"It is then your responsibility to bear that child for 9 months. Can't handle the potential consequences? Don't engage in sexual activities." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
37 ups - 0 downs = 37 votes
189 comments submitted at 07:26:06 on Jul 15, 2014 by 041744
It's sad to me the number of "pro-choice" women who will vehemently argue that it's totally justifiable to force someone into nonconsensual parenthood against their will... and then express confusion when "pro-life" people agree with them, but apply the anti-choice argument to both men and women without special exceptions for abortion.
I think you're missing a pretty serious thing in this argument. Abortion happens when the child is inside her body. Once the child is out, and alive, both parents have roughly equal rights and responsibilities (minus a few weird old laws hanging out in places like Utah).
Financial abortion is just making a man's money equivalent to a woman's body. That no one finds that immediately repulsive is beyond me.
Well, corporations are people. I guess it's just a matter of time before they people-ize wallets and Swiss bank accounts.
Well, I'm okay with Google strapping me to a hospital bed and forcing me to donate my body. It's just men I find icky.
men themselves are just genetic abortions, with their useless xy chromosomes
Unlike Google with it's glorious STEM genes and 01 chromosomes. That's the babydaddy I'm aiming for.
think of all that alimony once you inevitably divorce google
cha-ching! $$$
The Y chromosome is clearly a defective X chromosome.
If I were trying to argue against abortion, I suppose that would be relevant. As I've made explicit in other comments, forcing a woman to gestate or abort a fetus would violate the principle that every person has the right to choose to be, or not to be, a parent.
I'm not even arguing against adoption or "safe haven" abandonment or whatever other methods women have to avoid supporting an unwanted child either. All that would happen is that these methods of "financial abortion" that are currently the privilege of women would be effectively accessible to all people who did not consent to parenthood, in a gender equal manner, as a matter of parental/reproductive rights.
Men also have access to safe haven and adoption laws. If you went in and signed the assumed paternity paperwork, then you can swoop in at the last second, snatch up the child she didn't want, and ride the child support train to happy town, too. The mother does not have more rights than you, if you choose to assert them.
The only right the mother has that you do not have access to is medical abortion. That's it. You will never be able to decide what goes on in her body. In exchange, you will also never have to watch as a group of women decide if and under which specific circumstances you will be allowed to refuse organ donation to a child you did not want. No one will ever seriously consider handcuffing you to a gurney and forcing you to use your body to keep the unwanted child alive. Congratulations, you lucky dog.
>If you went in and signed the assumed paternity paperwork,
That's a pretty big IF for people that find themselves in those situations.
You're right. Men who don't want to be daddies probably wouldn't sign it, and wouldn't be legally recognized as the father without some sort of court order. By either party.
I was going more along the lines of, that they wouldn't even have had the opportunity.
It's entirely possible for a father to not know that he's going to be a father. And to be even more realistic... if there was a hypothetical mother who was opposed to/couldn't get an abortion, but still didn't want the child (so was planning to pursue abandonment/adoption)... it's really quite easy for her to make sure the father doesn't know.
And it's really quite easy for a father to not be found or deny being the father. It's somewhat harder for a woman to deny being the mother. They don't even require blood tests for that shit.
it's very easy to say that that's the "only" right men don't have but in the end that still means that the "only" right men don't have is to decide if they become a parent or not. and that goes both ways. he wants the child but she doesn't? fuck him. he doesn't but she does? fuck him again.
and trust me i realise that me being on the other side of this it's very easy for me aswell to say that mens side of this is worse.
>The mother does not have more rights than you, if you choose to assert them.
this is pure blatant lie because of abortion. and as a matter of fact even if financial abortion was legalised women would STILL have more options/rights than men.
How do you suppose they find adoptable babies? Storks? Or is it possible -- crazy, but hear me out -- that women don't actually go off and have abortions after their Wednesday night mani-pedis? Maybe due to religious objections or moral quandaries, or societal pressure, or that lovable group of men decided that her specific circumstances aren't good enough to allow her the right to refuse, end up having a baby they don't want, and give away?
>How do you suppose they find adoptable babies?
who are "they"? i wasn't talking about adoption so i have no idea why made this reply to me?
yes a lot of women choose to carry a child to term even if they don't desire a child. i will never deny it's a hard choice (for some) and it's not a choice i would often envy anyone.
but a hard choice is still better than no choice in my book.
and i guess that most women who for one reason or another have been denied that hard choice will agree.
