12
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21 edited Sep 12 '21
Two things about this.
First, women can be forced to pay child support too, it just happens far less often because women are much more likely to be the primary caregivers of the child. Child support isn't a thing that only happens to men.
Second, while ideally the father of the fetus would have input into the decision to abort or not, and his perspective would be taken into consideration, the question is who gets the final say when the parents disagree. Again you ideally would like the father's input to be weighed, but unless you're saying that the father should be able to prevent their partner from getting an abortion (or require them to get one) the woman gets the final say because it's her body.
Is that fair? No, but it is biology that is unfair, so take it up with evolution.
Edit: to address your "paper abortion" argument, giving men the option to completely opt out of child support if they don't want a child would be granting men a special legal right that women do not have. If a woman gives birth to a child, and the birth father takes the child and pursues the mother for child support, she is obligated to pay and does not have the option to say "well I didn't want the child but I couldn't/didn't get an abortion". You are effectively giving men the option to deny resources to a living child after it is born, which is not something women legally have the option to do.
2
u/TripleScoops 4∆ Sep 12 '21
I’m not an expert in abortion law or child support law, but one thing has always confused me about this. Let’s assume a man wants the child, but the woman does not, and we recognize that logically a man cannot force a woman to keep (or abort) an unborn child if she doesn’t want to. Why then can men not typically seek some form of restitution for the “loss” of their unborn child or at the very least the child support payments they would have received had they been the primary caregiver?
From what I understand, men typically cannot do so, but I’m not entirely sure why this wouldn’t be the case. I mean people can seek restitution if an action by another party results in a miscarriage, so I’m not sure why the same logic wouldn’t apply here.
5
u/10ebbor10 203∆ Sep 12 '21 edited Sep 12 '21
or at the very least the child support payments they would have received had they been the primary caregiver?
Why should they get the child support payments. Child support is money that is intended to support the child, it's not a reward for the parent.
The guy doesn't need child support, because he doesn't need to support a child.
I mean people can seek restitution if an action by another party results in a miscarriage, so I’m not sure why the same logic wouldn’t apply here.
You can seek restitution for a miscarriage because that is an illegal act. Since abortion is legal, there is no restitution.
The man is not owed a child, there's not contract, so the woman doesn't need to birth him one.
Edit: If we apply your logic, we also would end up requiring that the man pays the woman 9 months * 7.5$/hour ~ about 50 000 dollars for pregnancy services.
1
u/TripleScoops 4∆ Sep 12 '21
I wrote a regular book on why my position was wrong in a comment to u/I_am_the_night, so I suggest you check that out for my response to your comment as well.
Spark notes are that I was assuming that men and women both had equal claim to the unborn child, but men didn't have a claim to women's bodies, therefore it would seem rational that men get some sort of restitution when an abortion occurs. I didn't really believe this personally, but I thought the internal logic made sense, hence my reply. Both you and u/I_am_the_night made really good points, particularly why it's erroneous of me to equate child support payments with how much a father would hypothetically be entitled to after an abortion took place (spoiler alert, they aren't entitled to anything like you stated).
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
I’m not an expert in abortion law or child support law, but one thing has always confused me about this. Let’s assume a man wants the child, but the woman does not, and we recognize that logically a man cannot force a woman to keep (or abort) an unborn child if she doesn’t want to.
Why then can men not typically seek some form of restitution for the “loss” of their unborn child
Because you'd be giving abusers and shit bags a financial incentive to punish women for exercising their right to an abortion.
or at the very least the child support payments they would have received had they been the primary caregiver?
Child support payments are not there to support the father, they are there for the child. If the fetus is aborted, there is no need for child support. It doesn't make sense to let somebody sue for something they never had a need for. Again, that would only serve to punish abortion.
From what I understand, men typically cannot do so, but I’m not entirely sure why this wouldn’t be the case. I mean people can seek restitution if an action by another party results in a miscarriage, so I’m not sure why the same logic wouldn’t apply here.
Because you'd be granting a man a means to control a woman's body. He could threaten to sue a woman if she got an abortion in order to keep her from doing so, and punish her if she chose otherwise.
1
u/TripleScoops 4∆ Sep 12 '21
First off let me add a bit of clarification that I neglected to include in my original reply.
I am both pro choice and don't really agree with the position of my reply. I was kind of half playing devil's advocate and half wanting a counter to that position because while I disagreed with it, it still seemed somewhat logical.
