OP in /r/mensrights convinces his girlfriend to get an abortion, then mentions he's going to break up with her. It gets really hostile when users discuss if OP did the right thing. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
92 ups - 0 downs = 92 votes
426 comments submitted at 07:57:17 on Aug 24, 2014 by IAmAN00bie
Maybe I'm extremely drunk but isn't talking about wtf would happen if ya got pregnant a normal thing to do? Or am I the odd one here who actually talks to their girlfriends?
And leaving the US was his fix to getting a woman pregnant?
As for the actual drama, it's idiotic children. I mean look at that guy saying shame a woman has no problem getting pregnant. Like she fucking told her body yes give me a baby! That sub and abortions is fucking horrible. Makes no sense.
I love how everyone in that thread is acting like the gf is baby crazy. You know, it's possible to not be trying for a kid, get pregnant, and then decide to keep it even if you hadn't planned on it. That's why pro-choice is called pro-choice.
To them, if men don't get a choice, it's not pro-choice.
They're talking about the wrong choice, then.
Yeah...what's wrong with that? Most MRAs believe that women should have a choice over what to do with their body - but that men should not be forced into responsibility based on that choice.
>their body
If it's their body and their choice, then it's their responsibility.
You can't say "My body, my choice . . . wait, where are you going? You have to help me pay for this!"
The arguments for abortion, which hinge on bodily integrity, are separate from the arguments for child support, which derive from society's interest in supporting the child so that people grow up to be healthy members of said society. Conflating the two isn't helpful.
But it's not faaaaair
You say that like fairness isnt a tenant of a justice system, and overall society. It is.
When "fairness" amounts to lower standard of living for thousands of children, I think it's reasonable that everyone goes back to the drawing board and decides that supporting children is more fair than having the choice not to.
True, but "fairness" is not "exact same thing on both sides"
The logic of child support hinges on the idea that two people are responsible for a child that results from sex.
Prior to abortion being legal, that made sense.
Now that women make the choice whether or not a child exists - the logic no longer applies. It is no longer the action of two people that bring a child into the world - it is a woman's choice that brings a child into the world. If a man does not make a similar choice, there is no reason to hold him responsible.
If you have all of the choice - by definition, you have all of the responsibility.
Also, the argument for abortion is about more than bodily integrity. If you read the case law on abortion, particularly Planned Parenthood v. Casey - it is about controlling your "reproductive destiny."
Your logic doesn't add up. It's still an act of two people that creates the child. Don't you understand how sex works? You know how the guy can get out of being a father? Not having sex with the girl in the first place. Besides, woman have been performing abortions for 1000s of years. The only difference now is that it's much safer.
> It's still an act of two people that creates the child
No. It's an act of two people that creates a conception. It's not a life at conception, remember? Whether it grows into a child is entirely dependent on a woman making a choice about her body.
If I helped "create a child" - how is abortion legal?
> You know how the guy can get out of being a father? Not having sex with the girl in the first place
Refraining from intercourse is also a way to get out of being a mother. When pro life people make that argument regarding abortion, they are told that "you can't stop people from having sex!" and are also routinely called misogynists.
That doesn't follow at all
If you want things to be perfectly 1:1 fair, then figure out a way to have the dude in the equation share the actual physical consequences of being pregnant. Till then, no amount of complaining about it will change the fact that it is not a balanced situation where both parties get exactly the same rights, and the fact that cutting a check once a month is piddling bullshit compared to actually physically raising a child
I think I remember arguing with you about Financial Abortions^TM a few months back though, so whatever
That's not a good analogy, in this scenario the guy doesn't want the kid so he wouldn't want the woman to be pregnant. No pregnancy=no suffering through pregnancy. A better analogy would be having the man suffer an abortion.
I think you are not understanding what I said. It wasn't an analogy
In a perfect world where single mothers were supported by the state and society, I would be okay if men could give up responsibility. The problem is that there is a child involved now and that child's well being is the most important thing.
> In a perfect world where single mothers were supported by the state and society
Why the fuck should the state and society be responsible for the choices a woman makes? Why not just hold her responsible for her own choices?
If you don't want taxpayers to flip the bill for these children, make their fathers take equal moral and financial responsibility for their children.
When the fathers don't take responsibility for their children, the responsibility doesn't go away, it gets pushed on the rest of society. And not in a good way either.
Guess who has to pay for all the prison, welfare, hospital bills, whatever for the kids that were never cared or provided for? That's right, everybody. The cost is way higher than it would have been if someone had been taking care of these kids in the first place.
Basically, if you don't want society to have to pay so much for all these children then make their parents do it.
> If you don't want taxpayers to flip the bill for these children, make their fathers take equal moral and financial responsibility for their children.
Why not hold the person who chose for a child to exist responsible?
The father did not want the child. If the mother cannot handle the child on her own - she shouldn't fucking have it. Irresponsible women choosing to have children they can't afford is nobody's fault except for that irresponsible woman.
> Why the fuck should the state and society be responsible for the choices a woman makes?
Because it's about the kid that now exists. By "holding her responsible", you're punishing the child.
If MRAs are that terrified about the possibility of having to financially support their offspring, they shouldn't have sex :-\
Slow clap.
Thats like saying, "Why can't you like, stop being depressed?
Your statement has no basis in reality because why people get pregnant is pretty much has very complex reasoning, motivations for both men and women.
Care to try again and suggest another solution? Maybe take into account the women's insistence in bringing the baby to the world despite that decision being against the partner's wishes.
> Why the fuck should the state and society be responsible for the choices a man makes? Why not just hold him responsible for his own choices?
Fixed that for you.
A man chose to have sex. If the choice to have sex is a choice for there to be a baby - then abortion goes out the window.
In fact, "you accepted the responsibility of a potential child when you had sex!" is one of the most common pro life arguments.
If a man "opts out" - it's not his fault if the mother makes the irresponsible choice to bring a child into the world that she can't handle. If she can't handle a child alone, then she should not choose to have a child alone.
