Financial Abortion causes 138+ children in /r/TheBluePill. Would it cause more real abortions and help curb reproductive abusers? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
100 ups - 50 downs = 50 votes
600 comments submitted at 14:41:32 on Feb 16, 2014 by david-me
This is one thing that does make me feel bad for straight guys. In progressive communities it's generally accepted that women have sex mostly for fun, and when they consent to sex, they're not consenting to having to give birth to a child. But apparently when a straight guy consents to sex, he's consenting to having to pay someone for 18 years if that person feels so inclined.
I can't really think of a solution for this as I hate the idea of raising children with inadequate money in the household, but bleh.
BLEHHHHHH
> I can't really think of a solution for this
Honestly, there isn't one. No matter what option is picked someone's rights are going to get stepped on. It's really just a matter of deciding who gets fucked over.
The way I see it, there are basically three options:
I honestly can't tell whether MRAs want society to be more like #2 or #3. Although they may think that if child support weren't a thing, they could just force women to have abortions.
>All of society pays for all children via taxation (like a minimum income, but for children).
I would be perfectly OK with this, but I doubt the MRAs would be. Something something collective reproductive enslavement something something.
I doubt childfree people would be either. Why should they have to pay for other peoples' crotchfruit? /s
Well, they already do through property taxes to support public schools.
I think it's a good idea, too. But I think a lot of MRAs have libertarian leanings, so this probably wouldn't fly.
That's mostly why I find the mental gymnastics on the issue so amazing to watch. They're libertarian until it's their responsibility. Then they're all about the social contract stepping in to support their unwanted children because of course society should have a safety net to deal with the things they don't feel like dealing with.
It's like the billionaires who want the government out of their business until it comes time for the subsidy checks to be distributed.
> Then they're all about the social contract stepping in to support their unwanted children
I've never seen that. Most libertarian advocates for paternal financial abortion say that it should be the mother's responsibility to take care of a child that only she wants, not the State's. Do you have a link to someone who argues as you claim?
The biggest problem I can see at the outset is that some people would probably have kids for the sole purpose of bringing in guaranteed income. However, it would also solve a great many problems. I'd be interested to see a policy brief on the feasibility of such a proposal.
Libertarians are all over basic income. Hayek, Friedman, etc.
Maybe academic libertarians are. The libertarians I speak to and see are all over getting rid of the minimum wage and the social safety net.
Most libertarians are wary of plans to implement a basic income because of how it would be implemented. It's supposed to replace existing entitlement plans, not supplement them. Libertarians are worried that liberals are going to want to keep the other existing entitlements alongside a basic income.
Look at the way the UK handled the VAT. It was originally implemented to replace, over time, the income tax there. Now the people in that country pay both. Libertarians don't want that kind of wool to be pulled over their eyes in America.
The minimum wage has nothing to do with the basic income, and numerous developed countries do not have a statutory minimum wage, some of which have a scant safety net as well(such as Singapore).
>The libertarians I speak to and see are all over getting rid of the minimum wage and the social safety net.
And the ones I speak to want to replace with with minimum basic income - because they don't like how welfare conditions people to being monitored and controlled, and because it's actually pretty compatible with their philosophy.
Who are these libertarians you're talking to, and where are they from?
Some I met in high school, some in college. And of course, there are the internet libertarians.
Yeah, if I judged progressives by people I met in high school and /r/politics, I'd have a pretty dim view of them myself. Same goes for libertarians and /r/libertarian - everyone on the Internet is a jerk. ;)
Yeah, that's fair enough.
Friedman was NOT for basic income. He was for a negative income tax as an alternative to the current welfare scheme and as a temporary measure to ween off of welfare altogether to make freer immigration more feasible.
I'm more familiar with Hayek, myself. What's the difference between an negative income tax and basic income?
A basic income is unconditional money to everyone. A negative income tax is where when one earns less than a certain threshold, they are given money so they have an amount equal to that threshold. The latter is meant to help people without disincentivizing work, as you working more doesn't lead to an overall net loss of income which often occurs in most welfare systems.
Got it.
I'm a libertarian and can accept #2 as an improvement over #3. I'd imagine that most MRAs would feel similarly.
This always seemed like the most reasonable option to me. If a couple get pregnant, the woman wants to keep the baby, the man wants it aborted, and the government says that someone has to help pay for the child, why isn't it the government that foots that bill?
What kind of incentive would men have to practice safe sex?