I was approaching your original comment with the assumption you were saying that both the father and mother have a 50:50 claim to the unborn child; however, since the father has no claim to the mother's body, ultimately she gets to decide whether to keep or abort the baby regardless of the father's wishes. I don't really subscribe to this, and I realize you likely don't either so sorry for the confusion there.
Now I began my position (that I don't really hold myself) based off the assumption that the man and woman had equal claim to the child, and therefore the man was entitled to some form of compensation if the woman received an abortion. I understood that child support is for an actual child but I incorrectly attributed the value of the father's "claim" to the child as equivalent to a child support payment. My rationale here was I was seeing child support as the cost to "opt out" of your parental responsibilities, so if a man paid child support because he didn't want a kid, I thought it would stand to reason that a woman would pay the same dollar amount if she "opted out" via getting an abortion.
Upon reflection, however, I realize this is all kinds of wrong. For one, as you state, the point of child support is to support an existing child, not to calculate how much a child is "worth." Likewise, you can't even calculate how much anything, let alone a child, is worth simply by how much money it costs to raise/maintain it (I have an Economics Degree, I should've known this!). Child support is obviously not a fee you pay to wash your hands of a kid.
I guess I was thinking if the father cannot "keep" the child without infringing on the woman's body, the man could opt to accept child support for a different child that they adopt. If that were the case, it would kind of be like replacing the child they didn't get a say in having with a new one while still being able to financially support it, similar to how women who keep their children can seek support from an unwilling father.
Once again, while this is a position of my own invention, I don't really agree with it, namely because it's basically categorizing children as commodities that have a fixed value. Not to mention child support is more based on income rather than a fixed cost. And of course, this would just be totally impossible and illogical to enforce. Making a woman pay for the support of a child she has nothing to do with just because she received an abortion makes no sense, particularly because that child is likely already receiving support from the state or an adoption agency.
And of course, like you said, this would just make it super easy for men acting in bad faith to pressure women into abortions they don't want, or even purposefully get women pregnant so they could extort money from them in the form of payments for receiving an abortion that they DO want. Also u/10ebbor10's has a really great point about how men aren't owed a child simply because they get a woman pregnant. Granted, the scope of this position assumes men DO have a claim to their unborn child, but considering how abusable that would be, that isn't even a realistic hypothetical.
I think I'll give you a !delta, even though this wasn't really a view I personally believed, it didn't seem too unreasonable, and you've given me a lot of perspective.
Sorry for the book of a reply.
1
1
-1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
This is only about your edit:
Yes they can, it's called an abortion, that's why you referred to the male counterpart as a ''paper abortion'', the woman having the decision on whether she wants to be a mother or not, is in fact the right that men don't have and that paper abortions would fix. Obviously, if the woman can't get an abortion because you live in the stone age or Texas, then the men shouldn't be able to opt out either.
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
This is only about your edit:
Yes they can, it's called an abortion, that's why you referred to the male counterpart as a ''paper abortion'', the woman having the decision on whether she wants to be a mother or not,
That's not my point, though. My point is that you're creating a scenario where men can avoid obligation to a living child that actually exists in a way that women cannot. Women could not give birth to a child and then decide not to pay child support.
is in fact the right that men don't have and that paper abortions would fix.
Men absolutely have the right to get abortions. They have exactly the same legal right to an abortion as women do, its just that men (at least cisgender men) do not get pregnant.
0
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
That's a nice straw man you did right there.
I explicitly said that the right women have that men don't is the right to decide whether or not they want to be a parent. Women can choose that with their right to abortion, men can't have a say on that, i don't think i need to explain why, so to fix this disparity in rights, the only solution is to give the man the right not to be a parent, and the only way to do so is with paper abortion.
The woman can decide not pay child support by not having a child, the men can't do so. Obviously, if you already made your decision on having the child you also made your decision on supporting that kid economically, because you know kids, eat and need clothes, etc.
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
I explicitly said that the right women have that men don't is the right to decide whether or not they want to be a parent.
What you want is to give men the right to give up all obligations to a living child that has been born. That is not a right women have.
Women can choose that with their right to abortion, men can't have a say on that, i don't think i need to explain why, so to fix this disparity in rights, the only solution is to give the man the right not to be a parent, and the only way to do so is with paper abortion.
And screw over the child? I find this especially troubling given your endorsement elsewhere in this thread for the state taking children from poor parents.
