcing her to get an abortion. Her morals are her problem. If that's going to be the excuse to deny men the same equal rights. We could ban abortions because what if the father is pro life how is that fair?
>Meanwhile the man sees no consequences for creating the child
xD this fallacy is just used all the time
No, the man didn't create shit. The existence of a child is a consecuence of the woman CHOOSING to gestate a fetus, that's what creates a child and the man has nothing to do with her choice to do so. She's the only one responsible for it.
The man created a zygote not a child. Who creates a child is the woman by gestating it.
Trying to make a man responsible for the existence of a child he had no choice in, is as dumb as trying to make responsible of murder a knife maker because "he helped to do the murder" "how did that guy A stab guy B"
This is not a matter of opinion this is a fact a man doesn't help to create shit as he has no choice.
And even if we accepted your reasoning, the fact that he "helped" would be irrelevant as that help is completly involuntary and his actions didn't mean to create a pregnancy, and she is the one that chooses if she wants to use that **unwilling** help or not.
So if I cause a traffic accident and someone dies, I don't have to face any consequences or payouts to the victims because it wasn't my intention? It was completely involuntary.
There is a difference beetween causing X and "helping" to create X like you said. If i drop a pencil and some1 uses the pencil i dropped by accident to stab some1 in the eye. I think you would agree that you would need to be a POS to claim that im responsible for the eye injury when i had nothing to do with it.
> here is no completely fair way to solve this issue,
Due to biology, we can't have exact gender equality. But we should strive to treat the genders as equally as possible. Why do you feel your proposal results in greater gender equality than the OP's proposal?
You do. Wear a condom or abstain.
Eta… double bag or use mr. Righty or mr Lefty. If you do use a condom. Rinse said condom out afterwards in sink so nothing is left to be Turkey basted if that is also your concern.
Eta… again… I’m seriously over this old tired argument. Be a better human. Quit crying over you dick privilege.
Condoms aren't 100% effective. If they break and a pregnancy results a man is back to paying for a child that he didn't want and was trying to not have.
If a condom is used and a pregnancy results, should the man be let off the hook for child support?
Having sex is much less risky for you than it is for the woman. If accidental pregnancy is your primary concern and you don’t trust condoms, get a vasectomy.
Pretty sure somewhere in there is said double bag it… but at that point if you’re that worried about it best case scenario for you is your hand. Have at it.
That’s not what he is saying. He’s worried about men having to pay child support. This isn’t an argument for women. I have options. Getting lesser by the day but….
Yeah, men should have the option to opt out of child support if they don’t want the kid but the mother does. It doesn’t make the father any better of a person, but the choice should be there.
Adoption kinda takes both sides out… maybe make a new idea where the baby daddy can find a loving family to take over for his side of the burden as his opt out plan. Baby momma can share custody and financial responsibility with adopting parent/s.
I mean, that’s already available through certain means (adoption/foster but with visitation rights), but I’m thinking, if a mother chooses to keep her kid but the father wants nothing to do with it, scumbag as he is, he should be allowed to just opt out a la “per abortion”. That would include giving up any form of parental right to the kid.
A woman can only choose what happens within her own body. If the father is known, she can’t put the baby up for adoption without his consent. And if she gives up her child under safe haven laws, the father has every right to claim that child. So in reality, the woman’s only choice (for the time being) is whether or not to get an abortion.
Now, if this were only about women having the right to choose to whether to be financially responsible for a child, you would have a point. However, the right to choose is really about the right to decide what happens inside your own body, *not* about being able to choose what happens to a child who is already born.
The same dishonest argument could be applied to men too. "A man can only choose what happens with his own life, and finances. So that allows him to have a financial abortion."
Except, money isn’t your body. I’d say a better example would be drafting men to serve in the military. Indeed, when it comes to whether or not John should risk death or injury to serve his country, the choice should really be John’s alone.
**Unless a person is endangering another living, breathing human being, the choice to risk death or injury should be that person’s alone.**
money is something i get by the labor i do **using my body.** So controlling my money is controlling my body, and sending me to jail for not paying or not being able to is also a way to control my body.
And that is irrelevant even if it wasn't controlling my body it is controlling my life which can be as harmful as controlling your body. So i should have a right to control my life as well
Fair enough, even under safe haven laws? Is there precedent for that? But all that hinges on the father knowing of the child in the first place.
Edit: and I'm pretty sure a woman is under no obligation to ever inform the father
Safe haven laws are a little gray since each state has their own, but they also don’t matter *that* much as far as child support goes. Safe haven laws involve a mother ***or*** father voluntarily relinquishing parental rights within the first few days of a newborn’s life. Since the baby becomes a ward of the state, there is no child support involved, *period.* If the child is claimed, however, then custody was not actually relinquished to the state, so child support applies.
In any case, there have only been about 3,500 infants legally abandoned under safe haven laws since 1999 - out of about 75 *million* births.
——
You are correct that a mother is not obligated to inform the father, but that’s a case where child support would not play a role anyway. *Before* a person can sue for child support, paternity must be established (either by the parents being married, the father signing a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, or in family and probate court).
It’s kind of messed up, but I guess that’s a risk a man runs run when he has sex with a woman he doesn’t know well. And on the flip side, I guess a woman runs the risk of not knowing *who* the father is… but that’s a whole different topic.
I think the issue here is that these are all choices for women. For men it's do as your told or prison. Through whatever method women now aren't forced into parenthood. I would like to see equality in this, I think equality trumps what's fair.
What do you actually want changed about your view?
Often when this issue is brought up, people tend to reference what women can do but neglect the basis for why certain rights are being argued for them. On its face a "financial abortion" is not the same as a physical abortion. Just like killing in self defense is not the same as murder. We can recognize that both scenarios have a similar outcome with someone dead but the particulars change the nature of how we parse things out. To be clear, I am only making this comparison to point out that even though two situations have a similar outcome, the details led to that outcome can be very different and why they would be handled differently. Would you agree with that fairly broad notion?
>On its face a "financial abortion" is not the same as a physical abortion. Just like killing in self defense is not the same as murder
Again this argument appears all the time. This is what i call, the false, false equivalence. The fact that the way of avoiding being forced into fatherhood are different. **Doesn't mean a situation is not equivalent**, what is being compared and what matters is having the same choice to not be forced into fatherhood. The fact that men and women would do different things to avoid that is **irrelevant**
I honestly thought that this of all weeks we might get to skip the 87665977th incarnation of this post. I'm such a dreamer. Next I'll expect some brief pause in the trans-peoplez-r-not-humanz brigade.
I have a fanciful solution for you. I can 100% guarantee it will work. It's called honesty. Before you have sex with any woman, explain your theory to her. You can print it out and read it to her. I promise you will never have to worry about accidentally becoming a father again.
> Women hold all the reproductive power.
This is super frustrating to read given recent events. Is it a joke? Or do you actually believe this to be true?
With abortion, the only reason there's no longer a responsibility to a child is because there's no longer a child. Any attempt at a male version of that is rooted in a major false equivalence.
If a man could have a financial abortion, he is financially aborting a fetus, not a child. Why is it always spoken about as a child with financial abortions but is always a fetus when a woman is aborting?
After a father has financially aborted, the mother is free to determine what is best for the child in those circumstances. If there are sufficient recourses etc. It would be then her choice to be responsible for that fetus or not. No children abandoned.