And when they do? The father can refuse to sign away his rights. He can take the child, he can sue for child support. I mean, that involves actually being involved, and/or caring, or at the very least getting up out of your big butt chair to shlep down to the hospital and sign the sheet of paper that says you are assuming your parental responsibilities (and rights) as the assumed father, but really, for a ticket on that sweet child support train... Is it too much to ask?
so you are telling me men who wish to be farthers can force a woman to not have an abortion?
oh wait they fucking can't. it doesn't matter for careing and involved the man is if the woman doesn't want a child. no child and fuck you.
and how does any of this help the men who does not desire to be parents?
for that matter who the hell are you even replying to? nothing you write has any relevance to anything i write.
>And when they do?
who are "they" and do what?
i was talking about how a hard choice is better than no choice.
> I mean, that involves actually being involved, and/or caring, or at the very least getting up out of your big butt chair to shlep down to the hospital and sign the sheet of paper that says you are assuming your parental responsibilities (and rights) as the assumed father, but really, for a ticket on that sweet child support train... Is it too much to ask?
you know what? great idea! and all those women who don't want to go trough pregnancy? they should also just be careing and involved and carry the child for nine months and then care for the child for the rest of their lives because fuck what they actually want don't they have a heart?
if you want to argue against a strawman better set the strawman up first. though i can't deny that you aparently don't need to around here.
No, I'm telling you that once the word "medical" is off the table, both parents have equal rights and responsibilities. You're the one who keeps trying to sneak the woman's body back onto the table, in a universe where putting the man's body on the negotiating table would seem absurd.
More Comments - Click Here
>Men also have access to safe haven and adoption laws.
Technically, maybe. In practice, they are only effectively accessible to women in many situations.
>If you went in and signed the assumed paternity paperwork, then you can swoop in at the last second, snatch up the child she didn't want, and ride the child support train to happy town, too. The mother does not have more rights than you, if you choose to assert them.
Except you have to know that a pregnancy has occurred, know there is intent to gestate, know that she intends to attempt "financial abortion" after the child is born.
If she takes steps to avoid being forced to support an unwanted child by concealing or lying about her pregnancy, which have the effect of denying the child its entitled support from both of it's parents in this situation, this is ironically viewed as less of a moral hazard than being forthright about not consenting to parenthood.
>No one will ever seriously consider handcuffing you to a gurney and forcing you to use your body to keep the unwanted child alive.
Correct. You will be forced to use your body to keep the unwanted child alive in other ways.
In order to assert your rights, you might have to know where the other parent is and how to find them? That sounds ... incredibly familiar. Wait, wait... I think I know this one...
And I see that you are explicitly equating a woman's body to a man's money, and you don't seem to show even a smidgen of shame at the idea. So I'm really not sure what else there is to say. You've already lost that fight. I'm sorry if that makes you pouty. Thankfully, there's a whole internet full of other pouty men who will happily commiserate with your unjust and oppressive treatment at the hands of females.
>In order to assert your rights, you might have to know where the other parent is and how to find them? That sounds ... incredibly familiar. Wait, wait... I think I know this one...
No. In order to assert your (and your child's) rights you first have to know (and in some states show) you are a parent.
>And I see that you are explicitly equating a woman's body to a man's money, and you don't seem to show even a smidgen of shame at the idea.
Yes, I'm equating using a woman's body with using a man's body and saying neither one is acceptable without their consent regardless of gender. Should I be ashamed of suggesting that people are equal regardless of gender or ashamed of suggesting that consent is important?
> So I'm really not sure what else there is to say. You've already lost that fight. I'm sorry if that makes you pouty. Thankfully, there's a whole internet full of other pouty men who will happily commiserate with your unjust and oppressive treatment at the hands of females.
That would've made Roe v. Wade a lot shorter if SCOTUS had just written that. "Go be pouty with those other women." They'd be patronizing assholes, though, so it's nice they didn't write that.
Yeah, that's true. When I had a child out of wedlock they just wrote down the name gave them in the father spot of the birth certificate. I'm thinking, now, that I should have told them Donald Trump was the father, seeing as how they just accepted my assertion without question and didn't like ... require the father to show up, with identification, and sign something in the presence of a witness. Cause that would have been much harder to fake.