To avoid having to go through the process of financial abortion each time they get a girl pregnant, safety from STD's, and they'd have to find a willing girl to do it with them each time.
I already pay taxes for schools for kids that aren't mine. It'd chafe my ass if i was paying for other people's choice to have kids.
MRAs haven't really said anything that child support shouldn't be a thing. They're saying men should be given a similar means to opt in to parenthood that women are, and the responsibilities therein.
I'd go with #3 given that most of them seem to be "libertarians"
The whole point of the thing is that the guy doesn't want the kid. Why should he pay for it then? That's the whole unfair bit.
Children need to be supported. They need food, clothing, shelter, and emotional support. I, personally, think #2 of the above is the best option. However, in a society that won't vote for that, option #1 is good enough.
And the guy has absolutely no say whether the child is actually kept or not! Do you see how that's unfair? Since equal abortion rights won't ever happen, financial abortion is the next best alternative.
>And the guy has absolutely no say whether the child is actually kept or not! Do you see how that's unfair?
No? How is it unfair that men aren't allowed to make decisions about other people's bodies?
It's unfair because they then have to take responsibility for the decisions of others. That's the whole point of financial abortion. So they are forced into doing something because of someone else's decision.
What decision is the man making about other peoples bodies?
Are you serious right now? Or just a massive troll?
I really don't care if it's unfair to men. What I care about is whether children have what they need to thrive.
And why is the guy made responsible for someone else's decision?
He isn't made responsible. He is responsible by virtue of the fact that he blew his load in a vagina. Physical processes don't halt because you withhold consent.
Unless you're trying to argue that most men don't know how reproduction works?
But, the woman is able to get rid of the responsibility while the man is not.
Because society as a whole won't take responsibility. Children need care. This may not be a perfect solution, but it's better than nothing.
And why does the guy obligated to take the responsibility over society? Neither have any say on the child being born.
You didn't decide to have sex? Interesting, were you raped?
Because otherwise I am pretty sure you did decide to take part in an act that leads to pregnancy.
The decision of choosing parenthood is not there for the man. The woman gets to decide to keep the child or not.
The sex can be for recreation and not procreation.
Also, the woman has the ability to forgo the responsibility of having the child while the man is not.
Well why not hold the only person with unilateral decision making power in whether a child comes to be then?
Because it wasn't a fucking unilateral decision.
Do you have sex with yourself to produce a baby? No.
This falls back to the original problem that you all forget about. Sex can lead to pregnancy. You choose to have sex you do have a chance at pregnancy.
How fucking difficult is that for you MRA idiots?
>Because it wasn't a fucking unilateral decision.
>Do you have sex with yourself to produce a baby? No.
The decision is unilateral upon conception. The creation of a fetus isn't unilateral, but the fetus becoming a child is.
>This falls back to the original problem that you all forget about. Sex can lead to pregnancy. You choose to have sex you do have a chance at pregnancy.
Apply that to abortion, adoption, and safe haven abandonment then.
Does this need to be spelled out to you people every single fucking time?
Abortion rights for most usually deal with the fact that it is a person's body, thus you shouldn't be able to fuck with it. Unless you believe the fetus is a human, then it has human rights. Correct? That has absolutely no bearing on this conversation. It is about their body.
If you wish to argue about abortion then we can, but derailing the conversation because you have nothing else is pathetic. Just because some arguments overlap does not make them the same thing. Sorry for your lack of comprehending how arguments work.
Adoption. I believe both parties should be in on that. If there is an issue with that, then argue that.
Safe haven abandonment. Same as the adoption one.
Anyways as for the first part of your statement. No shit that the 9 months the baby is in a woman's stomach you can't fuck with it. Until I can carry it for half the time, there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
The only time a man can, in any reasonable way, affect pregnancy is before and after. Before he can go get a vasectomy, wear a condom, try to not find a crazy woman so she'll take plan b if necessary.
And after he should be part of whether it goes to adoption or the other.
Same goes for a woman. The only addition is she can get an abortion, right? But that falls back to the original part of this shit I'm typing. And it's not like it's a walk in the park for an abortion. It is surgery you know.
Sure it's unfair. She can choose during those months and I can't. But after if she decides to keep it, financial abortion is fucking retarded. Because at that point it's not about her or you or anyone else except for the CHILD. So unless you have society paying for the kid then financial abortion will fuck up the child's progression in life.
