"Is there anything about being a woman that you're jealous of?" asked in /r/AskMen. Drama under the answer "Having reproductive rights." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
32 ups - 12 downs = 20 votes
154 comments submitted at 06:08:57 on Nov 7, 2013 by DEATH_BY_CIRCLEJERK
I've always thought of it like this. You don't have to love your child. You don't even have to like it's very existence. But you owe it to that boy or girl some kind of assistance in raising them because no one asks to be born.
That's one responsibility I could never walk away from. If I have a child, then it's my duty as a parent to help raise and or financially support someone to be some kind of a benefit to society and potentially their own children, not a detriment.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the privilege of being raised by my father. I would want to be there for my kid because I remember how it was growing up when mine wasn't there for me.
EDIT: Proofreading
That's all fine and dandy but doesn't really tackle the topic of the submissions discussion.
A women can abort, or keep the baby. She can give it up for adoption (if the father consents IF the father even knows)
On the other hand, the father can not decide to keep it if the woman wants to abort, he can not decide not to keep it if she doesn't want to abort and he often has to fight uphill battles on court to get custody.
Men compared to women, men have almost nill rights in that regard.
What rights should men have in that regard? Seriously, what possible rights could be extended to men to make that a more equal situation? We're not going to let men mandate abortions or unilaterally decide not to support a child that is there's financially, what rights could they have?
fiscal abortion before the abortion window expires, upon proof of adequate contraception, with government child support if the mother decides to raise the child alone but cannot provide adequate income
So taxpayers should pay for the baby you helped to create because you don't want to?
taxpayers should pay for a program that allows them to fiscally abort a child they took reasonable precautions against conceiving.
Fiscal abortion works for women too, albeit with less scope. A woman against aborting for whatever reason, using contraceptives, can fiscally abort her child if she brings it to term and her partner takes custody
>We're not
Are we not? Are we taking off all possible solutions from the table right at the get go so that nothing is left? I guess if we want to play it that way there really is NOTHING we could do.
Realistically, I don't want to force a women to have an abortion, so that is out of the question.
Next we would have to clear up how many rights the "child" has at what stage. Does it have to right to live? Outlaw abortions. Does it not have the right to live before the (what is it?) 22 weeks? Keep abortions legal but also make it legal for fathers to financially abort there children (as to create equality of choice between mother and father), if the fathers chooses to do so, strip away all there rights to the child.
If the mother can't provide for the child, the state should pay for it, instead of forcing one unlucky guy who happened to get the women pregnant maybe even despite taking countermeasures.
Or, allow the father to say "I will give the child up for adoption". If the mother doesn't want that she can take care of it alone or give it up for adoption, if she chooses not to do so (this goes both ways) she has to take care of it ALONE.
The state already has to pay for the child if both parents decide to financially abort the child (adoption), so I don't see why everyone is outraged at the idea of financial abortion if it is already reality.
There are many options if you actually make the person that has the choice also assume the responsibility.
I don't say I have all the answers or even the best ones, but I know that right now, the system is unfair towards men. The law is unfair and if we want equality we should do something against that.
>The state already has to pay for the child if both parents decide to financially abort the child (adoption), so I don't see why everyone is outraged at the idea of financial abortion if it is already reality.
I think its because in the adoption context both parents have to consent. In the financial abortion context only one has to. The state also has an interest in preserving, or at least maintaining the illusion of, a two parent household.
No, why adoption is so readily available is because people don't like dead baby's. Because that is exactly what happened before. People would just dump there baby's someplace. The state has no other option of paying, BUT if there is one parent willing to assume responsibility the state will hunt down the other parent and hound him for money, be it man or woman.
But let's not get too focused on that, the truth is adoption is financial abortion. Right now all (knowing) parents have to consent, I don't see the problem of removing that restriction.
Adoption is financial abortion in the sense that both parents are placing the burden of support on a 3rd party ready and willing to assume that obligation.
A father's absolving himself of the obligation to pay child support places the burden of support on a 3rd party (taxpayers) that begrudgingly assumes the father's obligation.
What? You do realize that the state (taxpayer) has to pay for children in the system if they don't find a home for them, right? I mean, adoption isn't instant and doesn't always work out 100%. You realize that right? You know that right now part of your yearly taxes go to support children in the system that both parents gave up.
Right. But allowing fathers to completely absolves themselves from the obligation to support their own children adds another layer of stress to an already over-stressed system.