If women retain all the responsibility, then shouldn't they retain all the custody rights? If men have zero responsibility, it only makes sense they would have zero rights.
If a man chooses to be a father - he should get some custody rights.
If he chooses not to be a father, he should receive none.
Basically - both parties should get to choose. The rights and responsibilities of both parties should be dictated by choice.
>both parties should get to choose.
I definitely agree with it as long as the baby isn't bought into the world.
IF that happens, you have to lose part of that right for the well being of the child. There is no way around it.
Basically the crux of the matter is that its not about you, its not about your partner, its about your child.
Why should he get any custody? You just said it's entirely the woman's responsibility, so she should have all of the rights. If the man has no inherent responsibilities, he should have no inherent rights.
I am saying that the person who makes the choice has all of the responsibility. If the father makes the choice to be a father - he would have responsibility, and necessarily, some rights.
Also, it is worth noting that as the law currently sits, men do not have any inherent rights. Women have the ability and the right to completely keep a father in the dark about a pregnancy.
As a man, you can have a one night stand with a girl - and then not see her for five years. She can show up with a toddler and start demanding child support payments. There is nothing in the law that would force her to even let the father know that there is a pregnancy. So, as a father - you don't have any "inherent rights." They are all contingent on choices a woman makes.
Which is why talking to the person you are having sex with is important.
It's irrelevant if they can unilaterally subvert your choice, and that same logic can be applied to expecting support.
Which is why I try not to get into relationships with people that I can't trust to not fuck me over.
That was a triple negative, damn. Still, if you can't trust someone, why are you having sex with them, especially if an unwanted pregnancy is something you seem to fear so much?
That same logic applies to women and abortion, though. It's a good point, but not a good counter to why financial abortion shouldn't exist but abortion should.
Financial abortion shouldn't exist because it makes no sense.
MRAs never seem to be able to answer the following questions:
How will women afford to raise these children?
Won't this put a lot more strain on social services; do MRAs propose raising taxes to help out these single mothers and children who've been abandoned by their fathers?
Will it become the States' responsibility to pick up the tab on behalf of these men?
Don't MRAs always complain about how society is abandoning it's boys, and how boys lack good father figures and role models? Won't this just create more abandoned boys (and girls)?
What kind of psychological impact will this have on kids whose dads have financially aborted them?
Won't some men use this as a threat or form of coercion? "Get an abortion or I'm bailing and you'll have a shit time trying to raise our kid being broke and single."
Why is rejecting all responsibility and being a deadbeat dad something to aspire to?
How does any of this make sense if you even think about it for more then 5 seconds?
*edited for formating
>MRAs never seem to be able to answer the following questions
I suppose I'll do my best, then, though I certainly don't think that I speak for all, or even most, MRAs.
> How will women afford to raise these children?
Strangely, you seem to answer this question with your following one.
> Won't this put a lot more strain on social services; do MRAs propose raising taxes to help out these single mothers and children who've been abandoned by their fathers?
Yes it would, but these services still need to be greatly expanded in the first place. I think that implementing social services for parents is a great idea, regardless of whether or not both parents are involved in their children's lives.
Raising taxes may be necessary, but I personally advocate cutting government expenditures in regards to the military and military-industrial complex, first. How many trillions of dollars have we wasted on the F-35 fighter jet over the years, for example?
>Don't MRAs always complain about how society is abandoning it's boys, and how boys lack good father figures and role models?
Not always, but yes. Men should be encouraged to take on the role of father. It seems to me, however, that trying to force them into the role simply doesn't work.
>Won't this just create more abandoned boys (and girls)?
If we aren't encouraging men to take an active role in their children's lives, then this is a distinct possibility. Our current system really isn't much better at getting men to accept the position of fatherhood, however. The most it does is force them to bear financial responsibility, which I think we can agree is not the same thing.
>What kind of psychological impact will this have on kids whose dads have financially aborted them?
About the same as one who has walked out on, or never been a part of, their lives, and has opted to simply pay child support.
>Won't some men use this as a threat or form of coercion? "Get an abortion or I'm bailing and you'll have a shit time trying to raise our kid being broke and single."
I don't think that's a realistic threat if the sort of social safety nets that I would want for our society are implemented, but sure, some people are horrible and might threaten to do any number of things.
As a counter-question, would you want this type of person raising your kids?
>Why is rejecting all responsibility and being a deadbeat dad something to aspire to?
It's not. However, perhaps simply offering men a way out will inspire many to act more calmly and be more open to discussion from friends and family about the joys of parenthood. I also think that offering incentives and encouragement to take on responsibility for your children is much more effective than attempting to coerce them into it.
First off I appreciate your response as it addresses numerous concerns and it not simply dismissal of a position.
Also as a reminder to anyone reading regarding parental surrender, the primarily proposed version is allowing the father to abdicate rights and responsibilities to the child only within the window for abortion allowed for the mother, so to allow her to make an informed decision going forward(and assuming the father was duly notified of the pregnancy within said window). Some versions also have him pay for half of the costs of abortion should she decide to abort and he abdicate.
>How will women afford to raise these children?
The same way people who adopt or use surrogacy/sperm donation to acquire children.
>Won't this put a lot more strain on social services; do MRAs propose raising taxes to help out these single mothers and children who've been abandoned by their fathers?
That assumes the same illegitimate birthrate, and does raise the question that if a woman with full knowledge of not being able to afford caring for a child and not receiving support goes forward and has a child, how is that not irresponsible in the same way someone takes on a loan they can't afford to pay back?
>Will it become the States' responsibility to pick up the tab on behalf of these men?
It's not on behalf of those men. It's on behalf of the women who unilaterally decided to continue a pregnancy to have a child.
>Don't MRAs always complain about how society is abandoning it's boys, and how boys lack good father figures and role models? Won't this just create more abandoned boys (and girls)?
Enforced child support does not increase the role of father figures, but simply treats men as a disembodied wallet. Further, studies have shown that fathers granted more equal visitation rights default on their child support less, which points to the problems in custody arrangements. It turns out that when someone has more of a vested interest in someone's wellbeing, they're more likely to contribute.