Whatever, tired of dealing with MRAs in SRD. Short answers are fucking worthless as there is no discussion and just yelling. Until MRAs write up a full proposal on how financial abortion would not fuck with the child, and stop comparing it to literal abortion and stop feeling victimized because she can choose...then there will be nothing gained ever.
I think a small tax to benefit orphanages would be a great thing in general
I don't think that a return to the days of institutionalized child rearing is a good thing for anyone. Maybe a tax to benefit the foster care system might be better instead.
The foster care system just needs some serious reform, not subsidizing it's broken structure further.
I don't know how bad institutional child rearing was, but single mommery definitely has a ton of problems.
In the interest of the children, we shall henceforth ban divorce.
I think you're completely fucking delusional if you think any of the "MRA" viewpoints are anything even remotely resembling 2 or 3.
Then what do they want? I see them saying that they don't want to pay child support, but what's the alternative?
They want the willing parents of a child to be responsible for and support their own children.
And whether someone chooses to be a parent of a potential child would be decided while abortion is still an option.
So they want women who can't afford a child to get abortions? Considering how many anti-abortion laws have been passed in the last two years, that may be kind of difficult. Do MRAs plan to petition their state legislatures to make abortion more accessible?
>So they want women who can't afford a child to get abortions?
They don't want women to do anything.
>Do MRAs plan to petition their state legislatures to make abortion more accessible?
Are you under the assumption that most people who identify as MRA aren't pro-choice?
MRA's are extremist SJWs, you can never see what they really believe because they're so fanatical.
Says you...
Do me a favor, find me one single person, "MRA" or not, that has said anything even close to #2 or 3.
How are MRA's not SJW's? Do they not fight for their social issues 24/7?
So you can't find one then...
Can't say I'm surprised.
Things are rarely as simple as only three choices.
From my perspective, it seems a combination of #1 and #2 is reasonable...which is what we're doing now anyway. Society is already bearing part of the cost of child rearing (through tax credits, extra allowance of subsidies towards parents/single mothers, etc) while making the parents pay for everything else.
From the submission, it sounds to me like the MRA in question (assuming he is an MRA and not just a random person supporting financial abortion) has sort of decided on #4 -- that is that he expects the allowance of financial abortion would make actual abortion skyrocket to the point where only a small percentage of women wouldn't do it, thus not requiring #1-#3.
>I can't really think of a solution for this as I hate the idea of raising children with inadequate money in the household, but bleh.
So does everyone... but why is that anyone elses problem other than the single person who had 100% control over whether to bring the child into this world or not knowing full well they'd be single (unless they found someone else)?
They're not consenting to have to give birth, but the are consenting to potentially getting pregnant
>I can't really think of a solution for this as I hate the idea of raising children with inadequate money in the household, but bleh.
I can:
-don't have sex with women you don't trust
-if you decide to have sex with a woman you don't trust, wear a condom
-if the condom breaks or you were too dumb to follow steps one and two, get a morning after pill
Those three steps will probably eliminate a good 99 percent of unwanted pregnancies. Yes, it happens anyway; no, it does not happen very bloody often. So don't be a fucking idiot, and you probably won't impregnate someone accidentally.
Honestly, it's not that hard.
"Use caution, be prepared that every time you have sex you could become a parent, and accept the consequences if you do."
You could use that same argument against abortion rights for the woman, but something tells me you won't.
> > "Use caution, be prepared that every time you have sex you could become a parent, and accept the consequences if you do."
> You could use that same argument against abortion rights for the woman, but something tells me you won't.
Women have the right to abort a fetus because it's in their body. Not because they deserve a second chance to avoid responsibility.
Let's also not pretend that abortion is some completely consequence free decision by the woman and she's perfectly fine 100% immediately after.
If you truly believe someone should have total control over their body why don't you extend that to men? You don't think child support forces a man to work longer and harder, severely limiting his life options? It's arguably a far more prohibitive restriction on his freedom.
By this logic all taxes are unethical infringement on bodily autonomy.
It doesn't really fly in the real world. Pretty much everyone accepts a difference between bodily autonomy and financial autonomy.
Using the same logic, they are. The distinction is of course the fact that taxes pay for all kinds of beneficial social utilities and services. This is not a tax in that sense, but a financial burden for one's actions. I have a problem imposing such a financial burden on men in situations where they choose not to be fathers. At least during the period where women are able to abort.
