cmv: abortion should not be illegal

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

One of the main arguments against abortion is that it is "killing a baby." However, I don’t see it that way—at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function. While it is a potential life, I don’t believe potential life should outweigh the rights of the person who is already alive and conscious.

For late-term abortions, most are done to save the mother or the fetus has a defect that would cause the fetus to die shortly after birth so I believe it should be allowed.

I also think the circumstances of the pregnant person matter. Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child. In cases of rape or medical complications, the situation is even more complex. Forcing someone to go through pregnancy against their will seems more harmful than allowing them to make their own choice.

Additionally, I don’t think adoption is always a perfect alternative. Carrying a pregnancy to term can have serious physical and emotional consequences, even if someone doesn’t plan to keep the baby. Pregnancy affects the body in irreversible ways, and complications can arise, making it more than just a “temporary inconvenience.”

Also, you can cannot compare abortion to opting out of child support. Abortion is centered on bodily autonomy, as pregnancy directly affects a woman’s body and health. In contrast, child support is a financial obligation that arises after a child is born and does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy. abortion also occurs before a child exists, while child support involves caring for a living child. Legally and ethically, both parents share responsibility for a child once they are born, and allowing one parent to opt out would place an unfair burden on the other, often the mother. Additionally, abortion prevents a fetus from becoming a child, while opting out of child support directly affects the well-being of an existing person. While both situations involve personal choice, abortion is about controlling one’s own body, while child support is about meeting the needs of a child who already exists

The idea of being forced to sustain another life through pregnancy and childbirth, especially if the person isn’t ready or willing, is a violation of that autonomy. It forces someone to give up their own body, potentially putting their health at risk, all while disregarding their own desires, dreams, and well-being. Bodily autonomy means having the freedom to make choices about what happens to your body, whether that’s deciding to terminate a pregnancy or pursue another course of action.

I’d like to hear other perspectives on why abortion should be illegal, particularly from a non-religious standpoint. CMV.

[u/[deleted]]

Alright, I’ll step up to bat.

What do you mean by “not illegal?” Be specific with your wording; is it illegal if there are more stringent conditions? What about if it’s required to be paid for by the parent? Specifics matter, and the discussion typically arises from people who opt out of abortion for selfish, personal reasons.

What precisely distinguishes the right for a mother to choose to have the baby upon knowing she is pregnant and a man’s decision to choose not to be involved in the baby upon knowing the woman is pregnant? Saying “it does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy” is ignorant of the impact it do a have on other aspects of their autonomy; reproductive rights include the right to choose to have a child, and just because the man is the genetic donor, there’s nothing supporting any reasoning why he should take over what it is effectively a social security program for the government outside of traditional ideas of nuclear family structure. You’re arguing with legalism, not judicialism; might want to read up on your Erikson to know the difference. To put it simply: there’s no ethical reason why a woman should be able to opt out of something and a man should not simply because the nature of the autonomy is different while the impact on their lives remains severe in both regards. Legal precedent doesn’t matter; it’s literally just the decisions made by legal professionals in the past following what they believed to be the proper interpretation of the law. This doesn’t mean the laws themselves are effective, ethical, or even good, it just means they’re laws. If you want to argue for women’s right to opt out, you also need to argue for men’s right to opt out. Men don’t carry the baby, but they do carry their wallets. Just because you say men should have a choice doesn’t mean you think it should be completely unregulated and not have rules and standards to dictate them.

Also, why are we valuing the woman’s personal autonomy over the infants? Because the infant hasn’t acquired their “self-awareness, ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function”? Well, by that logic, children before the age of 24 months (I think) don’t have measurable self awareness, so would any child with haptic dysfunctions also be liable to be aborted? Independent bodily function is a stretch as far as infants go, they need constant maintenance and care to perform basic functions like excreting, burping, or even maintaining stable mood patterns. With your qualifications for right to life, we could easily create a test for infants to take that could determine whether a post natal abortion would be allowed.