In the case of mothers deciding unilaterally to have a child without concern for whether the father wants to have a child, you remove the father's vested interest from the equation regardless of how you tie him financially to the mother or the child.
So no, it would not likely increase it, as it would now put mothers in a position to go forward only when they can afford it on their own or have a father who is on board with having children with her in the first place, so if anything it might increase father's involvement.
>Won't some men use this as a threat or form of coercion? "Get an abortion or I'm bailing and you'll have a shit time trying to raise our kid being broke and single."
That same argument was used against abortion in the past. Further, it isn't coercion if she has an alternative.
Conversely, saying "I'm going forward with this pregnancy and you have no say in the matter, so support me or go to jail" would qualify as coercion of a similar degree.
>Why is rejecting all responsibility and being a deadbeat dad something to aspire to?
Responsibility must be commensurate with sovereignty over your involvement or it isn't actually agency; it is either infantilization or coercion. If someone can unilaterally decided your involvement, your responsibility from a moral perspective is not equal to that making such a decision.
>How does any of this make sense if you even think about it for more then 5 seconds?
It's about not having one person being able to unilaterally decide the rights and responsibilities of another person.
Imagine for a second that divorce wasn't allowed and husbands decided when their wives couldn't consent to sex. Would you say "women know the risks of getting married and should take responsibility!" just because that's what the law says?
The intention of these laws are not where the conversation ends. Why one person's rights supercede another's or not is not easily answered either.
I see those answered everytime almost.
Well, what I meant to imply as a snarky anti-MRA comment was that if men don't get a choice in something, it doesn't count, period.
Having said that, on a more honest note, forcing men to take care of their children financially is more ethical than financially coercing women to get abortions, and that's really all it comes down to.
So much for strong independence.
its interesting because on one hand its a woman's body and she as complete authority over it but if a child is born the man is responsible financially and morally for it. While you should take to your partner what if you both agree to an abortion then she changes her mind? The man agreed on the condition that in the event of a pregnancy there would be an abortion so what's he to do now?
Well, the woman is also financially responsible for the baby as well.
but ultimately she's the only one with a choice.
She is the only one with the choice when it comes to her body, yes.
Uh, pay child support?
that's my point, even if there was an agreement to get an abortion in the event of a pregnancy and the woman changes her mind the man can only pay child support. Men have no options in that case and there's no way to give them options because 1) you can't force someone to have an abortion 2) the child's welfare is the most important. That's why male "birth control" is so important.
Why is birth control in quotes?
trust me, men don't have to pay child support if they really don't want to.
> That's why pro-choice is called pro-choice.
But that's not MY choice.
Edit: Clearly I need to add in /s.
right, but you take a chance every time you have sex that the girl might get knocked up. is your girl on birth control? good. do you use condoms? good. is there still a chance that she might get pregnant? yes.
one thing that will absolutely prevent you from knocking someone up is getting a vasectomy- an easy and reversible procedure that costs about $400 at most Planned Parenthoods. $400, btw, is less than an abortion costs.
so actually yes, it is your choice, completely. a vasectomy has less side-effects than most birth control pills. shit, I pay more than $400 every year for birth control, and I have health insurance.
> right, but you take a chance every time you have sex that the girl might get knocked up. is your girl on birth control? good. do you use condoms? good. is there still a chance that she might get pregnant? yes. > one thing that will absolutely prevent you from knocking someone up is getting a vasectomy- an easy and reversible procedure that costs about $400 at most Planned Parenthoods. $400, btw, is less than an abortion costs. > so actually yes, it is your choice, completely. a vasectomy has less side-effects than most birth control pills. shit, I pay more than $400 every year for birth control, and I have health insurance.
I should have inserted /s to show I was being sarcastic.
haha, oh man, yes definitely. sorry for getting all snarky with you!
I should know better. :)
I guess it's because they care about consent in general, where you only care about women's consent.
If he didn't consent to the sex, you might have a point... But since he fucked her... Well, now he has to take his lumps.
>If she didn't consent to the sex, you might have a point... But since she fucked him... Well, now she has to take her lumps.
et voila! you're anti-choice!
Hahahahahahahah! ... Oh, you're serious. How embarrassing for you that you can't tell the difference between a living being and a wallet. That must make shopping a really weird experience for you. Do you need some sort of helper animal, or something? Or do you just hire an aide to assist you so you don't try to pull bills out of the ass of the person standing in front of you in line?
You can stop pretending now.
Most abortions are performed because the woman doesn't want to be a mother at that time, or with that man. No other reason.
The choice in "pro-choice" is about parenthood.
You keep confusing a pregnant person's body with your wallet.
Stop that.
Don't lie, don't make shit up, don't pretend that you have some moral high ground here. You think a person's body and your wallet are equivalent. That's a pretty stupid and harmful view to have.
Different person, but they're right.
> You think a person's body and your wallet are equivalent.
No I don't.
It's really basic. Women have all the power over making the decision. They also should have the responsibility.
Want the guy to act as the father, talk to him, get his consent. If he doesn't, you still have all the options available. You can give birth or have an abortion. You just have to take responsibility for your decision.
You just don't get it, do you?
Whatever, man. I just hope you carefully explain this to every person you ever want to fuck, and get their consent to have you be a total dick over any pregnancy.
Get it in writing.
How the fuck did you leap to that conclusion? Pro-choice means women have choice over their own bodies. Not that men have choice over women's bodies.
Do you honestly believe men should be able to control women's reproductive organs?
lolwat in the fuck?
No. A woman should have full freedom to decide what to do with her body.
But if she wants a man to take the responsibility for her decisions, she needs to get this man's consent.
You don't want to have a baby? Great. You do want to have the baby? Also great. But if you want that guy over their to act as father, you need to get him to agree to that, you don't get to force him!
Try to think of men as people deserving the same amount of respect as women. Then you'll understand.
I think both parents should take the same amount of responsibility for the child regardless of their gender or reproductive organs.
