Financial Abortion causes 138+ children in /r/TheBluePill. Would it cause more real abortions and help curb reproductive abusers? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
42 ups - 16 downs = 26 votes
122 comments submitted at 14:41:32 on Feb 16, 2014 by david-me
It really does become drama here... and I always get suckered into arguing with them. I can't help it. They literally anger me. They also don't get that once a child exists, the child't rights trump their own (and that of their mother). While I can try to understand their point it gets me angry when they dismiss the rights of a child.
Sorry, I'm just a bit confused but what are the rights of the child that you are specifically talking about?
once a child exists there can be no debate that it needs to be supported by both parents. The child's right at that point will always be determined to be greater than the parents... meaning the courts will never let either walk away scott free unless the other party agrees to it.
EDIT: I will guess MRA is against supporting children that are already born judging from the downvotes. That's a new low for you guys.
>meaning the courts will never let either walk away scott free unless the other party agrees to it.
But this is just simply not true. Safe Havens exist that allow individuals to walk away "scott free" as you put it. And in states such as Utah, there are specific laws which allow women to put up their kids for adoption without the father's approval. Heck, there was a story that broke a while back about a mother putting up her baby up for adoption while the father was in the military without him knowing and he had to fight to try to get his child back from another couple.
>Safe Havens exist that allow individuals to walk away "scott free" as you put it.
Safe havens only prove my point. The state recognizes that the child's rights are superior to the parent. Therefore if you really have a child you want to do harm to or neglect... the state recognizes the fact that it must give one final option for you to give up your child in order to protect it. Even despite this, there are women who still kill their children or abuse the fuck out of them.
I am not for taking away father's rights... let me make that clear. Obviously if there is a dad who wants to take up the task of caring for a child he should.
I think you are missing the point that I was trying to make. The mere existence of these type of things(Safe Havens & Legal Abandonment) show children are not required to be supported by both parents. While they may help parents who may be in danger of hurting their kids, they also allow parents who just no longer want to put up with their kids to absolve their selves of responsibility. Some parents were starting to just drop their entire family of teenagers off at safe havens, causing some states to re-think their safe haven laws.
>The mere existence of these type of things(Safe Havens & Legal Abandonment) show children are not required to be supported by both parents.
This is an incorrect conclusion to make. They are indeed required. The existence of these last ditch efforts is the state acknowledging that some people are too insane or criminal or stupid to take care of a child or tell someone that this is the case, so instead they want to dump and run. Just as we will never catch ever dead beat dad, we will never catch every mother who wants to dump & run. Therefore we NEED (As a society) to give one last option to save the child.
> The existence of these last ditch efforts is the state acknowledging that some people are too insane or criminal or stupid to take care of a child or tell someone that this is the case, so instead they want to dump and run.
WHile it may be a last ditch effort for the state, it isn't a last ditch effort for some parents. Here's a good story about the issue.
But people who are for financial abortions have only ever argued for it at a point where a woman could have a real abortion. At that point, in the eyes of many who support medical abortions, there isn't even a kid to care for and just some"parasite" which they have no problem getting rid of entirely. God forbid the man doesnt want to spend a fifth of his natural life caring for something he never wanted.
>But people who are for financial abortions have only ever argued for it at a point where a woman could have a real abortion
This has not been the case in my experience. But then I suppose I have talked with a wide range of folks on the issue.
>God forbid the man doesnt want to spend a fifth of his natural life caring for something he never wanted.
This always gets to the crux of the matter to me. I have asked this question time & again, and get different answers from different MRAs: Do you mean to tell me that you consider it your right to have sex unprotected without asking questions ahead of time and never be held responsible for the outcome?
I think only that if woman are allowed to abort a child and not dedicate their life to it before it is born, a man should be able to too.
The way you put that question is posing it as if people are escaping a consequence. This would be true for some men who would inevitably go around and impregnate many women through recklessness and then financially abort after to save themselves, but is it not also true that there are some women who do nothing to avoid having an abortion and who use it as a first resort every time they are pregnant?