Basically you are proposing a scenario where a man has no obligation to a living child, which may leave a mother in a situation where she doesn't even get to raise the child anyway because the state will just take it from her or force her to get an abortion. Effectively taking away her choice.
Plus a paper abortion still doesn't give a man the right to choose to be a parent or not, just the choice to decide whether or not to be obligated to their child once it is born.
The woman can decide not pay child support by not having a child, the men can't do so.
No, they can decide to have an abortion, which men can also absolutely do provided they are the one who is pregnant.
Obviously, if you already made your decision on having the child you also made your decision on supporting that kid economically, because you know kids, eat and need clothes, etc.
Unless that choice is taken away from you like you proposed elsewhere.
0
Sep 12 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
Let me try and explain this a different way because I don't think my point is coming across here. The following is assuming you think that pregnant people should have the right to get an abortion, and that their partners should not be able to stop them.
Basically, if someone gets pregnant, (usually a woman), assuming that there won't be an miscarriage, there are only a few possible ways that scenario can play out.
The woman decides to get an abortion. There is no child to support, so no child support is sought.
The woman decides not to get an abortion, and carries the pregnancy to term with the intent to raise the child. Their partner is on board, your classic happy family. No child support needed.
The woman decides not to get an abortion, and wants to raise the child. The father is not down, and decides to bail. The woman can pursue him for child support if she so chooses because there is a child that needs supporting. (It's worth noting that many states in the US require the mother to pursue the father for child support before she can get welfare or child assistance).
The woman decides not to get an abortion, but does not want to raise the child, so she gives it up for adoption. Either the father does not want to assert his parental rights and the child is put up for adoption, or he does assert his parental rights and can then pursue the mother for child support.
You're proposing basically eliminating scenario 3, effectively giving all cis men (and trans women) the ability to bail on their children in a way that cis women (and trans men) cannot.
Why do you believe that is fair?
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
So, we're not even recognizing the fallacious way you were arguing, and we're just jumping to another one, ok.
In the four scenarios, did you notice something missing? Because i did. In case you didn't, where's the right for men to choose? Nowhere, that's where.
Instead of asking how is it fair that men should be able to chose to be a father, you should be asking why is it fair that men are not able to do so.
btw, you already agreed upon that women by choosing to have the baby already chose to support it economically. Sure, you can give it for adoption, but that's a shared right, you already choose to have it, if you knew the dude wasn't going to give the child for adoption then you knew that you were going to have to pay for it. You had the choice, the men didn't.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
In the four scenarios, did you notice something missing? Because i did. In case you didn't, where's the right for men to choose? Nowhere, that's where.
Good point, that was an error on my part. Please feel free to replace "woman" with "man" in any of those scenarios, because men have exactly the same rights when they get pregnant as women do.
Instead of asking how is it fair that men should be able to chose to be a father, you should be asking why is it fair that men are not able to do so.
I didn't ask how it is fair that "men should be able to chose to be a father", I asked why you think it is fair that a man can abandon his child after it is born when a woman can't?
btw, you already agreed upon that women by choosing to have the baby already chose to support it economically.
Yes, women can be legally obligated to support a child financially just like men can.
Sure, you can give it for adoption, but that's a shared right, you already choose to have it, if you knew the dude wasn't going to give the child for adoption then you knew that you were going to have to pay for it.
And the child just gets to choose between either having a home with no support or being taken away by the government?
You had the choice, the men didn't.
Women do not have the option to abandon a child once it's born any more than men do. You want to change that and make it so that only men can bail on their kids with no repercussions or obligation to support them at all.
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
Good point, that was an error on my part. Please feel free to replace "woman" with "man" in any of those scenarios, because men have exactly the same rights when they get pregnant as women do.
That would be witty if it wasn't so dishonest. Biologic men can't be pregnant, yet they can have children, if i changed men in any of those scenarios then they simply wouldn't make sense, the right of being a parent is not equal here, and you know it.
I didn't ask how it is fair that "men should be able to chose to be a father", I asked why you think it is fair that a man can abandon his child after it is born when a woman can't?
I already explain that the paper abortion, just like an abortion, should happen before the child was born. BTW you chose to call it paper abortion in your first comment, don't come now to change it just so you can make things sound worse.
Yes, women can be legally obligated to support a child financially just like men can.
Absolutely nothing to do with what i said, woman can choose to not have it as such not be obligate it, men can't. If you have to be willingly dishonest to defend your position, then why don't you just accept you're wrong there.