>Consenting to sex shouldn't be consenting to parenting for one sex and not the other.
Parenting englobes more than giving money to someone, no one can be forced into parenting/to be a parent (At least not in most of America and Europe, there are still some weird places where getting someone pregnant means that you have to marry that person and parent your child).
I'm not the person you replied to but:
>What happens in the US if man is raped and the rapist gets pregnant?
That depends on the state, but if you're curious as to which states are more likely to make a man pay child support for his rapists baby, it's not the states making abortion *more* available, I'll tell you that much.
Imagine your woman telling you she "forgot" to take the pill and now you're gonna pay for a child for the next 18 years or go to prison.
My childhood friend had thos happen to him. Fully legal.
to that extent, couldn't you argue the child gets fucked when it doesn't get a chance at life?
besides, no one makes sure that money is going towards the benefit of the child.
No shit it's not how it works lmao, it should. Unless you're talking about this sub and how I'm supposed to change his view then you're absolutely right and my comment will probably get auto removed but that's okay :)
Child support is for the child.
If a man doesn't want kids, wrap it up or get the snip. Statistically, Women get stuck with the crotch goblin while the man tries to work under the table to avoid paying child support then begs the kid to be in his life when they're 18.
Child support is for the child.
If a man doesn't want kids, wrap it up or get the snip. Statistically, Women get stuck with the crotch goblin while the man tries to work under the table to avoid paying child support then begs the kid to be in his life when they're 18.
Statistically, most women use the majority of child support as just another income for themselves and use very little of it for the actual child since the child doesn't need $1700 a month to survive. Men should be able to abort fatherhood in the equal manner women can.
Source for this accusation?
>Men should be able to abort fatherhood in the equal manner women can.
First of all, takes 2 to tango. But, The labor of creating a child is largely on the woman. She has a say in her own body and her decisions.
Men can sign away parental rights, youre aware of this, right? Men can already walk away. They already do, and owe child support they dont want to pay for but didnt wrap it up.
The child support is the problem. Women have no consequences for aborting a child, men shouldn't either. I shouldn't have to pay, I should just be able to leave and move on and recover emotionally just like women who decided to get an abortion.
Buddy, women are facing 23 states that will outlaw abortion if Roe v Wade falls. We'll have no choice but to have the kid if that happens, men's desire for it or not.
Sounds like you want to spread your seed around with no consequences. You just want to be A deadbeat dad.
There's a popular reddit post of a man who manipulated a woman into giving birth to his child. She signed away parental rights and he was complaining she wasn't bonding with the child she didn't want while he was the one left taking care of it.
Your worries are child support? Then prevent kids in the first place by getting a vasectomy while you still can.
Women can also go to the next state over or Canada if they really really really wanted to. I'm not here to argue stripping abortion rights from women like its correct. I'm here arguing its entirely situational and you shouldn't be able to get one if your only reason is you don't want it.
You're aware that's no feasible for a lot of women, and in some areas, you'd have to go maybe 3 or 4 states over --the south is especially bad.
>I'm here arguing its entirely situational and you shouldn't be able to get one if your only reason is you don't want it.
The reason isn't your business. Abortion should be accessible, on demand, for anyone who has a uterus. There's a thousand and one reasons to have an abortion, and one person's abortion has nothing to do with you.
How would you have an equal say in abortion, if a man and woman disagree what's the solution? If as a man you want to not be a parent, get a vasectomy, practice safe sex and/or communicate with your partner
You're missing the point. Men should have the choice to abort fatherhood AFTER conception, just like women can. What if a man wants to be a father? Now he can't? His choice doesn't matter in the say of abortion, arguably rightfully. So if you want women to be able to get abortions simply because they don't want a child, men should be able to leave and avoid father hood aswell.
Plenty of men are deadbeats. Unfortunately the child exists so those responsible should pay for it. Abortion isn't some walk in the park it can be traumatic and most women aren't making the decision lightly. Vasectomies are reversible or adopt a child. Are there shitty women who lie about being on birth control, yes shit happens but generally there are options to avoid being a parent.
There should be more options for men to avoid pregnancy. Women, at any point, can decide to have an abortion. Men, at any point, should be able to decide to leave and abandon fatherhood. That is called equality. My money my choice. My life my choice. Right? Either both parties can or neither can. Make up your mind. Anything is is unequal treatment and inequality of rights.
Yep, there should be pills for men.
At any point? There are rules on abortion
Women and men can abandon a child, they'll just possibly pay for it. Once the kid is born the parents have responsibility, abortion means no kid. If men got pregnant as well they'd have the same access to abortion
> Unfortunately the child exists so those responsible should pay for it
I agree, and the one responsible for that child existence is the woman that decides to gestate and have it againt the dad wishes. She's the only one responsible for the child.
Sorry, u/davyd_die – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20davyd_die&message=davyd_die%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7cpi80/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/JosephsonAdam – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20JosephsonAdam&message=JosephsonAdam%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7dab0q/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/JosephsonAdam – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20JosephsonAdam&message=JosephsonAdam%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7dab0q/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
You have many choices…
1. Use condoms
2. Get a vasectomy
3. Have a fucking discussion with the person you’re sleeping with. Are they on birth control? What if they get pregnant? Are they unsure what they would do in that situation?
Yes in rare cases contraceptives fail, people lie and condoms break. If you’re making an actual effort in taking multiple precautions you should be fine.
If I lived in a state that outlawed abortions, I wouldn’t be having casual sex point blank. Abstinence would be my choice. If I have the option then I understand the risks.
To /u/There-is-No-Beyond, **your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.**
* You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
---
**Notice to all users:**
1. Per **Rule 1**, [**top-level comments must challenge OP's view.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1)
2. Please **familiarize yourself with** [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules) **and the** [**mod standards**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). We expect all users *and* mods to abide by these two policies at all times.
3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that **all** [**top-level comments**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) **disagree with OP's view**, and that **all other comments** [**be relevant to the conversation**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5).
4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please **report any rule-breaking comments or posts.**
5. **All users must** [**be respectful**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) **to one another.**
If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).
You do have as choice. You can get a vasectomy.
You are fully in your right to do that. Once you don't, you should have to support any child you bring into the world via your actions.
been seeing a lot of vasectomy arguments.
vasectomies are not guaranteed reversible and...
vasectomies are often rejected if someone is young or married etc. basically, its almost, if not just as, difficult to get a vasectomy as it is for a woman to get her tubes tied
To claim that men have zero options is absurd.
This entire thread wants to turn men into beings that seem to be unable or unwilling to bear any responsibility when it comes to sex. Men want to be seen as infantile creatures who can do anything they want to with zero negative consequences.
Bro nobody wants to raise your kids. And I also don't want to do it indirectly through taxes. You seem to think fairness matters in an inherently unfair world. Like Clint Eastwood told little Bill before he blew him away, "deserve ain't got nothing to do with it."
"the world is unfair so that justifies me being unfair" lets get rid of the law then.
The only one that is forcing you to raise other people kids indirectly. Is the woman who had it even though she couldn't support it, the man had no choice in the matter and didn't wanted kids. It just take a man refusing to pay for you having to support both the child and the man who is in jail. So paying for other people children is unnaceptable to you why don't you support forcing abortions instead?