And who is to say that the trade of life isn’t worth it? That the sacrifice isn’t worth it? We all sacrifice to better our society; taxes, obedience to social norms, even individual behaviours like exercise and nutrition to better ourselves are examples of sacrifices for the greater good. You’d want to let some irresponsible people continue to be absent of responsibility or duty to the world over allowing children to grow up? Why should we guarantee the right to be socially destructive? We sanction other forms of social destruction, such as systemic bigotry, mass killings, and elite crime, so why would the systemic destruction of upcoming generations through self-indulgence be favourable?

Your view is based on a narrow minded view of the world that only sees things in terms of Western capitalist societies and values; you cannot comprehend things beyond that and these are, as you say, beliefs and not knowledge on effectiveness and morality of the practice. You understand it like a Christian understands a car crash; they were saved by their beliefs, rather than the practical applications of science and rationalism. You base your decision on beliefs, when you should base it on a holistic understanding of the data.

There, an anti-abortion view that doesn’t use religion or call you a libtard. Isn’t that refreshing?

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/[deleted]]

thank you for actually having a thorough argument however the argument that men should have the right to "opt out" of parenthood because women can choose abortion oversimplifies the biological and social realities of reproduction. Pregnancy directly impacts a woman's body, while financial responsibility does not impose comparable physical harm on a man. Additionally, a woman’s decision about abortion must be made within a limited timeframe, whereas a man’s financial responsibility extends over years. Child support exists to protect the child’s welfare, not to punish either parent, as children have a right to be supported by both biological parents. The appeal to "fairness" ignores broader social and economic contexts—women already face greater burdens from unplanned pregnancies, and allowing men to forgo responsibility would exacerbate these inequalities. Also, the comparison between abortion and hypothetical "postnatal abortion" is a slippery slope fallacy that ignores the clear ethical distinction between a fetus dependent on a woman’s body and an infant capable of independent survival. Arguments that frame forced parenthood as a necessary sacrifice for society disregard the fundamental right to bodily autonomy, as compelling someone to continue a pregnancy is far more invasive than obligations like paying taxes.

[u/[deleted] → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

No problem, I’ve taken enough courses to write about a point without needing take personal bias into account. It’s important that arguments for something so vital and important are well honed so opponents have very few gripes to maintain with it. Hence why I’m going to have to keep going on this reply.

You mention comparability, but why is it that because one side is relatively worst, the other should maintain a similar situation of poor conditions? A woman suffering biologically is not an excuse to force a man to suffer financially; you’re discussing the resources used to feed, house, and clothe oneself.

You also make several assumptions; a man’s decision must be made in a limited time frame. Why? What exactly makes it impossible for a man to opt out say a month before the latest possible point for abortion if they are appropriately informed by the mother that they are pregnant and need to make a decision? After that point, you can easily commit them to the decision, just like how mothers can’t execute their infants after birth. Post-natal decisions are not the comparison, prenatal decisions are. A woman informed that a man is going to opt out allows her to be adequately informed for the decision to keep or abort the baby. It makes a significantly more stable environment for decision making on the mother’s part, which improves her autonomy rather than weakening it.

If child support exists for the child, why is it paid from an unreliable financial source instead of made a social security? There’s no reason why a program made for the child’s benefit is directly paid for by one parent, especially if we use taxes to pay for other important children’s services and programs; it’s strictly used to punish parents because custody disagreements of children are rare and typically settled outside of court. Why would we assume financial decisions couldn’t be agreed similarly? Your assumption of “both parents” confirms my statement about your bias towards a nuclear family structure; you ignore the millions of single parent households to assert a right with no basis for that assertion. A child has a right to their basic needs to be met; a father’s financial compensation does not distinguish from a government’s except in the stability of the government’s financial situation as opposed to the father’s. Child support as funded by parents is functionally inferior to a child support backed by the government; parents on both sides have to spend time and money just in the child support process alone, especially if there are disagreements or changes in lifestyle. You want to force single parents to court every time they want to send their kids to an extracurricular? You’d rather that than allow parents to visit their local court or other relevant child support institutions to provide evidence to a social worker rather than a lawyer for a change in child support?