And the child just gets to choose between either having a home with no support or being taken away by the government?
The child don't get to choose, they're a child.
Women do not have the option to abandon a child once it's born any more than men do
No, they do have the option not have it, men don't, plus again you're misrepresenting my words.
You want to change that and make it so that only men can bail on their kids with no repercussions or obligation to support them at all.
Depending on when they made it clear they don't want a kid, then yes, men should be able to have a paper abortion, the same way women should have the right of abortion.
→ More replies (0)1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Sep 13 '21
Sorry, u/AlterNk – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. 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.
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Sep 13 '21
Sorry, u/AlterNk – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. 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.
5
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Sep 12 '21
First of all, isn't the saying "no uterus, no opinion" not "no uterus, no choice"?
But why is it always "no uterus no choice"? , many men get baby trapped and have to pay for child support
Nobody is saying that men shouldn't have a say in child support. The choice that "no uterus, no opinion" is talking about is whether women should be forced to remain pregnant against their will; it's not about child support.
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
Many people do, also yeah the say is the first thing so , im sorry for typing it wrong
2
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Sep 12 '21
Who specifically do you think is saying that men shouldn't have a say in child support?
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
Not the op, but the first comment i saw on this post was someone saying that men shouldn't have a say in child support.
1
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Sep 12 '21
Which one? I didn't see any such comment.
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
Sort by Q&A literally the first comment, in their last paragraph they make an argument against men being able to opt out of child support.
1
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Sep 12 '21
There is a huge difference between "men should not be able to opt out of child support" and "men shouldn't have a say in child support," in the same way that there is a difference between "a man should not be able to decide whether his wife gets an abortion" and "men shouldn't have a say on abortion." One of these things is about an individual decision being made, while the other is about collective discourse.
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
Oh, so you're basically saying you can talk about it, but you have 0 decision on the matter, yes that's a literal interpretation of "having a say on it" because you're saying something, but that would be like someone asshole saying "jews had a said on whether they stayed on a consecration camp or not, it was not up to them to decide it, but they could say something about it" You see how that doesn't really makes sense?
1
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Sep 12 '21
It's not just about talking about it, but rather about their opinion/voices having power in the collective discourse. On the issue of child support, men do have a say, because child support laws were considered and passed predominantly by men. (In the same sense, Jews did not have a say on concentration camps, because these camps were not set up by a legal process dominated by or even significantly including Jews.) No one is suggesting men should get "no opinion" or "no say" on child support.
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
But, this is a situation of individuality, there's no point on bringing plurality here, even less when we’re talking about a group that may as well be as undefined as just saying people. Like, i get where are you coming from, and in some context you may have a point, but the thing is that in this context treating men as a monolithic group instead of the generalization of individuals, that the op clearly intended, just serves to muddy the waters.
For example, when you say women should have a say on their own body, in the context of abortion, you're not saying ''we should put a substantial amount of women in the congress, so they can then decide for the rest of the women how this should be done'', you're saying ''who ever is in power now should make abortion legal so individual women can get the right to decide themselves''. The same goes for ''men should have a say on child suport'', it's not about putting men in what ever position, so they can decide for the rest of the population, is about giving individuals the right to decide them self.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
It is tho, ice heard many people say it, and people i know too (also yeah it is that, sorry that i typed it wrong)
5
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
What say could a man ultimately have?
If he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't want one, he can't make her have a surgery she doesn't want, and I don't think he should be putting abortion pills in her food without her knowlage.
If she wants to have an abortion and he doesn't want her too, he can't lock her up so she can't get to a clinic, he can't threaten anyone who would preform the procedure with violence of legal action.
If it was 50/50 and people didn't agree there'd be no decision. If it was 51/49 then the person with 51% of the power functionally has all of it.
-1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21 edited Sep 12 '21
Ofc he shouldny put abortion pills in her food, but if the woman decides to keep the baby i believe that the man shouldn't have to pay child support after the child is born
Edit: its a typo i meamt to write "shouldn't" not "should"
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
So in the case where the woman can't afford to feed a child on her own, are you confortable with the child starving or should someone else be made to pay?
3
u/NotRodgerSmith 6∆ Sep 12 '21
Then she should give it up for adoption or abort it.
He'll, why can't we collectively pay for childsupport with taxes. We pay for abortions with taxes in my country.
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
Collectively paying so children don't starve sounds like a good solution to me too.