Would (or did) failure to satisfy that requirement interfere with your ability to "financially abort" the child?
He signed it, thus becoming the legal father with all rights and responsibilities thereof. He's now the custodial parent, and I send him money every month. So yes, it absolutely "interfered" with my ability to be a deadbeat. All my life's dreams, dashed in an instant, with a single stroke of a pen from some male.
More Comments - Click Here
>Financial abortion is just making a man's money equivalent to a woman's body. That no one finds that immediately repulsive is beyond me.
How do you think a man get's that money?
What do you think happens to a man's body if he doesn't pay?
That's not equivalent. Kidneys. Kidneys and retinas and blood and organs. That's the equivalent. Even if you get thrown in jail, they can't take your organs. They can't harvest you to fix up somebody else without your express consent. They can take your money, and your freedom, and your license to practice law, and your car, and your tax refund, and even your children, and your life. But they'll leave the corpse intact.
the deadbeat dad, Americas misunderstood hero
If you have the time, let me explain to you why me not paying for my own children is really the best solution for everyone. And by "everyone" I mean myself.
I get what you're saying.
You wanted the children, so you pay for them.
I'd hope that ending a policy of forcing people into nonconsensual parenthood against their will would lead to fewer people choosing to have children they were incapable of supporting, but that's not necessarily going to be the case. And while I get that it feels good to condemn the irresponsible selfishness of these parents as you've done, it's not the child's fault that this situation exists; neither they, nor nonconsenting parents, should be made to suffer for the poor choices of others.
that will be my campaign for office when i hope to get elected by dull witted libertarians like you
"can't somone else do it?"
get a vasectomy if you cant figure out birth control or better yet stay home and dont have sex if you can manage fatherhood at all
Eh, I've already committed to this sex thing.
lol a one person commitment to sex is called masturbation ;-)
>get a vasectomy if you cant figure out birth control or better yet stay home and dont have sex if you can manage fatherhood at all
I hope you realize the absolute hilarity in you saying this, when you can change about 2 words and have it be exactly the same as a pro-lifers argument.
And guess what? It's just as bigoted when you say it as when they do.
> get a vasectomy if you cant figure out birth control or better yet stay home and dont have sex if you can manage fatherhood at all
I find it kind of funny, that if someone says a woman shouldn't have sex if she doesn't want to get pregnant then it is a horrible thing to say, yet you are saying the exact same thing about men here. Hypocrisy much?
probably because a man can always choose if he wants to get someone pregnant while a woman might get pregnant from rape
you probably have trouble with this because you have a severe lack of empathy, i dont blame you for this, but it is weakness i would hope you will try to fix
> while a woman might get pregnant from rape
Okay, so let's institute financial abortion only in cases of non-rape.
If a woman is raped and a pregnancy results, then the rapist will be forced to pay child support if the mother decides to not have an abortion for one reason or another.
Wait, wait. When were we talking about rape? You said:
> get a vasectomy if you cant figure out birth control or better yet stay home and dont have sex if you can manage fatherhood at all
I don't think this has anything to do with rape situations as a rapist isn't going to care about getting a woman pregnant as he isn't planning on being caught or sticking around. Your rape argument has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You're simply building up a straw man to attack rather than addressing the point of my comment which is:
Why is it okay to tell a man that he shouldn't have consensual sex if he doesn't want to impregnate a woman, but it is not okay to tell a woman that she shouldn't have consensual sex if she doesn't want to get pregnant?
And, just to stem this off: Even vasectomies and male birth control are not 100% foolproof, the same as women's birth control options. It may be 99.9% effective, but there is still a chance.
So again I reiterate, Why is it okay to tell a man that he shouldn't have consensual sex if he doesn't want to impregnate a woman, but it is not okay to tell a woman that she shouldn't have consensual sex if she doesn't want to get pregnant?
>but it is not okay to tell a woman that she shouldn't have consensual sex if she doesn't want to get pregnant?
It is okay to say that. It's also okay for a woman to seek treatment for her medical condition (AKA pregnancy).
you are just engaging in sophistry now
grow up, learn how to be a better neighbor
And now we have ad hominem attacks. It is plain to anyone reading that you are unable to come up with any reason for this blatant hypocrisy, so instead you resort to attacking me. Let me know if you can come up with any actual reason, I would be interested in hearing it. However, I've no interest in debating someone whose only tactics are straw men and ad hominem attacks, so have a pleasant day.
