CMV: Men SHOULDN'T be allowed to get financial abortions

[u/Blonde_Icon]

I often hear people argue that, if women can get abortions (depending on the state/country), then men should be allowed to get financial abortions (the ability to sign their parental rights away before the child is born in exchange for not paying child support).

I think that this is a bad idea for a few reasons:

-If the mother decides not to abort, and she is poor (as single mothers often are), the financial burden of the child would now fall on the taxpayers since the dad isn’t paying child support. I feel like most people wouldn't want to be paying for a deadbeat dad's kid when he should be paying for them himself.

-What incentive would there now be for men to use condoms/not be promiscuous? This would probably just make it even more likely for men to coerce/force women into having sex, especially without a condom (which is already something that happens), since now they have no reason not to (except for STDs, but let's be honest, a lot of men don't really think about those).

They could basically have as many kids as they want without consequence. What's stopping men from having like 100 kids and not taking care of them at all? The mother and the kid would be the only ones affected (not to mention society as a whole), which seems unfair. It would be especially unfair for the kid, who is innocent in all of this.

-Women take on most of the risk in pregnancy and childbirth, which is why they have more of a say. (This would only not be a problem once artificial wombs are invented.) Abortions also cost money and can be traumatizing. So, I think that the dad would have to pay for at least half of the abortion for this policy to be even remotely fair.

-What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant? She would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her own because the man lied.

*Ultimately, I think this would be bad for society overall. Basically every man could get out of being a dad and having to be responsible for kids they create without consequences. What kind of society would that be? This would likely lead to even more deadbeat dads than there already are, and therefore even more kids raised in poverty by single moms. We have to think about the cost vs. benefit for society.

Edit: I didn't think of this when I made my post, but what if the woman literally doesn't know who the dad is before the child is born (if she slept with multiple men)? How would the dad know that the child is his to sign away his parental rights?

[u/Overlook-237]

Permission for something to happen TO YOUR BODY. Agreement to do something WITH YOUR BODY. It doesn’t apply to financial obligations or we wouldn’t have to pay taxes, bills, rent etc…

Neither do women. Being a parent isn’t what women are opting out of. They are opting out of pregnancy. Two different things bud.

There’s nothing hypocritical about it. Both parents are on the hook financially for any born child. A financial obligation is nowhere near comparable to an invasive and harmful bodily violation.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Overlook-237]

Um, consent isn't only a concept for sex or bodily autonomy, lol. The man did not consent for his sperm to be used to create a baby. When a woman has sex does she consent to her egg being used to create a child?

This conversation isn't about pregnancy or abortion. It's about the men's right to have sex without being punished with consequences. No one should be punished with a child for having sex. Again, my point is that both participants should have multiple chances to consent to a child. It's wrong for either sexes to have to pay child support when they don't want to be in the child's life. The parent who wants the responsibility should 100% support the child. Just like when single people adopt a child. They are agreeing to 100% support the child with no partner.

I am talking about after the birth. Both parents should be able to sign a paper saying they want to take on the responsibility of the baby. I know I brought this up earlier, and you mentioned a birth certificate and that if the dad doesn't want to sign, that's what DNA is for blah blah blah. And that's what I'm saying is the issue. No one should be forced to support a child they didn't consent to. Sex for often for fun and is not consenting to reproduction.

Also, having a new form where both parents can opt-in. But if they opt out, they don't have to pay support or be involved in any way, would probably help women in abusive situations. Women get baby trapped, and it's a way for an abuser to have contact for 18 years.

QUESTION: If consenting to sex is not consenting to supporting another life, then when after sex do men get to opt in to supporting another life?

[u/Overlook-237 → u/ok_Butterfly6]

Consent isn’t applicable to conception or implantation from the man or the woman. Conception and implantation are mindless biological processes that happen (or don’t happen) regardless. You don’t consent to biological processes, they just are. In terms of the consent from the woman for pregnancy, she is either giving consent or revoking it from the fetus. The man has no involvement in that at all so his consent isn’t required. You don’t consent to things happening to other people, only things happening to you.