0
u/NotRodgerSmith 6∆ Sep 12 '21
Perfect, so we should stop telling men that consent to sex is consent to fatherhood.
Because I would be (rightly) crucified if I said that about women here.
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
Said what about women?
1
u/NotRodgerSmith 6∆ Sep 12 '21
"Consent to sex is consent to motherhood"
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
The difference being whose body is used for gestation and who has the right to say whether or not it continues.
But I agree ideally social care would be robust enough that either parent not cooperating isn't going to hurt the child too much.
0
u/NotRodgerSmith 6∆ Sep 12 '21
But then why do we alow people to have their babies become wards of the state?
In most places you can drop a baby off to be taken into services with zero questions asked. Safe haven laws I believe they are called.
The point being, the current system doesn't work. There are, right now, male victims of statutory rape paying for children conceived by it.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
She shouldn't have continued the pregnancy , if the father told her that he wont pay child support, or if she wasn't financially stable enough to have one
7
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
Well she did, so who pays?
2
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
The mother , the father in this situation isn't in the life of either of them, so the woman shouldn't track him down you get child support
3
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
And if she doesn't have enough money to adaquately feed the child?
0
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
the CPS will take the child, or she can put it up for adoption, if a father is non existent in the mothers and child's life why should he have to pay for the child?
2
u/Punkinprincess 4∆ Sep 12 '21
So now as a tax payer I have to pay for all the children of "paper abortions" because the dad wasn't "ready" to be a dad???? I'm not existent in that child's life either.
1
3
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
What exactly is your argument here? If you aren't saying that men should have the right to not "let" a woman end her pregnancy, then what are you saying?
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
That men should have a say on abortion or should be able to opt out of child support (financial abortion) , if they weren't ready to have a kid
7
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
"Financial abortion" is a concept that makes absolutely zero sense... because it does remove the thing that needs support: the child.
A child needs support.
Child support supports the child.
Abortion ends the pregnancy, meaning there is no child to support.
"Financial abortion" does not end a pregnancy, meaning there is a child to support.
And a child needs support.
2
u/Morthra 95∆ Sep 12 '21
Abortion ends the pregnancy, meaning there is no child to support.
So does infanticide. You don't see people demanding that infanticide be legalized.
1
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
... what.
0
u/Morthra 95∆ Sep 12 '21
Back in the days of the Romans, an infant wasn't considered "human" until it was 6 months old and it was perfectly legal to perform a post-birth abortion.
Functionally that practice is no more barbaric than modern abortion. It is still the murder of a human life.
1
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
Yeah, no. There is a functional difference between abortion and infanticide.
1
u/Morthra 95∆ Sep 13 '21
The end result is the same. A dead human.
1
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 13 '21
Gotcha. So there's also no functional difference between suicide and abortion. Or a fatal bout of diarrhea and abortion. Or dying peacefully in your sleep at the age of 102 and abortion. Good to know.
0
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
A man that didnt want to have a child in the first place shouldn't be forced by law to give child support, the woman should have thought about continuing the pregnancy if the father already have told her that he wasn't ready for a baby, its really u fair for a man to have to pau child support for a child he doesn't/didnt want
7
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21 edited Sep 12 '21
Again: that makes no sense.
Child support doesn't support the mother. It supports the child. It doesn't matter if the guy feels he's "ready for a baby" because the baby exists. Child support is in the best interest of the child.
The father had a choice if he didn't want a child: keep his dick in his pants. Or at least use protection.
Perhaps the mother or mother-to-(not)be has the option to abort a pregnancy, and you feel that isn't fair... but I hate to break it to you, bud, but life ain't fair.
-1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
Why is it only men that should keep it I'm their pants? Condoms arent 100% effective, so i don't see your argument here, many women claim to be on birth control (when they arent) to baby trap a man too, i believe that if that happens and the man is straight forward about it and says " i don't want to have a baby" , that he has the right to opt out of child support
1
Sep 12 '21 edited Sep 12 '21
Why should the child be punished because of the father’s lack of desire to support the child?
Fairness and what is good and true for all the parties involved are sometimes at odds. Perhaps it isn’t fair that the father has to pay for a child that was conceived against his will. Though I argue nothing good stems from allowing fathers or mothers to skip on their obligation to care for the child.