You seem to think people should take responsibility for
But you don't think people should take any responsibility for
the decision to have sex in the first place
their own fucking children
You don't think any father has any responsibility over any child at all. Women assume 100% of the responsibility for 100% of the children and men get a get out of jail free card.
You don't think children are entitled to parents, to finances, or to care but you think men, and only men are entitled to walk away from their children without consequence.
In other words- men should be more selective about having sex since afterwards their options regarding pregnancy are much more limited.
Yeah, it's not like fleeing the country magically makes child support go away. If anything, it'll just make things look worse when you're eventually sued. There've been a couple guys from New York who did that and now owe over a million dollars.
It actually is very difficult to collect payments like child-support through litigation if the individual in question is in a foreign jurisdiction and intends to remain there. You need to file a civil suit against the individual in the country that they are residing in, and depending on the jurisdiction that they are residing in, you can face any number of problems.
The jurisdiction might not recognize child-support (rare though for most civilized countries) or the country in question has a very slow civil system. In Italy for example, the average civil suit lasts 5-7 years.
If someone doesn't want to pay you a dime, and they will do anything that it takes, there are ways by which they can make it impractical or unfeasible to collect.
That said, that only really applies to the kind of people that are willing to go on the run for the rest of their lives, hopping countries every 2-3 years to avoid civil action. Returning to America, or holding any assets in America, would be out of the question.
For an example of this, look up Dave Foley, formerly of Kids in the Hall up here in canada.
He moved to the states to avoid making child support payments.
Sucks for his kid.
This is a good run down on his situation:
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2011/03/11/comediandavefoleyfearsarrestowes500000inchildsupport.html
Yikes. If all that's true, it's really awful. I feel like the way child support works is mostly okay, but to refuse to change the amount of someone's child support payments after they make less money is callous as fuck.
From the article: “Mr. Foley was ordered to provide details of his employment contracts. He has not done so, so we do not know what his income is.”
You can't really complain if you're not going to show the necessary paperwork.
The statement from his ex's lawyer also says he originally started missing payments back when his income was really high (presumably the income amount his payments were calculated by).
And also strange from the standpoint of the need to provide for the child. Making him pay more than he can realistically afford doesn't help the kid whereas adjusting it so that he can make payments would.
People lie about their income all the time to get out of paying child support. From the article, it says that he refuses to provide income statements.
I personally have experience in this through my parents' divorce. My father took a "voluntary demotion" and got his support immediately reduced. It took my mother the better part of two years to subpoena his earning statements, and it turned out he had never made a cent less. In fact, he made substantially more. My aunt also married a man who had three children, and no interest in supporting them. He was a lawyer in California when he met her, but quit his job and went back to school to get two useless PhDs just to spite his ex.
Good on that court for refusing the reduction until they have earning statements in hand. People pull that sort of insane shit all the time to screw over their ex. It's insanely messed up when you fuck around with the living standards of your own children to spite your ex. The burden of proof when you're talking about taking money away from children should absolutely be on the person who says they need the reduction.
No shit. That's why so many dudes are bitter about it.
That's not an uncommon thing. Courts refusing to adjust child support after the payer's lifestyle changes is really really common. Especially since in a lot cases the kids themselves are the reason why the lifestyle changed. Like a dad who spends a decade being a workaholic then when he gets divorced he realizes that he needs to slow the fuck down so he'll have more time for family.
>That's not an uncommon thing.
Pretty sure it is, actually. Do you have any sources for that?
No direct sources, just anecdotes. But I used to work in a family law firm and a lot of the cases involved a dad trying to get his child support lowered cause he changed jobs or doesn't work weekends anymore. Hell the very first case I sat in on as an intern was a mediation with a dad who owed back child support and his defense was that he didn't have a job anymore and couldn't afford to pay it.
It's a really complex subject because some dudes are just doing it to fuck over the mom. The lawyer i interned with on that case was pretty sure that dad was just a deadbeat. But other guys legitimately have their lives change. 18 years is a really long time and a child support order that's set for a specific dollar amount two years ago may not be very relevant to current circumstances.
I think he still pays, just not as much as he is mandated to. His income is so irregular (and not up to the levels he had on NewsRadio) that he simply can't reliably pay 17000 dollars per month.
He could have applied to get it adjusted. But that would have meant full financial disclosure. Seems like he didn't want anyone poking around and finding out his actual income and assets, maybe?
According to the ex's lawyer, he stopped paying long before his income dropped.
Well if you don't return then if will be alright. But that sucks if he has family or friends in the US.
It's even better when you know that dude taking about many women wanting to get pregnant against the fathers' wishes, is one of the head mods of the sub.
In my experience, the mods over there are actually more embarrassing than your average contributor.
Granted, I'm dating a woman 16 years older than me, but one of the first conversations we had we started having sex is what would happen if she got pregnant. It seems insane to me not to have a conversation like that.
I don't understand the men's right movement when it comes to abortions. As a man, I have my opinion, but at the end of the day, I consent to whatever decision my partner makes the second we have sex since it's not my body we're dealing with. It's fairly simple, if you aren't prepared to have a child, you either use protection or you abstain from sex. If you choose to ignore that reality, then you man the fuck up and deal with the consequences of your decision.
MRAs don't like to discuss these things with their girlfriends. That would involve treating women as equals.
That would involve having a girlfriend.
My mom brings down my hot pockets down to the basement occasionally.
sometimes i talk to her too.
No matter how long you talk about it, the fact remains that women rightfully cannot be forced into parenthood by men, but women can force men into parenthood. It's like discussing with someone who can legally shoot you that they shouldn't do it for moral reasons.
Such an extreme imbalance of power does justify dishonest behavior like OP's in the linked thread, what other choice did he have?
Child support is not there to reward the mother. It's there to take care of the child, who is innocent in all of this. Society has decided that that's the way it wants to try and make sure that children grow up healthy, which is in the best interest of society.
Arguments for abortion have nothing to do with escaping parenthood and everything to do with allowing people to do what they want to their own bodies. Bodily integrity.