Most agree that these women are in the minority and it is better to give the right to all and have some abuse it then to give it to none. I think it is reasonable to assume men are not inherently more evil or careless than women so I also assume that the percentage of men who would abuse this right is also small. Even if men are more evil (or if there are simply more evil men), I don't think it would ever be enough to put this percentage in the majority. So then, the men getting financial abortions would mostly just be reasonable people who adequately protected themselves and still got into a bad situation (like how a woman who protects herself might still get pregnant).
It wouldn't be a bunch of men having rampant unprotected sex rampantly and escaping responsibility all the time.
>I think only that if woman are allowed to abort a child and not dedicate their life to it before it is born, a man should be able to too.
once a man can get pregnant, I will agree with you. But unfortunately biology isn't fair. This is the sticking point, it is biology that made the woman the determiner. We can't change that reality. Allowing men to walk away freely just puts us back to where we were for the majority of human history: single mothers left to fend for themselves and fatherless children. I don't think that is a good place to revert to.
> This has not been the case in my experience
That's why it's called an "abortion"...
I don't think MRAs support literal unconditional child abandonment, as a general rule.
>Do you mean to tell me that you consider it your right to have sex unprotected without asking questions ahead of time and never be held responsible for the outcome?
Uh, sure, why not? There's nothing about sex that makes some sort of risk morally requisite. If there were, you could use the same argument to oppose contraception ffs.
>I don't think MRAs support literal unconditional child abandonment, as a general rule.
Justing from the downvotes on my original comment upthread: "once a child exists there can be no debate that it needs to be supported by both parents."
yes I do think that MRAs support that, otherwise why would my reasonable comment be downvoted?
Because there's an excluded middle here, as some of the replies to your other comment point out. We don't force fathers into specific performance of fatherly duties. Child support payments from an absent father is not inherently better for children than child support payments from anyone else. I don't think studies have convincingly shown that children need checks from daddy as opposed to checks from the state.
>Because there's an excluded middle here
my comment doesn't exclude the middle. The middle is what is open for debate. However, I had thought that we all agreed that once a child exists it needs to be cared for
>I don't think studies have convincingly shown that children need checks from daddy as opposed to checks from the state.
True, however I think there is an impact on the child if a father decides to be absent. I am not advocating for mere money, I say men should be active in taking care of the children as well. A court can't order that, because a man has the right to his body, just as a court can't order a woman to have an abortion as she has the right to hers.
>A court can't order that, because a man has the right to his body, just as a court can't order a woman to have an abortion as she has the right to hers.
Sure. There's a robust literature showing that children benefit from two-parent households. But as you observe we don't require households to have two parents. So shouldn't this imply that a financial abortion should be seen as no more problematic than divorce, which we obviously do allow?
More Comments - Click Here
If they take a financial abortion at that point, would you agree that the state should provide what the father does not, as expecting lower income single mothers to support the child on their own is incredibly unreasonable?
If it was scientifically proven that a child exists inside of the mother at 15 weeks, would you oppose abortion after 15 weeks? Would the mothers right to bodily autonomy trump the child's right to life?
I am not here to debate abortion
I'm simply asking if the mother's rights would trump the child's rights. I don't think a child exists at 15 weeks, but if it was scientifically proven that one did, then who's rights are the most important?
I am not here to have that debate.
Therein lies the pro-life argument. When does a child "exist"
I am talking about when they are born... not a pro-lifer here.
Yeah, I've gotten roped into arguments with them an embarrassing number of times too. I'm still tempted when the issue comes up. But, like 9/11 truthers and sovereign citizens nuts, the best answer is just to say "LOL dOK]"
The fact that you are comparing 9/11 conspirists with people who like the idea of a financial abortion is proof that srd has gone hardcore feminist.
SRD: SRS 2: Popcorn Boogaloo
dOK]
I would be less surprised if 9/11 truthers turned out to be right than if financial abortions became the norm.
he is just saying that in order to hold either belief (9/11 conspiracy or financial abortion) you must ignore certain aspects of reality. In fact both arguments resemble religious belief, as their proponents must ignore fact in order to adhere to them.