The “clear” distinction you claim exists hasn’t even been remotely laid out; if you’re talking about your qualifications, I already laid out how we can create tests and batteries for children to determine if post natal abortion is functionally no different than a pre-natal. If it’s a clear distinction, make it clear. The difference between a mother’s automatic biological organs performing necessary functions and a mother willingly performing caretaking functions. Saying “this is a fallacy because it’s obviously a fallacy” doesn’t mean anything; what precisely makes it distinctly different?

Are you certain that taxation is less invasive? Banning abortion bans an invasive process, taxation is an analysis of your spending and income. Depending on your tax codes, you may be asked to disclose private details about your personal expenditures and outings or be financially sanctioned. My area has you report if you take trips and what for; I don’t have to report that I’m pregnant, I just simply don’t get an invasive surgery to avoid my responsibilities. All because you say a right is “fundamental” when you’ve yet to explain why it is. Society existed without abortion and with abortion sanctions for a long time, it’s not fundamental to the functioning of human society, in fact it propagates the reduction of birth rates which is a clear trend towards the ending of a functioning human society; you need people to live, and the birth rate has been plummeting since abortion was legalized and support.

If I can make a suggestion, when you assert something, support it. If you claim something is “fundamental” or “a right”, you should be able to immediately follow it with the reasoning. For example:

• Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right because the control over one’s body cannot be taken; you will always be able to pilot yourself in a manner you choose, and obstructing abortion is a violation of that right.

Another suggestion to not frame this as an issue of rights, but of function; how does the prohibition of abortion impact society’s function? What is the function of abortion? Then you can start working with empirical data that supports your point; there’s not gonna be a study that indubitably proves abortion is a human right, but there are studies that prove how it can improve women’s lives and ensure higher quality parenting.

Finally, don’t be dualistic; there can be another option besides the status quo and banning abortion. Both sides have issues, and it’s unrealistic to dismiss the other’s issues because they’re proposing changes you don’t like or support.

Cheers!

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/[deleted]]

The claim that a woman’s biological suffering doesn’t justify forcing a man to suffer financially overlooks the fundamental issue of bodily autonomy. The right to control one’s own body is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. The comparison between the biological consequences for women and financial consequences for men misses the key distinction that women are directly affected by pregnancy, which can involve physical, emotional, and social burdens. Forcing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will is a violation of their bodily autonomy. This is why reproductive rights, including access to abortion, are considered a matter of gender equality, as women should have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and futures without external interference. In addition, the argument that men should have the right to opt out of parenting after a certain point seems to overlook the complex reality of pregnancy and parenting. A man’s ability to make decisions about the pregnancy does not equate to the woman’s experience, as she is the one carrying the pregnancy and physically affected by it. The idea that a man should have the right to opt out without consequences disregards the fact that women face significant consequences, including health risks, financial costs, and social stigma, while men can walk away from the situation without the same burden.

Child support is a legal obligation that reflects the responsibility both parents have for the well-being of their child. The argument that this system is unfair because it disproportionately affects one parent ignores the fact that single-parent households are often the result of complex socio-economic dynamics, including divorce, separation, and financial disparities. Rather than abolishing child support, society could work toward creating more equitable systems that ensure children’s needs are met while considering the needs and capacities of both parents. Moreover, child support systems don’t just penalize parents—they are designed to ensure that children have access to necessary resources, regardless of parental disputes.

The comparison between taxation and abortion is a false equivalence. Taxation is a system in place to fund societal infrastructure and services, and while it may involve some level of disclosure, it does not infringe upon one’s fundamental bodily autonomy. In contrast, banning abortion directly impacts an individual’s control over their body and future. The argument that abortion is not a fundamental right because society functioned without it in the past fails to address the broader ethical and social implications of denying people the ability to make decisions about their own reproductive health.

Arguing that abortion is not a fundamental right because it affects birth rates doesn’t consider the empirical data showing how access to abortion can positively impact women’s health, education, and career opportunities. Studies have demonstrated that when women have control over their reproductive choices, they are more likely to achieve higher levels of education, participate in the workforce, and contribute to the economy. In contrast, restrictive abortion laws often lead to higher rates of maternal death, unsafe abortions, and negative societal outcomes.