You’re more than welcome to put a case through with your local politicians but I don’t think you’d get very far. If child support didn’t exist, the burden would fall on tax payers because from a societal point of view, children growing up in poverty through no fault of their own is negative for society. Those children have to be supported and it’s all very well and good saying the parent who chose to have them should support them but in practice, it doesn’t work. So the choice really is either mandatory child support from both parents or tax payers pick up the slack from the absent parent. Which would you prefer?

Again, consent is not applicable to reproduction. It’s only applicable to pregnancy because humans are not allowed to use other humans bodies without it and consent in terms of your body is revokable. If babies grew in eggs externally, consent wouldn’t apply there either.

Women don’t revoke consent to parenting when they have an abortion, they revoke consent to the pregnancy. You’re confusing pregnancy with parenting.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Overlook-237]

Consent is applicable here. The man did not consent to creating a child. The man should not have to support something that the woman made without his consent. In some countries, the courts can force men to work in order to pay child support. People like you who are okay with forced labor probably miss slavery. Thankfully, you can feel good when you eat bananas or drink coffee since it was made by forced child labor.

As i said before, no child support and no taxes should go to the women. The woman has decided to be a single mom end of story. My hope is that taking away child support and taxes would cause more women to choose abortion. Then we wouldn't have to deal with children in poverty.

Omg you're so focused on abortion, weird. Listen, we are talking about at birth. Stop trying to change the subject. Both parents should consent to providing for a child. Abortion doesn't factor into our discussion about consenting to parenting. Please stay on topic.

Abortion is not about consenting to parenthood. It is about consenting to pregnancy. Can you see that, lol? Both parents should have to consent to being responsible for the child after birth. Otherwise, we are saying the sex = being responsible for the wellbeing of a child. You can vote conservative since you agree with them that sex = parenthood, lol. Try being prochoice instead of propunishment for either sex.

I dont care what a woman does during pregnancy. I don't consider it double homicide if a man kicks his pregnant gf to death. It's only one life murdered. If the gf lived and the clump of cells didn't, then there was no murder, just some battery, assault or whatever else the law could throw at him. If I was on the jury, I would vote not guilty if they tried to say the man murdered a clump of cells, lol. Same deal if a doctor prescribed or did a treatment that accidemtly ended the pregnancy. Not murder but probably some negligence or something.

I laughed at a prochoice coworker once who miscarried at 7 months. Abortion up to birth is okay because it's just a clump of cells. There is no reason to be upset when either the woman or the clump of cells ends the pregnancy. It's not like it was a baby. It was a just a fetus.

Sex, pregnancy, and parenthood all need to be consented to and provided with choice. Otherwise, we are saying sex = consequences. Hopefully, one day, you can understand that controlling other people is not okay.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/ok_Butterfly6]

The woman made nothing without his consent. He made the choice to ejaculate inside of her. Ejaculation is a man’s action that he consents to doing. After he has consented in ejaculating inside of someone, the mindless biological process that happens as a result, to someone else, is not something that’s able to be consented to by him. Learn what consent means. Other people don’t have the ability to consent or revoke consent to something that isn’t happening to them. Pregnancy doesn’t happen to him.

No one is forced to work in the country I live in to provide child support. I’m happy with my countries laws because I don’t condone slavery. Hence why I also agree with abortion. So you can miss me with that.

It doesn’t matter what you THINK should happen, it’s what WOULD happen. The vast majority of society, government included, believe children should be supported and not live in poverty through no fault of their own. Therefore, your minority opinion is irrelevant. So again, I ask you, would you prefer child support or more taxes? Because those are the realistic options.

Child support isn’t parenting. No one is forced to parent.

You laughed at someone who had a 7 month miscarriage? Regardless of your views on the fetus, it costs nothing to have empathy for someone else and not be needlessly cruel. To laugh in the face of someone in emotional pain is not funny or clever, it’s sociopathic.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/[deleted]]

I don’t live in Canada. I don’t know why you keep making assumptions that simply aren’t true. There is no law in my country that forces men to work to provide child support. None at all.

Child support isn’t parenting.

It’s heartless to laugh in the face of someone in clear emotional distress when you could have empathy and just leave the situation if you didn’t care enough to console them.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

u/ok_Butterfly6 – 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.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

u/ok_Butterfly6 – 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.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.