You can make that assertion for any sort of policy disagreement, pretty much.
TIL the concept and legal burden set by society at large of paying for your child is feminism.
Unless you want to abort it, of course. Then you're cool.
Abortion is a biological right and responsibility. Financial "abortion" does not exist. It's a hypothetical term trying to sideline the fact you're just abandoning to society what you created by and large through a willing act. Both women and men pay for their children, but women bear them, and therefore have more rights to that child prior to it's birth. If this seriously concerns you that much I would suggest using birth control and avoiding random hook ups because "financial abortions" aren't and will not be a thing anytime soon.
Seriously, I wish the MRM could breach society at large for once and try to explain this idea to the public. It would be hilarious as society and people from every political spectrum remind you that being a deadbeat is not a legal or biological right.
Are there cases where a man shouldn't be paying? Yeah, of course. When it's not his, rape, etc but to demean biological rights in favor of your wallet is just ridiculous, especially when the mother is paying for the child on both levels.
You're just appealing to the status quo here. Yeah, the difference between financial and non-financial abortions is that the latter is legal. No shit, you got me. However, my point is that feminists do not actually support the concept of "paying for your child" as some unconditional thing. There are obvious "outs" (not just abortion, of course, but all sorts of public assistance for families.)
> You're just appealing to the status quo here
It's more like you're failing to discern why the status quo is wrong.
>Yeah, the difference between financial and non-financial abortions is that the latter is legal. No shit, you got me.
Actually the main difference is one is biological the other is financial and finances DO NOT OVERRIDE BIOLOGICAL RIGHTS. It's really a simple concept.
>However, my point is that feminists do not actually support the concept
Save the typical "evil straw feminists!" trope. This isn't a feminist issue as much as it is a societal issue. Society expects you to be responsible for you doing by willing actions, your child included. The fact that on one front you state this is a "status quo" issue then the very next step is straw feminism should be contradictory to you. Unless you're claiming feminism is the one that put for the onus of responsibility, they're not, that's society at large, which is why some of the arguments are almost identical opposing abortion and financial abortion but the difference is that the latter is about money, the former about biological rights and they're not equal at fucking all.
>of "paying for your child" as some unconditional thing.
Said by the user arguing that it should be a right to divorce yourself from your biological child without a hint of irony. You got a mirror?
>There are obvious "outs" (not just abortion, of course, but all sorts of public assistance for families.)
And again, it's a failure of you and people like you to persuade the rest of society as to why we should cover down on your willing acts of procreation? I thought you were right leaning, and here you are trying to get the state to cover for your fuck ups. Paying for your child is about the child, not your wallet.
>Actually the main difference is one is biological the other is financial and finances DO NOT OVERRIDE BIOLOGICAL RIGHTS. It's really a simple concept.
Uh, except they do all the time. There's no legal concept of "biological rights" versus "financial rights", they're all rights and they're all traded off against eachother all the time. How do you think damages estimates are attained in something like an assault civil suit? We convert between the two all the time.
>Unless you're claiming feminism is the one that put for the onus of responsibility, they're not, that's society at large, which is why some of the arguments are almost identical opposing abortion and financial abortion but the difference is that the latter is about money, the former about biological rights and they're not equal at fucking all.
No, I'm stating that feminists in particular are hypocritical on this issue by asserting a conservative moral argument that they don't actually buy into, given their support of abortion. But yes, if it's of any consolation to you, I'm sure they're not the only hypocrites on this issue.
>I thought you were right leaning, and here you are trying to get the state to cover for your fuck ups.
Why call it a fuckup if the woman wants a child and the man doesn't, and the man fiscally aborts? Maybe everyone's better off for it. We don't force women to carry pregnancies to term to "pay for their fuckups."
Again, it's the rhetorical hypocrisy here that gets me. Not any sincere desire to see fiscal abortions instantiated.