Taxes are an infringement on bodily autonomy... the reason they are ethical, is because they are a choice. You are more than welcome to legally renounce your citizenship to this country, and lose the benefits that entails if you so choose.
>Pretty much everyone accepts a difference between bodily autonomy and financial autonomy.
Except there is no difference when you can get thrown in jail for failure to work/pay.
On a scale from being forced to pay for a meal you ate in a restaurant to literal slavery child support lies pretty close to the former while being forced to carry and give birth to a child against your will lies pretty close if not beyond the latter, as far as violating one's control over their body goes. In my opinion.
> child support lies pretty close to the former while being forced to carry and give birth to a child against your will lies pretty close if not beyond the latter,
Whose advocating anyone to be forced to carry and birth a child against their will?
And how is being forced to pay child support in anyway similar to someone choose to buy a meal in a restaurant?
> Whose advocating anyone to be forced to carry and birth a child against their will?
/u/Gareth321 made an argument that forcing someone to pay child support and forcing someone to carry and birth a child against their will are both violations of someone's right to control their body, so in both cases that should trump other considerations.
Not only those other considerations here are actually different -- the wellbeing of an existing child vs the possibility for it to exist, -- but also the magnitude of violations is vastly different. So the lesser evil that we choose in each case is different.
> And how is being forced to pay child support in anyway similar to someone choose to buy a meal in a restaurant?
Compared to actual slavery all this stuff like meals having price, taxes, student loans, child support, damages you have to compensate after causing a traffic accident, and so on, are pretty close together.
>/u/Gareth321 made an argument that forcing someone to pay child support and forcing someone to carry and birth a child against their will are both violations of someone's right to control their body,
They are.... that's why we don't force people to carry and birth a child against their will.
>the wellbeing of an existing child vs the possibility for it to exist,
Where is this "existing child"? No one is advocating for fathers to be able to back out of supporting their kids after they chose to be their father.
>Compared to actual slavery all this stuff like meals having price, taxes, student loans, child support, damages you have to compensate after causing a traffic accident, and so on, are pretty close together.
Meals are a choice.
Taxes are a choice.
Loans are a choice.
Causing an accident is a choice.
Paying child support is not a choice... unless of course you think consent to sex = consent to parenthood, but don't tell that to the pro-choicers.
> They are.... that's why we don't force people to carry and birth a child against their will.
Actually, we do after the first trimester, in most places. So there's that. > > the wellbeing of an existing child vs the possibility for it to exist,
> Where is this "existing child"? No one is advocating for fathers to be able to back out of supporting their kids after they chose to be their father.
What? How is that related to what I said?
> Causing an accident is a choice.
What?
> Paying child support is not a choice... unless of course you think consent to sex = consent to parenthood, but don't tell that to the pro-choicers.
It's not about consent, it's about cause and effect.
If you have sex with someone then you might end up causing a child to be brought to this world. Then, feeding that child is your responsibility.
This is exactly the same for a woman, except since the fetus is in her body, and she owns her body, we decided that preventing her from expelling it would be a bigger evil.
Again, you're all emotional right now and you see it like "women get an out-of-jail-free card, why don't I get one?".
They don't get one because we believe that they should have a second chance to opt out of supporting a child (where the first one was not having sex). They get it because forbidding them would be very unethical, because that would be imposing our rules onto what they can do with their bodies. In a very intrusive manner, way, way more intrusive than "you have to pay $400 every month".
Think about it.
Can you provide some numbers on that scale? Label the vertices? Where does the meal fall on a steak to ketchup packet venn diagram?
No. Can you?
You want me to label and clarify your own argument? I'm not betting on a hoRse in this race. I'm mocking your shitty argument style. You know, the point of this sub.
No, but you seem to be trying to make a counter-argument, as if you disagreed with mine. If yes then go on, make it. If you were asking the question for no reason then I don't have a reason to give an answer.
Man have no right to there own labor because it's not there own body they use to create that labor...yep?
>Women have the right to abort a fetus because it's in their body
And the right of the mans body to not be forced to work for 18 years under threat of jail?
I'm not going to get drawn into an argument about the philosophy and ethics of reproductive equality. My point was that barring freakishly bad luck, an unwanted pregnancy is an avoidable situation, and even then, no one FORCED anyone to have sex.
For both the woman and the man. But again, I don't hear you arguing against abortion rights for the mother.
These people have some serious cognitive dissonance to use that argument for women and against men and see no problem whatsoever (and then say some bullshit like "I don't want to get into the ethics/morality of it, that's just how it is").