A mother who no longer has the possibility of obtaining support from the father may choose to have the child but give it up for adoption or give the child over to the state.
>Right. But allowing fathers to completely absolves themselves from the obligation to support their own children adds another layer of stress to an already over-stressed system.
So the solution is to force a select group of man in to slave labor? That is really the best thing?
>If the mother can't provide for the child, the state should pay for it, instead of forcing one unlucky guy who happened to get the women pregnant maybe even despite taking countermeasures.
REALLY? So, instead of the able-bodied individual who fathered the child, the government should have to shell out? Simply because he had sex and decided not to face up to the consequences? Consequences he knew were possible, even if they used condoms/the pill/IUDs?
This, from a group of people who howl all day about how men and their role in society are being denigrated. You want the state to tell men, "Don't worry about being a father to your children, we'll replace you with a monthly check if you want us to."
Let me ask you something, what happened in your life that led you to believe that men were so utterly worthless? Why do you hate my gender so much?
>REALLY?
Yes.
>So, instead of the able-bodied individual who fathered the child, the government should have to shell out?
Now it's all the mens fault that the women had a child she knew she couldn't support herself? How odd. All the responsibility for the man, all the choice for the woman. That doesn't seem very equal to me.
>Now it's all the mens fault that the women had a child she knew she couldn't support herself? How odd. All the responsibility for the man, all the choice for the woman. That doesn't seem very equal to me.
Plenty of single mothers out there with no help from the child's father. They work hard to support their kids, but their children have a severely lowered quality of life, simply because the other person responsible for making the child isn't interested in supporting it. The state does not consider this to be an acceptable state of affairs.
You had a "choice" when you had sex. Both of you knew a pregnancy was possible, even if it was unlikely, and both of you knew that if the child was born, you would both be responsible for it. You knew all the rules of the game, and chose to play.
Take some responsibility for your actions. The woman raising that child is going to be going through far more shit and expense than you and your monthly check.
you can already replace yourself with a monthly check
Yeah, from YOU. Not from the government you've dumped your responsibilities on.
doesn't affect the validity of my criticism to your initial statement
It's simple - you give men the option of legal paternal surrender. During the first two to three months of pregnancy (i.e. before the first trimester ends), men have the option to waive all parental rights and responsibilities to the unborn child. This gives the mother enough time to decide if she still wants to become a parent (a right she unilaterally has once conception occurs) without the financial support of the father.
The only reason to be against this, as far as I can tell, is if you think pregnant women are incapable of judging whether they can provide for their child independently of the man's money.
And by the way, women can already unilaterally decide to not support a child that's theirs financially post-birth with safe haven laws.
> During the first two to three months of pregnancy (i.e. before the first trimester ends), men have the option to waive all parental rights and responsibilities to the unborn child.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. What happens if she doesn't tell the father until after the baby is born?
Simple things are nice, but just because something is complex doesn't mean it's wrong. If she knows who the father is and doesn't tell him, she gives up the ability to ask for child support. If she doesn't know who the father is, each potential partner must be contacted.
if she honestly doesn't know she's pregnant until after the abortion window is when you get to the sticky stuff, because you shouldn't be punished for not knowing you're pregnant
I've heard this argument before and what always makes me cautious is that, while you could argue it makes things slightly more equal, it also absolves the man of any responsibility from penetration up the child being born. Seriously, under this system why bother to wear protection at all? You've got absolutely no worries any more whereas the full burden falls on the woman's shoulders.
Well, I'd imagine in this case it costs money to financially abort through legal fees and such, so there would be a financial disincentive to using it as birth control. Kind of the same reason women go on birth control even though abortion is an option.
You could even attempt to make them cost the same for equality's sake.
I'm not a woman but I'd figure that the emotional and physical issues are the biggest issues when it comes to abortions rather than just the price tag. I don't know about you but for me there's a big difference between 'I best get protection because there's a chance I'll have to pay a bit of money down the line' and 'I best wear protection because there's a chance I'll have to decide between having my unborn child removed from my body or being a single mother'. I don't think the situations are equal.
>The only reason to be against this, as far as I can tell, is if you think pregnant women are incapable of judging whether they can provide for their child independently of the man's money.
Really? The ONLY reason? There may not be people in this country who are opposed to abortion, or opposed to abortion for convenience? There may not be anyone who doesn't realize they're pregnant until its too late? Or can't have an abortion due to medical reasons? For those women, its either adoption or single parenthood with no support from the father.