MRA do in a way acknowledge that it has to do with allowing people to do what they want to their own bodies as evidenced by calling child support and unwanted pregancies "financial rape" and "spermjacking". It's just that they can't separate the issues entirely. Which is a problem because you run into the implication that a women's control over her body = man's control over his money. Which is a horrific reasoning that no legislature or judge would ever touch with a 100 - foot pole for fear of that Pandora's Box
Are you really too young to remember that the notion that sex wasnt consent to parenthood was a common one when fighting for abortion rights? It was a campaign slogan for fuck sake.
Legal arguments =\= campaign slogans.
Correct, but those slogans swayed public opinion and ultimately the court decision. Not to mention that the logc applied then still holds true. And that your statement has just been shown to be wrong.
"Consent" doesn't change the fact that you have a kid who needs to be taken care of.
Seems to apply to women with abortion and safe haven laws. But you already knew that and just wanted to get a comment in.
Also, I was pointing out that escaping parenthood was in fact tied to the resulting abortion ruling. Meaning the notion is already validated.
You're child doesn't exist when you get an abortion. That's why you don't have to take care of it.
Safe haven laws are basically equal in terms of gender. A mother couldn't give a away her child if the father protested and vis versa. No man-hating there either.
Yes, abortion is tied to parenthood as in when you get an abortion, you're not a parent and therefore, no one needs to take care of a child.
As already pointed out, financial abortion would also occur before birth, when no child existed.
And I'm glad you recognize that we already have circumstances that let someone forgo financial responsibility. Time to extend that so men are on par with women.
A financial abortion doesn't change the fact that the child exists.
There is no circumstance that lets women "forgo responsibility". You don't have a responsibility to a child when you don't have a child. The responsibility doesn't exist because the child doesn't exist.
Yes it does because it happens before birth. If the women chooses to give birth after that then it is her responsibility.
You literally just gave one...safe haven laws.
>Arguments for abortion have nothing to do with escaping parenthood and everything to do with allowing people to do what they want to their own bodies. Bodily integrity.
It's not nearly that simple. The fetus is not the mother's body(not even the placenta, which comes from the trophoplast developed from the blastocyst) . It is the resources of the mother's body that sustain the fetus that is the mother's body, but that raises several questions then.
Is one, upon creating dependence for those resources(e.g. the fetus is innocent of its independence), allowed to suspend those resources?
Are the two parents equally complicit in creating that dependency? If the woman has unilateral control over whether a fetus becomes a child, then while the father might have a responsibility to ensure the mother is sufficiently nourished while pregnant via an obligation to the fetus, the father has not created the dependency of a child with equal complicity, so what degree of responsibility does he have to sustaining a child?
If it is the resources over which one has control over the use of, and when those resources are the result of physiological impact on one's body, why labor not also fit into this?
The answers to these questions are not easy, unless of course you start off with conclusions a priori and just disregard anything else as bigoted.
Are you actually equating a dude's wallet with a woman's body? Seriously, give that reasoning up it will never fucking fly in any political context.
It's a philosophical set of queries, not a political debate where feelings are all that matters.
I'm equating labor and the impact on one's body to labor and impact on one's body, and the consequences of each.
IE. My money = women's body. Seriously, under all that misdirection this is what you are saying.
Do you disagree that labor has an impact on one's body, and imposing an obligation of labor with the threat of force necessitates forcing an impact on one's body?
Your objection seems to be the conclusion, however unsettling it might be, and not the premises or the argument.
You are trying the make the argument that making someone pay for something is the same as someone choosing what to do with their body. NO. That is a Pandora's can of worms that no.
If "labor has an impact on one's body, imposing an obligation of labor with the threat of force necessitates forcing an impact on one's body" is true then that means that I can shoot someone and pay enough money and it'll all be ok. The government at least pretends society isn't like that.
> You are trying the make the argument that making someone pay for something is the same as someone choosing what to do with their body. NO. That is a Pandora's can of worms that no.
No it would be the same as forcing someone to do something with their body, whether is gestate a fetus or work.
It's not a power imbalance... It's biology
The moment a man can have sex with a woman, fall pregnant HIMSELF, and then decide that he does not want to undergo an abortion, he can "force the woman into parenthood" all he likes.
"Mong" is a horribly offensive term for someone with Down syndrome.
Oh I wasn't aware it referred to that. Apologies, removed
> sigmalays1 comment score below threshold (35 children)
I got so excited when I saw this.
> an extreme imbalance of power
What? I just.... wait, what?
Unless the dude's sperm was stolen through some nefarious extraction process, I'm inclined to think that a guy who impregnates a woman is responsible for all the consequences. Consensual sex is a mutual agreement between two parties. There is no imbalance whatsoever, let alone an extreme one...
It's not what that guy is talking about, but there have been cases where guys who were raped had to pay child support to their rapists.
Just to show how fucked the system can be, there are also women who became pregnant through rape who have been forced by the courts to allow their rapists visitation with their children.
Oh I hadn't heard of that but that sounds awful. For her obviously but the kid too has to face that.
>there are also women who became pregnant through rape who have been forced by the courts to allow their rapists visitation with their children.
I have yet to hear a case of that occurring, only claims it could occur under the law.
Homosexuality is technically illegal in Singapore but it's a law that's basically never enforced.
Do a quick google search and you will find dozens of stories about this. It absolutely happens.
All I'm finding is articles saying "laws allow this to happen in X states".
http://www.businessinsider.com/rape-victim-sues-state-of-massachusetts-2013-8
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209258/Familys-outrage-girls-rapist-seeks-paternal-visitation-rights-child.html
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/397858-over-30-states-allow-rapists-to-sue-their-female-victims-for-custody-and-visitation-rights/
No ruling. They're just seeking visitation.
Same thing.
Same thing.
Same thing.
Like I said, I don't know of any case where the rapist actually got visitation rights. One would think that if they did, we'd see more than articles about them seeking it.
What the law allows to people to seek does not tell you what actually happens, and so far all evidence suggests any rapists while being allowed to seek visitation are not granted it.