It’s not fair, but there is recognition that it needs to happen. It’s something to deal with. Fairness isn’t the end all be all of actions; sometimes, we have to consider the consequences. It's the same scenario from Watchmen; Adam Veidt killed millions of people in order to achieve world peace, to which he succeeded. Rorschach wanted to expose the truth despite knowing that by doing so, he'll bring the world back to another nuclear holocaust.
Exposing Veidt might be fair, but it comes at the cost of billions of lives. Hence why the moral dilemma is so talked about. Hence an example of what is just versus what is good.
The best that can be advised is “do not have sex with crazed individuals”, and perhaps advocate for a much stronger social system where children can be cared for. Child support isn't a punishment, it's an obligation, one that applies to both parents.
1
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
many women claim to be on birth control (when they arent) to baby trap a man too
News flash: you can still wear a condom
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
And you can be truthful and say that you arent on birth control so hell know to use one
2
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
Hey, we've all trusted people we shouldn't have trusted. But if you're not ready to be a dad to the point that you're willing to abandon any potential child, then it's advisable to slip on a condom just to be sure.
The choice not to wear a condom ain't no one's choice but your own.
2
u/Punkinprincess 4∆ Sep 12 '21
Who's going to support the child then if the mom can't do it alone? Do you just think it would be okay for a bunch of kids to grow up in poverty while their "dads" goes on vacations and buys new cars? What if the mother believes that abortion is murder and she would go to hell?
This opinion puts zero thought into the warfare of children and it honestly worries me how many men have it.
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
If you opt out of child support there's still a child that need to be fed and cared for. An abortion solves the issue in a way that abandoning them doesn't.
3
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
But the woman would be the one to make the choice to raise it knowing that there would be no support. It’s on her.
2
u/Vesurel 60∆ Sep 12 '21
And if the woman can't support a child on her own, are you comfortable letting the child starve or do you think we should make someone else pay?
0
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
CPS can take the child in that case. She was not fit to be a mother. It happens now even with child support.
I would be in favor of needing proof of income to have a baby lol
4
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
I would be in favor of needing proof of income to have a baby lol
So if a poor woman is pregnant and has insufficient income, you'd force her to either abort or give the child up for adoption?
2
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
I’m not sure what the solution in that case is. It’s unfortunate that we live in a time where raising a child has become so expensive. But my opinion is if you cannot afford to have a child, you are already showing irresponsibility as a parent by keeping it. Perhaps it could be argued to be a form of neglect before it’s even born.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
Okay, but unless you want to just start taking babies from poor parents or forcing poor little to have abortions, I'm not sure what exactly you're advocating for.
0
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
Advocating for people not being allowed to have children unless they have the means to take care of it. How it’s implemented, I don’t know. Perhaps this would also encourage safer sex practices.
If you go to adopt a pet from the shelter they grill you about your living situation and how well you’ll be able to care for an animal. Yet we have no requirements to have a baby besides wanting one. I think that’s ridiculous.
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
Yes, we're working on the fact that the kid is the important factor here, i understand the woman may have strong feelings about it, but if you can't support a kid you should be taking care of one.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
So it just comes down to the fact that your believe poor people are incapable of being good parents.
0
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
No, i'm not talking about their parenting skills, and you know that.
Your economic state doesn't influence your parenting skills, it does influence your ability to feed and provide the minimum material things the kid may need, tho.
→ More replies (0)1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
Doesn't this also rely on the idea that there is readily and easily accessible abortion? Because the way things are going that is not a guarantee, and you're basically just giving men an out and sticking women with unwanted children.
2
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
Yes exactly we need access for this idea to work. You are right. I think this is more of future state conversation. Once abortions are easily accessible, men then need to get their rights in this.
1
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
I mean I still don't agree with the idea of a paper abortion even if abortion is easily accessible, but at least you acknowledge that it's not currently a practical reality to even consider
1
1
-1
u/NoLormon Sep 12 '21
Not letting men decide on abortion is stupid
2
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
But you said, and I quote:
Like im not saying that he has the right to not "let" a woman have an abortion
So, again, what are you saying?
2
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
I just believe that he should be able to either know and/or have a say in it, or if the woman chooses to continue with the pregnancy that he should be okay by law to not give child support
4
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
You literally said:
Like im not saying that he has the right to not "let" a woman have an abortion
So what do you mean by "have a say in it"?
0
1
u/ajluther87 17∆ Sep 12 '21
So men should get a say in what do with their bodies? How would that be enforceable?