More Comments - Click Here
Did Libertarians come out in favor of a strong social safety net while I wasn't paying attention?
no, im talking about this new wave of libertarians who are chiefly young white males who want an easy lifestyle at the expense of all others
dudes like you, who actually believe that men's rights are being destroyed due to feminism
take a bath, brush your teeth, go to bed
Sounds like some ridiculous boogeyman someone just made up rather than trying to understand something.
I'll keep an eye out for them, though.
why would i bother trying to understand the nonsense you support? it is without any sense of morality that i can see
"That's all, just a statue? This country makes me sick!"
Abortion = No child to be responsible for. Financial "abortion" = still a child to be responsible for.
It's that simple.
Well no, it's more subtle. The idea behind a "financial abortion" scheme is that a women could just terminate the pregnancy if she doesn't want to raise the kid sans dad. So in fact there would be no child to be responsible for.
The problem with that justification, or course, is that "terminate the pregnancy" isn't a realistic option for many women, either because of current laws or their own morals. Financial abortions would be quite cruel to these women, which is why I don't support such an idea currently. Now that said, if society did get to a place where actual abortions were easy and morally unambiguous (for the vast majority of women), then I think we could revisit the question.
That's all from a legal perspective. The moral calculus can be more fine-grained. Specifically, if you are a pregnant woman for whom an abortion is a realistic option, then I think you have a strong moral duty to consider the wishes of the possible father before you commit him to a heavy financial burden. I'm not really sure how to justify this other than by appealing to the moral axiom of "don't be a sociopath; other people matter".
What really grinds my gears (and I think this is what /u/S31556926 was complaining about) is when people use the argument against legal financial abortions to claim that there's no moral imperative to consider men's feelings, as if laws guide morals and not the other way around.
Personally, I can't wait for male birth control to become popular (which will probably happen before abortions become easy), so we can stop having this argument.
Exactly--so you'd think that men who promote "financial abortion" would be lobbying harder for women's reproductive rights.
It would make sense. Also for guys who want to have non-procreative sex, but at least have a modicum of empathy.
A problem there is that the reaction many people have to advocacy of gender equality in parental/reproductive rights, with emphasis on how it would finally place women's reproductive choice on secure footing, is to double-down in their opposition to reproductive rights.
It's a very strange conversation.
Do you honestly think the same people who think women shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion are the same people who think men should be able to remove themselves financially? I don't know about you specifically, but I see a lot of post that indicate that a lot of people think that's actually true, which is just ridiculous. The same people who think a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion are the same people who think the man should dedicate his life to a job in order to support the woman and child and that is his one true responsibility in life.
The whole abortion debate is so irritating to me because most people who really fight for it either way seem to have no problem being completely hypocritical, lying, and changing words and meanings depending on if they are talking about for or against.
Find me one person arguing for financial abortion that doesn't support a women's right to abortion.
Excellent post.
>Personally, I can't wait for male birth control to become popular
The idea of vasalgel is the only thing stopping me from getting a vasectomy right now.
I was waiting for the male "pill" as well. Vasalgel would be awesome when they finally figure it out and get it approved. Probably wouldn't prevent me from continually using condoms though.
>The problem with that justification, or course, is that "terminate the pregnancy" isn't a realistic option for many women, either because of current laws or their own morals. Financial abortions would be quite cruel to these women, which is why I don't support such an idea currently.
I would think that denying women access to "financial abortions" would be quite cruel, particularly after gestating and giving birth to an unwanted child (whether due to lack of access to abortion or choosing not to abort for personal reasons).
I can see an argument against "financial abortions" for women, I guess, an unwanted child in need of support exists as a result of her choice to gestate it, it hardly makes sense that she should be able to "fuck and scoot" (as /u/Epluribusscrotum puts it) and leave someone else to deal with it.
I don't agree with it, since I don't agree that it's justifiable to force someone into nonconsensual parenthood, but I can see how it would be a consistent position to take if you thought that was justifiable.
I'll just leave this here, as well:
You fucked her. You knew she could get knocked up. You're also aware that you don't have the right to force her to abort or not abort because she has bodily autonomy and you are also well aware that you do not have "wallet autonomy".
Therefore:
You accepted the risks.
** mic drop **
All those things only apply to the current situation. Women in places where abortion is banned don't have body autonomy, should they just all let the ban stay and accept the risk that if they get pregnant they must keep it?
thats why people are pro-choice in the first place, to change the stupid old laws
are you being obtuse on purpose?
No. His mic droppingly good argument is basically 'that's the way it is so there'. By his reasoning women who can't legally get abortions should just accept the risk of getting pregnant.
no, hes talking about paternity child support and how being a deadbeat dad is immoral
you are the one who is trying to change focus to abortions
His argument is that unlike body autonomy people do not recognise financial autonomy and so they should just acknowledge the risks and suck it up. I pointed out that there are places where body autonomy is not recognised and so his argument can be used to tell people who want abortions in those places to do the same.
More Comments - Click Here
Whut? o.O
I think you might be mistaking me for someone who thinks women and wallets are equivalent.
No I did not. I just think your argument is poor and that if you want to argue you should use something better than 'well that's how it is now so suck it up and accept the risks'.
Yes, I know you're angry that I don't advocate abandoning children.
I am also ware that you're railing against simple biology.
I also can see, even though you can't seem to, that you don't think of women as fully realized human beings.
If you want to think the way you do, I can't stop you. I will however, keep making fun of you for your broken view of the choices people have to make in light of reality being, well, reality.
>Yes, I know you're angry that I don't advocate abandoning children
Nope.
>I am also ware that you're railing against simple biology.
Nope.
>I also can see, even though you can't seem to, that you don't think of women as fully realized human beings.
Nope.
>If you want to think the way you do, I can't stop you. I will however, keep making fun of you for your broken view of the choices people have to make in light of reality being, well, reality.
Well seeing as I disagree with everything you've implied about me, have fun laughing at shadows.
I'll just leave this here, as well:
A problem with trying to pretend that consent to sex can be extended to encompass consent to parenthood (besides that consent to one thing is not consent to other things, of course), is that it lays a pretty good foundation for banning abortion:
"It's not a violation of bodily autonomy: you accepted the risks."
** gently places mic in stand **
edit: Ha. I didn't bother to check the context of each time you spammed this reply, so I've only just now seen that you were coming out in opposition to "financial abortion" as currently enjoyed by women. Do you oppose adoption and Safe Haven programs in general, or would you want to make it so women still have to support their unwanted children even after they've been put up for adoption or abandoned?
LOL. You're one of those people who think work is slavery.
I don't expect you to grasp simple concepts. S'ok. That comment wasn't really for you or people as blighted as yourself, anyway.
You're the second person who has identified forced labor without compensation as slavery.
Slavery goes quite a ways beyond that, though, of course, I'm not arguing that either one is justifiable.
You made the initial comparison. I'm just using your ignorance to make fun of you.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is not parenthood. Argument over.
Exactly so. Consent to sex is consent to sex. Not consent to pregnancy. Not consent to parenthood. Trying to force a woman into parenthood, or even to remain pregnant, on the grounds of "should've kept it in your pants; you knew the risks" is repugnant.
Man or woman, no one can remove consent to parenthood without adoption. Once the baby is born both parents are on the hook until the child turns 18 or another couple is willing to take over the responsibilities. Abortion is not opting out of parenthood, it's opting out of the medical condition known as pregnancy. Roe vs Wade did not rule on a woman's constitutional right to opt out of parenthood, it was a ruling on her right to seek medical treatment.
>Man or woman, no one can remove consent to parenthood without adoption. Once the baby is born both parents are on the hook until the child turns 18 or another couple is willing to take over the responsibilities.
Procedures exist for legal abandonment of an unwanted child in all 50 states. They are, in practice, only accessible to women.
>Abortion is not opting out of parenthood, it's opting out of the medical condition known as pregnancy. Abortion is not opting out of parenthood, it's opting out of the medical condition known as pregnancy.
Which would tend to support the notion that placing restrictions on abortion (so using it to opt out of parenthood would be prevented or at least minimized) would perfectly fine, since it would only be tolerated in cases where a woman had a compelling medical reason.