What about men who lie, saying that they want children, and then change their minds once the pregnancy test turns out positive?
So essentially, you want men to be able to dump their responsibilities on the welfare system. Weird, because Red Pillers are always crowing about how women need to take responsibility for, well something or other, its never very coherent.
>Morally opposed to abortion
If a woman is morally opposed to abortion, she still has a number of options post-birth including adoption and abandoning a child at a hospital via Safe Haven Laws (although I recognize those laws aren't universally present)
For women, Pregnancy =/= Parenthood, even without abortion as an option.
>What about men who lie, saying that they want children, and then change their minds once the pregnancy test turns out positive?
What about women who lie, say they don't want children, and then change their minds once the pregnancy test turns out positive? Guess which one is a lot more common?
>you want men to dump their responsibilities on the welfare system
As outlined above, women have that option, let's make it available to men as well. And I take umbrage with the implication that lack of support from the man = woman on the welfare system. It says a lot about you that you immediately assume a women is incapable of financially providing for a child without help from the government or the men in her life.
>Red pillers are always...
I'm not a red piller. And while I think personal responsibility is important, I also recognize people aren't always responsible, and chastizing them for it after the fact is unproductive. I think society functions better when it treats people equally before law regardless of gender, instead of breeding tons of men embittered against the government and women.
The law does not equal morality, and it is impossible for the law to provide an adequate and equal legal remedy for both parties in circumstances where men and women are already naturally unequal.
Similar upbringing and my thought is the same. Fuck those "fathers" who don't support their children because "they didn't want kids". Not the kids fault, you pieces of shit.
Good grief, I never realized there were so many angry fatherless Redditors, or that "deadbeat-dads" was such a touchy topic.
I have that dude tagged as someone from TRP so this popcorn could get interesting soon.
For the uninitiated, what is that sub about and why does it have that name? (/r/theredpill)
The name is a matrix reference. I have a pretty biased opinion of them (I think they're all vile human beings) but basically it's a bunch of dudes who think that we're living in some sort of feminist culture which is marching us toward sure destruction and they're "waking up" and discovering that everything feminism has taught us about seeking happiness and what women want is wrong (you'll frequently see "why would you ask a fish how to catch a fish?"). Their views involve PUA/seduction techniques, evopsych, legitimately thinking women are the mental equivalent of children/dogs and should be treated as such, demonizing women for sleeping around, something about sexual market value and a "wall" that women hit around the age of 30 or something whereafter a women is basically worthless because she's getting ugly or whatever, and traditional gender roles.
There's also stuff about lifting. Lots of stuff about lifting.
God, I love the fish metaphor. "You don't ask a fish how to catch a fish, you ask a master fisherman."
Except that if fish could fucking talk, and tell you what all of their favorite foods are, and where they hang out in the river, and how deep in the water they prefer to eat, you would annihilate the master fisherman with that knowledge. It wouldn't even be a contest.
Yeah, but women aren't sentient enough for that to work /s
Master baiter.
Oh and they love their alpha and beta dichotomies. I don't think they realise the irony in calling everyone else betas, like its a scientifically established category of people. >I hate women but I'm too much of a beta to say it in real life. Instead I rant on the interwebs like a beta.
its like /r/mensrights and /r/seduction had a crack baby.
they claim we're the sheeple who havent taken the red pill yet. only they see what hamstering, cock carousel riding bitches most feeealea are. join us in /r/thebluepill to make fun of em
Hey, on the plus side it got most of the tradcons out /r/mensrights.
Let them fester in their hole.
Oh man, I forgot about hamsters and the cock carousel in my wall-o-text. Those are some of the more hilarious parts of TRP.
It's a sub of radical anti-feminists.
SnapShot
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
Holy shit /u/merry-berry is an asshole.
And people speak as if TRP nutcases simply fall out of the sky ....
I have /u/Whisper tagged as a red piller.
Yeah, a search of his comment history reveals 357 comments to subreddits with "redpill" in the name. Also that he's in the 7 year club.
Indeed. I remember when there were no "subreddits". And no running comment karma totals. In fact, I argued against the latter. I was concerned that it would cause pandering. Turned out it did.
Also, most of the "features" of reddit gold were just part of the service, back then. Full comment history searches, etc.