Abortion is a biological right. "Financial abortion" is not.
Why is it a right?
Because the alternative is making women's reproductive organs public property...
As opposed to the father's labor?
Taxes are already a thing. Beyond that, once a child is born there's a third party involved who has rights of their own. Refusing to help feed your child and not having a child in the first place are not actually equivalent.
hello MRA. Were you alerted by an MRA bat signal?
Ah, when confronted with a difficult point, resort to ad hominem. Of course.
Nvm, you people are delusional. I don't know why I thought there would be a rational discussion.
so.. you find being called an MRA offensive? That is good then, because I had thought for a moment you were one. I am glad to see you renounce their ideology.
When you use a word like a slur, of course people are going to assume you're insulting them when you use it towards them.
Hmm... I think you read it as such. Perhaps you and your friend are feeling victimized?
A woman deciding to not have an abortion = forcing a baby on the unwilling father
Is this your opinion?
That's because the right to have an abortion is based on the right to bodily autonomy, not the right to avoid becoming a parent after having sex.
Sure it's based on that. Tons of women have abortions because they just aren't ready/don't want to be a parent though.
Unrelated to my other point, why is men's "bodily autonomy" not just as important. Do you think working to pay child support (sometimes up to 50% of what they make) under the threat of imprisonment isn't mentally and physically taxing?
You've asked me a massively loaded question that completely misrepresents the way child support works. The system isn't unfair. If the woman brings the pregnancy to term but intends to put the child up for adoption, the man has the right to custody. And the mother would have to pay him child support.
Women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and since only women can get pregnant, only they have a say in whether or not the pregnancy will be brought to term. You've tried to say men aren't being extended the right to bodily autonomy, but that argument doesn't hold water. Men aren't being told they can't have certain medical procedures done because some people have a moral objection to them - they have the same right to bodily autonomy that women have. They just can't exercise that right to end a pregnancy because men can't get pregnant.
That's why only one of them has a choice in whether or not the pregnancy will come to term. Afterwards, if one parent wants to care for the child and the other one doesn't, the one who doesn't should be required to make up for the loss of resources through reasonable financial reimbursement due to their involvement in making the child. Since they were involved in creating the child, they bear a responsibility to that child. Adoption and Safe Haven laws do allow parents from bearing that responsibility directly, but both require that the parents feel incapable of meeting the demands of the child and doing their best to ensure the child's needs are met by people willing and able to do so.
You ignored the first part of my comment.
And the second part - I don't object to any of that. Of course the woman should have the only say in whether or not the pregnancy is brought to term. It's her body and choice. The man should be allowed to Surrender his rights to be a parent, including all responsibilities within a certain time frame in places where women have easy access to abortions.
If the man wants to "financially abort" and the woman is made aware of it, she now has 100% of the choice and 100% of the responsibility. Either both parties should become responsible for parenthood because ‘it takes two to tango’ or both get the same abandonment rights and ability to walk away from becoming a parent before their time.
Only women have this choice. If she gets the sole decision on whether or not to have the child or have an abortion, then if that decision goes against the wishes of the man, she should get the sole responsibility. If she can abort when the man wants to keep the child then he should be able to "abort" (walk away) if she wants to keep the child and he doesn't. That would be 'equality.'
But I think what /u/werewolf-of-london was attempting to point out is that the same logic you are applying for men to be parents can be applied to women yet isn't and even if we do, there would be an uproar of disapproval displayed.
>My point was that barring freakishly bad luck, an unwanted pregnancy is an avoidable situation, and even then, no one FORCED anyone to have sex.
For example, this same logic can be applied to women who have an unwanted pregnancy.
So why do you think the same logic can be applied when they are two different processes?
In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the woman has to carry the child. This has consequences no matter how you look at it. Abortions aren't without consequences, it's not fun and it's not an easy thing. If the woman keeps the child, she'll have to carry it and be financially responsible. The man is only financially responsible, and yes, this is an inevitable consequence.
Really, the important point of focus should be the ultimate difference between a man and a woman, that is after all the part that creates this issue. The woman can have an abortion, but she also has to carry that responsibility. It's just not something you can change.
You make financial abortion a thing and you can be damn sure that there will be a increase in poor, single mothers that become financially incapable of taking care of the child. You take away the single responsibility a man has when he's sexually active, while women have no way to stop being resposible for the fact that it'll grow in her, and she'll have to make the decision to keep it or not, potentially going through abortion. That's not something you want to do on a regular sunday morning or whatever.