Why any woman (or man) would prefer that tenuous situation over an "opt in" scheme that actually acknowledged reproductive rights, I don't know.
More Comments - Click Here
>Financial "abortion" = still a child to be responsible for.
And guess whose responsible for that child? The parent who wanted it and chose to have it knowing full-well that she'd be a single parent (unless she finds another partner willing to help).
SO yeah, it really is that simple. People are getting exactly the responsibility they choose.
Actually, it would just be the parents.
Sure, I guess. In the case where it is considered justifiable to force someone into nonconsensual parenthood against their will, it would follow that a woman would of course be expected to continue to support an unwanted child after it was born, too.
That's certainly not the direction I'd want to see us go in pursuit of gender equality, though. I'd much prefer that we recognized the principle that every person has the right to choose to be, or not to be, a parent.
Sure, I see no problem with women paying child support. I care about 2 things more than anyone's pocketbook though, and that's bodily autonomy and an adequately cared for child.
It's just the sad state of reality that women have more control over a pregnancy by virtue of being the only ones who can get pregnant.
Most people's pocketbooks have money in them only because they trade the labor of their minds and bodies for wages or salary. Forcing people to labor without compensation (under threat of violence and imprisonment, no less) is a violation of bodily autonomy.
>It's just the sad state of reality that women have more control over a pregnancy by virtue of being the only ones who can get pregnant.
Trying to dictate whether a woman gestated or aborted a fetus would tend to violate the principle that every person has the right to choose to be, or not to be, a parent. All the business about bodily autonomy just supports and reinforces that position.
Far different from the case where it's held that it's justifiable to force someone into nonconsensual parenthood against their will, but then we try to carve out a contradictory exception for abortion. It puts access to abortion in a very tenuous position.
> Most people's pocketbooks have money in them only because they trade the labor of their minds and bodies for wages or salary. Forcing people to labor without compensation (under threat of violence and imprisonment, no less) is a violation of bodily autonomy.
Are you really comparing court-mandated child support to slavery?
You need to sit in the shame corner and think about what you just wrote, you really do.
The oppression levels coming off this guy are off the charts. Someone link this shit to SRDD fast!
>Are you really comparing court-mandated child support to slavery?
No. I'm pointing out that forcing people to labor without compensation (under threat of violence and imprisonment, no less) is a violation of bodily autonomy.
>You need to sit in the shame corner and think about what you just wrote, you really do.
Why? It's not like I'm defending the practice (or slavery).
So being required by law to pay bills is a violation of bodily autonomy?
Awesome, I'll let my cable provider know that sending me a bill is literally rape.
Not supporting that guy but bad comparison. You don't have to watch cable and you get something out of it.
You also don't have to cum inside anyone. You make the choice to do that, you're accepting the possibility that she could get pregnant. You don't accept that possibility than don't cum inside her vag
With child support your kid gets food. So you get something out of it as well.
Assuming you have a soul, of course.
More Comments - Click Here
>So being required by law to pay bills is a violation of bodily autonomy?
Arguably, sure. And not paying someone agreed upon compensation for their labor would be a violation of bodily autonomy. These tend to cancel each other out, so the primary concern ends up being only a matter of contracts.
>Awesome, I'll let my cable provider know that sending me a bill is literally rape.
And they'll let you know that not paying your bill is also literally rape.
And then it's settled as a matter of your mutually agreed upon contract being violated.
You fucked her. You knew she could get knocked up. You're also aware that you don't have the right to force her to abort or not abort because she has bodily autonomy and you are also well aware that you do not have "wallet autonomy".
Therefore:
You accepted the risks.
** mic drop **
More Comments - Click Here
>Are you really comparing court-mandated child support to slavery?
as long as you can be sent to prison for not "earning enough compared to your potential (and fuck you if you wish to have less stresful job that earns less)" i don't see how there isn't a worthwhille comparison.
it's obviously not as bad as slavery but that doesn't mean you get to just handwave it away as meaningless.
Just as you don't get to wave away a child - a person that you made - as meaningless. See how that works?
so you admit your argument is bullshit?
either way i was not handwaving a child away anyway.
or do we need to ban all single parents for not being enough for a child?
or how about we start threathing farthers who are still with their childrens mothers who doesn't earn "enough"?
for that matter how about we look at if mothers out there earn their full potential?
the rules as they are currently are arbitary as fuck.
but hey let's go back to your argument:
being denied abortion isn't nearly as bad as being a sex/breeding slave. therefor if you suggest denying abortion is wrong you should go sit in the shame corner i guess.