Also, uphill. Snow. Both ways.
You have the right to buy a one way plane ticket overseas where it's unlikely you'll ever be made to pay child support or raise your child. Would you miss your family? Good. Then you'll understand how that kid feels growing up without a father you spineless twat.
> you spineless twat.
Yeah, fuck you for not getting a vasectomy with 18.
>Yeah, fuck you for not getting a vasectomy with 18, impregnating a woman and then unilaterally deciding not to help support your child.
FTFY
Oh, I thought the topic was about the fact that "fathers" or men in general don't have any say so in if they will become fathers or not, but I see this is all about the dead beat fathers. All right.
Use condoms or get a vasectomy. Your legal rights end there because it would be abhorrent for women to be forced to get abortions or for a father to be able to legally abandon his child.
Pregnancy is often a consequence of having sex. Don't have sexual intercourse if you aren't mature enough to deal with the responsibilities involved.
Those are preventative measures. Women can also use condoms (2 kinds afaik) and several other things.
>Your legal rights end there
That is what this whole thing is about.
Is it not abhorrent for a women to abort a child the father wants? I guess you don't think so.
>Don't have sexual intercourse if you aren't mature enough to deal with the responsibilities involved.
The EXACT same argument was made and is still made against abortion. I don't see it as valid there and I don't see it as valid now. Sex is sex. Sex is not a contract to maybe have a child. Pregnancy is RARELY the consequence of having sex in the west.
Rights for men is exactly that. We want rights. We want to decide if we are ready to be fathers just like a women can decide AFTER she got pregnant if she is ready to be a mother. I think it's horrible you would deny a person that right, be it women or men.
Except it's her body. You can't compel someone to carry a pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to. It's either bodily autonomy for the woman, or the man gets the choice of being a father, you can't have both with these so-called male reproductive rights.
How would you propose stopping women from taking abortions into their own hands? Would it be illegal for the woman to go to a doctor without the male's consent? What kind of woman would stay with a man who forced her to keep a pregnancy she did not want? How is this not physical and psychological bondage?
>you can't have both with these so-called male reproductive rights.
Yes I can and right now there already is a way. Adoption. Adoption is financial abortion where both (knowing) parents (if one doesn't know he is the father he can't consent and the mother doesn't have to provide a father) give up the child and the state takes over.
What I want is to remove that limitation. Let either parent financially abort, give it up for adoption.
I understand that if i where to get my gf pregnant I can neither force her to abort or not to abort, it is her body after all. But does that mean that I have to be a father if I don't want to? Right now it does and that is the root of this argument.
You talk a tall game when it comes to womens rights, but it seems that mens rights are irrelevant in that regard. The right to his own decisions, responsibility and his labor.
You're so self centred to think that whether a man pays child support is the root of the argument. It's the woman's bodily autonomy, it's everyone's bodily autonomy that's at stake. Being compelled to pay child support is in no way worse than being compelled to have an abortion or not to have one, to have your sense of self violated.
Haha what? Come on, I really try hard to be respectful but what?
>You're so self centred to think that whether a man pays child support is the root of the argument.
Yeah cause it is? duuhhh?
>It's the woman's bodily autonomy, it's everyone's bodily autonomy that's at stake.
Nope it isn't, a women already has total bodily autonomy. duuuuh?
>Being compelled to pay child support is in no way worse than being compelled to have an abortion or not to have one, to have your sense of self violated.
Didn't say that at all. duuuuh
>Why do you think men's rights are so much more important than women's rights that they supersede her right to bodily autonomy?
I never said that, NEVER. EVER. Fucking read motherfucker. Like, what are you even talking about?
I said I understand that if i where to get my gf pregnant I can neither force her to abort or not to abort, it is her body after all. IT IS HER BODY AFTER ALL. Hers, so I don't get to call the shots.
I want a man to DECIDE if he is ready to assume the responsibility of father hood and not have the woman decide for him.
That's why I said financial, read; FINANCIAL abortion, not a real one. Adoption without the forced consent of all (knowing) parents.
Wait, so this whole time you've been arguing for the right to be... A dead beat dad?
Wow. That's impressive, so you're not trying to control women, you're just trying to skip out on any payment to feed and clothe the child you fathered. Excellent. Case closed, mister Watson, nothing to see here!