I think a more important issue is that male birth control becomes a things. It gives them the option of more control and responsibility and I'm pretty sure that it would make the rare instances in which unwanted pregancies happen despite protection less of a dramatic debate and more a thing the 'couple' needs to work out together, being the 'victims' of the same accident.
It's weird that this turns into a man vs. woman thing, considering it's a consequence of a pretty intimate act. It's like pregnancy is this spontaneous demon that just randomly pops up out of a hole in the ground and the man and woman run away like their life depends on it, unable to even think.
Edit: Fuck, I didn't mean for this to end up as a rant.
> You make financial abortion a thing and you can be damn sure that there will be a increase in poor, single mothers that become financially incapable of taking care of the child.
Or an increase in abortions outside of stable two-parent households.
Abortions are expensive, and depending on where you live, not necessarily easily available. And don't forget, there are plenty of politicians who would make abortion illegal except in instances of rape or incest and occasionally if it would be dangerous to have the baby. And, if you have ever seen the abortion protestors, you'd know how scary it can be to walk by them, that just walking by the place can be terrifying. Also, there's a good amount of social stigma around getting an abortion, which plenty of women would like to avoid.
Yes, abortions are expensive and hard to come by. That is less than ideal and should be changed.
Yes, there are politicians that want to make abortion illegal. But abortion is legal and this debate is happening within the assumption that abortion will remain legal. Financial abortion without safe and legal physical abortion would be the height of absurdity.
Yes, there are scary abortion protesters and horrible social stigma surrounding abortion. That will subside in time, just as the protests against racial integration and the social stigma surrounding interracial interaction has. Society is moving in the right direction on these issues. Let's keep moving forward.
There is a decent amount of data that shows a loving two-parent household (read: at least two adults of either gender active in the child's development and well-being) is vital for the future chances of the child. We as a society should be encouraging that kind of family structure and not the facade of single-mother-with-a-monthly-paycheck. That's not a good home for the child.
>You make financial abortion a thing and you can be damn sure that there will be a increase in poor, single mothers that become financially incapable of taking care of the child.
MRA response: "not my problem". They literally think that. They have no concept of the impact on society as a whole this would have.
> If the woman keeps the child, she'll have to carry it and be financially responsible.
Nope. Safe haven laws. She can legally abandon it and the child will become a ward of the state. She can do this completely anonymously and the mother will have no financial obligation to the child.
>You make financial abortion a thing and you can be damn sure that there will be a increase in poor, single mothers that become financially incapable of taking care of the child.
That's their choice... so not anyones problem.
> You take away the single responsibility a man has when he's sexually active, while women have no way to stop being resposible for the fact that it'll grow in her
As said above... safe haven, adoption or abortion. And let's get real here, there's really nothing wrong with abortions if done early enough. They're incredibly safe, and any ill-feelings are an entirely subjective thing on the mothers part.
>It's weird that this turns into a man vs. woman thing, considering it's a consequence of a pretty intimate act. It's like pregnancy is this spontaneous demon that just randomly pops up out of a hole in the ground and the man and woman run away like their life depends on it, unable to even think.
Well, it's a man vs woman thing when the woman has unilateral control over what happens to the mans life for the next 2 decades.
This discussion starts with me pointing out that men don't have to carry a child or give birth and ends with you accusing me of ignoring common sense when I start bringing actual philosophy into it. I've had it several times before, and I'm not doing it again.
I don't know your past experiences and think you're making an unfair assumption about me but fair enough.
>I didn't learn anything before, and I'm not going to start now.
See, I see what you did there. You 'paraphrased' my post into a snarky reply? You see that, guys? You see how clever this dude is?
in my experience philosophy and common sense never get along. Someone who sees things practically isn't prone to philosophizing about life.
EDIT: the downvote brigades have gone nuts, even downvoting this non controversial reply. nice
Well after all, the fetus knows how to discern legitimate rape. The womb has a way of taking care of those.
>My point was that barring freakishly bad luck, an unwanted pregnancy is an avoidable situation, and even then, no one FORCED anyone to have sex.
So why do we have abortion, safe haven laws and/or adoption laws?