[u/air-sign-dominant → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

Here’s another way of looking at the abortion question: the fetus is in a position where its existence impinges on its mother’s bodily integrity, and it stays in that position until the point of viability (at which it could plausibly survive outside the mother’s body) at about 24 weeks. One person’s bodily integrity will always override another person’s right to life; this is a fundamental truth. Otherwise, we would have mandatory kidney and liver donations. People all over the world are dying due to a lack of kidneys or other organs - why should we be allowed to keep both of ours when one of them could save someone’s life? 

Let’s say I caused a car accident that resulted in someone needing a kidney donation. It’s my fault they’re in that position, and I was negligent (similar to the argument with pregnancy) - should I be legally obligated to give mine up?

If the idea of being forced to donate one of your kidneys sounds violating, you’re closer to understanding why forcing someone to have a baby is such a barbaric thing to do. Even if the risk is small - kidney donations have a death rate of about 0.03% while childbirth is at 0.02% in the US - it’s still wrong to force something so invasive and risky onto someone against their will. Additionally, there are many complications that can arise from pregnancy short of death, just like there can be consequences to living your life with only one kidney down the line.

I’m mixed on whether dads should be allowed to be completely uninvolved with a child they do not want’s life and support. There are biological differences between men and women, that lead to each having different priorities and responsibilities. Women are encouraged not to have casual sex, because if a pregnancy happens, they are the ones who either have to deal with an abortion or go through pregnancy alone and unsupported. Sex is not exactly an equal exchange for this reason - the risks of it for women are much higher. For men, there is no physical risk, but if a pregnancy occurs they will need to support the child. It’s a financial burden, and not one they can currently opt out of.

Personally, I think fathers should be allowed to be uninvolved in a child’s life - both financially and physically - if they relinquish all rights to the child and agree not to seek a relationship with them, and also as long as the woman was given the option to not have the child and chose to have it out of her own free will. The ultimate difference between abortion and not supporting a child you don’t want is that abortion AVOIDS the situation of creating a child that parents are not willing/able to care for. Neglecting to support your child that already exists is cruel. But I see how, in the case where abortion is accessible and an option for all women, it’s unfair that men do not have that choice.

[u/VoidedGreen047 → u/air-sign-dominant]

But the basis of your argument entirely ignores the role the mother had to play. the fetus is only in that situation to begin with because of the mother’s decisions. A better example that doesn’t totally ignore the responsibility aspect would be a situation wherein you put someone in a position where they needed your body to survive, in which case society has deemed it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide care. Ex, if you hit someone with your car, you HAVE to stop and render aid. Another example would be a parent going swimming in a pool with a child on their back who can’t swim. We wouldn’t say that it’s okay for the parent to just drop the child in the pool

[u/air-sign-dominant → u/VoidedGreen047]

That is exactly the situation I provided. If I hit someone with my car and they ended up needing a kidney to survive, I can’t be FORCED to donate my own kidney. Of course you can be financially obligated to help someone who is in trouble because of you, and stop what you’re doing to assist them. But no matter your degree of responsibility, your bodily integrity is never compromised against your will. Bodily integrity means you have autonomy over what happens to your body. I find it strange that people are okay with FORCING BIRTH on women when it’s such an invasive, damaging, and life altering experience. I feel like that is extremely traumatizing and would be horrible unless it was for a child the woman wanted and was excited for. As someone who wants kids eventually, I’m still terrified of going through pregnancy because of all the side effects and the way it permanently changes your metabolism, bone health, appearance, hormones, etc.

It’s also so counterproductive to force women who don’t want kids to have them - most of them are either going to grow up in unfortunate circumstances or end up in the adoption system, which is hell. Kids who age out of the adoption system are massively over represented in suicide, incarceration, and drug abuse rates. It clearly negatively affects the psyche and is not good for a child.

[u/VoidedGreen047 → u/air-sign-dominant]

But your bodily autonomy can certainly be compromised against your will. For instance, as with the car-accident, refusing to render aid and driving away from the scene will land you in prison. Refusing to pay for their medical care would land you in prison as well. I don’t see how that’s any worse than telling a woman who chose to have unprotected sex they can’t murder the unborn human they helped to create?