If you want to call a man who is not ready and not willing to be a father after he accidentally created a child with a willing women a "dead beat dad" than yes. I am advocating for his right to be just that without the state hounding him for his hard labor. I'm advocating for his rights because he has none.
The "men have no reproductive rights" thing is one of the dumber Men's Rights talking points. Also many popcorn points for TRP meets 2XC.
>The "men have no reproductive rights" thing is one of the dumber Men's Rights talking points
Why?
I'm not the OP, but I'm assuming it's a stupid talking point because men do have reproductive rights. There are a number of things men can do to reduce the risk of pregnancy to almost zero (condoms, vasectomy, etc.). These options are widely available to men (in the US at least), and therefore they certainly have reproductive rights. They can't force a woman to have or not have an abortion (which I think we all agree would be horrendous), and they can't get a "financial abortion", but men are far from powerless in the baby decision making process.
>men are far from powerless in the baby decision making process.
Only when it comes to certain forms of birth control. Once a woman is pregnant, men don't really have a say in regards to what happens to their kid or deciding to fathers.
How would that work? Would the man be able to compel the woman to get an abortion against her will, or be allowed to abandon the child? Each choice leaves much to be desired.
So what we have is no choice at all, well that sounds like the perfect solution.
You have a choice. Help support a child you had a hand in creating, or wipe your hands of any and all responsibility for your actions. Many, many fathers choose the later and seem perfectly content with it.
Doesn't mean you won't be compelled to pay child support. Even if that child isn't actually yours.
You may be compelled to pay temporary child support until a determination of paternity is made. It will not be a permanent order for support.
Not true at all in many locations. You can have a set time limit to contest paternity (eg within two years of birth etc) or if courts have found you acted as the father even if you know for a fact kid isn't yours. Some step parents have been forced to pay child support becausr kid lived with them and mom for a period of time.
Oh, you say it like it's a real and nice thing, well it's not.
The choice it to be forced in to slave labor, having the state take your money and give it to a women/ child that you didn't want, or turn away and run. Hide from the state that will hunt you down so they can take from you to fulfill somebody else's wishes.
The women on the other side can decide to abort, or not to abort or to give it up for adoption. That sounds much nicer, because it is.
"Forced into slave labor" means ""legally required to financially support the child you helped create"
"Hide from the state that will hunt you down" means "Become a fugitive after breaking state law requiring you to support the child you helped create."
"take from you to fulfill somebody else's wishes" means "garnish your wages because you can't be trusted to fulfill your own legal obligations."
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure people understand the terminology being used here.
>"legally required to financially support the child you helped create"
And had no choice but to accept, it was forced on me by a women and now the state forces me to pay for it. That is slave labor.
Just because something is legal and law doesn't make it good. Just because something is against the law doesn't make it bad. having no rights but assuming a huge amount of responsibility for decisions that where made FOR you, that is not fair at all.
If you didn't want to have a child you should try not having children. Get some responsibility and don't get a woman pregnant. You're offering no alternative 'productive rights' that men should have; you're just bitching that me don't have these theoretical rights.
So I take it you are against abortions in general. Probably also against adoption.
Terminating a pregnancy or giving up a child for adoption is nicer/easier than paying 20% of your income to support a child you helped create? That's a headscratcher.
Each party has to be held accountable for their actions. The mother is forced to make choice on whether she wants to have the child and then raise it with little or no contact with the father, and the father is forced to make a choice on whether he wants to pay 20% of his income to support that child or skip town and hope the mother doesn't bring an action to compel him to pay child support (many mothers do not even take this step).
20%, could you go and find me citations for that number and after that I could provide you with a very long list of men who pay much more than that.
You make a extremely limited and simplistic case which is not how it really works.
Clearly you've never had an abortion.
Clearly I didn't. Not that it is in any way relevant to my argument.
>Once a woman is pregnant, men don't really have a say in regards to what happens to their kid or deciding to fathers.
what do you mean? Other than the two examples I listed above, in what ways don't men have a say their reproductive rights?
If a man wants the kid but his pregnant S.O. doesn't, he doesn't get a say
If a man doesn't want the kid but his pregnant S.O. does, he doesn't get a say and has to pay child support.
If a man gets raped and the woman has the kid he has to pay child support.
I see an easy solution to your 3rd point, but I see 1 & 2 as no-win scenarios. In what way could those be solved without violating the rights of the mother? You can't force someone to carry a baby they don't want to, and financial abortion hurts the child.
I don't see 1&2 as perfect, but I can't think of a better solution.
Saying a financial abortion hurts the child is tantamount in my mind to saying poor people reproducing hurts their children. The child never knows anything else, so it isn't aware of any harm. It's like saying a father who turns down a promotion with a pay increase is harming his children due to missed opportunity.
>If a man wants the kid but his pregnant S.O. doesn't, he doesn't get a say
A man can discuss his wishes with his SO, but ultimately, you're right, the woman does get the final say. What do you propose the alternative to this be, that he can force the woman not to have an abortion? Bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights in our society, and as such, it generally trumps other rights people have. I can't force you to have a medical procedure, regardless of how much it effects me. It's a case of competing rights, and usually bodily autonomy comes out on top.
>If a man doesn't want the kid but his pregnant S.O. does, he doesn't get a say and has to pay child support.
Child support may be related to reproductive rights, but is not included within their definition as defined by the World Health Organization, and most agree that it isn't a subject on par with the rights to contraception or abortion.
>If a man gets raped and the woman has the kid he has to pay child support.
Child support is usually based on what is in the best interest of the child, and fairness to the parents is not generally a priority. However, this is such an horrific case, that I agree with you. It's abhorrent to make a rape victim pay for a child which he had no say in conceiving, even if the child benefits from him doing so. The whole subject of rape relating to custody cases needs a pretty big overhaul in general.
If a woman wants a child but her partner doesn't, she can't stop him from getting a vasectomy. A woman can't force her partner to get one, either.
This isn't a question of reproductive rights, it is about the right to bodily autonomy. Women don't get to choose whether to have an abortion or not because they get to have reproductive rights that men haven't, they get to choose because it is their body.
Once the child is born men have as much rights as women. Women can't just abandon their child, either. If the man wants to raise the child, the woman, too, has to pay child support.
There are quite a few women out there who would never have an abortion even if they don't want a child. They don't get the option to get out of their responsibilities, either.
You do realize women can give their children and obligations over to adoption agencies right? When it comes to reproduction women have all the advantages, at least in the western world.
Not even to adoption agencies - with Safe Haven Laws they can literally abandon a baby at a hospital, force them to become wards of the state. In the United States law, women have zero obligation to the child at any point, but men have an obligation to a child they may never see, that might not even be theirs, until that child is 18-21 years old.
>When it comes to reproduction women have all the advantages, at least in the western world.
What? I think me being able to blast my seed anywhere I please without running the risk of becoming pregnant is a pretty fucking huge reproductive advantage. No morning sickness, no weird food cravings, I can drink and smoke whenever I please without harming the baby, and I'm not carrying around a living organism inside my body. That's a pretty sweet deal if you ask me.
Women have birth control and the morning after pill. A male pill is in development, so there is that. Once pregnant a woman can choose not to be a mother and financially responsible either through abortion or adaption. A man has no such choice. If he wants to be a father and she doesn't want to be a mother, too bad for you. If she wants to be a mother and you don't want to be a father, too bad for you, now hand over a significant portion of your income for the next 18 years. I'm in favor for what's known as a financial abortion. The man gives up all rights and obligations as a father.
They can't do that if the father wants to raise the child.
Don't fuck them then.
So having sex automatically makes you consent to having a child you don't want? Neat, let's outlaw all abortion then since that's same argument the far right uses when talking about abortion. Or does that only apply for men?
Well, yeah. I mean you can frame it like that but it's really just a consequence of the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause which is just the Bill of Rights that now applies to the states; a woman's right to privacy and autonomy over her own body is the real result of roe v wade, it didn't directly say women have the right to abortion. But I do agree, in the regard of having a baby, once the woman is pregnant, the woman has more of a say in whether to keep the baby or not but that's due to biology; women carry the baby, men don't. It's their right covered under the 14th amendment which is basically the Bill of Rights; they have a right to their own body.
Because men can easily not get a woman pregnant if they want to, and therefore have the right not to reproduce. Abortion is a medical procedure. Since reproduction carries almost no medical repercussions for men, they don't need that right.
>Because men can easily not get a woman pregnant if they want to, and therefore have the right not to reproduce
The same thing can be said for women since birth control exist.
>Abortion is a medical procedure. Since reproduction carries almost no medical repercussions for men, they don't need that right.
Reproductive rights aren't just about the right to have an abortion. Men can't choose if they're ready to be a father or not once a woman is pregnant and that's the issue, women get to make that choice for both parties. A man that doesn't want to be a father can still be forced into it against his will because of someone else's decision.
>Men can't choose if they're ready to be a father or not once a woman is pregnant
>once a woman is pregnant
...
I don't see the problem. A woman (generally) can't force a man to impregnate her.
I also have a number of problems with this kind of argument, but yes they can; most 'reproductive coercion' apparently happens within relationships, all that would have to happen is somebody lying about (or tampering with) birth control.
Sure, in those kinds of situations, I'm with you. The "spermjacking" epidemic aside, though, I'm not really sympathetic to deadbeat dads who couldn't be arsed to wear condoms/spermicide/see if the other person was on birth control/not fuck/ get a vesectamy.
I agree that more education about birth control would be a good idea, but some anti abortionists say similar things about women who want to get abortions "she should've thought it through" etc. Also iirc a majority or large plurality of 'deadbeat dads' are in jail or jobless. I think that they've pretty much solved this issue in places like Germany where they have generous child benefit and services for parents (and they don't lock such a large proportion of the population up) so it matters much less.
It takes two to make a child but only one person gets to decide if the kid gets born and of both parties become parents. One person has that right instead of both.
> A woman (generally) can't force a man to impregnate her.
So if a woman get's pregnant she should just deal with the consequences and be a mother whether she wants to or not? No one forced her to get pregnant.
Your statement can b sign as an argument against anyone having reproductive rights.
Women should be able to decide if they want to be parents via abortion/adoption/etc and men she be able to decide via "financial abortion"
Like I said, abortion is a medical procedure. People should have the right to their own medical decisions, and if pregnancy affected men in and physical way, I'd say they should be able to opt out.
Just because men can't get pregnant doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say in regards to the children they help create.
Many men do.
What kind of say? What rights do you think men should have in that situation?
In regard to financial abortion. Why should the kid be denied the support of both of the people that had a hand in creating him or her? What's the point of doing that?
Sucks for the kid who now doesn't have the same support.
The kid never had the support in the first place, it doesn't know any different. Arguing that it is harmed by never receiving financial support from the father is like arguing that a father turning down a higher-paying promotion is harming his children through missed opportunity.
Financial Abortions aren't a sudden stop in child support after a father has been paying, it's the payments never starting.
Never got this POV. It's self evident that men get screwed in the current system of parental responsibility.
How would you change it? Would you give men the right to unilaterally decide not to support their child? Would you allow men to force women to get abortions? I'm not sure how you would rectify this "inequality."
Unless you have the means whether they be insurance/money or accessibility, many women in the US and in the world are denied terminations, even in instances where they are a medical necessity.
Ok, that's entirely beside the point. No one is arguing about a woman's right to an abortion.
You can get reproductive rights for 2 bucks at any gas station or drug store in the country as a guy.
If I want to get mine, I have to go through medical appointments and pay for expensive prescriptions. Barring that, whether I can exercise those rights varies state by state and my income level, and let's not even count the intense societal pressure to not exercise those rights.
Which, whether certain delusional people understand or not, does play a major factor. When you have friends and family turning their backs on you left and right if you through with it, that is going to have a powerful impact on any normal, natural human being.
So, please, cry me a river how you have to support a child with a portion of your paycheck while I'll be stuck actually actively raising the kid. When birth control is as cheap as condoms, and abortions are actively and widely available without widespread social scorn, then you can have your ability to financially drop a kid at will. Until then, stop pretending like woman actually have such an awesome deal because you're fucking delusional.
> You can get reproductive rights for 2 bucks at any gas station or drug store in the country as a guy.
Why can't you, as a gal?
> cry me a river
Big Red?
You can't choose family. But any friend who shames you for getting an abortion, you probably shouldn't be hanging onto anyway.
. . . . . yeah. It's shitty to force a guy to be a parent, but less shitty than forcing a woman to either have a child or abort. Of course, once the child's born then it becomes and issue of the child's rights, so the guy gets screwed once again. Not out of malice, or bigotry or misandry, just because it's the least wrong option.
Goddamn zero-sum problems.
There are two things that make this a shitty argument.
We don't accept biology as a mandate anywhere else when it comes to equality. We set different standards for men and women in labor intensive jobs like policing, firefighting and the military. The US doesn't, but many first world counties have strong maternity leave laws, to shield women from the effects a capitalistic society has on people who are biologically inconvenienced to work for decent chunks of their lives.