I understand, that's why I put the qualifiers there. You're absolutely right...
care to cite a source on that because I don't believe you.
not that i'm calling you a liar, that's just an absurd situation and i want to feel worse about humanity.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/08/16/janecrane.ARTART08-16-08B1T0B1RSR.html
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/he-says-he-said-no-to-sex-now-says-no-to-child-support/1183449
That one isn't great, as she wasn't convicted, but it mentions a few other cases and is full of victim blaming and dismissal, more useful to demonstrate general attitudes.
More broadly, a case in Kansas decided this: "We conclude that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity."
that's crazy.
I mean, I can see the logic in cases of statutory rape because even if we can argue that they can't consent, there is an element of equality in that an underaged girl can get pregnant and have to deal with the ramifications so an underage boy has to deal with the ramifications of their sex too, even if they can't consent to sex.
but forcible rape? i can see why the court might rule that way without a conviction but it's so wrong.
Well, I don't know about that. That seems like it's forcing a burden onto underage boys simply because it happens to girls, which isn't really fair to the individuals. It'd have to be case by case, 19 and 16 is a lot different from 20 and 12.
I just feel really bad for the guy. Not only being raped, which is terrible, but also having to pay for it and treated with barely veiled contempt in the newspaper.
I agree it should be on a case by case basis though i think for a 16 and 20 situation, the 16 year old should be forced to pay child support because at that age you know that sex can lead to babies. I don't think statutory rape's conception of consent was meant to allow people to get out of all of the consequences of sex.
but yeah what happened to that other guy is awful.
>Unless the dude's sperm was stolen through some nefarious extraction process, I'm inclined to think that a guy who impregnates a woman is responsible for all the consequences.
now if i were to say that in regards to women as an argument for not alowing abortions i'm suddenly a misogynist so obviously it's not that simple.
what you think all women who have an abortion had got the sperm in their vagina against their will? where's their need to be responsible for their consequnces?
consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.
>what you think all women who have an abortion had got the sperm in their vagina against their will?
Where the fuck did I say that? Seriously, I want you to show me.
I'm saying that if I dude blows his load in a girl (which is how babies are made) then he needs to accept responsibility for everything that comes afterward.
I can't believe I have to fucking explain this...
Your last argument was used to justify arguments against abortion. I can't believe I have to fucking explain this...
Abortion isn't a good thing. It should be the absolute last resort. If you ever meet anyone who is for abortion then they need their head examined.
But that doesn't change the fact that people should retain their right to choose....
and i'm saying that if girl let's a dude blow a load in her she needs to accept responsibility for all that comes afterward.
but that makes me a misogynist aparently.
No, it makes you an idiot. You're saying one person should be solely responsible for the actions of two people.
Unless the dude's sperm was stolen through some nefarious extraction process, I'm inclined to think that a guy who impregnates a woman is responsible for all the consequences.
i wasn't the one saying that one person(the man) should be responsible for the actions of 2 people.
i was the one pointing out the outrage if you held a woman to the same standard as a man.
i have litterally been copy pasting the argument i reply to and changing the genders.
you people seem to have a very low regard of women.
Your comment pretty heavily implied you think the woman should be responsible.
Personally I think it shouldn't be a one-or-the-other argument, it should be on both of them. I don't see how that's having a low regard for women.
>Your comment pretty heavily implied you think the woman should be responsible.
i see you find context hard.
when i litterally copy paste and argument and say reversing the gender would make people froth at the mouth i'm not exactly suggesting i find the opposite argument valid i'm saying the original stance god damn stupid.
i also notice you didn't actually have this problem with the person who ACTUALLY said what you acussed me of saying despite them being higher on the list and not downvoted.
i'll ask again if not having sex is a good enough solution for men why isn't it for women?
> now if i were to say that in regards to women as an argument for not alowing abortions
Getting an abortion is one of consequences of sex that women face....
fleeing the country to avoid paying child support is one of the consequnces of sex that men face.
simple yes or no question: is consent to sex consent to parenthood?
if not having sex unless you are ready to be parent is a perfectly viable option for men i don't see why it shouldn't be for women... or maybe you don't think women could handle that kind of responsibility?
Lol I'm not even going to respond to your ridiculous statements.
they are your staments.
i'm sorry you feel your own arguments are ridiculous though i can't say i disagree.
P.S. if this wasn't a response i'm not sure what is.
maybe the next time you aren't going to respond just don't comment?
Fleeing the country isn't a consequence, that's a scummy way out.
I actually agree that parenthood is a very complicated situation. Ultimately though, two people are equally responsible for the child (obviously excluding rape situations) and this child is the focus of CHILD support rules, even if one party did not want a child unfortunately they cannot control the other party and therefore the state ensures the child is protected. I think you're simplifying the issue down to the two parents which doesn't quite work. I do understand what you're saying.
Basically what this comes down to is these guys want to legalize being a deadbeat dad.
I really can't figure out how this is really a defensible thing legally or morally.
And this is ultimately why this isn't an issue worth arguing over. Financial abortion has less of a chance of becoming law than legalized pedophilia. No one in politics wants to be the first sponsor of the "legalizing deadbeat dads" bill.
Because they're trying ever so hard to dismantle the sexist idea that men are poor caregivers and uninterested fathers... by supporting deadbeats.
>Fleeing the country isn't a consequence, that's a scummy way out.
Having an abortion isn't a consequence, that's a scummy way out.
>I think you're simplifying the issue down to the two parents which doesn't quite work. I do understand what you're saying.
i think you are oversimplifying this into an issue where 2 parents are a must to raise a child.
does a child have a right to be supported by 2 parents? and if yes do you support removing children of single parents because of for instance parental death?
my point never was that abortion should be banned. it was that the original comment that i replied to was bad.
>simple yes or no question: is consent to sex consent to parenthood?
Its entirely dependent on the sex of the person. Is it consent to parenthood for women? No. For men? Yes.
I don't see why you MRAs can't get that through your thick fucking skulls.
So by your logic, women should not get abortions ever because she is also responsible for all the consequences of sex.
Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility for the consequence of sex...
In the same way killing your bookie is taking responsibility for gambling debts.
If your bookie is a fetus or otherwise non-person I really have to wonder about your personal life.
Especially if he is in a large amount of debt to this fetus.
And this bookie literally lives inside his body.
I have to really wonder why so many people think analogies are direct comparisons and are not simply a means of illustrating a concept.
Except you know your analogies are nonsensical.
Alright, what makes them nonsensical?
So murdering a fetus is the same as murdering an adult human born decades ago?
No, it's the same in different respects:
Gambling doesn't guarantee a certain result, but is still voluntary.
Sometimes it doesn't go the way you want it, and you have debts/responsibilities to another.
Oh,I see. Biotroofs only matter when they're to the man's advantage.
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.
Well yeah. Abortions are terrible things. They represent a failure to exercise good judgment*. You think abortions are acceptable? Really?
If the man and woman agree that the fetus should be aborted, then that's fine, the choice is theirs. But that doesn't change the fact that they both acted irresponsibly and they are ending what would be a human life.
Abortion is a tragedy for everyone involved...
EDIT: * In most cases. There are, obviously, situations that are much more complex. I didn't mean to sound insensitive...
Hey, despite being uncomfortable for a few days afterwards my abortion was definitely not a tragedy.
Condom failed, became pregnant, booked abortion, had abortion. A matter of weeks. My life went on, and any pain dissipated in hours, emotional and physical. I didn't force a child into the world that wouldn't have been properly supported.
Maybe not typical, but certainly no tragedy.
Like I said in my edit, some situations are more complex, and I'm sorry if I came across as insensitive or judgmental...
>Like I said in my edit, some situations are more complex, and I'm sorry if I came across as insensitive or judgmental...
The thing is, ALL situations are complex and nuanced when it comes to medical procedures. We can't throw judgement on something that an adult and their medical professionals decide on (which, with a typical abortion, you see no less than 3 doctors, 2 nurses, and have a mental health evaluation).
Coming out and saying that irresponsibility leads to abortions in most cases ignores the fact that more sex education reduces abortions, enormously.
IF abortions were simply caused by being irresponsible and callous, why would more information reduce the amount of them? Perhaps because most people don't want to be irresponsible, and if given the chance (and knowledge and tools to know the right thing) choose the right choice?
For me it basically boils down to this:
Abortion is a horrific event in a person's life, and even in light of the fact that a woman absolutely deserves the right to terminate a pregnancy, and should have the resources readily available for her to do so, it should still be looked upon with the stigma and seriousness it deserves (though a woman should never be shamed for making that choice, I'm just saying that it needs to be treated as very serious thing that needs to be avoided whenever possible). There are no "good abortions", and nobody in their mind should ever be "for abortion".
This stigma should serve more as a deterrent, yet the fact is that still many women still get pregnant through unsafe sex, despite the fact that they're educated about how perilous and destructive the consequences can be. To me that represents a failure in judgment by both parties, male and female, and yes, it's irresponsible.
Again, there are certainly exceptions to this, as I indicated in my previous comments. Things like rape and and condom failure do exist and that mitigates things quite a bit. But if a couple engages in unsafe sex, knowing full well what could happen if they do, and if a fetus's life is ended because of it, that's a preventable tragedy brought on by callousness and lack of responsibility. I just don't see how it could be viewed any other way....
Edit: Added caveat in first paragraph...
>Unless the dude's sperm was stolen through some nefarious extraction process, I'm inclined to think that a guy who impregnates a woman is responsible for all the consequences. Consensual sex is a mutual agreement between two parties. There is no imbalance whatsoever, let alone an extreme one...
How about an analogy:
You give someone $1000 as a gift for their birthday, and they go use that as part of a down payment on a car, a contract for which you neither explicitly consented to nor signed after the fact and because of nonzero complicity, you're forced by law to help pay all the car payments, maintenance of the car, and insurance premiums for the car.
Sounds like a huge imbalance of power when who is determining who is responsible for what.
Except that a) buying a car doesn't involve a life-threatening medical procedure, b) once the car is bought, the worst thing that can happen is it gets rusty and c) if the car stops working or you stop taking care of the car, no one dies or does without food.
You guys really need to stop, look at some money, then look at some human beings and realize that, yes, one is more important than the other. If someone steals your purse, you can't murder them. I'm sorry, these things just aren't equatable.
Analogies are for illustrating what is in common with two things.
Pointing out how they're different isn't sufficient to invalidate an analogy.
>You guys really need to stop, look at some money, then look at some human beings and realize that, yes, one is more important than the other
>If someone steals your purse, you can't murder them.
If you're morally or legally barred in some way from stopping someone from taking or destroying your property, you functionally don't own it.
>I'm sorry, these things just aren't equatable.
Analogies aren't direct comparisons. No analogy uses truly equatable things because they're just rhetorical devices to illustrate a concept. By your logic no analogy is valid.
>a) buying a car doesn't involve a life-threatening medical procedure
Carrying to term and giving birth is about 4 times more dangerous than an abortion before week 12.
So you can stick that argument back up your
>If someone steals your purse, you can't murder them.
Only anti-abortionists are advocating murder. There are hundreds of thousands couples who can't have children and want to adopt a baby.
If a woman is pregnant, but doesn't want to be a mother unless she can force the guy to take responsibility for her decision against his will, and she also doesn't want an abortion, she can easily give it to a happy adoptive two-parent home.
Carrying to term is dangerous, that is why its a great thing that women can have the choice to instead have an abortion, which goes against your last sentence...because bringing to term a fetus just to adopt out can still be a dangerous thing to do physically.
Oh dear lord.
A baby is not a car.
Oh dear lord, an analogy is not a direct comparison.
The choice to be an adult without being a douchebag?
so if a guy lies about wearing a condom and gets a woman pregnant when she doesn't want kids and he does, she then has an abortion, you think she's the douchebag?
no in that case the guy would be the douchebag, and in linked OP's story the girl is the douchebag.
What, you mean that story where the girlfriend aborts a fetus that she wanted to keep at the behest of a boyfriend who, unbeknownst to her, plans to break up with her? That's a story that you think the girlfriend is the douchebag in?
Nope. Neither is. It's not really her fault personally, it's the system -- men's wishes don't matter.
Is what the guy did immoral? Under different circumstances it would be.
But given the cultural and legal environment, it's more like self-defense. Like lying to someone who's holding a gun to your head.
Bullshit. She had a right to make a decision about her own body and mental health with all the information present, and he denied her that. Abortion is an incredibly traumatic decision for some women, and those who initially wanted to keep the baby or have mixed feelings are more likely to have mental health issues after the procedure. She expects to have the support system that her 4 year relationship provided to help her through the pain of aborting a fetus that she wanted, and he knows that she won't have that and is manipulating her love for him to rid himself of the 'problem.' Assuming that OP isn't a troll (and I'd like to believe that he is,) saying 'I know you want this baby, but I don't, and regardless of your decision I will be leaving you in case this happens again' would give the girlfriend the chance to make an informed choice, and if she chose to keep it and OP still wanted to shirk his responsibilities he could slink off to another country like he'd planned to do initially and not leave a woman who he'd supposedly loved for years in bits.
much love that is, where she tries to force him to be a father against his will...
Also, do you agree women are fit for leadership roles? Then stop infantilizing them, turning them into helpless puddles of hormones whenever it's convenient.
> much love that is, where she tries to force him to be a father against his will...
She didn't do anything like that. Have you even read the initial post? She. Had. The. Abortion. No forcing of the paternal role was done. She loved him enough she aborted a fetus she wanted because he asked her to.
> Also, do you agree women are fit for leadership roles? Then stop infantilizing them, turning them into helpless puddles of hormones whenever it's convenient.
I don't see how recognising a traumatic experience for what it is is infantilization. I've been through some horrible experiences and appreciate when people recognize them as such, and while as a man I'm lucky enough not to have to live through something like this I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say realizing that you aborted a fetus that you wanted for a man who was planning on leaving you all along is a pretty fucking horrible experience.
At the moment, you're raging about the fact that if she'd had the baby (which she didn't) she could have sued him for child support (which might not have even happened) and that, if she did, he might have had to provide it, which you consider some kind of terrible evil and I do not. I consider paying child support when you are the non-custodial parent a bare minimum standard for being a decent person, provided that you have the means to do so and weren't sexually assaulted by the custodial parent, and since you so obviously vehemently disagree there's not really much point in continuing this argument.
ok, in that case he is a dick.
Sounds to me like you just think women are in the wrong no matter what they do.
what? In my above example the guy would have been the douche bag.
So sorry that I'm pro-consent.
You said that in OP's story the woman was the douchebag. For agreeing to have an abortion she didn't want to for a guy who is now going to dump her anyway.
Did she deceive the guy?
Serious question: I was under the impression men could sign away their parental rights and have nothing to do with the baby if they so choose. What am I missing here?
That is generally not true. A lot of Men's Right's Activists fight for things like more domestic violence shelters for men or for men to be accepted in traditionally female professions and roles, like nursing and parenthood.
But there is a small but loud subset of people who call themselves MRA's but who really, really like talking about "Financial Abortion." To them, it seems that the only issue is that women are having babies and forcing them to give them money. As if the women are living high on the hog, never doing a day's work, just watching the cash roll in...
This cannot be, however, because the state has an interest in enforcing the needs of the child. Both women and men pay child support to the custodial parent, although it has been more common that men pay than women, because women are more often the custodial parent.
Oh, that makes sense. I was thinking after I posted that terminating parental rights would probably be more common if it also cancelled child support. Ugh. This is all so ugly and complicated. It's a shame some men's rights folks have to be so contentious toward women, because, like you mentioned, there are a lot of areas in our society men need help negotiating. And, obviously the child support system needs fixing. But acting like a victim when you're a grown adult who made a decision to have sex with someone without considering the consequences of them getting pregnant doesn't seem to be benefiting anyone.
That is in no way being contentious toward women. The ability to not become a parent until you choose to is very importantfor men and women and there's good reason its a cause MRA's support.
I agree with you in theory. I mean in practice, most of what I've read about it or heard in conversation has been hateful and seemed more centered on punishing women who are just trying to "trap" men. Believe me, as someone who spent a lifetime listening to parents at each other's throats over support, I'd rather my dad had just opted out of being my legal parent. He actually had the chance to (my stepfather wanted to adopt me) but refused out of spite (we've never been close and I actually haven't had a phone number or address for him in the past ten years). All of this was to antagonize my mother, who in turn antagonized me. I'm saying, I wish people would focus on their children when making and discussing these decisions, as opposed to viewing it as a Man Vs Woman War of the Roses type bullshit.
I'm sorry that was the environment you were raised in.
It's difficult because many of us are trying to think of the child, but we're not prepared to just forget the man's desires in this whole thing either. If, for example, financial abortions existed back then, your dad could have opted for one and there would have been no reason for him to act spiteful and begrudgingly stay in your life. All parties would have bee better off.
Yes, I agree it would have been better since he obviously wasn't cut out to be a parent, but that doesn't excuse bad behavior. Even if you don't like the system, or even if the system is objectively wrong, you should still conduct yourself as an adult human with dignity, which includes having empathy for everyone involved: mother, father and child. I think that's missing from most of these discussions.
I dont know. I think the empathy is there, but we're here to discuss real change. At some point empathy is overtaken by that.
Funny part is that financial abortion was first proposed by a feminist lawyer by the name of Karen DeCrow in the 90s.
Huh - reading up on her, she was a pretty cool lady. The kind of woman who had a really clear view of things.
In case anyone else is interested.
Karen DeCrow
Article at The Atlantic
I think that needs to be mentioned more often.
Child support is still required. One cannot sign away those responsibilities.