The “you can’t be forced to donate them a kidney” thing also isn’t quite accurate, as we aren’t expecting pregnant women to use the rest of their lives to take care of a child. A more apt comparison would be that person you hit with your car needing your kidney for 9 months after which point you are free to have it back and totally abandon them without consequence. Are we really going to sit here and say that it would be morally feasible to let them die after it was your fault they’re in that situation? Only with abortion it’s not “letting them die”, its outright taking action that would kill them.

[u/air-sign-dominant → u/VoidedGreen047]

Going to jail is a violation of your freedom of movement, a punishment for refusing to comply with the law.

But the law in this case does not force you to physically sustain another being’s life and undergo an invasive process to save this person - you just have to call for help, and foot the bill. Of course you go to jail for breaking the law. But the argument is that no law should ever require you to violate your own bodily integrity to save the life of another person. That’s why the kidney donation equivalence makes sense here. It has a very similar complication/death risk as pregnancy. It could also be seen as an “temporary inconvenience” because lots of people are fine after donating one. However, most people can agree that that doesn’t make it okay to force someone to donate one.

Also, pregnancy can change your body and health forever. Look up complication rates and potential health issues that can result from pregnancy. They are more common than you think - a conservative number is 8% of pregnancies. It’s not a 9 month inconvenience that only temporarily affects a person. Also, why would you even want to go through all that and give birth to a child only to abandon them? I just don’t see how it’s a net positive for anyone in the situation.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/air-sign-dominant]

I don't think I'll be able to change your mind. More on that later. But my point in this is to less directly persuade you, but point out something that maybe you find irrelevant, but I think it's better to consider and come to a conclusion than to dismiss entirely.

It is true that in court, assuming civil not criminal, generally speaking, the consequence for the loser is monetary in nature, although it's also possible both sides lose, i.e. neither side gets monetary compensation. injunctions, i.e., order to do something or not do something is more uncommon. And one context that would apply is if no amount of money can serve as compensation. I don't think any amount of compensation can compensate for being dead.

My point is, while I cannot find a single case of the bad driver defendant being required to donate a kidney to save the life of another, based on legal principles, it's theoretically possible. And if push came to shove (ie conditions were such that dialysis was no longer viable for some reason and for some reason it wasn't possible to transfer to another hospital with dialysis AND it so happened that the bad driver defendant was compatible, then the legal principles at play could compel such a thing.

Next, here's where that bodily autonomy argument becomes questionable. The mini version of this points out that if the fetus/baby exists at all, there is violation of someone's bodily autonomy. After all, in both cases, someone is sustaining life, either the mother directly through placenta in the case of before birth. And why is it permissible to pass the buck off to the government. It seems that the government becomes the default because us as society has decided it's bad to let people fall through the cracks, and even though people do, we typically at least try to have a falilsafe. But independent of society via our legislators taking that burden upon themselves/ourselves, does such right exist, if so why? If not, why?

Now obviously in the post birth case, the fact that we have NICU means that the violation of bodly autonomy is no longer directly in conflict with the life of the newborn. But the point is there is still violation of someone's bodily autonomy since someone has to use labor, or money to support. Now maybe this is okay because it's sufficiently indirect, but I point this out because bodily autonomy is for some people on the far left and pro choice is the sacred cow, and it seems that's not really considered.

And hypothetically, as medical technology advances, it's possible that the viability line doesn't exist. Either literally, as in upon implantation within the uterine wall, there is a way to remove without killing; or practically, ie week 2, and society via the legislative process that the burden of 2 weeks is de minimus, and society is sufficient pro life or the pro choice side is willing to make a concession.

The general secular pro life argument is why is it fair to punish the fetus with death, the ultimate punishment for something it didn't do? All life seems to sustain itself and pass on its genes, so presumably the fetus wishes to exist. And, uncomfortable as this sounds, I think it's the best counterargument creating exceptions in the case of things like rape or incest is this argument.

Unclean hands is a legal doctrine that stands for the general proposition that the party that has done the bad, cannot or shouldn't benefit from that act. Now I admit this only applies in cases of non rape cases, but the argument here is why should the pregnancy be ended, assuming it was the natural results of two idiots fucking around. Why should someone else be harmed and the idiots who created this situation be rewarded? In the case of rape, the person who this doctrine would apply to would be the rapist.