Not that I disagree with you... I mean, you're perfectly correct in that it would take extremely bad luck to have an unintended pregnancy (if you're smart). HOWEVER, not everyone is smart, and as well, as relatively uncommon as it is, men can be tricked. Our laws shouldn't be designed so that others can take advantage of stupid people and/or reward malicious people. And somethings infrequency says absolutely nothing about whether it is ethical and whether we should allow it.
>You could use that same argument against abortion rights for the woman, but something tells me you won't.
What if someone did feel that way? That's a very consistent viewpoint, no? Why is the line trotted out always an accusation of hypocrisy instead of actually addressing their argument?
> get a morning after pill
-Oh shit sweetie the condom broke. Take this pill.
~Wut?
-Take this pill!
~Why?
-So you don't have a baby!
~...
-STOP ASKING QUESTIONS! Punches pill into mouth...
Thank you so much for listing these very simple things. I have said this over & over, but some men are convinced that all women are just in existence to trick them into financial slavery. Its... mind boggling.
>-don't have sex with women you don't trust
That's a lot easier said than done. You don't know really know what an individual will do when pregnancy comes up until they're actually pregnant.
>-if the condom breaks or you were too dumb to follow steps one and two, get a morning after pill
Um, a guy can't decide if a woman will take the mourning after pill so this point is void.
>Those three steps will probably eliminate a good 99 percent of unwanted pregnancies. Yes, it happens anyway; no, it does not happen very bloody often. So don't be a fucking idiot, and you probably won't impregnate someone accidentally.
Are you being sarcastic or are you serious? I'm pretty sure most pregnancies are unwanted so it does happen often.
>I'm pretty sure most pregnancies are unwanted so it does happen often.
wow seriously? I am sure you have a stat to back that up right?
Here's some recent stats. 51% of pregnancies are "unintended" (pregnancy that was either mistimed or unwanted) and 49% are "intended".
"Unintended" and "unwanted" are two radically different things.
[deleted]
Removed: Personal attack. Please calm down the rhetoric a bit
I guess I am confused... which part did you remove? The idiot comment is still there, I can remove that. But my comment disproving his fact was in no way a personal attack.
I did remove the comment calling him an idiot. If you log out you'll see it shows as "deleted/removed"
ah ok, thanks for clarification
Let's not come to name-calling please. They define a unintended pregnancy as "one that was either mistimed or unwanted.
So between 0 and 51% are unwanted. But we can't say the exact number.
That's a massive gap.
No, you have to read how the study defined unintended pregnancies. The full 51% is what most people would define as unwanted. Here's the quote for anyone else who wants to see:
> If a woman did not want to become pregnant at the time the pregnancy occurred, but did want to become pregnant at some point in the future, the pregnancy is considered mistimed (31% of pregnancies). If a woman did not want to become pregnant then or at anytime in the future, the pregnancy is considered unwanted (20% of pregnancies).
So 20% of the sample size, plus between 0 and 31% depending on their opinion of the pregnancy.
Let's say I get married. Me and the wife decide we want tiny humans later on down the line. Well we Fuck up and she gets pregnant 2 years before the time we talked about. And let's say I already have a decent job and not much debt, just a little more than I'd prefer. Not ideal, but tolerable.
The pregnancy is mistimed, but not necessarily unwanted. Not every situation is like this, but the fact that said scenario can and does exist does confound the 51% a bit.
Mine you, even 20% is a huge number.
yes.. you saw that either/or... right? You understand what that means, right?
I have cause to question your reading comprehension skills.
EDIT: had you read on just a LITTLE bit more.. you would see that 20% are unwanted.
Unwanted is defined as women who NEVER EVER wanted to get pregnant, even in the future. So that's why a woman who just didn't felt she got pregnant at the wrong time but didn't want to have a baby is included in the "unintended" category.
Your original statement was:
>I'm pretty sure most pregnancies are unwanted so it does happen often.
I have just disproven that with your own link. 20% are unwanted. This is not most.
>don't have sex with women you don't trust
To me, this seems to be way easier said than done. Maybe I'm just a really poor judge of character, but I've been friends with people for years, who I've trusted completely, before they've fucked me over on something.
If I were straight I guess I'd just get a vasectomy or something, since using condoms would just make me paranoid about the failure rate.
It's also pretty blatant victim-blaming.
And I'm like the last fucking person to pull the "victim-blaming" card..
Imagine telling a rape-victim: "Shouldn't have gone home with that guy you don't trust".