P.S.
>a person that you made
funny how it was a woman alone who gave birth to that child when that's convenient but i as man was involved when that suits the argument.
All parents can be sent to prison for not properly caring for their children, are you seriously saying all parents are slaves?
show me a case of a woman being sent to jail or even treathend jail because she COULD earn more.
show me a case of a woman being threathend jail for being laid of unless she can find a job that pays at least equal to what she earned before.
properly caring a for children should be INCREDIBLY easy to meassure and should have static point. if that was the argument child support payments should be locked no matter what you earn. find the cost of raising a child split it in half, there child support payment for everyone in the world.
>show me a case of a woman being sent to jail or even treathend jail because she COULD earn more
I can show you hundreds of examples of women being sent to jail for child neglect because they couldn't (or wouldn't) pay for their child's needs. Skipping out on child support is exactly the same as child neglect.
>find the cost of raising a child split it in half, there child support payment for everyone in the world.
On principle I agree, but the cost of raising a child is incredibly variable. What standard of living do you use when calculating the cost of raising a child? Bare minimum? Comfortably middle class? Somewhere in the middle? Do you feed the children a rich and nutritious varied diet? Because that's more expensive than feeding them rice and beans every day. What about buying them new clothes every year? That's more expensive than buying tattered used clothes at Goodwill. Does the child get to take part in any extracurricular activities, which are known to contribute to the overall well-being and happiness of children? Do they have to go to school in the poorest school district in the country because that one has the lowest fees? Do they only deserve bare minimum health insurance that will only cover life-threatening emergencies, or do they get more comprehensive care so they can get regular checkups and preventative care?
And what about divorce? You seem to think child support is only paid when dad wants nothing to do with his newborn; let's say mom and dad have been married for 15 years before getting divorced. Little Billy was in private school, played sports, had tutors, plentiful access to nutritious food, and well-fitting clothes. When mom and dad get divorced, does the breadwinner (whichever parent that may be) get to say "lol fuck you Billy, you can go to school in the projects, eat ramen every day, leave all your friends, give up sports scholarship opportunities, and wear ragged used clothing now because that's the bare minimum. I don't want to pay for you to have a good life (even though I can totally afford it) because I'm trying to spite my ex. See ya fucker!"
In the case of divorce, it's completely reasonable to expect both parents to make the transition easier on their children by keeping them at a similar standard of living. You clearly have no idea how complicated and nuanced child support is.
More Comments - Click Here
ah yes the famed "biology isn't fair" argument.
"women are the ones who get pregnant too bad biology isn't fair don't have sex if you don't want to risk that" just never seem to qualify for that one. funny how biology despite not being fair seems to always take womens side.
stop over simplifying a complex problem.
your argument is no different from "abortion = murder. it's that simple."
It's not fair that I have to drain thousands of dollars into feminine products.
We should cut guy's dicks every month and make them bleed and wear pads so things are more fair.
wow funny you made an entirely irrelevant point.
the fact is the whole "pregnancy only happens to women" thing as an argument COULd be both in favour of men and women.
menstruation? not so much.
but keep being rational by arguing bodily violence against men.
i'm sure you are winning so many supporters.
> funny how biology despite not being fair seems to always take womens side.
Your words. To which I responded.
Your argument wasn't even an argument.
> It's that simple.
But the reason there is "still a child to be responsible for" is because a woman made a choice about her body.
If it's entirely her choice, shouldn't it be entirely her responsibility unless the man ALSO chooses to be a parent?
No, because there is a child that still needs to be taken care of if it is born.
Again - the reason there is a child is because the mother CHOSE for there to be a child.
If the father does not make a similar choice to be a father - what justification is there to hold him responsible for the mother's choice?
Prior to abortion, it made sense to hold both parties responsible - they both engaged in the act that created the child - sex. But, sex now does not create a child unless the woman chooses for there to be a child.
It's not a life at conception, right?
>Again - the reason there is a child is because the mother CHOSE for there to be a child.
As is her prerogative for being the one pregnant.
> If the father does not make a similar choice to be a father - what justification is there to hold him responsible for the mother's choice?