But when it comes to men having no control over their destiny once they've knocked a girl up? Biotruths all over the place. Suddenly it's "Well of course they have no say, it's not their body!" Which is unfair because it reframes the argument to something fucked up where it looks like men are trying to force women to have abortions. And it's also fucked up because in no other area do equality minded people accept biology as a mandate on inequality.
The second thing that makes it a shitty argument, is people act like milking the father for child support is the only thing that could possible be done. Like money can't possibly come from anywhere else. Not to mention the extremely punitive measures the system takes against dads who can't pay. It's the only debt you can face jail time for in the US. How insane is that? Debtors prisons were supposed to have been made illegal. It was one of many sticking points in the American Revolutionary War, among others. But they are back, but only for fathers who don't make enough money.
Woah, hey, I'm not contesting there's issues around paternity/maternity laws. I'm talking about the act of procreation itself. Legally, as well, the mother would be equally responsible for child support as well if the father pursued custody.
Jesus, man, I'm sorry that the baby only grows in one person, but the current accepted definition is that a woman can have an abortion and it's not murder because the child is part of her body until it becomes it becomes a separate entity.
>The second thing that makes it a shitty argument, is people act like milking the father for child support is the only thing that could possible be done. Like money can't possibly come from anywhere else.
Well, shit man, I don't want to have to pay just because you wanted to get your dick wet. Take care of your own goddamn shit. Doesn't mean I agree with the punitive measures either, but you're perfectly willing to abandon a child. We all know that a child is a possible result of sex, don't act like all birth control is 100%.
So, yeah. Morally it's just how it shakes out. Maybe don't take the risk of putting it in a woman then?
This is one of the stupidest issues the MRM has picked up on, and while I agree with many other issues, I have no fucking time for this.
To be fair, both participants knowing that a man has the ability to financially walk away might change behavior, so there is more to it than a zero sum problem where unfairly 'taxing' the man is the best option.
>both participants knowing that a man has the ability to financially walk away might change behavior
Human beings are not rational enough to think that far ahead. When two people want to have sex do you think they're thinking about the long term consequences of their actions or is their mind clouded by the thought of getting to have sex?
When you have unprotected sex you run the risk of getting an STD but even that threat isn't enough to get some people to use protection during sex.
They're referring more to baby entrapment behavior by women (such as going off the pill without telling their SO), not people knowingly having unprotected sex.
But that's the problem with enacting a financial abortion law. The problem it intends to address (baby entrapment) creates unintended consequences (fathers using the threat of financial abortion to coerce the mother into getting an abortion).
What do you mean by coerce? Saying "I'm not going to support it, but do what you will" isn't saying "get an abortion" unless you think women can't raise children without financial support.
And if the woman can't, getting pregnant with a guy who doesn't want children and banking on his unwilling financial support is morally shitty to both the father and the child. It creates broken homes and we have enough of those without women intentionally creating more to satisfy their biological clock.
It's not just about conception. If you are a pregnant woman and you can't afford to raise a child, whether you have an abortion or not could very well depend on whether you can force the father to pay you money to raise the child. If the state doesn't step in and force the father to pay, it makes abortions more numerous. If the state steps in and forces the father to pay, it makes children from poor, broken homes more numerous.
>If the state steps in and forces the father to pay, it makes children from poor, broken homes more numerous.
This is assuming that the father has no contact with the family at all.
> once the child's born then it becomes and issue of the child's rights
The child's rights take precedence before it's born. Keep in mind that it is illegal to have an abortion after 24 weeks anywhere in the US. I'm not certain if the cut-off is later in any other countries, but if it is, I'm sure it's rare.
This is barring complications where the mother's life is at risk, of course.
And, once the child is born, both parents have equal rights and responsibilities, assuming the father is willing to claim the child.
> And, once the child is born, both parents have equal rights, assuming the father is willing to claim the child.
I probably should have used the word "developed". But what I meant is that the man can't financially walk away from the kid - the state is not your goddamn nanny.
The point is that once the woman is inseminated, the man really doesn't have a choice about whether or not the child is going to be born, and whether or not the he's going to have to support it.
Now, I personally don't have a problem with this since I don't really believe in abortions of convenience, but there is no denying the inherent inequality in that the woman can decide unilaterally whether or not to keep the baby.