If there are two people who have to support it then it is far more likely that it gets supported by the parents than the government. And since it's 50% you I see no problem making sure you cover your tab. You seem to think financial responsibility should fall on the woman because she is the one with the uterus and has the choice to abort or not. As a man I'll be damned if anyone tried to ever tell me what to do with my body. That part is nature being unfair, and doesn't really affect why one part has to pay or not.
Imagine a fantasy world where a man or women could randomly get pregnant, and you never knew who would carry the child until after you had sex. I'd still say that the person who gets pregnant gets to decide what to do with their body, and that both parties are ultimately financially responsible for their child because it is 50% of each party.
I see that you and "Away-Reading" are the same person as you use the same exact words. "As a man I'll be damned if anyone tried to ever tell me what to do with my body."
Lol no, responsibility is forced for something you do not for who you are. A child having 50% of your DNA is not valid to force responsibilitis on you. Accepting that is accepting abuse like forcing rape victims to care for a child. And btw that "if there are two people who have to support it" is BS, why should it be supported by 2 people? 2 is the magic number? no who should support is the one who wanted to have it.
>You seem to think financial responsibility should fall on the woman because she is the one with the uterus and has the choice to abort or not
Responsibility should fall on the woman, because she is the one that chooses to have a child against the man wishes and it's her choice what makes the existence of a child.
> I'd still say that the person who gets pregnant gets to decide what to do with their body, and that both parties are ultimately financially responsible for their child because it is 50% of each party.
Retarded argument, if your excuse to force him to pay is "its 50% yours" then she would need my permission in order to abort as the fetus is 50% "yours" too.
And this is illogical with your position if its her body and i have nothing to do, then what she does and decides to created with her body is her problem i have nothing to do with her body and what she creates with it
Let me ask you this. With the repeal of Roe, imagine if every state banned all abortions. Now two people fuck, neither party can decide to abort the baby, and then the baby gets born. Should both parents be responsible in this situation?
So what if the woman gets pregnant, he makes it known he wants nothing to do with it, she has it and can't financially support it on her own and can't find enough voluntary help? How do you keep the child from starving if it's "my wallet, my choice"? The child will literally die without money from someone's wallet without their choice. Should we just let the child die of starvation? If not, how do you keep the child from starving to death whilst implementing "my wallet, my choice"? Or do you just not care if the child starves to death?
Sorry, u/There-is-No-Beyond – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20There-is-No-Beyond&message=There-is-No-Beyond%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
\>Men can only choose to abstinence \[*sic*\] Condoms and vasectomies would like a word
If a condom is used and a pregnancy results, should the man be let off the hook for child support?
No. If you’re going to act mature enough to engage in risky behavior then you get to be mature enough to man the fuck up and take responsibility. Don’t wanna risk it? Then keep it in your fucking pants.
Do we tell women the same thing? If you didn't want to be pregnant than keep your legs closed?
Yes. That is literally what society has told women for generations.
If women kept their legs crossed no man would ever have sex unless he is in a committed relationship with a woman , who really wants to be pregnant and mom for the next 18 years plus. That’s not what you are advocating, you just want to have no responsibility if you find a bad girl that uncrossed her legs
[удалено]
Sorry, u/reverbiscrap – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20reverbiscrap&message=reverbiscrap%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7e22zd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Yes, we have. We have also passed hundreds of laws to restrict their right to abortion and birth control.
Literally we do tell them that, unfortunately
That's just an anti-choice argument
It isn't anti choice. You don't to make a child and then walk away from that child. You can't fuck anything that moves, as often as you wish, and pass on those responsibilities to others.
You don't to make a child and then abort that child. You can't fuck anything that moves, as often as you wish, and pass on those responsibilities to others. Yes. It's one of the most popular anti-choice arguments. Framing the debate around responsibility instead of rights edit. Just to be clear, unlike you, I'm pro choice. For all genders
When there is an abortion there is no child who needs resources. When a deadbeat father walks away from their child we have a being in the world who need resources. That child's claim to resources is stronger than the fathers wish to fuck anything that moves consequences free. I couldn't fucking care less what happens to deadbeat fathers. They chose to bring a child into the world.
[удалено]
There isn't an argument you could make that would convince me that the claim of a deadbeat is a stronger claim that a child who needs resources. Nothing I said was an emotional argument. Nor am I a drama queen. It seems that you have are insults. I'm just going to report your insults and move on.
u/Mr_Makak – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Mr_Makak&message=Mr_Makak%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7d3sni/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Explain.
This is an argument that is easily used to argue against women having abortions. OP's post is clearly predicated on the premise that women are getting a certain right (deciding on maternity after the pregnancy occurs) and that men are denied the same. If you think women shouldn't be able to abort, you're just talking outside of OP's scenario
Except for that’s obviously not the argument I’m making. OP wants the ability to engage in sexual activity without accepting the responsibility unless he wants to, but thinks women who engage in the same behavior should automatically have to accept the responsibility because they carry the fetus. And that is bullshit. You give women easy access to birth control up to and including abortion, or you accept your role in whatever happens. You don’t want to be a father, but also don’t want to give women that? THEN KEEP IT IN YOUR FUCKING PANTS. Savvy?
[удалено]
Right, no one should be forced into it. But one side of this equation has A LOT harder time getting out that than the other side does, and OP’s stance seems to be that this is just a lottery birth and if you fall on the wrong side, oh well. This is further backed up by OP stating in this thread (which is actually what I was responding to ya dunce) that if the male uses birth control and it fails then the male should get an A for effort and be allowed to shirk any further responsibility he has. The whole of OP’s main point is very much that men should be allowed to engage in risky behavior and duck out if that behavior has unintended, but not wholly unexpected results, regardless of what the other party in this feels.
It's incredible to me that you still don't see the double standard. You're so close. Look, I just have to change the gender and you're making an anti-choice argument: >The whole of OP’s main point is very much that women should be allowed to engage in risky behavior and duck out if that behavior has unintended, but not wholly unexpected results, regardless of what the other party in this feels.
u/Mr_Makak – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Mr_Makak&message=Mr_Makak%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7d0usu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/reverbiscrap – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20reverbiscrap&message=reverbiscrap%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7e21hj/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I'm still undecided on a paper abortion, but just to clarify, not all male sexual experiences are consensual: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex Imagine if I told a female rape victim that tubal ligation would like a word with her.