You're confusing the right to not be pregnant with the right to not be a parent.
>It's not a life at conception, right?
And no father has to pay child support at conception.
"I get to choose whether a baby exists, but we are both responsible for the baby that results from my choice" makes no sense. Having all of the choice implies all of the responsibility.
The reason we originally held fathers and mothers equally responsible for a baby, is because they each made the choice that resulted in a baby.
That is no longer the case.
There's a number of choices here, not just the choice of abortion or not. They both chose to have sex. They both took the risks of the woman getting pregnant. They both have the responsibility to deal with the consequences. Just so happens that the woman has the special circumstance of being the one to be pregnant, therefore she has the exclusive option to remain pregnant or terminate the pregnancy. Either route is taking responsibility for having sex.
If men could get pregnant this wouldn't even be an argument.
> If men could get pregnant this wouldn't even be an argument.
True, because if men could get pregnant, abortion would still be illegal.
It always confuses me that people assert that we care more about male autonomy and male well-being. The opposite is true. Men get harsher sentences in criminal court. Men have had their bodily autonomy completely disrespected throughout history through being forced into war.
And, currently, we do not grant fathers any rights whatsoever. The mother does not even have to tell you that she is pregnant or that there is a child. Your responsibilities are entirely contingent on her choices - not just the choice of whether to abort or carry the baby to term, but also the choice of whether to tell you there is a baby.
Okay, I just gotta ask, have you ever considered the idea of discussing issues like pregnancy and abortion with a woman before you sleep with her? Is it really that hard to not have sex with a person who isn't on the same page as you in this incredibly important matter?
Wait. Do people not have these conversations?
I mean, you have zero options if you're the unfortunate victim of a false negative due to the lack of reproductive rights, but that's still no reason not to talk about these things.
B-b-but what if the eebil woman is a liar and spermjacks me! Then I'll have to pay 20% of my monthly mountain dew money on child support! D:
Abortion is a medical procedure. What you ask is child abandonment.
>What you ask is child abandonment.
Processes for legal child abandonment already exist in all 50 states... except they are not effectively accessible to parents of all genders. Whatever grave moral hazard you imagine doesn't arise only when people other than women are permitted to avoid supporting unwanted children.
>Abortion is a medical procedure.
Sure. I'm not opposed to abortion specifically or parental/reproductive rights in general. Someone who was might rejoin with "What you ask is child killing." But since, presumably, neither of us wants to see abortion restricted or banned, there's probably not much for us to discuss there.
>except they are not effectively accessible to parents of all genders.
Sure they are. A custodial father can leave his child at a firehouse just as easily as a custodial mother can.
As someone else said... you do realize that a mother can legally abandon her child and completely rid herself of any obligation to the child whatsoever right?
Guess who picks up the bill?
>you do realize that a mother can legally abandon her child and completely rid herself of any obligation to the child whatsoever right?
Custodial fathers have just as much right to leave a baby at a fire station as a custodial mother.
>Guess who picks up the bill?
The person who decides to adopt the child.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/mj_popcorn.gif
This movie is in 3D, here are your glasses.
Now let's just sit back and enjoy the show.
I'll spell it out for you. I believe that the concept of bodily autonomy is almost unconditional. I also believe that the basic needs of children (primarily, support) should be placed above the needs of their biological parents (freedom), when those needs conflict... unless a viable alternative is presented.
There is no viable alternative to the basic support of an existing child (other than adoption, abandonment at birth) that doesn't infringe upon the rights of other people. Thus, biological parents should be morally and legally required to provide basic support for their children.
Likewise, the bodily autonomy of women is absolute. Thus, abortion should be permissible in all medically-necessary cases, and most elective cases (where right to life does not conflict with bodily autonomy, for example).
Abortion is not the prevention of parenthood. It is the prevention of personhood altogether. An existing child makes someone a parent. Thus, that existing child compels their duty to support that child. A prospective life, nonviable outside the womb, does not compel anything.
You're making the mistake of thinking of abortion as the cessation of parenthood. You can't do that before the necessary requirements for parenthood, a live child, are present. You're collapsing pregnancy and parenthood into the same category of responsibilities, when they're two entirely separate states of being, entailing entirely different sets of responsibilities and competing moralities.
TL;DR - shit's complex, you're making it too simple.