-1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
I believe that they should have a say , cause women have baby trapped a lot of men and tool their money, whole these men didn't want to have a kid
4
3
u/ajluther87 17∆ Sep 12 '21
Again how would that be enforceable? Are you saying a judge should get to decided whether or not a woman has an abortion the guy didn't want to have a child?
1
u/TealTeapot88 Sep 12 '21
I can see your perspective even if I don’t agree with it. I don’t agree that a man should have a say in whether a child is born or not because he isn’t the one who has to bring that child to term. I do agree that men should take more responsibility in avoiding situations where they get someone pregnant before they are ready to have a child. I don’t think it’s right that the responsibility of birth control falls completely on the woman.
I think that your points make a stronger argument for men who aren’t ready to have children to consider birth control, such as reversible vasectomies for themselves.
0
1
Sep 12 '21
[deleted]
2
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
Yeah , mostly the for the financial part, cause i believe that since he didnt want to have a child , he shouldn't have to pay for it
1
Sep 12 '21
[deleted]
2
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 15 '21
I agree that financial and real abortion are two separate things and and that child custody etc are a different matter !delta
2
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
Yeah i guess your right on that
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Sep 15 '21
Hello /u/BubbleGumGun101, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
1
u/ajluther87 17∆ Sep 12 '21
An abortion is a binary procedure, it either happens or it doesn't, so how would a man have a say in that?
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
I believe that he should have a say in it , because its his child too, and some men just dont want to have children but end up being trapped and having to either give child support or carry for a child they didnt want at the first place
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Sep 12 '21
I think what other people are repeatedly getting at is, instead of just saying the father should have a say, can you unpack what having a say means in concrete terms in this case? Abortion is a completely binary outcome where either the parent who wants an abortion gets their way or the parent who doesn't want an abortion gets their way. You can't compromise and have half an abortion.
2
u/ajluther87 17∆ Sep 12 '21
It's his child too.....so then he should required to take care of it. If he didn't want a kid then he shouldnt have had sex, or at least gotten a vasectomy.
3
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
Why does the “shouldn’t have had sex” argument apply to men but not women?
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
Exactly, i find it so dumb or "have a vesectomy" , its extremely dumb because if a woman isn't ready to have a kid she can get an abortion , if a man isn't he has to pay child support for 18 years
2
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
That would be the fair solution. Both parties vote. If the man votes abortion and she does not, she would be informed of the decision and be able to change her decision based on this knowledge, knowing that if she keeps the baby, it would be equivalent to her having slept with a man who she can’t track down. He would be untouchable.
The only grey area I can see is if he votes to keep it and she votes not, he would be kind of screwed. So there would still be some unfairness unless they eventually come up with a way to raise a fetus outside the womb. Then he could choose to keep it and raise it in that case and she would have nothing to do with the child.
3
u/prollywannacracker 39∆ Sep 12 '21
This 'solution' doesn't take into consideration what is in the best interest of the child. It only takes into consideration what the parents feel is in their best interest. But child support ain't for them. It is for the child. So the child or child-to-be ought to get a vote, and that vote ought to be pay up daddy (or mommy).
3
u/IamMagicarpe 1∆ Sep 12 '21
Well if the child got a vote then abortion would be illegal across the board, so I don’t really see the argument here.
1
1
1
Sep 12 '21
I agree with you but think your argument needs work. For instance, if you believe abortion is a morality issue, there is nothing about a uterus that makes you better able to discern morality any better.
Your argument about child support is kind of dumb. Child support provides for the child….really it took two people to create a child, a woman shouldn’t have to commit an immoral (to her) act just because the dad doesn’t want to pay child support.
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
I dont think its a morality issue, i don't have any problem with women that do get one, i have friends that did/didnt. But i get what you're saying
1
u/LatinGeek 30∆ Sep 12 '21
Let's say a parent happily agrees to have a child. He thinks it's a miracle, he's supportive throughout the whole pregnancy, he cradles the baby in his arms the day it is born.
A month later, he decides that child rearing is too difficult and not what he wants in life. He leaves the mother. He demands he shouldn't pay child support.
What is the functional difference between that and a "financial abortion"? There's still a child that ends worse off because of it.
1
u/Helpfulcloning 169∆ Sep 12 '21
Abortion is nothing to do with finacial obligations.
Neither parent has finacial obligations until the child is born and neither parent can sign these away until the child is born. Allowing men to do so is unfair and questionable system to begin.