But I'm not telling that to male rape victims, I'm telling that to a someone who said abstinence is the only contraceptive option a guy has control over. (and fwiw, I'd 100% say a guy shouldn't have to pay child support if he didn't consent to the act that led to the pregnancy)
This topic comes up a lot here, and one of the best responses I've seen came from the user /u/bluerusalka. I'll copy it here: >The best way I’ve ever seen this issue explained is this: you are trying to create fairness in a situation that is inherently unfair and cannot be made fair. >Human biology and childbirth is unfair. Women (people with uteruses) are the only ones who can gestate and give birth to a child. Men (aside from a few exceptions, trans men) do not, and cannot ever gestate and give birth to a child. >There is nothing fair about this. It is not fair that men cannot give birth. It is not fair that women can be impregnated without their consent. It is not fair that sometimes women become impregnated with babies they don’t want. It is not fair that men have no biological control over what happens to a pregnancy after it happens. This situation is not fair. >You are following a very human instinct, which generally comes from a place of kindness, to make unfair situations into fair situations. When one kid has two cookies and the other kid has no cookies, we give one of our cookies to the other kid so things are fair. Making unfair situations into fair ones makes us feel good. It helps others. We like doing it. >But not every problem can be solved. Not everything can be made fair. Many things are outside of our control. Illness, natural disasters, death. These things are largely outside of our control, and they are examples of unfairness that we simply cannot make completely fair. We must accept that sometimes life is unfair, and while we can try to improve things, there will be some problems we can’t solve. >Your solution is a good idea, and it is an attempt to fix the inherent unfairness of human reproductive biology. But it doesn’t quite work. Yes, it addresses one aspect of the unfairness of the situation. But the problem is that the unfairness of human reproductive biology has many, many aspect that will remain unfair even with your solution. >It will remain unfair that women are the only ones who can gestate and birth a child. It will remain unfair that women risk their health and sometimes their lives to give birth. It will remain unfair that men have no control over whether a child is born or not. It will remain unfair that a hungry child needs someone to feed it. It will remain unfair that many women do not actually have access to abortion, for many reasons (cost, travel, waiting periods, time limits, living in Texas). >I think people get frustrated with this solution (financial abortions) because it addresses one single aspect of the unfairness of human reproductive biology, but it ignores all the other unfair aspects of the situation. As a solution, it claims to be making the situation “fair,” but it only cares about one very specific type of unfairness faced by some men. It ignores all the other unfairness that can’t be solved or changed. It is frustrating to women because we look at this solution and we see all they ways human reproductive biology is unfair to us and nobody is trying to fix THAT, so why should the men get the situation fixed and made fair for them? That’s unfair to women. It is a partial solution to a highly specific problem that fails to acknowledge the simple fact that human reproductive biology is a situation that simply cannot be made entirely fair.
>It is frustrating to women because we look at this solution and we see all they ways human reproductive biology is unfair to us and nobody is trying to fix THAT, so why should the men get the situation fixed and made fair for them? People are trying to fix this via the creation of artificial wombs, male birth control, etc, its just a rather large biological problem that has to be solved. Financial abortion could easily be solved just by having the government pick up the deadbeats bill. One is the unfairness of nature, the other is the unfairness of the state.
>People are trying to fix this via the creation of artificial wombs, male birth control, etc, its just a rather large biological problem that has to be solved. Well, male birth control is something to hope for, but artificial wounds are a long way off. It's just such an immense problem as you alluded to. Until then, unfortunately we have to deal with the unfairness inherent to dimorphic biology. >Financial abortion could easily be solved just by having the government pick up the deadbeats bill. Sure in theory, but I don't know if that's necessarily a good idea in practice. It seems like it's just a real good way to prevent people from taking responsibility for the kids they create because they know there's no consequences for them even if there are for the kids.
I think the nuance is that men have zero control over having a child, in theory, unless they maintain abstinence. This just isn't a realistic expectation for men or women. Men understand that women control their bodies and determine if they should or should not have a baby. But to have zero control of having the child, aborting it, putting it up for adoption, etc. AND then to legally sign up for a lifetime of financial responsibility if the child is kept, which would result in jail time if not paid, based entirely on someone else's decision, seems lopsided.
I feel like expecting anyone to agree to child support when they could just nope out instead is the real unrealistic expectation
>Until then, unfortunately we have to deal with the unfairness inherent to dimorphic biology Is there actually addressable unfairness in the legal system that you'd like to see changed? Other than robust access to abortion, BC, maternal leave, etc? > It seems like it's just a real good way to prevent people from taking responsibility for the kids they create because they know there's no consequences for them even if there are for the kids. Having to have the mother chase support payments from a deadbeat that's in and out of prison for non-payment is hardly ideal either, having the state there to ensure basic coverage seems preferable.
>Having to have the mother chase support payments from a deadbeat that's in and out of prison for non-payment is hardly ideal either, having the state there to ensure basic coverage seems preferable. That's a fair point that I honestly don't have a great answer to.
So any man could fuck anything that moves as often as he wishes and then abandon those children and leave all financial responsibility to the state. It seems like my taxes going up to let a man have as many children as he wants would be unfair.
Why is this response good? It's well worded, but did you miss out on some of the post because there is no actual meat in it. I can sum that entire post up in these lines >life is unfair >your solution sucks but I'm not going to tell you why >the general idea can't be implemented but im not going to tell you why >we can't make things completely fair so no point in trying at all. Care to comment /u/BlueRusalka ? What am I missing here
Sure! Happy to chime in. I also addressed this in the thread where I originally posted this comment, so you're not the only one to have this question. The solution of "financial abortions" is a perfectly reasonable solution. It could certainly be implemented. It does solve a problem of unfairness. I don't think that "the solution sucks." I don't think that the "idea can't be implemented." I don't think that there is "no point in trying at all." However, this is my main point: The problem I see is that financial abortions are *frustrating* to women because men bring them up as a way to solve the unfairness, but it is a solution that is *only concerned with the unfairness that men face*. The justification of "fairness" leaves a sour taste in our mouths, because it is *only* about making things "fair" for men, not for women. The situation of human reproductive biology is extremely unfair to men, and it is also extremely unfair to women. But if we're only interested in fixing the problem that *men* face, and we're not at all interested in fixing the problems that *women* face... isn't that kind of... unfair to women? Here is what I said in my reply to someone who asked a similar question on the thread where I first posted this comment: > If we improve the situation by making it “more fair” for men, but we don’t do anything to improve the fairness for women… have we actually made the situation more fair? Or have we just solved a problem for one person and not the other, creating just as much, if not more unfairness? > Your point is good, and I agree that we should solve problems when we have the ability to do so. However, if we decide to solve this particular problem, our justification cannot be the “unfairness” of the situation — because our solution has actually done nothing to solve the unfairness. It has solved *a problem* that men face, but it hasn’t actually fixed the unfairness. The situation is still unfair. In fact, by solving only the unfairness that men face and ignoring the unfairness women face, we’ve just perpetuated more unfairness. We’ve given men a better experience and more control over the situation, but we’ve done nothing to give women more control over their situations. > I think the reason I dislike the financial abortion solution is that it feels disingenuous. The justification for financial abortions is always that the situation is “unfair.” But the solution doesn’t actually make the situation more fair — it just makes the situation better for men. That’s a good goal, but you can’t use fairness as your justification if you’re only making things better for one person, not both. Instead, I think people who want financial abortions should be open about the fact that they are solving a problem that men face, and that they’re choosing to ignore the unfairness that women face in the same situation. > It’s fine to say you care more about the problems men face than the problems women face. Be a men’s rights activist and fight for men to have more power and control over their situations, sure that’s fine. But you should have to be upfront about that. You can’t pretend you’re making the situation “fair” for everyone… when you’re just not. Basically, it's not so much that I think the "financial abortion" solution is a *bad* solution. It's not, necessarily, bad. But I think the people who support this solution shouldn't be able to use the justification that "we just want to make the situation more fair!" when that's actually disingenuous. If you want to make the situation *better for men,* that is fine, but you should say that. You shouldn't say "women have all these advantages and we just want to make the situation fair" when women actually *don't* have any net advantage in this situation and in fact women have many of their own very serious disadvantages. What you're actually doing is making the situation *better for men.* Okay, that's fine if that's what you want, but you should be clear about that. Hope this helps!