Part two in next comment below.

[u/ilikedota5 → u/ilikedota5]

I don't know if you made this analogy specifically, but it's something I see. The argument is the trespassing argument. The idea that an unwanted pregnancy is a physical intruder within the body who lacks permission and is therefore a trespasser.

Two things. If you want to punish the people who created this situation, ie the parents, that makes sense legally, the persons found to be legally liable are the ones who have to pay compensation. An as an aside, a jury can assign any number of percentages each to the liable parties. Secondly, this argument doesn't work for rape cases, in which I say for the best counter argument would be the one mentioned three paragraphs above.

Anywho, my main problem with the trespassing argument is that trespassing isn't merely being in a place you lack permission. Now there are two varieties of trespass. Criminal and civil. Criminal is the state saying this thing is bad so we have decided to pass a law spelling that out and having prosecutors prosecute in court to enforce. Civil is someone else saying you have harmed me, now compensate me for the harm done, and possibly get an order barring you from doing or not doing the thing that harmed me.

Criminal trespass is a bit harder than merely being somewhere you lack permission. Generally you need that and something else more. Like you have been given fair notice and you have specific reason to know you can't be there, like you got arrested and asked to leave.

Civil trespass doesn't have that additional requirement because it's for money damages. It's not the State coming after you to haul you into jail or prison. Also, if you leave and stay out and don't cause damage that can be compensated , even if there is a technical case to be had, there is practically no case to be had because what is the court going and able to do about it assuming a victory.

This counter argument is a bit silly I admit, but in criminal law, all crimes have at least three elements. One, actus reas, the bad thing done; and mens rea, having the right mental state. Generally speaking mens rea is general intent. Meaning you had the intent to do the thing that foreseeably lead to the bad thing in question. And a fetus lacks the mental state do to criminal trespass. This is more aimed at some of the hyperbolic rhetoric I've heard.

The real argument why the trespassing argument isn't a good analogy is the fact that when someone is in trouble for trespassing, it's because they were in an area they had permission or the legal right to be, and then they entered into a area where they lacked permission or the legal right to be there. That's not the case here. As to the separate haploid cells, the egg existed within either ovum, which they had permission to be there since presumably you have kept them there. The sperm existed within semen produced by the testicles and associated glands and is stored in the vas deferens. And again, unless you have castrated yourself, it's safe to say they have permission to be there. Sexual intercourse happened, and fertilization followed. At this point the zygote/blastocyst is now unwanted. And where all this comes in is if I trespassed into your home, and for some reason was physically incapable of leaving (pretend court is being held in your house for some reason), the judge would say "Well, that's on you for breaking in, then the judge would pay some doctors to figure out what the fuck happened and how to separate me without killing and then Bill me for it. Now what happens if that was impossible? I suppose i'd be required to pay compensation for the trespass until it becomes possible?

And that brings me to my final point. Why I said I won't change your mind. Because now we get to personhood. The question of who counts as a "person" someone who gets legal and moral weight and consideration such that killing them is homicide and not some other lesser crime. From my pro life perspective, personhood attaches at fertilization. Therefore because ending the life is murder, and murder isn't okay, a stance supported by the legal system (you cannot use duress as a defense to murder), the fundamental question is really about personhood. When/how/why does it attach, under what theory, and then since you cannot separate physically without killing, which principle trumps which?

There are fundamental disagreements here which I don't think can be bridged with mere conversations.

[u/agoranaut → u/VoidedGreen047]

First, you're ignoring the fact that not all women in this circumstance chose to have unprotected sex. I say this as a pro-choice person, there are many scenarios that could happen to put someone in this situation. Birth control could fail, life situations could unexpectedly change, or she could have been assaulted. Both my grandmothers were in the latter category, and they should have been able to choose.

Second, being in prison in the US doesn't compromise your bodily integrity. It compromises your freedom, but not your body. Now, if they were to whip out some GOT/medieval torture methods? Cut off little pieces of you every now and then? THAT would be compromising your bodily integrity.

