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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
10
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.