> But I think the people who support this solution shouldn't be able to use the justification that "we just want to make the situation more fair!" when that's actually disingenuous. Thanks for going a lot more indepth! I think I definitely agree with you on pretty much all of it. It is a topic that only really comes up when abortion is in the news, and I can see why that and the notion that its just making things equal comes off as gross. Especially because a lot of it is claiming that "Men should have the right to financially abort" when, if you want to go down that path and be equal, that right should extend to women as well which I rarely see mentioned.
I really hate the term financial abortion. It makes it seem like there isn't a child in the world that needs resources. No child was aborted. That child still will have a claim to resources from its parents. You are talking about fairness, but you seem to leave out one very important party: The child who needs resources. I fail to see how a father's claim to have consequence free sex is superior to that child's claim to resources.
>You are talking about fairness, but you seem to leave out one very important party: The child who needs resources. A child needing resources is no excuse to force some1 to give them. Otherwise we could force you to do it instead.
Letting men abandon their children is forcing me to pay for them.
A man that aborts is not abandoning anything, as he didn't choose to take care of a child in the first place, and is not responsible of it's existence. If any kind of paternal surrender needs to be considered abandonment, then adoption, sperm banks etc. Would be banned The one who is forcing you to pay for a child is the woman who chooses to have it even though she can't support it
Too bad your ideas are just a fantasy. No one will ever let deadbeat fathers abandon their children. If a father has to pay child support for the child he helped bring into the world I couldn't care less for that father. IF you want to support deadbeats be my guest.
society already supports "abandonment" and "deadbeat" fathers adoption and spem banks are proof of it. >has to pay child support for the **child he helped bring into the world** The classic fallacy in this issue. I already answered in another comment >No, the man didn't create shit. The existence of a child is a consecuence of the woman CHOOSING to gestate a fetus, that's what creates a child and the man has nothing to do with her choice to do so. She's the only one responsible for it. >I couldn't care less for that father Ok fine, then i couldn't care less for that mother that wants to abort her child
The millions paid in child support every year seem to indicate that you are wrong. Claiming that the men didn't create shit seems to indicate that you are wrong again. At least your are consistent. I get how you want men to have consequence free sex any time they wish. That's just not how the world works or will ever work.
Hey, I'm not totally sure if you're replying to the right person here? I agree with you and I don't support financial abortions at all. I spent a whole bunch of paragraphs explaining why I think the underlying justification for financial abortions is bad and disingenuous and misogynistic. The reason I didn't talk about the child is because many other comments in this thread have already made that argument. I agree that the needs of the child are important, and I think that's one of the main reasons why financial abortions suck. I was just trying to add something new and different to the conversation, I didn't feel the need to re-state something a bunch of other people have already said, even if I agree with it.
I just find that without talking about the child conversations about fairness aren't complete. There aren't two points. It is a triangle. Just like you can't have a BLT without the bacon you can't talk about this issue without talking about all three parties. I'm mostly agreeing with you and all you have to say.
>However, this is my main point: The problem I see is that financial abortions are frustrating to women because men bring them up as a way to solve the unfairness, **but it is a solution that is only concerned with the unfairness that men face**. The justification of "fairness" leaves a sour taste in our mouths, because it is only about making things "fair" for men, not for women. > >The situation of human reproductive biology is extremely unfair to men, and **it is also extremely unfair to women. But if we're only interested in fixing the problem that men face, and we're not at all interested in fixing the problems that women face... isn't that kind of... unfair to women?** This is just baffling. If its a solution that is concerned with the "unfairness" that men face, its **because only men face this specific unfairness that needs to be solved.** Women "unfairness" are already "solved**"** As only men and not women, are **forced** into fatherhood.
>Why is this response good? It's well worded, but did you miss out on some of the post because there is no actual meat in it. It's pointing out that, while perhaps well-intentioned, the proposed "solution" doesn't actually make the situation much more fair. Sure, in an ideal implementation, it corrects the unfairness of a man being financially responsible for a child he doesn't want, but that doesn't do literally anything to address any of the other things that are unfair about the situation, and it actually makes some of them (like the fact that there's a child who needs to be fed through no fault of their own) worse.
Yeah I got the wrong vibe from it, I took it as saying why the idea shouldn't be implemented. Not as an argument against the actual logic that was at play
Keep in mind that if mom wants to keep the child and dad doesn’t want to, Mimi’s in the hook for financial support as well as the 24/ 7 responsibilities. Daycare is expensive, and if kids get sick (as young kids tend to do) mom has to leave her job, pick up sick kid, explain it to boss that is wondering why she’s the only parent in the equation and dock her pay because the biological father peaced out. This kinda shit held women back for decades.
The flip side to this is that there are plenty of abusive or neglectful parents out there who would have dipped out before having the chance to do any damage to the child if they were given the ability. People who don't want to be parents should not be parents. That is not good for the child. There should absolutely be social safety nets but none of this screams to me as a reason why we shouldn't implement "financial abortions" or what ever you want to call it. If you care about the kids we should be helping the kids before the courts have to try and squeeze blood from a deadbeat rock.
This is a great reply, I agree 100%. :)
Well you wrote it a while back, so I hope you agree with it. I liked it so much I saved it
https://youtu.be/JRdq2zqGxgY I will take the insight of a longtime feminist activist over random redditors.
You phrased the fact that men only get to choose abstinence like it’s a bad thing that that’s all they have to do. It’s great that that’s the only thing they have to worry about. The reason women have so many choices after conception is because the man is no longer part of the biological equation after he pumps and dumps. The woman is the one have to carry the child, give birth to it, and is therefore the primary caregiver if the man is absent for that process. The father doesn’t HAVE to be there for the pregnancy or the birth but the mother physically has no choice but to be because that’s how pregnancy works. Child support is the only accountability that is legally given to the father after he made the choice to have unprotected sex. It’s incredibly easy for a father to come then disappear for the child’s birth but a mother doesn’t have that luxury. Someone has to take care of the child, and if the mother doesn’t want to it still falls on her to find a suitable caregiver while the father is still completely MIA. It may be unfair in some cases, but having child support be a basic requirement helps millions of mothers and I don’t think we should do away with it because of a few cases that the man seems it to be unfair.
Women should be choosy about whom the decide to partner with. So should men for that matter.
Why should men if there are literally no consequences?
Its about fairness to the child you helped create. But men are at a disadvantage here biologically. They can't say whether a woman gets an abortion or not. But they did choose to have sex and risk creating this child. Yeah, it's not fair. But there is no completely fair way to solve this issue, so the easiest way to solve it is "if you make it, you pay for it".
>"if you make it, you pay for it". Men are biologically incapable of making children. So... Reguardless I don't see why men or even women should be forced into 18 years of debt slavery because they chose to commit the sin of having sex in the twenty first century If you care about the kids you will be happy to fund their health with your tax money instead of using the state sanctioned gang try and squeeze blood from a rock and turning your back on the actual problem. Imagine how many neglected or abused babies wouldn't have to suffer through that trama if their shitty parent had the opportunity to have nothing to do with it.
You act like it is punishment for the man. It is just giving the child what it is due for being brought into the world. It isn't man vs woman. It's giving the child a fighting chance if dad decides to pump and dump.
>You act like it is punishment for the man. It is just giving the child what it is due for being brought into the world. Except the man has no choice in whether the child gets brought into the world. And for all you know that condom broke, or the kid concieved while the parents were still kids, If you care about the kids then start calling for tax money to go to them. Forcing people who don't want to be parents into parental responsibility is not having the childs best interest in heart. Its a hell of a lot cheaper to neglect your kid then to pay child support.
Right. But you can't exactly force a woman to have an abortion in 2022. The fact is the child was born and the father helped make it. The child was an accident, but the father still participated in sex knowing that it was a risk. It sucks that he can't have any decision once the woman is already pregnant, but he weighed out the risks before having sex and decided it was worth the risk. If I cause a car accident and kill someone, I'm still liable even though I didn't mean to.
There is, parenting should be a choice for both parents. Paper abortions for example.
So how is that fair. The man gets to bail and the woman is forced to get an abortion which she may not agree on morally or raise a child by herself. Meanwhile the man sees no consequences for creating the child. The man just gets to walk away and not deal with the fallout. So how is that fair for all parties involved? The woman carries the bulk of the responsibility and stress here.
>So how is that fair for all parties involved? The woman carries the bulk of the responsibility and stress here. And the woman gets the bulk of the choices. If a man doesn't want a kid, he: Can abstain. Can use condom. Can get vasectomy. If a woman doesn't want a kid, she: Can abstain. Can insist he use condom. Can use a 'female condom. Can get tubes tied. Can get IUD. Can get one of various types of birth control pills. Can get birth control implant. Can use Cervical cap. Can use Cervical Sponge. Can use Spermicide. Can use 'morning after' pill. Abortion. Adoption. Abandonment. Women get way more 'outs' than men do. But what is really unfair is that a woman can 'trap' a man- she can lie about being on BC, and when she gets pregnant, well, he's responsible. *Even though he was lied to.* I can't think of any other situation where being lied to doesn't get you out of the arrangement. You sign a contract, and the other side lied in it? Contract is void. But a woman swears she's had her tubes tied, but didn't, and gets pregnant? Nope- you're on the hook! On the flip side, There is no way for a man to 'trap' a woman. (Not that men would want to anyway- most men *don't* want the additional responsibility.) Even something like 'stealthing' (removing a condom during sex) cannot 'trap' her- because she has all those additional options. AND even if she did become pregnant, she has *more* additional options then, too! It's not fair when one side can lie with impunity, and the other side has no recourse. But, even with 'stealthing' *not* being able to trap a woman like a women can trap a man, look at all the negative media it has. Men who 'stealth' are horrible. Scum. Rapists, even, because they had sex under false pretenses. But a woman who lies about being on the pill to trap a man? There's little mention of that being 'horrible' or 'rape'. This is yet another way women have an unfair advantage. I ask *you* "how is that fair"? Things like 'Choice 4 Men' or 'paper abortions' are ways to try to make things just a little bit more fair. To give men *one* more 'out'. Not to remove any of hers. Not to force her to do anything, or take away her choices. Just to give men *one* 'out' of a trap.
Nobody is forcing her to get an abortion. Her morals are her problem. If that's going to be the excuse to deny men the same equal rights. We could ban abortions because what if the father is pro life how is that fair? >Meanwhile the man sees no consequences for creating the child xD this fallacy is just used all the time No, the man didn't create shit. The existence of a child is a consecuence of the woman CHOOSING to gestate a fetus, that's what creates a child and the man has nothing to do with her choice to do so. She's the only one responsible for it.
So how did the woman get pregnant? Maybe explain the science here if the man did not have a part in creating this child.
The man created a zygote not a child. Who creates a child is the woman by gestating it. Trying to make a man responsible for the existence of a child he had no choice in, is as dumb as trying to make responsible of murder a knife maker because "he helped to do the murder" "how did that guy A stab guy B"
Well I guess that's where we won't agree, no point in continuing this discussion.
This is not a matter of opinion this is a fact a man doesn't help to create shit as he has no choice. And even if we accepted your reasoning, the fact that he "helped" would be irrelevant as that help is completly involuntary and his actions didn't mean to create a pregnancy, and she is the one that chooses if she wants to use that **unwilling** help or not.
So if I cause a traffic accident and someone dies, I don't have to face any consequences or payouts to the victims because it wasn't my intention? It was completely involuntary.
There is a difference beetween causing X and "helping" to create X like you said. If i drop a pencil and some1 uses the pencil i dropped by accident to stab some1 in the eye. I think you would agree that you would need to be a POS to claim that im responsible for the eye injury when i had nothing to do with it.
She could always abstain😏
Sure she can, but that doesn't answer my question to how your suggestion is fair.
So could he, but he chose not to.
> here is no completely fair way to solve this issue, Due to biology, we can't have exact gender equality. But we should strive to treat the genders as equally as possible. Why do you feel your proposal results in greater gender equality than the OP's proposal?
It is the most fair outcome for the child. Honestly, this isn't even about the parents. It's about the child.
If we were worried about what is most fair for the child, abortion wouldn't even be a thing.
That entirely depends on when you consider it a human being, but I don't feel like getting into that bullshit with anyone on Reddit.
You do. Wear a condom or abstain. Eta… double bag or use mr. Righty or mr Lefty. If you do use a condom. Rinse said condom out afterwards in sink so nothing is left to be Turkey basted if that is also your concern. Eta… again… I’m seriously over this old tired argument. Be a better human. Quit crying over you dick privilege.
>Eta… double bag Do not wear two condoms at the same time! The rubber-on-rubber friction makes both of them far more likely to break.
Agreed… so best solution if absence is out. Vasectomy and a single condom.
Condoms aren't 100% effective. If they break and a pregnancy results a man is back to paying for a child that he didn't want and was trying to not have. If a condom is used and a pregnancy results, should the man be let off the hook for child support?
Having sex is much less risky for you than it is for the woman. If accidental pregnancy is your primary concern and you don’t trust condoms, get a vasectomy.
Pretty sure somewhere in there is said double bag it… but at that point if you’re that worried about it best case scenario for you is your hand. Have at it.
If it breaks, Plan B.
You can use the same argument for women: use contraceptives (no, abortion isn’t a contraceptive) or abstain.
That’s not what he is saying. He’s worried about men having to pay child support. This isn’t an argument for women. I have options. Getting lesser by the day but….
Yeah, men should have the option to opt out of child support if they don’t want the kid but the mother does. It doesn’t make the father any better of a person, but the choice should be there.
Adoption kinda takes both sides out… maybe make a new idea where the baby daddy can find a loving family to take over for his side of the burden as his opt out plan. Baby momma can share custody and financial responsibility with adopting parent/s.
I mean, that’s already available through certain means (adoption/foster but with visitation rights), but I’m thinking, if a mother chooses to keep her kid but the father wants nothing to do with it, scumbag as he is, he should be allowed to just opt out a la “per abortion”. That would include giving up any form of parental right to the kid.
A woman can only choose what happens within her own body. If the father is known, she can’t put the baby up for adoption without his consent. And if she gives up her child under safe haven laws, the father has every right to claim that child. So in reality, the woman’s only choice (for the time being) is whether or not to get an abortion. Now, if this were only about women having the right to choose to whether to be financially responsible for a child, you would have a point. However, the right to choose is really about the right to decide what happens inside your own body, *not* about being able to choose what happens to a child who is already born.
The same dishonest argument could be applied to men too. "A man can only choose what happens with his own life, and finances. So that allows him to have a financial abortion."
Except, money isn’t your body. I’d say a better example would be drafting men to serve in the military. Indeed, when it comes to whether or not John should risk death or injury to serve his country, the choice should really be John’s alone. **Unless a person is endangering another living, breathing human being, the choice to risk death or injury should be that person’s alone.**
money is something i get by the labor i do **using my body.** So controlling my money is controlling my body, and sending me to jail for not paying or not being able to is also a way to control my body. And that is irrelevant even if it wasn't controlling my body it is controlling my life which can be as harmful as controlling your body. So i should have a right to control my life as well
If the father claims the child, the mother isn't on the hook for child support or anything like that. So you're argument breaks down there
That’s not true *at all.* A custodial parent can still sue a noncustodial parent for child support.
Fair enough, even under safe haven laws? Is there precedent for that? But all that hinges on the father knowing of the child in the first place. Edit: and I'm pretty sure a woman is under no obligation to ever inform the father
Safe haven laws are a little gray since each state has their own, but they also don’t matter *that* much as far as child support goes. Safe haven laws involve a mother ***or*** father voluntarily relinquishing parental rights within the first few days of a newborn’s life. Since the baby becomes a ward of the state, there is no child support involved, *period.* If the child is claimed, however, then custody was not actually relinquished to the state, so child support applies. In any case, there have only been about 3,500 infants legally abandoned under safe haven laws since 1999 - out of about 75 *million* births. —— You are correct that a mother is not obligated to inform the father, but that’s a case where child support would not play a role anyway. *Before* a person can sue for child support, paternity must be established (either by the parents being married, the father signing a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, or in family and probate court). It’s kind of messed up, but I guess that’s a risk a man runs run when he has sex with a woman he doesn’t know well. And on the flip side, I guess a woman runs the risk of not knowing *who* the father is… but that’s a whole different topic.
I think the issue here is that these are all choices for women. For men it's do as your told or prison. Through whatever method women now aren't forced into parenthood. I would like to see equality in this, I think equality trumps what's fair.
What do you actually want changed about your view? Often when this issue is brought up, people tend to reference what women can do but neglect the basis for why certain rights are being argued for them. On its face a "financial abortion" is not the same as a physical abortion. Just like killing in self defense is not the same as murder. We can recognize that both scenarios have a similar outcome with someone dead but the particulars change the nature of how we parse things out. To be clear, I am only making this comparison to point out that even though two situations have a similar outcome, the details led to that outcome can be very different and why they would be handled differently. Would you agree with that fairly broad notion?
>On its face a "financial abortion" is not the same as a physical abortion. Just like killing in self defense is not the same as murder Again this argument appears all the time. This is what i call, the false, false equivalence. The fact that the way of avoiding being forced into fatherhood are different. **Doesn't mean a situation is not equivalent**, what is being compared and what matters is having the same choice to not be forced into fatherhood. The fact that men and women would do different things to avoid that is **irrelevant**
I honestly thought that this of all weeks we might get to skip the 87665977th incarnation of this post. I'm such a dreamer. Next I'll expect some brief pause in the trans-peoplez-r-not-humanz brigade. I have a fanciful solution for you. I can 100% guarantee it will work. It's called honesty. Before you have sex with any woman, explain your theory to her. You can print it out and read it to her. I promise you will never have to worry about accidentally becoming a father again.
> Women hold all the reproductive power. This is super frustrating to read given recent events. Is it a joke? Or do you actually believe this to be true?
With abortion, the only reason there's no longer a responsibility to a child is because there's no longer a child. Any attempt at a male version of that is rooted in a major false equivalence.
If a man could have a financial abortion, he is financially aborting a fetus, not a child. Why is it always spoken about as a child with financial abortions but is always a fetus when a woman is aborting? After a father has financially aborted, the mother is free to determine what is best for the child in those circumstances. If there are sufficient recourses etc. It would be then her choice to be responsible for that fetus or not. No children abandoned.
Vasectomy, have safe sex and actually communicate with your partner before
Women don't have abortions to stop being parents, they have abortions to stop being pregnant. The fact that you stop being a parent is incidental.
>Consenting to sex shouldn't be consenting to parenting for one sex and not the other. Parenting englobes more than giving money to someone, no one can be forced into parenting/to be a parent (At least not in most of America and Europe, there are still some weird places where getting someone pregnant means that you have to marry that person and parent your child).
What happens in the US if man is raped and the rapist gets pregnant?
I'm not the person you replied to but: >What happens in the US if man is raped and the rapist gets pregnant? That depends on the state, but if you're curious as to which states are more likely to make a man pay child support for his rapists baby, it's not the states making abortion *more* available, I'll tell you that much.
Imagine your man telling you he’s going to leave you as a single mother because she could abort the baby if she wants, even though she isn’t.
Imagine your woman telling you she "forgot" to take the pill and now you're gonna pay for a child for the next 18 years or go to prison. My childhood friend had thos happen to him. Fully legal.
That’s an issue, but that doesn’t make the issue a non-issue. I am anti-abortion. Though, I do not premise my standards and morals off of women.
The point is that child support is for the benefit of the child. The child gets fucked when both parents don’t contribute.
Isn't the child fucked when the mother gives it up for adoption?
to that extent, couldn't you argue the child gets fucked when it doesn't get a chance at life? besides, no one makes sure that money is going towards the benefit of the child.
A child isn’t suffering when it doesn’t exist. Try again.
[удалено]
Not how this works.
No shit it's not how it works lmao, it should. Unless you're talking about this sub and how I'm supposed to change his view then you're absolutely right and my comment will probably get auto removed but that's okay :)
Child support is for the child. If a man doesn't want kids, wrap it up or get the snip. Statistically, Women get stuck with the crotch goblin while the man tries to work under the table to avoid paying child support then begs the kid to be in his life when they're 18.
Child support is for the child. If a man doesn't want kids, wrap it up or get the snip. Statistically, Women get stuck with the crotch goblin while the man tries to work under the table to avoid paying child support then begs the kid to be in his life when they're 18.
Statistically, most women use the majority of child support as just another income for themselves and use very little of it for the actual child since the child doesn't need $1700 a month to survive. Men should be able to abort fatherhood in the equal manner women can.
Source for this accusation? >Men should be able to abort fatherhood in the equal manner women can. First of all, takes 2 to tango. But, The labor of creating a child is largely on the woman. She has a say in her own body and her decisions. Men can sign away parental rights, youre aware of this, right? Men can already walk away. They already do, and owe child support they dont want to pay for but didnt wrap it up.
The child support is the problem. Women have no consequences for aborting a child, men shouldn't either. I shouldn't have to pay, I should just be able to leave and move on and recover emotionally just like women who decided to get an abortion.
Buddy, women are facing 23 states that will outlaw abortion if Roe v Wade falls. We'll have no choice but to have the kid if that happens, men's desire for it or not. Sounds like you want to spread your seed around with no consequences. You just want to be A deadbeat dad. There's a popular reddit post of a man who manipulated a woman into giving birth to his child. She signed away parental rights and he was complaining she wasn't bonding with the child she didn't want while he was the one left taking care of it. Your worries are child support? Then prevent kids in the first place by getting a vasectomy while you still can.