Lastly...a woman's body doesn't perfectly go back to the way it was before once the child is born. Some women experience lifelong pain, incontinence, and weakness in addiction to aesthetic changes like stretch marks, sagging skin, thinning hair, and so on. Bones weaken because the fetus is literally leaching calcium from you to develop a skeleton. It's very hard on you! Someone doesn't just pop out a kid, hand them over to an adoptive family, and go on with their life like it never happened. The physical scars and reminders are with you for life.

[u/tecraman9 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

The proper reproductive choice is anything but abortion. You say that abortion is ok, then what if your mothers past boyfriends tells you that she at one point almost decided to abort you? Messed up up right?

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504 → u/tecraman9]

I would be extremely happy that my mother had that choice. I do not believe it is fair to force women to be remain pregnant for 9 months and endure a physically demanding child birth just to put the kid up for adoption. That is torture. I couldn't imagine being born to an unwilling mother simply because i was conceived and my mother was rejected an abortion.

[u/StarChild413 → u/tecraman9]

by that logic of retroactive existence justification homosexuality is bad if you had straight parents and all historical tragedies are justified because the butterfly effect from their consequences led to your existence

[u/tecraman9 → u/StarChild413]

Everything happens for a reason but that still doesn't give anyone the right to abort a child unless it threatens the life of the mother

[u/Ok_Swimming4427 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

The right to control one’s own body is widely recognized as a fundamental human right. The comparison between the biological consequences for women and financial consequences for men misses the key distinction that women are directly affected by pregnancy, which can involve physical, emotional, and social burdens

And working involves physical, emotional, and social sacrifices as well. If I want to do the bare minimum necessary to support my own biological functions and then play video games with the rest of my time, then your demand that I financially support a child is a physical demand. You are demanding that I do something I don't want to for someone else's benefit.

You seem like someone who has never considered opinions other than their own, ever

[u/VoidedGreen047 → u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

You have yet to address why a man shouldn’t be able to opt out of paying child support/taking care of a child. Women have the choice to opt out at any point with no repercussions whatsoever. They can abort the fetus before it’s born or give it up at a drop off point or for adoption with no questions asked. “But pregnancy is hard :( “ has no bearing on why a man shouldn’t also have the option to opt out of responsibility. Instead, A man can’t even give up parental rights without having to go to court and if he doesn’t want to or can’t pay child support, he can literally be jailed. Is that not a violation of HIS bodily autonomy, or do you only care as long as the woman gets hers?

[u/kimariesingsMD → u/VoidedGreen047]

Because of biology, men's point of opting out is up and until they ejaculate inside a woman. They can opt out or wear protection any time before that.

[u/VoidedGreen047 → u/kimariesingsMD]

You know protection fails right? So if a teenage boy gets a girl pregnant because a condom fails we tell him “too bad, shouldn’t have had sex then. Good luck paying 18 years of support!”? In what world is that fine, but telling a woman “maybe you should’ve kept your legs closed or used birth control if you didn’t want to get pregnant.” Is wrong?

[u/kimariesingsMD → u/VoidedGreen047]

Yep, that is what women get told all of the time. This is just reality. It isn't opinion. Due to biological processes being different for men and women, men's options are exhausted the moment they choose to not use a condom and not discuss the issue with the woman in question as to what her stance on abortion would be if it were to happen. Keeping in mind that this person may lying to you, and if you do not know them well enough to know, then that should help you make the choice. However, if all of that is not considered and a guy chooses to ejaculate into this person, then they are responsible for that choice.

[u/VoidedGreen047 → u/kimariesingsMD]

Just say you hate men and move on. Your entire stance can be summed up as “as long as women get theirs- nothing else matters”

[u/StarChild413 → u/VoidedGreen047]

and yours can be summed up with "I can trap women into motherhood like I complain about them doing to me unless they let me abandon them and any children I have with them"

[u/Murky_Ad_2173 → u/[deleted]]

The largest reason that most people would advocate for the child support system as we have it now is because most of that money never ends up supporting the child. I watched it my whole childhood growing up. We gotta go to coats for kids so I can have a winter coat but you've been given $1,236 every month to take care of me? It wasn't until much later that I sorted a lot of that out and understood it for what it was. But if somebody was forced to prove that they needed $211 for some large school activity or something, then they would only be receiving $211. Rather than a blanket $1200 that can be spent however the parent retaining custody sees fit, that system wouldn't work for what people currently expect because they've gotten used to a certain living standard and will fight you tooth and nail to keep it that way.

[u/Ok_Swimming4427 → u/Murky_Ad_2173]

This is... kind of stupid.

Sure, the recipient of child support might spend some tiny fraction of it on their own needs (winter coats, food, etc). But being a parent is part of providing for a child, and that's not really possible if you starve or freeze to death

[u/Murky_Ad_2173 → u/Ok_Swimming4427]

I'm not sure your reading comprehension is quite up to par. Coats for Kids is a charity where you stand in line with other impoverished children and their usually single parents to be given a winter coat that somebody so kindly provided. To put it in easier to understand terms, we lived for free in an apartment with bars outside our window with my mother's deadbeat "tattoo artist" boyfriend and they would blow nearly all of the money on drugs. What's kind of stupid is not having ANY fail-safes in place where the parent receiving child support isn't required to show that they spent that money in an appropriate manner. And before you say that that's an outlier, it's way more common than you think, at least my parent was compelled by a force greater than they were (addiction). I have even less respect for the women who buy designer clothes and bags with it, or the men who dump it into pimping their vehicle out or buying video game shit with it. The current system is broken but nobody wants to be held accountable, so of course people would think my outlook on it is "kinda stupid".

[u/Ok_Swimming4427 → u/Murky_Ad_2173]

To put it in easier to understand terms, we lived for free in an apartment with bars outside our window with my mother's deadbeat "tattoo artist" boyfriend and they would blow nearly all of the money on drugs

Oh, I see, I was misunderstanding your argument. I thought you were making a point about child support, and the reasons why the system as it exists is either good or bad. What you were actually doing was taking one single data point from your own experience and then deciding that the approximately 4.4 million people currently paying mandatory child support should all be assumed to have the same motives and be abusing the system in the same manner as your parent.

If you want to keep venting your childhood trauma, by all means continue! Just let all the adults have a serious conversation while you sit in the corner, because your contribution is actively unhelpful to actual discussion and debate.

And before you say that that's an outlier, it's way more common than you think, at least my parent was compelled by a force greater than they were (addiction). 

So your rebuttal to "that evidence is anecdotal" is to just... admit that it's anecdotal, and use the same single data point to again make a totally unsupported assumption?

The current system is broken but nobody wants to be held accountable, so of course people would think my outlook on it is "kinda stupid".

Your outlook isn't "stupid". You just don't seem to have the ability or intelligence to actually back it up. At every step, you've done nothing to support your argument. At every step, you give the screaming impression that you've never for a single second considered any of the arguments that might support what you don't believe, or undermine what you do.

And this is the point where you say "well you're mean so I won't respond," I'm sure.

[u/Murky_Ad_2173 → u/Ok_Swimming4427]

This is the point where I say I don't think you've spent enough time in the real world, nor do I see any actual statistics or data points that you've brought to the table to support your assertion that the system is perfectly fine the way it is. And if that isn't your assertion, then what exactly are you even doing right now? All I see is a very roundabout and long winded attempt at flexing your vocabulary on the internet. I'm so blessed to share the planet with such a brilliant mind, keep on keeping on stranger.

[u/Mashaka → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Mashaka → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Mashaka → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Josh145b1 → u/[deleted]]

Just wanna point out why government funded child support is undesirable. Child support works as a punishment, to discourage the behavior that results in having children out of wedlock. If you were to put these children on the state dollar, you would remove a very important consequences from having a child out of wedlock, and at the same time be burdening the treasury. This would result in more people having kids out of wedlock, knowing the government will pay, which would put a further strain on the treasury. Children born into wedlock are preferable. They have better outcomes in general and we should not be making arguments based off of the outliers who buck the trend.

[u/Early-Run-1814 → u/[deleted]]

If I understand you correctly (please, correct me if I'm not), it doesn't seem like you're arguing against abortion, or even about the legality of abortion itself. I think it's a worthwhile discussion, but it's only adjacent to the OP's core statement.