I mean, sure you can say it, as it's obviously a correct statement... but someones failure to do that (or simply be mistaken with their trust), doesn't somehow justify the thing that happened to them afterwards.
yes, you are a poor judge of character. Your friends shouldn't be screwing you over. You really ought to look at that.
>-if the condom breaks or you were too dumb to follow steps one and two, get a morning after pill
And do what?
Force it down the woman's throat? We're clearly talking about situations where the pregnancy was unintended and the mother doesn't want to get an abortion.
There's obviously a difference between taking a morning after pill and going for an abortion two months into a pregnancy. Do you think women are like 'Hah! Too late! I got you for life now!'
> Do you think women are like 'Hah! Too late! I got you for life now!'
Well, yes. Whether it's actually a conscious effort on their part or not... that is what this situation currently concludes with. (well, not for life.. but yeah).
Similar logic has been used against abortion.
At the same time, it isn't THAT big of a deal. It shouldn't be coming up every other fucking day.
I've argued for LPS in SRD in the past, but it is maybe not the most important thing ever?
what's LPS?
legal paternal surrender.
ty never seen that acronym or term before
Most people never will with people like liebestod bastardizing (lol) biological rights in favor of a full paycheck.
My personal solution to this "problem" is to accept the fact that sex is risky and it might have unintended consequences.
Isn't that what we used to tell women? "Shut your legs if you don't want a child." I'm really glad we moved past that as a society and gave women choices. I think it's time we do that for men.
Many of the great pleasures of life are accompanied by the potential for unintended consequences and I personally find that the pleasure of sex is worth the risk of incurring financial obligation for raising a child. Acceptance of that risk is not the same as abstinence and it is disingenuous for you to suggest that I am somehow denying choices to other men by making choices of my own.
So then why do we need abortion?
Why do we need safe haven laws?
Why do we need adoption services?
You sound like an extreme-right pro-lifer.
Responsibility???? Well I never...
...have to deal with taking responsibility for decisions somebody else makes if I'm a woman.
*(in this case)
You don't even try to hide your bitterness
Why would I? It does indeed make me bitter that other people are outraged and see it is a incredibly idiotic idea that men want a say so if they are ready to become fathers.
The woman has a right to decide (which I support of course) the man doesn't. He has to take responsibility for a decision somebody else makes and the law is okay with it. I have not come across a similar situation with the same gravitas.
70%-90% of the arguments made in favor of leaving it as is are frequently used by pro-lifers. The hypocrisy is very frustrating.
Men and women are different physically, it doesn't make sense to try to play a game of catch up with rights when they by nature cannot be equal in that sense. You're just shifting hardship from one gender to the other. The fact is bodily autonomy is a right, financial autonomy isn't. The kid needs to be taken care of. Just because they arguments are similar doesn't mean it's hypocritical to use them in completely different situations.
Unless you're in favor of publicly subsidizing single mothers (and fathers of course), someone needs to make sure the kid has food and shelter. Financial abortions are unfair to everyone who isn't the man
>Unless you're in favor of publicly subsidizing single mothers
I am in fact.
Well then we're dandy
>But apparently when a straight guy consents to sex, he's consenting to having to pay someone for 18 years if ~~that person feels so inclined~~ the condom breaks and the mother doesn't want an abortion.
However, guys who don't use a condom? Yeah, really don't have any sympathy. Then you definitely are consenting.
Turn the argument around and you make the right's argument for banning abortion.
NO YOU DO NOT. Because the women's right to abortion doesn't hinge on her right to abandon a child. It hinges on the idea that she has control over her body.
That's a cop-out. Many many women get abortions everyday because they're not ready to be a parent/are irresponsible, and get them regardless of the father's wishes. In theory you're making a good point, but in reality it doesn't hold water all of the time.
That might be their personal, individual reason, but that is not the reason why abortions are legally allowed.
So you would agree that women that get abortions for those reasons are selfish? Or should they be allowed to get abortions for those reasons?
I don't care if they're selfish. Selfishness or selflessness has nothing to do with it. They should be allowed to get abortions because they should have control over their internal organs.
And you don't see the irony in what you just said at all do you?
Sorry. Your wallet isn't an internal organ.
I also have the same chance of getting a STD that could kill me, just saying.
> they're not consenting to having to give birth to a child
Holy shit, this fucking retard argument again? They sure are consenting to the possibility that they could become pregnant, they're not however giving up their right to bodiy autonomy, or the child's right to be supported by their parents. There, CASE CLOSED. End of discussion.