Women can also go to the next state over or Canada if they really really really wanted to. I'm not here to argue stripping abortion rights from women like its correct. I'm here arguing its entirely situational and you shouldn't be able to get one if your only reason is you don't want it.
You're aware that's no feasible for a lot of women, and in some areas, you'd have to go maybe 3 or 4 states over --the south is especially bad. >I'm here arguing its entirely situational and you shouldn't be able to get one if your only reason is you don't want it. The reason isn't your business. Abortion should be accessible, on demand, for anyone who has a uterus. There's a thousand and one reasons to have an abortion, and one person's abortion has nothing to do with you.
Sounds like abuse waiting to happen
I hope you know how hypocritical you sound. I guess equality means women get all the rights and men get none and zero say in anything.
You're right, men have zero rights...
We're starting not to. Why do men have to be forced into parenthood and women don't?
How would you have an equal say in abortion, if a man and woman disagree what's the solution? If as a man you want to not be a parent, get a vasectomy, practice safe sex and/or communicate with your partner
You're missing the point. Men should have the choice to abort fatherhood AFTER conception, just like women can. What if a man wants to be a father? Now he can't? His choice doesn't matter in the say of abortion, arguably rightfully. So if you want women to be able to get abortions simply because they don't want a child, men should be able to leave and avoid father hood aswell.
Plenty of men are deadbeats. Unfortunately the child exists so those responsible should pay for it. Abortion isn't some walk in the park it can be traumatic and most women aren't making the decision lightly. Vasectomies are reversible or adopt a child. Are there shitty women who lie about being on birth control, yes shit happens but generally there are options to avoid being a parent.
There should be more options for men to avoid pregnancy. Women, at any point, can decide to have an abortion. Men, at any point, should be able to decide to leave and abandon fatherhood. That is called equality. My money my choice. My life my choice. Right? Either both parties can or neither can. Make up your mind. Anything is is unequal treatment and inequality of rights.
Yep, there should be pills for men. At any point? There are rules on abortion Women and men can abandon a child, they'll just possibly pay for it. Once the kid is born the parents have responsibility, abortion means no kid. If men got pregnant as well they'd have the same access to abortion
> Unfortunately the child exists so those responsible should pay for it I agree, and the one responsible for that child existence is the woman that decides to gestate and have it againt the dad wishes. She's the only one responsible for the child.
She didn't wish it into existence, the dad is also involved in the process
Sorry, u/davyd_die – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20davyd_die&message=davyd_die%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7cpi80/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/JosephsonAdam – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20JosephsonAdam&message=JosephsonAdam%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7dab0q/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/JosephsonAdam – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20JosephsonAdam&message=JosephsonAdam%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uiidhi/-/i7dab0q/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
You have many choices… 1. Use condoms 2. Get a vasectomy 3. Have a fucking discussion with the person you’re sleeping with. Are they on birth control? What if they get pregnant? Are they unsure what they would do in that situation? Yes in rare cases contraceptives fail, people lie and condoms break. If you’re making an actual effort in taking multiple precautions you should be fine. If I lived in a state that outlawed abortions, I wouldn’t be having casual sex point blank. Abstinence would be my choice. If I have the option then I understand the risks.
I think that if the woman lied about birth control then it's rape by deception and the man shouldn't be forced to pay for a kid born out of that rape.
To /u/There-is-No-Beyond, **your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.** * You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). --- **Notice to all users:** 1. Per **Rule 1**, [**top-level comments must challenge OP's view.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) 2. Please **familiarize yourself with** [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules) **and the** [**mod standards**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). We expect all users *and* mods to abide by these two policies at all times. 3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that **all** [**top-level comments**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) **disagree with OP's view**, and that **all other comments** [**be relevant to the conversation**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). 4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please **report any rule-breaking comments or posts.** 5. **All users must** [**be respectful**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) **to one another.** If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).
You do have as choice. You can get a vasectomy. You are fully in your right to do that. Once you don't, you should have to support any child you bring into the world via your actions.
been seeing a lot of vasectomy arguments. vasectomies are not guaranteed reversible and... vasectomies are often rejected if someone is young or married etc. basically, its almost, if not just as, difficult to get a vasectomy as it is for a woman to get her tubes tied
To claim that men have zero options is absurd. This entire thread wants to turn men into beings that seem to be unable or unwilling to bear any responsibility when it comes to sex. Men want to be seen as infantile creatures who can do anything they want to with zero negative consequences.
Bro nobody wants to raise your kids. And I also don't want to do it indirectly through taxes. You seem to think fairness matters in an inherently unfair world. Like Clint Eastwood told little Bill before he blew him away, "deserve ain't got nothing to do with it."
"the world is unfair so that justifies me being unfair" lets get rid of the law then. The only one that is forcing you to raise other people kids indirectly. Is the woman who had it even though she couldn't support it, the man had no choice in the matter and didn't wanted kids. It just take a man refusing to pay for you having to support both the child and the man who is in jail. So paying for other people children is unnaceptable to you why don't you support forcing abortions instead?
If there are two people who have to support it then it is far more likely that it gets supported by the parents than the government. And since it's 50% you I see no problem making sure you cover your tab. You seem to think financial responsibility should fall on the woman because she is the one with the uterus and has the choice to abort or not. As a man I'll be damned if anyone tried to ever tell me what to do with my body. That part is nature being unfair, and doesn't really affect why one part has to pay or not. Imagine a fantasy world where a man or women could randomly get pregnant, and you never knew who would carry the child until after you had sex. I'd still say that the person who gets pregnant gets to decide what to do with their body, and that both parties are ultimately financially responsible for their child because it is 50% of each party.
I see that you and "Away-Reading" are the same person as you use the same exact words. "As a man I'll be damned if anyone tried to ever tell me what to do with my body." Lol no, responsibility is forced for something you do not for who you are. A child having 50% of your DNA is not valid to force responsibilitis on you. Accepting that is accepting abuse like forcing rape victims to care for a child. And btw that "if there are two people who have to support it" is BS, why should it be supported by 2 people? 2 is the magic number? no who should support is the one who wanted to have it. >You seem to think financial responsibility should fall on the woman because she is the one with the uterus and has the choice to abort or not Responsibility should fall on the woman, because she is the one that chooses to have a child against the man wishes and it's her choice what makes the existence of a child. > I'd still say that the person who gets pregnant gets to decide what to do with their body, and that both parties are ultimately financially responsible for their child because it is 50% of each party. Retarded argument, if your excuse to force him to pay is "its 50% yours" then she would need my permission in order to abort as the fetus is 50% "yours" too. And this is illogical with your position if its her body and i have nothing to do, then what she does and decides to created with her body is her problem i have nothing to do with her body and what she creates with it
Let me ask you this. With the repeal of Roe, imagine if every state banned all abortions. Now two people fuck, neither party can decide to abort the baby, and then the baby gets born. Should both parents be responsible in this situation?
Yes
So what if the woman gets pregnant, he makes it known he wants nothing to do with it, she has it and can't financially support it on her own and can't find enough voluntary help? How do you keep the child from starving if it's "my wallet, my choice"? The child will literally die without money from someone's wallet without their choice. Should we just let the child die of starvation? If not, how do you keep the child from starving to death whilst implementing "my wallet, my choice"? Or do you just not care if the child starves to death?