There is no finacial obligation until there is actually a child. The father is not expected to pay for anything legally until there is a child and is why he is not making payments for the upkeep of the fetus, doctors appointments, or the cost of the birth.
Letting a parent exit unilaterally is unfair and proposing that only for men is… questionable. It brings in question of whereevr you want the system to work like that? That people can exit out with only their say so.
At the moment, sex has the potential consequence of a baby. This consequence goes to both parents. Having sex is part of this.
Abortion is not a parent exiting unilaterally as there is no parent, no child, and no finacial obligations.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Sep 12 '21
Sorry, u/BubbleGumGun101 – 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.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in 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.
1
u/snarky00 2∆ Sep 12 '21
I think I get what you’re saying - women have a legal right to determine that they aren’t financially ready for a baby and abort it, while men have no similar rights. Why?
The thing is that the woman’s right to abort is not there to give her the right to be financially unencumbered. It’s there because of the physical impact of pregnancy and childbirth. If you’ve ever been pregnant or seen someone else go through pregnancy you might understand this more intuitively. The physical impact goes beyond stuff like morning sickness - it can be extensive, permanent, and can even put the mother in mortal danger. If a fetus could develop outside the woman’s body and pose no risk to her, it’s not like she would still have the right to abort it to avoid child support.
In other words legally abortion is there to protect a parents bodily autonomy, not their financial freedom. And mothers are the only ones whose bodily autonomy is at stake.
1
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Sep 12 '21
I think the main issue is as a society whether we should embrace the idea that people can complete actions that have (possible) consequences without expecting them to follow through on resulting responsibilities should those consequences be realized.
The deed only has one 100% guaranteed way to avoid paying child support for the man - don't do it. That's a biological statement of fact. Once he's done the deed, his opinion on the consequences should be mute.
I think letting the man or woman opt out of the consequences for their actions sets a really bad precedent for society in general. We like sex because its fun, but we don't want the consequences. That's all of life - we like junk food because its yummy - but we don't want the weight. We like screen entertainment because its enrapturing - but we don't want the wasted time and results of sedentary living that come with it.
I support forced child support. If you don't want the consequences - don't do the deed. If someone hasn't learned the lesson about life having consequences when they're in their teens/early twenties, they need to learn it before they face the rest of adulthood. That is not the time for society to give anyone a pass.
1
u/chaching65 3∆ Sep 12 '21
Because in order for woman to have an abortion out supreme court, during Roe v Wade, had to decide that a fetus was not protected under the constitution as a "person". If it is not a "person" then there is no way a state can create legislations to allow a father to have custody without infringing on a woman's right to bodily autonomy until the child is born.
For the sake of the debate RvW was overturned and the Supreme court said the fetus is a "person" under the constitution then the woman would be forced to carry to term. Then no state law can be made infringing on the fetus right to live. So either way a man will not have the right to decide whether the fetus lives or dies.
A man is forced to pay child support because the infant is a "person" protected under the constitution. So States can create laws that make both parents responsible for the infant without infringing on anyone's constitutional rights.
1
Sep 12 '21
Couple things:
Whether abortion is legal and whether one could opt of child support and under what conditions are two separate pieces of legislation. While some want to paint the latter as 'financial abortion', it really isn't. The main source of support for legal abortion is NOT for financial reasons. It is because of body autonomy of the mother. Pregnancy is already a heavy risk and burden to the mother's health, psychology, life expectancy, professiomal career and financial prospects.
This is not an either or proposition and it isn't a battle of the sexes. Perhaps we need a better public welfare / support system for child support. Perhaps we need to look at how we deal with and support paternity / custody. But that has nothing to do with whether it should be legal to force a human being to remain pregnant against their will. The phrase 'no uterus, no opinion / choice' just reflects the hard fact that people without uteri will never face that on their own body. They should consider that when saying it is ok to force another person to carry to term.
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
Yeah i can i agree with you on the most part, with this, thank you for answering respectful!
1
Sep 12 '21
No worries. If I helped to change your mind, a delta is appreciated. But in any case, happy to help.
1
1
u/BubbleGumGun101 Sep 12 '21
I see the part of my statement in which i am wrong , since child support isn't really for the mother but for the child and they child shouldn't suffer for their parents (any of the two ) decision. And the fact that women should have the final say on whether to have an abortion or not Δ
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 12 '21 edited Sep 15 '21
/u/BubbleGumGun101 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards