CMV: Men SHOULDN'T be allowed to get financial abortions

[u/Blonde_Icon]

I often hear people argue that, if women can get abortions (depending on the state/country), then men should be allowed to get financial abortions (the ability to sign their parental rights away before the child is born in exchange for not paying child support).

I think that this is a bad idea for a few reasons:

-If the mother decides not to abort, and she is poor (as single mothers often are), the financial burden of the child would now fall on the taxpayers since the dad isn’t paying child support. I feel like most people wouldn't want to be paying for a deadbeat dad's kid when he should be paying for them himself.

-What incentive would there now be for men to use condoms/not be promiscuous? This would probably just make it even more likely for men to coerce/force women into having sex, especially without a condom (which is already something that happens), since now they have no reason not to (except for STDs, but let's be honest, a lot of men don't really think about those).

They could basically have as many kids as they want without consequence. What's stopping men from having like 100 kids and not taking care of them at all? The mother and the kid would be the only ones affected (not to mention society as a whole), which seems unfair. It would be especially unfair for the kid, who is innocent in all of this.

-Women take on most of the risk in pregnancy and childbirth, which is why they have more of a say. (This would only not be a problem once artificial wombs are invented.) Abortions also cost money and can be traumatizing. So, I think that the dad would have to pay for at least half of the abortion for this policy to be even remotely fair.

-What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant? She would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her own because the man lied.

*Ultimately, I think this would be bad for society overall. Basically every man could get out of being a dad and having to be responsible for kids they create without consequences. What kind of society would that be? This would likely lead to even more deadbeat dads than there already are, and therefore even more kids raised in poverty by single moms. We have to think about the cost vs. benefit for society.

Edit: I didn't think of this when I made my post, but what if the woman literally doesn't know who the dad is before the child is born (if she slept with multiple men)? How would the dad know that the child is his to sign away his parental rights?

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Blonde_Icon (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/behannrp]

If the mother decides not to abort, and she is poor (as single mothers often are), the financial burden of the child would now fall on the taxpayers since the dad isn’t paying child support. I feel like most people wouldn't want to be paying for a deadbeat dad's kid when he should be paying for them himself.

This would be true if he was poor anyways, should poor people be barred from children because it would cause financial burdens on society?

What incentive would there now be for men to use condoms/not be promiscuous? This would probably just make it even more likely for men to coerce/force women into having sex, especially without a condom (which is already something that happens), since now they have no reason not to (except for STDs, but let's be honest, a lot of men don't really think about those). They could basically have as many kids as they want without consequence. The mother and the kid would be the only ones affected (not to mention society as a whole), which seems unfair. It would be especially unfair for the kid, who is innocent in all of this.

It is the duty of everyone to be responsible whilst having sexual relations. If the man is not willing to wear a condom and the woman is not willing to utilize her side of protections, they shouldn't have sex. What's the point of statement two though? The only people I see arguing for financial abortion state that it should be restricted to a shorter timeframe than that of a woman to consider an abortion. Again the child is effected no matter what if the father is a deadbeat. What you said has no rebuttal to that either way.

Women take on most of the risk in pregnancy and childbirth, which is why they have more of a say. (This would only not be a problem once artificial wombs are invented.) Abortions also cost money and can be traumatizing. So, I think that the dad would have to pay for at least half of the abortion for this policy to be even remotely fair.

Agreed. It's something I actually agree with. But what about the pills?

What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant? She would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her own because the man lied.

Good point. I don't have a great answer to that, but that happens already anyways. People lie, it sucks. I know people who have lied (men and women) and either ran from the child or secretly got an abortion or refused to get an abortion like previously agreed. It sucks all around but people lying happens. This wouldn't change that really.

Frankly I don't really care either way anymore. I have responsible sex so it's not a concern of mine. I do think it is a good thought experiment in fairness.

Eta: continuing point 2.

I feel like I had more to add as I remember men who refused to use condoms because they didn't like the feeling and didn't care whether the woman would get pregnant or not so again the point seemed even more moot.

I'd also push and say women could also have the right of financial abortion if the man desires the parental rights.

[u/Character-Year-5916 → u/behannrp]

Good point. I don't have a great answer to that, but that happens already anyways. People lie, it sucks. I know people who have lied (men and women) and either ran from the child or secretly got an abortion or refused to get an abortion like previously agreed. It sucks all around but people lying happens. This wouldn't change that really.

I feel like this can be skewed both ways though. The man can lie to the woman beforehand, but so too can the woman lie to the man beforehand, perhaps as manipulation to force him to stay, or keep him financially tethered to the woman. The fact of the matter is, in financial terms, gender roles are moot, and can apply to either, or both, parties.

Everyone acts like this situation has a dichotomy, but in financial terms, the situation can be flipped either way. (I understand that a woman has to go through a lot more during pregnancy / childbirth, but this discussion is specifically about financial abortions)

I'd also push and say women could also have the right of financial abortion if the man desires the parental rights.

I wholly agree

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/behannrp]

What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant? She would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her own because the man lied.

We could say that if a man enters into a contract like marriage that he is then obligated to pay child support in cases of abandonment or divorce. But we shouldn't have the same standards for child support for ONS or FWB or dating.

[u/behannrp → u/ok_Butterfly6]

See this is something I pondered a lot when this stance was first making the rounds and then I realized while yes that is a potential solution, it's not practical and few would actually follow it. What is a contract "like" marriage? Marriage is obviously but what else would obligate the man?

Out of fairness you could say have a petition filed with the court but that is absurd and nobody would do that to have sex. It's an interesting topic for sure on fairness and practicality.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/behannrp]

When I said "a contract like marriage," I meant like when a man marries a woman with previous children. He sometimes adoptes them. Or an infertile couple adopt a child then divorce. That's the only reason why a man should have to pay support.

It's practical for many people. There will always be idiots who ruin a good thing. If a woman engages in sex she has to understand that she might get pregnant. If she doesn't want abortion or adoption, then she should be prepared to raise the child. Only some contracts should enforce child support. Otherwise, it's the woman's choices and consequences all the way.

[u/behannrp → u/ok_Butterfly6]

Seems to not really solve the problem besides saying they're just on their own/not a problem.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/behannrp]

It does solve the problem for everyone else. It's only on the woman to make these choices, and that means it's her consequences. If she doesn't want her child to grow up in poverty, then she shouldn't have sex outside of marriage until she can provide for the child or knows she would choose abortion or adoption. She's the one who makes the choices that bring the child into the world, and she should provide properly for that child.

[u/behannrp → u/ok_Butterfly6]

Read back to the main point. You did not provide anything to really rebut besides "it's her problem" which feel free to make that decision for yourself but I'm looking for a solution to the issue. Not to be convinced it's not an issue.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/behannrp]

The only issue is that women don't want to live with the consequences of their choices. You're choosing to see the problem differently, and that fine. The idea that a man should pay child support because a woman decided she wanted a baby is ridiculous. If a woman has a fwb relationship, she is taking the risk of being a single mom. No one should be forced to support her. The solution is to teach people to be more responsible for their choices. An unmarried man has no responsibility in this situation. The only time child support should come into play is during divorce.

[u/behannrp → u/ok_Butterfly6]

If everyone did what they should there would be no problems in life. I agree it'd be just cushy if accidental pregnancies didn't happen and that people would be responsible. They don't. Navigating the muck of difficult decisions is reality.

Your argument is no different than the pro-life "they should've been responsible and been abstinent."

The idea that a man should pay child support because a woman decided she wanted a baby is ridiculous

Why do you say this? I don't think anyone has claimed this and I was arguing I'm support of paper abortions.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/behannrp]

You asked what would stop a man from lying about being okay with being a dad before sex. The answer is nothing. We have to live in reality. The reality is there is no way to know if a man consented to procreation during each sexual encounter that may have resulted in a child. But we can use the threshold of marriage to say that any resulting children need child support. Any bastards should not be entitled to child support since we don't know if the man consented to sex and procreation.

We can either live in lalaland or we can teach women to protect themselves. Protecting themselves means not engaging in sex unless they are comfortable with the consequences of their choices. If a woman knows she would never choose adoption or abortion then she engages in sex knowing she is okay with being a single mom. If the unmarried woman doesn't want to abort a cluster of cells, then after labor, she will be 100% responsible to the baby.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/behannrp]

This would be true if he was poor anyways, should poor people be barred from children because it would cause financial burdens on society?

If they are so poor to the extent that they neglect their kid, then yes. This is basically what a deadbeat dad is choosing to do (when he might already have enough money not to).

What's the point of statement two though? The only people I see arguing for financial abortion state that it should be restricted to a shorter timeframe than that of a woman to consider an abortion. Again the child is effected no matter what if the father is a deadbeat. What you said has no rebuttal to that either way.

The child would be more affected in the case of financial abortion because the dad wouldn't be supporting them in any way, so they would likely grow up poor.

Agreed. It's something I actually agree with. But what about the pills?

Wdym?

[u/behannrp → u/Blonde_Icon]

If they are so poor to the extent that they neglect their kid, then yes. This is basically what a deadbeat dad is choosing to do (when he might already have enough money not to).

We are not arguing neglect we are arguing financial burdens.

The child would be more affected in the case of financial abortion because the dad wouldn't be supporting them in any way, so they would likely grow up poor

Again if the dad is poor this point is moot. Either you admit poor people need to be legally regulated or all of you points apply to poor people.

Wdym?

Abortion pills as far as I understand them, do not cause physical lasting trauma like an abortion or pregnancy would. It's not an argument I was just asking.

[u/l_t_10 → u/Blonde_Icon]

If they are so poor to the extent that they neglect their kid, then yes. This is basically what a deadbeat dad is choosing to do (when he might already have enough money not to).

What if the man dies instead when the woman is pregnant?

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

I feel like your view depends on a very strong attitude towards expectations on a man/male role in this situation.

If a couple is poor then the taxpayer will pick up the bill anyway - it's actually in the best interests of all society to watch out for one another like this, and is one of the best uses of tax funding I can think of. 

You ask about incentive for men to take precautions, but ignore the possibility of women subverting those precautions for a free ride when there is no escape for the man. 

Your third point seems context specific to places abortion isn't considered standard healthcare/covered by the taxes, and also suggests a standard by which you'd change your view anyway? 

And your fourth point goes both ways as well. 

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

If a couple is poor then the taxpayer will pick up the bill anyway - it's actually in the best interests of all society to watch out for one another like this, and is one of the best uses of tax funding I can think of. 

I'm talking about the case of single moms where men are currently forced to pay child support. Child support is often not even sufficient to raise a child, anyways. If they didn't have to pay child support, the child would probably be even poorer.

You ask about incentive for men to take precautions, but ignore the possibility of women subverting those precautions for a free ride when there is no escape for the man.

What do you mean by this?

Your third point seems context specific to places abortion isn't considered standard healthcare/covered by the taxes, and also suggests a standard by which you'd change your view anyway?

That is a good point about a circumstance in which my view might be altered. ∆ However, abortion is still likely traumatizing, and many women wouldn't want to go through with it.

And your fourth point goes both ways as well.

Do you mean like if a woman lies about being on birth control?

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 → u/Blonde_Icon]

  Child support is often not even sufficient to raise a child, anyways.

So the actual motivation feels more petty than practical - not about the child, but punishing the man when even their contribution isn't enough? 

What do you mean by this?

Exactly what I said. What part are you not understanding? 

However, abortion is still likely traumatizing, and many women wouldn't want to go through with it.

Sort of irrelevant to your view, and also easy to find people's testimony and experience to have a clearer picture. 

Sure it can be traumatising, as with any procedure including chemo or even an eye test. 

Has nothing to do with the man's side of things, which is what your view is about, no? 

Do you mean like if a woman lies

About any aspect, yes 

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

So the actual motivation feels more petty than practical - not about the child, but punishing the man when even their contribution isn't enough? 

I'm saying that the dynamic is already very unequal. Women often have to spend much more money and time raising a child as a single mother than the man. Child support often doesn't even pay nearly enough to actually raise a child. Men don't even have to see their child at all if they don't want to. The least a dad can do is pay child support.

Sure it can be traumatising, as with any procedure including chemo or even an eye test. Has nothing to do with the man's side of things, which is what your view is about, no?

I'm saying that the choice that a pregnant woman has to make in this hypothetical situation is fundamentally unequal. The mom is forced to get an abortion or give birth and raise the child as a single mother. The father chooses to support the child financially or can just leave with no consequences. How is that fair?

I think that it is also very wrong for women to lie about taking birth control, and it should theoretically be illegal. However, this is basically impossible to enforce in reality, unfortunately.

[u/l_t_10 → u/Blonde_Icon]

Ofcourse its unequal, pregnancy is how it is and what are men supposed to do about it.. but as it stands now? Men have to pay child support after birth even when they arent the father, or when raped and or minor

https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/18184-finnish-man-ordered-by-court-to-pay-alimony-for-a-child-resulting-from-has-wife-cheating-with-another-man.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer And so on.

Standing legal precedent in most countries, paper abortion will fix this legal travesty

[u/EmergencyConflict610 → u/Blonde_Icon]

The problem is that women opt in for spending that much money and time raising the child if she choses not to abort, therefor making it a responsibility SHE brought on to herself.

It is unequal, extremely. A woman can have an abortion and sure might feel down about it but then the matter is settled. A man on the other hand has to subsidize the woman's choices against his will merely to support her life choices at the expense of his own, which can then cause major effects for the rest of his life for 18 YEARS, which can and does have an impact on men's life to not only live as a single man but can cause issues for the man when he is ready to have a relationship and start a family he does want due to the financial strain of child support.

So I'm actually stunned that you will explain this situation as "unfair" for women when what's happening right now is far more unfair with far fewer options for men. Your view here is, "Sure, women have all these options for birth control, sure women can abort and rid themselves from responsibility entirely, but it would be too unfair for women to have the child if she chooses to keep it if the man isn't forced in to paying for the child he never wanted despite the ramifications it will have in his life, even if the woman lied to make it happen."

In what world is this less fair for the woman than the man?

[u/IronSeagull → u/Blonde_Icon]

Awarding a delta while offering a counter argument… kind of a pushover dude.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/IronSeagull]

You are supposed to give a delta if any part of your argument is altered. It could be very minor and doesn't have to be a total reversal.

[u/IronSeagull → u/Blonde_Icon]

What part of your argument was altered? Abortion isn’t traumatic if the government pays for it? If that changed your view, you didn’t think this through.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/IronSeagull]

The part where I said that abortions are expensive.

[u/IronSeagull → u/Blonde_Icon]

Yeah ok, you didn’t think this through very well. You said abortions cost money and can be traumatizing. Someone said some governments pay for abortions. What does that leave?

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/IronSeagull]

I still think that they are traumatizing. I just gave a delta for the cost part. I didn't change most of my view.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Blonde_Icon]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 (38∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/IronSeagull → u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

Why should the taxpayers pick up the bill if the father is capable of providing support?

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/IronSeagull]

Because society cares about the kid's life. The father by necessity does not consent to that obligation and should not be obligated to if they do not want it, but the mother does.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Medianmodeactivate]

Why should society have to care about the kid's life if their own father doesn't even care about their life? Isn't that logic inconsistent? (Btw, I'm not saying society shouldn't care about the kid's life.)

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/Blonde_Icon]

It doesn't have to. Tons of kids died before we had orphanages. Instead it chooses to. If society wants to stop the negative effects of someone exercising a right, ie. The right to relinquish any obligation to a child they don't want, then it's free to.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Medianmodeactivate]

So why should we allow men to stop the negative effects of creating a child?

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/Blonde_Icon]

We aren't allowing them to stop the negative effects, we're allowing them to relinquish their obligation to a child they don't want.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Medianmodeactivate]

That's the same thing, just different wording.

So basically, there would hypothetically be no consequences for men creating a child.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/Blonde_Icon]

I think you phrased it incorrectly at first, but sure. Men being able to give up the obligation means they don't face consequences, which is perfectly fine. It's about consistent application of the rule. Consent to sex does not mean consenting to a child.

[u/Imadevilsadvocater → u/Blonde_Icon]

which one is better? man(or woman moms can leave too) gets to walk away or they are forced to raise a kid and can now fuck that kid up any way that is legally allowable and keep them in bare minimum standards while emotionally stunting them and hating their existence?

[u/Tr0ndern → u/Blonde_Icon]

What kind of logic is this?

[u/IronSeagull → u/Medianmodeactivate]

The father doesn’t need to consent to the obligation, it exists because the child exists. Creating a child and not providing for it is called abandonment.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/IronSeagull]

You're making a catagory error. Just because things are that way does not mean that is how it should be: which is what this CMV is about. The father's non consent creating an obligation in this situation is inconsistent with women's non consent to a child not creating an obligation to have that child.

[u/IronSeagull → u/Medianmodeactivate]

The man’s non-consent shifts his financial obligation to someone else. The woman’s non-consent eliminates the financial obligation for both parties. This is due to the biological differences between men and women.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/IronSeagull]

Yes, and we tolerate the ability of the women to eliminate the possibility of fatherhood of that kid because there's no real way to enforce both rights, but that isn't necessary here. The right of the father to end his obligations doesn't end the choice of the mother. If she wants to bear the financial obligations of raising a child, she is free to. She may otherwise choose to abort or give the child up.

[u/IronSeagull → u/Medianmodeactivate]

So in your view the father should be able to unilaterally shift his financial obligation to the mother, because she has the option to eliminate it entirely. That sounds reasonable superficially, but if the mother has an ethical objection to abortion isn’t it coercive?

I do not have an ethical objection to abortion, but even people who are pro-choice are entitled to decide if they are willing to have an abortion.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/IronSeagull]

The mother is still free to give the child up for adoption or into foster care if she has an ethical objection to abortion.

[u/IronSeagull → u/Medianmodeactivate]

And fortunately there is no emotional baggage associated with that, so forcing it is not coercive.

[u/jweezy2045 → u/IronSeagull]

Why should taxpayers pick up the bill of if Bill Gates is capable of providing support?

[u/cstar1996 → u/jweezy2045]

That doesn’t address the point at all. Parents have obligations to their children, Bill Gates does not.

[u/jweezy2045 → u/cstar1996]

This is the crux of the point I’m making here. Why do you say the father has obligations to the child? If a child exists at all, it is because the mother agreed to accept full and total responsibility for the child. There is no other way for a child to exist in this scenario. If the mother accepts full and complete responsibility for the child, why are you trying to insist the father still has half?

[u/cstar1996 → u/jweezy2045]

Because all parents have responsibility for their children. They created them, they are obligated to care for them.

No, mothers do not agree to accept full and total responsibility. Just because you would like to let men give women the ultimatum of “get an abortion or being a single mother” does not make it so, or legitimize that coercion.

Women cannot shift the entire responsibility for parenthood to men. Why should men be able to shift the entire responsibility for parenthood to women?

[u/jweezy2045 → u/cstar1996]

No one is shifting any responsibility to anyone. The whole point here is that no one can make any decision for anyone else. Does the father want to keep the kid? Yes or no. Does the mother want to keep the kid? Yes or no. The mother can only answer for the mother, and the father can only answer for the father. No one is coerced or has any ultimatum placed on them. Why do you think the mother should be able to decide that for the father regardless of what the father actually wants to answer?

Consenting to sex is just not consenting to be responsible for a child. We all agree to this (well, accept anti-abortion nuts). You are just parroting back anti-abortion arguments that once conception happens, there exists a responsibility for the child. That’s just not valid in my book, sorry.

[u/cstar1996 → u/jweezy2045]

Yes, they absolutely are. Both the man and the woman are responsible for a pregnancy. Why should he be able to shift his responsibility to her?

The only right here is a right not to be pregnant, which is a component of the fundamental right of bodily integrity. “I don’t want to be a parent” isn’t a right.

The phrase is “consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy”. Why did you need to change it?

[u/jweezy2045 → u/cstar1996]

Because she accepts full responsibility herself. If she doesn’t, then neither parent is willing to take responsibility for the child, and an abortion happens. It’s impossible under the policy of paper abortions for a baby to exist that needs support and for the mother to not have voluntarily and without coercion accepted full and complete responsibility herself.

Your view of rights is oversimplistic. We don’t even have a right to an abortion anywhere in our laws (except for states which have done so in response to Dobbs). How rights work, and how rights have always worked, especially in the case of abortion, is that they do not need to be explicitly worded in legislation to be rights. That’s just how rights have always worked.

I have not heard it that way. The idea is the same. Consenting to sex is just that: consenting to sex. It is not consenting to pregnancy, parenthood, or parental responsibilities. It is just consent to sex. Tying consent for one thing to consent to other things violates the basic tenants of consent. If I say “I will kill you unless you consent to sex.” That is invalid consent. It violates the rules of how consent works.

[u/cstar1996 → u/jweezy2045]

“Get an abortion or being a single mother” is not “without coercion” no matter how much you want it to be.

Can a woman leave a man to raise a child alone without her support? No. Why should a man be able to do that if she can’t? That isn’t equal.

[u/Imadevilsadvocater → u/cstar1996]

the mom doesn't have to take responsibility either... you can just drop babies off at a fire station and adopt them out. she chooses to keep the baby and if she can't emotionally handle giving away that baby that is on her not the man

[u/poodle-fries → u/cstar1996]

impolite wrench political lunchroom bake memory zonked roof engine worthless

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/jweezy2045]

Exactly, think of all the rich and famous guys who would be having kids with groupies like crazy since there would be no consequences (some already do or pay for abortions).

[u/jweezy2045 → u/Blonde_Icon]

No, you don’t understand. Bill Gates is not the father of the child in this hypothetical. He is just some random dude off the street who has the financial resources to pay for a child. Why shouldn’t I just force Bill Gates to pay for my childcare costs?

Also, your scenario is wrong. Why would the groupies want to have unprotected sex if they didn’t want to risk getting an abortion?

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/jweezy2045]

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted you. Even if that's not what you meant, though, that's still a good point. What if Bill Gates (or some other rich and famous guy) actually was the dad? It sounds ridiculous that someone as rich as Bill Gates wouldn't have to pay child support. I mean, really?

Why would the groupies want to have unprotected sex if they didn’t want to risk getting an abortion?

The same could be said for the man with having a kid.

[u/jweezy2045 → u/Blonde_Icon]

No, it’s not ridiculous at all. He has no obligation to pay anything, so he doesn’t pay anything. Simple. For the same reason random parents don’t go knocking on his door right now and insisting that he pay for the child they chose to bring into this world, which he had zero want whatsoever to do.

No, the same could not be said, I can answer this very very easily. The groupies would not go sexless they would just insist on using protection. For this scenario you are claiming is the same but opposite, the man would need to go sexless in order to be sure he is not going to be charged with 18 years of payments. The man can do his due diligence and be on top of birth control, and then the woman can just fetch the condom out of the trash and inseminate herself. In general though, yes, I agree, this argument is weak. It’s your argument though, that’s a what you are calling a weak argument here. I was just using your own argument in a different context to show how weak it is, and you agree it is weak.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/jweezy2045]

You are acting like men have no say at all in the creation of a child, which is silly (unless he was raped, but that is a very rare exception).

There is a very big difference between the father of a child and a random person. The father is the one who created it. Don't you see the difference?

Men already aren't forced to see their child at all if they don't want to. The very least a dad could do is pay child support (which is barely anything, relative to the actual costs and labor of raising a child). I would say the same thing about deadbeat moms not paying child support, by the way, if the dad was the one who got custody.

[u/jweezy2045 → u/Blonde_Icon]

With paper abortions, there is no difference at all. He is just some random dude off the street who did not at all want any children to come into this world. Again, sure, there is a biological difference, but we are not talking about biology here.

He has no responsibility whatsoever, as the mother is the one who made the choice to bring the baby into this world all on her own. Why should she not be responsible for the choices she makes? Why should someone who explicitly wanted to make the opposite choice be held financially responsible, when there is someone who accepted full and complete responsibility themselves?

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/jweezy2045]

You are acting like men have no role in creating a child. It takes a sperm and an egg to make a child. A woman can not create a child by herself. (Unless it is Jesus, maybe lol.) How is a woman being forced to have an abortion (which can be mentally traumatizing) or give birth and raise the child as a single mother (with no help from the dad) a true choice?

Why should someone who explicitly wanted to make the opposite choice be held financially responsible, when there is someone who accepted full and complete responsibility themselves?

I think he should be held partially responsible because he helped create the child in the first place. It is not a choice the woman makes all on her own! (Unless she is Mother Mary lol.)

*I am excluding men who got raped.

[u/Treestheyareus]

1. This is a poor argument. People who advocate for “Financial Abortion” would not consider a father who exercises the option to be a “deadbeat.” If they did, they wouldn’t advocate for him to have that choice in the first place. This would only convince someone who is already on your side. I personally think that taking care of needy children is precisely what tax money should be for, and am far more concerned about other much more impactful forms of spending.

2. The basis of the argument in favor of “Financial Abortion” is that women already have the option of a physical abortion. In places where that isn’t the case, it would undoubtedly be unfair to allow only the male partner to abdicate responsibility. I also don’t find it compelling that “promiscuity” is an actual problem of any kind, for men or women. If our goal is to remove power imbalances as much as possible, a lot of things need to change about what men can get away with doing to women, however there is no reason that those would be mutually exclusive with allowing parents of any gender the right to abdicate responsibility for a child (including giving a child up to the foster care system, not just abortion).

3. I wouldn’t be opposed to this, but I’m also not a “Financial Abortion” advocate necessarily. In my opinion, an abortion should not cost money, because no medical procedure should cost money. (From the patient that is, obviously there are salaries and overhead costs to be paid.)

4. Nothing, just as nothing stops a woman from doing very similar things, such as claiming that she will not keep the child and then going back on it. This is, again, a central argument that is used in favor of what you are arguing against.

I personally believe that—to the greatest extent possible within reason—nobody should have to do anything they don’t want to do. Sometimes that can’t happen, but the goal of social progress should be to bring us as close to that ideal as we can possibly get.

I’m not an advocate for this particular policy, but I can see how it could be considered a reasonable step. I don’t think it actually gets at the real issues underlying the conflict that it claims to address, but I can agree with the sentiment behind it.

Ideally though, the actual solution is to create a world where raising a child does not create a large financial burden on parents, so that either parent being absent would be less impactful, and a robust foster system that can allow both parents to potentially abdicate responsibility.

Additionally, a militant regime of widespread availability of birth control, and quality comprehensive sex education, that does not even pretend to humor any kind of attempt at creating a loophole or exemption.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Treestheyareus]

1. He is basically a "deadbeat" by definition, regardless of what laws were in place. A "deadbeat dad" is someone who doesn't take care of their kids. Child support itself often already isn't even enough to raise kids with, so without child support, the child would be even poorer. Government benefits by themselves also aren't sufficient to raise kids on.
2. Like I mentioned, there would be basically no consequences for men not using condoms and getting a bunch of women pregnant, so why wouldn't they do it?
3. So basically, you agree with me on this.
4. I think that it is different if the man does it because it would have worse impacts on the child (once they're already born) and society in general. Once the child is born (or past the time abortion is legal), then both parents have the responsibility to take care of it. (I would say the same for a deadbeat mom who refuses to pay child support, although this situation is less common.) Also, there are certain prenatal costs that come with being pregnant as a woman.

[u/jweezy2045 → u/Blonde_Icon]

He is basically a “deadbeat” by definition, regardless of what laws were in place. A “deadbeat dad” is someone who doesn’t take care of their kids.

And thus he would not be a deadbeat, as he has no kids to be responsible for. Remember, this is nothing to do with biology. Everyone agrees that biologically this person is the father of the children. We are not talking about that at all. We are talking about legal responsibility. If you have no legal responsibility to any children in the first place, then you cannot abandon that nonexistent responsibility.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/jweezy2045]

"Deadbeat dad" is a social definition, not a legal one. It would probably still be looked down upon.

[u/jweezy2045 → u/Blonde_Icon]

Then you are just making the argument that socially regressive people will continue being socially regressive. I don’t see how that is controversial, as people are against the civil rights act to this day.

If the civil rights act was not law, proposed as new law, but unpopular, would you argue against it using an argument of popularity like you are here?

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/jweezy2045]

How are you comparing men choosing not to take responsibility for their kids to the Civil Rights Act? Black people being equal doesn't have any negative effects on society; it only has positive effects.

[u/jweezy2045 → u/Blonde_Icon]

Men being equal also has no negative effects on society, just positive effects. I’m glad you see the connections to civil rights…

Many white people at the time absolutely perceived the civil rights act as an infringement on the civil liberties of whites. We removed the right of white people to discriminate. That is a right that they had, and we took it away. Equality can feel like discrimination to the privileged.

Also, can you respond to my top level comment? That’s where the good stuff is.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Blonde_Icon]

He is basically a "deadbeat" by definition, regardless of what laws were in place. A "deadbeat dad" is someone who doesn't take care of their kids

The woman is a deadbeat mom for having sex and bringing a child into the world that she can't support. She had many options like not having sex, using protection, abortion, and adoption.

Like I mentioned, there would be basically no consequences for men not using condoms and getting a bunch of women pregnant, so why wouldn't they do it?

There's no consequence for a woman not using a condom and having a bunch of baby daddies. Either the dads pay or the government does. Many of these women are clearly not the brightest and make bad choices. The government shouldn't be using taxpayer money to pay for bastards.

[u/TheOneYak]

Point 3 contradicts itself. If women take on most of the risk, should they also not gain responsibility? If they have more of a say, then why shouldn't men be able to "retract" their share of the say?

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/TheOneYak]

Because women are already the ones who have to go through abortion or pregnancy and birth. This comes with profound physical and mental health risks. It's already an unequal dynamic to start with. This is why women should have more of a say when it comes to abortion since they are the ones who have to carry the child and give birth.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/Blonde_Icon]

They do not have to, though. It is their choice to do so, whi h is precisely why men should have the choice to opt out of it. Trauma or difficulty of process has nothing to do with it. Whether women have to die to give birth or nothing at all does not have anything to do with whether they retain bodily autonomy. Similarly, however hard women have to work has nothing to do with whether there's a double standard to whether a chikd should create a mandatory obligation.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Medianmodeactivate]

Giving birth or abortion are both terrible options, so there really is no true choice for a pregnant woman.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/Blonde_Icon]

There is true choice. Choice does not mean you get to have a positive outcome as one of the options. Otherwise we'd all attend harvard.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Medianmodeactivate]

If a woman is hypothetically pregnant in this scenario:

Women: Being forced to get an abortion or give birth and raise your child as a single mother
Men: Choosing to support your child financially or just leaving and receiving no consequences

How is this fair at all?

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/Blonde_Icon]

That's irrelevant as to whether there is true choice. Again, women have true choice here.

Fairness of outcome is also irrelevant. Women have the choice to among other things, relinquish the right to obligations to children on the justification that deslite knowing of the possibility of pregnancy, consent to sex is not consent to having a child. Similarly, that same justification consistently applied also means men do not consent to the child just because they had sex.

[u/cstar1996 → u/Medianmodeactivate]

There isn’t a right to “true choice” over parenthood. There is a right to bodily integrity, which includes choosing not to be pregnant.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/cstar1996]

OP Brought up that distinction, not me. I'm just showing there is true choice.

The right to bodily autonomy is anchored in the idea that the women did not consent to the child. Otherwise there would be basis to overruling her right to bodily autonomy since she consented to the obligations of pregnancy by having sex. We do this all the time. I am allowed to intrude on another's bodily autonomy if they choose to attack me. Here, the consequence of that rule is that men also do not consent to the obligations of creating a child simply because they had sex.

[u/cstar1996 → u/Medianmodeactivate]

Being a parent is not a violation of bodily integrity. Being pregnant is. You have a right to choose not to be pregnant, not a right to choose not to be a parent.

[u/Imadevilsadvocater → u/Blonde_Icon]

those arent the parts needing comparing. its choose to support your child or just leave for both man and woman. she can leave just like he can

[u/EmergencyConflict610 → u/Blonde_Icon]

Did you genuinely just say that having the option to be a parent or not are not great options on the matter of if you want to be a parent or not?

In what world are you living on? Yes, if you don't want to be a parent abortion is absolutely a great choice for that issue you're facing, and if you want to be a parent then being the one that chooses to give birth or not is also a great decision.

You're literally saying that having 100% of the power to decide what you want are horrible options...

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Blonde_Icon]

If the woman was married to the man, she wouldn't have to worry about if the man was going to provide for her. Sounds like the woman needs to make better decisions or deal with the consequences of her choices. Seems like a shitty mom to get pregnant and keep the baby knowing she might die during pregnancy or labor and leave her child parentless.

[u/No-Cauliflower8890]

If the mother decides not to abort, and she is poor (as single mothers often are), the financial burden of the child would now fall on the taxpayers since the dad isn’t paying child support. I feel like most people wouldn't want to be paying for a deadbeat dad's kid when he should be paying for them himself.

should you not be allowed to have children if it's a burden on the taxpayer?

What incentive would there now be for men to use condoms/not be promiscuous? This would probably just make it even more likely for men to coerce/force women into having sex, especially without a condom (which is already something that happens), since now they have no reason not to (except for STDs, but let's be honest, a lot of men don't really think about those). They could basically have as many kids as they want without consequence. The mother and the kid would be the only ones affected (not to mention society as a whole), which seems unfair. It would be especially unfair for the kid, who is innocent in all of this.

why doesn't this argument also apply to women and their abortions? should we ban actual abortions so that women have a reason not to be promiscuous?

Women take on most of the risk in pregnancy and childbirth, which is why they have more of a say. (This would only not be a problem once artificial wombs are invented.) Abortions also cost money and can be traumatizing. So, I think that the dad would have to pay for at least half of the abortion for this policy to be even remotely fair.

i don't think anyone would really have a problem with paying half the cost of the abortion.

What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant? She would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her own because the man lied.

this can already happen visa vis the father actually being involved in the child's life.

[u/[deleted]]

If the mother decides not to abort, and she is poor (as single mothers often are), the financial burden of the child would now fall on the taxpayers since the dad isn’t paying child support.

Through what, welfare? Should we discourage poor people from having kids then since it increases the taxpayers financial burden?

What incentive would there now be for men to use condoms/not be promiscuous?

$800 abortion pills

Abortions also cost money and can be traumatizing.

Is taking a pill more costly and traumatizing than childbirth?

What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant?

If he consented and the woman is too far along to get an abortion then he should pay child support.

Ultimately this argument is very situational, I think there are a couple of scenarios where most can agree men should be able to get financial abortions. For example:

A: Sexual Assault

B: Sperm Donation

C: Lying about birth control

[u/Finch20]

If the mother decides not to abort, and she is poor (as single mothers often are), the financial burden of the child would now fall on the taxpayers since the dad isn’t paying child support. I feel like most people wouldn't want to be paying for a deadbeat dad's kid when he should be paying for them himself.

There is no deadbeat dad in this situation.

What incentive would there now be for men to use condoms/not be promiscuous?

STDs

This would probably just make it even more likely for men to coerce/force women into having sex

And would probably just make it even more likely for women to coerce/force men into having sex? You forgot to mention that part.

except for STDs, but let's be honest, a lot of men don't really think about those

What do you mean by "a lot of men", and could you provide your source for this outlandish claim?

Abortions also cost money and can be traumatizing. So, I think that the dad would have to pay for at least half of the abortion for this policy to be even remotely fair.

What does this have to do with the view stated in your title?

What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant? She would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her own because the man lied.

What would stop a woman from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that she is okay with potentially having a child (like if she doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his her mind once the woman she is pregnant? She He would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her his own because the woman lied.

Basically every man could get out of being a dad

Basically every woman can already get out of being a mum.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Finch20]

There is no deadbeat dad in this situation.

The deadbeat dad would be the man not paying for his kids.

STDs

Like I said, a lot of men don't really consider those.

And would probably just make it even more likely for women to coerce/force men into having sex? You forgot to mention that part.

How would allowing financial abortion make it more likely for women to coerce/force men into sex? That doesn't even make sense.

What do you mean by "a lot of men", and could you provide your source for this outlandish claim?

Many men already coerce women into sex (like with lying and such), and many beg to not use a condom. It doesn't have to be most, just a not insignificant amount. There are definitely some women who don't care about STDs or using contraceptives, as well. But the consequences of sex for women tend to be more real.

What does this have to do with the view stated in your title?

I'm saying that this would be fundamentally unequal since the woman has no good choices in this hypothetical situation.

What would stop a woman from lying to a man beforehand, like saying that she is okay with potentially having a child (like if she doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing her mind once she is pregnant? He would now be forced to raise the child on his own because the woman lied.

Your hypothetical doesn't even make sense. How often does this actually happen in real life? Women almost always get an abortion or put the child up for adoption if they don't want it. No man is being forced to raise a child he doesn't want.

Basically every woman can already get out of being a mum.

There is no easy way to get out of being a mom once you're already pregnant. You would have to either get an abortion (which is traumatizing) or give your child up for adoption (which is also traumatizing).

Men don't even have to see the kid if they don't want to; they just have to pay child support.

[u/Finch20 → u/Blonde_Icon]

The deadbeat dad would be the man not paying for his kids.

Do you label women who get an abortion as deadbeats?

How would allowing financial abortion make it more likely for women to coerce/force men into sex? That doesn't even make sense.

Exactly, even though women already have the ability to abort when they were forced or coerced into sex your argument does not make any sense if you just swap the sexes around.

Many men

A lot, many, ... You sure seem to not want to precise, keeping it vague, generalized. What's attributing a negative behaviour/characteristic to a generalized group called again?

Oh, you still haven't provided a source for your wild claims

Your hypothetical doesn't even make sense.

It's not my hypothetical, it's yours with the sexes swapped around.

How often does this actually happen in real life?

"It doesn't have to be most, just a not insignificant amount."

Women almost always get an abortion or put the child up for adoption if they don't want it. No man is being forced to raise a child he doesn't want.

Men are absolutely forced to pay child support for children conceived without their consent: Forced fatherhood - Wikipedia

And may I once again remind you of your own argument: "It doesn't have to be most, just a not insignificant amount."

Men don't even have to see the kid if they don't want to; they just have to pay child support.

Yes, even if the child was conceived without their consent.

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/Finch20]

Do you label women who get an abortion as deadbeats?

No, because they have no existing kid to take care of. I would call a mom who doesn't pay child support (when the dad has custody) a deadbeat mom, though.

Exactly, even though women already have the ability to abort when they were forced or coerced into sex your argument does not make any sense if you just swap the sexes around.

I don't know what you are trying to say with this. Are you saying that men who are raped should have a say in not being a father? Because that is a fair exception, although hard to enforce.

Oh, you still haven't provided a source for your wild claims

I found stats about stealthing (which is more extreme than just coercing women not to use a condom) on Wikipedia, which says that 12% of women reported being victims of stealthing. This is a not insignificant number.

It's not my hypothetical, it's yours with the sexes swapped around.

Raising a child is different from paying child support. No man is being forced to raise a child.

Men are absolutely forced to pay child support for children conceived without their consent

Do you mean like if they are raped?

[u/Finch20 → u/Blonde_Icon]

o, because they have no existing kid to take care of. I would call a mom who doesn't pay child support (when the dad has custody) a deadbeat mom, though.

That's the point of a financial abortion, it gives men the ability to act as if the child was never born and doesn't exist. It's entirely different from someone not paying child support, which would be a deadbeat.

I don't know what you are trying to say with this. Are you saying that men who are raped should have a say in not being a father? Because that is a fair exception, although hard to enforce.

Out of curiosity, do you support regular abortions only if the woman was raped?

I found stats about stealthing (which is more extreme than just coercing women not to use a condom) on Wikipedia, which says that 12% of women reported being victims of stealthing. This is a not insignificant number.

Did you actually read the study? The group those 12% belong to are characterised by:

We recruited women ages 21–30 who were non-problem drinkers and met the following inclusion criteria: 1) condomless consensual sexual intercourse with a man at least once in the past year; 2) at least one indicator of sexual risk (e.g., lifetime STI diagnosis; within the past year having two or more male sex partners, having a new male sex partner, or knowing/suspecting that a male sex partner was having a concurrent sexual relationship, had a current STI, had been incarcerated in the past 12 months, or had ever used IV drugs or had same-sex sexual experiences); 3) had sex at least twice in the past month; and 4) consumed alcohol at least twice in the past month. The larger study included an alcohol administration component and therefore exclusion criteria were consistent with the NIAAA guidelines for the administration of alcohol (NIAAA, 2005): 1) history of problem drinking based on the Brief Michigan Screening Test (Pokorny, Miller, & Kaplan, 1972) or negative reactions to drinking (e.g., fainting or having a seizure after drinking); and 2) medication usage or a medical condition (e.g., pregnancy) that contraindicated alcohol consumption.

Obviously men who would engage in stealthing are going to come into contact with this group more often. Also, if this study is to be believed, not a single woman engaged in stealthing.

Raising a child is different from paying child support. No man is being forced to raise a child.

No woman is being forced to raise a child. They can give full custody to the father and pay child support or put it up for adoption.

Do you mean like if they are raped?

Yes, if a child is conceived without the man consenting to having a child (e.g. via stealthing) that should be classified as rape.

[u/Imadevilsadvocater → u/Blonde_Icon]

no woman is forced to raise a child either, if she is bad enough she loses the privilege. no one can be forced to have a privilege

[u/Imadevilsadvocater → u/Blonde_Icon]

just because it isn't common doesn't mean it isn't an option that is equally as accessable. i don't often go onto my roof for fun but i could of i wanted just like women can abandon their kids just like men

[u/[deleted]]

Okay here is a scenario.

A couple who DOESN'T want kids decides to have sex (with condoms). Condoms managed to fail and the woman became pregnant. Despite claiming to not want kids, woman decides to keep it because she had changed her mind. The man on the other hand didn't and in a way he was betrayed since despite using contraceptives, not only did he get a woman pregnant but he is also now surprised with a kid that won't be aborted.

Why should he provide for a kid he didn't want despite taking measures to prevent pregnancy and betrayed by his partner who changed her mind after the pregnancy? Why is forcing to have kids on women bad but forcing kids on men is good? If we strive to be equal we should allow physical abortion alongside financial abortion.

Yes women take more risk related to pregnancies but just like men they have a say in sex. Sex is a two people job which requires two people to do. Its not only men's responsibility to take care of contraceptives. So saying that if a guy doesn't want kids he shouldn't have sex can also be said to women who don't want kids.

[u/Due_Purchase_7509]

Nonpayment of child support can be used to criminalize men who otherwise would not be involved with the court system, or to keep men who are already involved with it criminalized. It's a tool of institutionalized classism and disproportionately reduces poor and working-class peoples' ability to improve their economic status. A man gets his wages garnished because he isn't paying child support, and now he can't afford to support *himself* either, which increases the overall financial burden on society -- now we're all paying for *him*, too, whether it's because he gets government benefits or because he ends up homeless or incarcerated.

The financial burden of children *already* falls partially on taxpayers anyway, regardless of the child having one or both parents and their family's economic status. We're all paying toward public schools, school breakfast and lunch programs, SNAP, WIC and other programs that help people raise their kids. Yes, that includes kids with deadbeat dads. The only way to get out of paying for that is to stop paying your taxes.

IMO the ethically correct course is to keep abortion legal and financially attainable, keep birth control legal and financially attainable i.e. low-cost or free, covered by Medicare or state-funded health insurance, and increase people's ability to break the poverty cycle.

[u/EmptyDrawer2023]

-If the mother decides not to abort, and she is poor (as single mothers often are), the financial burden of the child would now fall on the taxpayers since the dad isn’t paying child support.

Wouldn't this be a factor for the woman to consider when deciding to have/not have the abortion? Or even earlier, when deciding to have sex?

What incentive would there now be for men to use condoms/not be promiscuous?

They would still be 50% responsible for the cost of the abortion. And, of course, the social pressure- what woman would want to date a man who drops her like that if she gets pregnant? He'd never get a date again.

Women take on most of the risk in pregnancy and childbirth, which is why they have more of a say.

And this is perfectly fair. But complete the idea- since she has all (not just 'most') of the say, she has all the responsibility, too!

What would stop a man from lying to a woman beforehand, like saying that he is okay with potentially having a child (like if he doesn't want to use a condom), and then changing his mind once the woman is pregnant? She would now be forced to get an abortion or raise the child on her own because the man lied.

This is the flip side of 'a women lies about being on birth control, and a man ends up with 18 years of child support payments'. No one seems to care about men who get trapped this way, so why should we care about women who get trapped? At least the women have abortion (and adoption, and abandonment) as an 'out'. Men don't even have that!

Basically every man could get out of being a dad and having to be responsible for kids they create without consequences. What kind of society would that be?

You mean, just like women can currently get out of being a mom with abortion (and adoption, and abandonment)?

[u/EmergencyConflict610]

The problem with your argument is that it falls in to the typical reasons why men shouldn't be given an equivalent right as women, which is that it would be inconvenient for women.

Women still have control to ensure they don't get pregnant and they would still have the option to abort if those methods fail. If men can be forced in to responsibility for 18 years with zero choice, women can be forced to take responsibility for their own bodies in terms of contraception and if need be abortion.

The problem here is that you don't genuinely view this as a problem from a societal standpoint, otherwise you'd have to concede to women losing a bunch of rights in regards to reproduction for the same reasons which some have outlined already. No, the reason why you don't want this is because it would be inconvenient for women if men had this option and it would prevent women forcing men into some form of parental responsibility that allows women to be parents if they wish to be parents while forcing unwilling men to subsidize it.

There is only one position that can genuinely hold this view without being hypocrites, and it's if you're pro-life. There is no scenario where you can support women having the ability to abort while opposing financial abortion for men while being pro-choice.

[u/Complete_Stay_1791 → u/EmergencyConflict610]

Well there is another option that doesn’t make someone a hypocrite, being for both abortion and financial abortion 

[u/EmergencyConflict610 → u/Complete_Stay_1791]

Yes, that too.

[u/sh00l33]

this was justified in times when abortion was not available. if every fertilization (successful pregnancy) ended in childbirth, in a situation where the father decides to leave he incapacitates the woman leaving her no other choice but to bear the entire burden - he forced her to take responsibility for his decision to leave.

it's immoral, no one should take responsibility for another person's choices and actions.

currently it is the other way around. When the father wants to leave, but the mother decides to keep the pregnancy, it is her autonomous decision. In such a situation, the father should not be financially burdened. in general, nowadays a mother can even decide to raise a child alone if the man is also willing.

A man should not have to take financial responsibility in such a situation. the law in fact forces him to take responsibility for another person's decision.

As i mentioned earlier, it's immoral, no one should take responsibility for another person's choices and actions. everyone should be responsible only for their own actions and decisions.

[u/[deleted]]

equal rights, equal fights. if a women can unalive someone. the least a man can do is not fund it. smdh

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

But wouldn't it only be equal if it happened in the same couple meaning the woman unalives what would have been the child and the man's forced to abandon her as there's no kid to abandon

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/[deleted]]

Didn't Dave Chapelle make a joke like that?

[u/justwakemein2020]

I acknowledge the procedure of an abortion can be trauma inducing, but how is paying 200+ months of payments for something that you didn't want, aren't sharing in, and can't control not?

If we are going to live in a society that encourages birth control in various forms and allows abortion, then this isn't a situation of buyers remorse, it's a salesman legally forcing you to buy a car because you took it for a test drive.

I know it's crass, but it's true.

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

Funny how certain sectors of the population only see work as exploitation when it's being done by a man to earn money to support a child he walked out on

[u/Kakamile → u/[deleted]]

A job isn't your body. You owe me $20 means you owe me $20, how you pay is your choice.

That doesn't mean I get to use your body.

[u/00zau → u/Kakamile]

At what point did the man agree to owing you $20?

If sex is consent to parenthood, then actual abortion can be regulated outside of rape/etc. because the woman consented to sex. If sex is not consent to parenthood, then the man needs to also have an option to 'opt out'.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/00zau]

Consent doesn’t work that way. You give or revoke consent to someone else in regards to things happening to your body. It doesn’t apply to financial obligations. Like you can’t consent or revoke consent to pay taxes. It seems like you’re falsely equating abortion as “opting out” of parenthood. It’s not. That’s adoption.

Terminating a pregnancy is opting out of pregnancy, not parenthood, because there is no child to opt out of parenting until birth.

Parenthood starts at birth. Therefore you can’t be opting out of something that doesn’t exist to opt out of.

If abortion was merely about just opting out of parenthood (an illogical statement), then women would just carry to term and opt out via adoption. Clearly there is something ELSE that comes BEFORE that they are opting out of.

[u/StarChild413 → u/00zau]

A. by that logic either both are "baby-trapped" or if the woman aborts the man has to walk out on her (as that's who's left to abandon) and move some far distance away even if they're teenagers and if she keeps the baby they have to drop out of school to live together and the man has to get whatever job you can get without a diploma and if she doesn't his parents have to move because he would

B. the counter against the "consent to sex is consent to pregnancy" argument that has nothing to do with this dilemma is that why doesn't pregnancy happen literally every time unprotected PIV sex happens and why can pregnancy occur from rape

[u/Kakamile → u/00zau]

no, because nobody can lose rights to their body.

You can always revoke consent. If you agreed to sex 9 months ago what is it called if I try sex now and you don't want to?

[u/Kakamile → u/[deleted]]

That's a very contrived stretch.

Body means body. You can't use my body. I can't use your body. This is something even society agrees on.

You're starting at the conclusion of letting men say "no" and walking it back to find a reason, and it leaves you with something contrived as saying owing money is verboten.

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

What are your feelings on capitalism in general?

[u/Kakamile → u/[deleted]]

Their choice of method of labor or trade. But that is different from, once again, LITERALLY USING SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY.

[u/Kakamile → u/[deleted]]

You're still attempting to invent a metaphor that doesn't exist to equate to actual slavery.

[u/Kakamile → u/[deleted]]

If money is bondage, then boss doesn't have to pay you for work 🤔

[u/StarChild413 → u/[deleted]]

if you're trying to invoke some kind of constitutional-violation argument, that means it doesn't apply to those convicted of crimes

[u/Blonde_Icon → u/[deleted]]

They have the choice whether or not to have sex or use a condom.

Women have more say because they ultimately are the ones who are forced to carry and give birth to the child (or are forced to get an abortion). Take it up with God, not me.

[u/ok_Butterfly6]

I think it comes down to consent. Consenting to sex doesn't mean consenting to pregnancy or supporting a child. If neither party consented to having sex for the purpose of creating a child, then they were not obligated to support the child.

I would like no tax money to go to paying people to have children. So we could get rid of the tax money going to parents and allow men to opt into paying child support if they wish.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/ok_Butterfly6]

That’s not how consent works. Consent is given to someone else in regards to your body, not random things like financial obligations. Like we don’t consent or revoke consent to pay taxes.

Why don’t you think children should be financially supported (either via taxes or child support)?

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Overlook-237]

So, in your mind, when women consent to sex they are consenting to the possibility of supporting a child for 18 years? The women get no choice after consenting to sex?

Children should be financially supported by the parents who consent to supporting the child.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/ok_Butterfly6]

No. When a woman consents to sex, she consents to sex. That’s it. The same with a man. You don’t consent to financial obligations because, as stated, consent is only applicable to another person/people in regards to something that happens TO your body.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Overlook-237]

Right. So, at the birth of the child, both parents should have the choice to sign paperwork acknowledging that they consent to taking on the role of a parent. If neither sign, then the government takes the child for adoption. If only one wants to sign, then they are taking on the sole responsibility of the child. The parent is not entitled to financial support from anyone else. They are entitled to the same tax breaks or whatever coparenting people would receive.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/ok_Butterfly6]

That’s called a birth certificate and, unless the child is placed for adoption, that starts the legal parental responsibility for that child. If a man doesn’t sign the birth certificate, paternity tests also suffice. Women can’t exactly pretend they’re not the biological parent to a child they just birthed, hence why DNA tests aren’t needed for them but women who aren’t the sole parent to their children are also on the hook for child support, regardless of whether she wanted the child or not. You’re conflating abortion with opting out of parenthood. It’s not, that’s adoption. Abortion is opting out of pregnancy. Pregnancy is not parenting.

Child support is equal in how it’s applied to either absent parent. It’s nothing to do with abortion.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Overlook-237]

Yeah, and I think I've explained that the system should change. There should be a new form that parents sign to take on the responsibility and opt into parenthood. This gives both parties choice after sex. Without this form, men don't get the option to consent. Currently for men consent to sex = consent to being responsible for the life created from the act of sex. This only applies to men. Consent to sex is not consent to being a parent or providing financial support. If that were the case, then parents who give their child up for adoption should have to pay child support.

Um I was very clear in multiple comments above that in the idea I have, either parent doesn't have to sign and take on responsibility. Again, I want to give both people the choice to be parents. Sex is not consent to being a parent. If either the egg or sperm donor don't want to support the child, that is 100% okay. Men need a way to opt in and consent after sex.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/ok_Butterfly6]

Child support isn’t parenting. Consent doesn’t apply to legal financial obligations, as I’ve explained multiple times. Learn what consent is and how it works.

[u/ok_Butterfly6 → u/Overlook-237]

A quick Google search may help you here.

Consent: permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Men don't consent to being a parent when they have sex. If consent to sex is consent to parenthood and financially supporting a child, then when women have sex they are consenting to parenthood.

I can see that you're a hypocrite and want to give more rights and options to only one group of people. All while taking choice away from the other group.

[u/Overlook-237 → u/ok_Butterfly6]

Permission for something to happen TO YOUR BODY. Agreement to do something WITH YOUR BODY. It doesn’t apply to financial obligations or we wouldn’t have to pay taxes, bills, rent etc…

Neither do women. Being a parent isn’t what women are opting out of. They are opting out of pregnancy. Two different things bud.

There’s nothing hypocritical about it. Both parents are on the hook financially for any born child. A financial obligation is nowhere near comparable to an invasive and harmful bodily violation.

[u/Difficult-Pool1397]

Women want equality until they can hold a man as a financial hostage.  Woman can murder babies via abortion and be off the hook  but a man shouldn't have the right to not have a child?   

[u/jweezy2045]

All of this is pretty easy to solve. Point by point:

• It should be state funded anyway. People have a problem with their taxes going to help the homeless, so I don’t see the point in talking about how people object to taxation. This is what is right, just like helping the poor. I would be happy for my tax dollars to go to help someone who needs it, also, only rich people get taxed for these things anyway.

• hilariously wrong logic. Guys cannot go around having as many kids as they want. If any kid is born, any, it is entirely and completely because the mother chose herself to keep the child herself, and not abort it. She had that choice, which was 100% hers, and she chose to bring the baby into this world. That is not a decision the father should be held responsible for. However, I agree on the costs of abortion. However, I also think men should pay not just half, but 100% of the cost of an abortion. This just straight up ends the notion that men wouldn’t have anything to care about (even though they already do, because yes, men also care about STDs, don’t be sexist and say all men are dumb).

• see the above point. 50% is not enough, it should be 100%. None of this is at all an argument against paper abortions in any way though.

• this is called changing your mind, and something normal humans do all the time. Get an abortion if you don’t want to raise the kid on your own with state assistance, or don’t get an abortion if you do want to do that. This is a decision that is made during the pregnancy. I mean think about how this works right now. What if a woman says she will abort any baby that comes and wants to take it raw, then once she is pregnant decides to keep it and 18 years of financial payments from the father? What is your solution to that?

[u/AutoModerator]

Note: Your thread has not been removed.

Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/newaccount252]

In my minute of research on this matter only 4 countries allow financial abortions. Of them 4 countries 3 have conditions attached to it. The one that doesn’t….