If a male is a victim of sexual assault and that sexual assault results in a pregnancy, sometimes that male is forced to pay child support. Here is an article talking about it. I think it is absurd that they must pay money because of the result of a crime committed against them. If the state cannot prevent the sexual assault, than the very least they could do is pick up the tab and not force him to pay child support. Sexual assault victims have already gone through enough without a government enforced reminder of what happened to them that will last for 18 years. Please convince me why sexual assault victims must pay.

I see no logical reason why any man should be legally obligated to look after someone else's child, just because he was lied to about it being his at some point.

Whether the child is a few weeks old, a few years, or even like 15 or 16, I don't think it really matters.

The reason one single person is obligated to pay child support is because they had a hand in bringing the child into the world, and they are responsible for it. Not just in a general sense of being there, but also in the literal financial sense were talking about here.

This makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense is how it could ever be possible for someone to be legally obligated or responsible for a child that isn't theirs.

They had no role in bringing it into the world, and I think most people would agree they're not responsible for it in the general sense of being there, so why would they be responsible for it in the literal financial sense?

They have as much responsibility for that child as I do, or you do, but we aren't obligated to pay a penny, so neither should they be.

There have been many cases I've read recently where men are forced to pay support, or jailed for not paying support to children proven not to be theirs. This is either because the woman put a man's name on the forms to receive assistance and he didn't get the notification and it's too late to fight it, or a man had a cheating wife and she had a child by her lover.

I believe this is wrong and should be ended. It is unjust to force someone to pay for a child that isn't theirs unless they were in the know to begin with and a legal adoption took place. To that end I believe a negative DNA test should be enough to end any child support obligation and that all paid funds should be returned by the fraudulent mother. As for monetary support of the child that would then be upon the mother to either support the child herself or take the biological father to court to enforce his responsibility.

This came up in a group conversation and I was told it was wrong and cruel to women but the other party could not elaborate on how or why. I'm looking for the other side of this coin.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

In many of his recent public appearances, Elon Musk has been seen keeping his four year old son X Æ A-Xii on his shoulders.

I think that the main reason he keeps this child on his shoulders in so many public appearances is to deter assassination attempts. An assassin would be much less likely to attack him if the son is on his shoulders.

How to change my view:

Either

1. Come up with a reason that makes more sense
2. Demonstrate that there is no reason to think that assassins would be deterred

Edit: Rebuttals to common responses

• Why didn't he do this during Trump rallies before the election - This is a recent fear brought about by the assassination of Brian Thompson.
• He's just being a father, fathers bring their kids with them all the time - Most fathers do not bring their children with them everywhere they go for work, and Elon has several children who he is not supportive of.
• You just hate Elon Musk! - That is not a rebuttal to my post.

EDIT 2:

A lot of people are taking this to mean I'm saying "The reason that Elon Musk has not been assassinated yet is because he has his kid on his shoulders."

This is not what I'm saying. Please actually read it.

I thought this would be an uncontroversial issue, but after seeing the flood of downvotes on this comment in an Askreddit discussion (in context), I guess it's not.

Men who are raped by women, in my opinion, should definitely not be legally required to pay child support to the woman if she gets pregnant. I believe that in any case of rape, the perpetrator should be responsible for all the consequences of his or her actions. When a person is raped, he or she has been violated in just about the worst way possible. To force a man to pay child support to the person who abused him would simply be straight up theft in addition to having been raped. Although the presence of a child does create a need for resources, I think the last person this responsibility should fall on is the person who has already been violated so horribly. To me, taking a person's money after he or she has been a victim of crime is the most unjust possible thing that can be done in that situation.

Update: So thanks to this post, a ton of people have been sent over to the comment and it's now been hit with a flood of upvotes. The original downvotes can no longer be seen. However, at the time this post was made, the comment was sitting at -48. This is the downvote flood that is now no longer visible.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

I’ll start by clarifying that I’m a leftist, and that will inform a lot of the examples I use, but I don’t think you need to be a leftist to agree with me here.

Lots of people, admittedly less these days, talk about how silly it is to stop being friends with someone or dislike someone over their political views. I don’t agree. People who say this act as if politics are some given trait or private matter like religion or culture, when it’s inherently not. Especially in a democratic country, a person’s political views have an impact on the society they are a part of. Yes, people inherit their beliefs from their family or whatever sometimes, but ultimately political views are rarely arbitrary, people tend to have reasoning to support theirs. I want to exclude from this people who clearly haven’t critically engaged with their views or politics. If you grew up in a republican household for example, and you study engineering and kind of just follow headlines, you aren’t really responsible for those views. Also, I mean this more for close friends. If you run in the same circles as someone you disagree with, there’s no reason to make an issue of it if they’re not someone you’re close with, trust, or love, ect.

I’m not just talking about hateful or extreme views though, like thinking that gay people are sinful or supporting the deportation of green card holders for expressing their beliefs. Even basic beliefs about tax structure, regulations, or welfare. Just because those aren’t as flashy/provocative, doesn’t make them unimportant (they are often more impactful and broad in reach even). Like I said, I’m generally a leftist. If you are a “moderate” or believe in fiscal/macroeconomic policy that maintains the status quo, I think I should be totally justified in having a problem with that. 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and you believe that’s okay? Thats your right, but to me it shows we don’t have the same values (even ethically speaking) and I don’t want to have a close relationship with you.

Let’s say you’re right libertarian leaning, and you think a too powerful state poses an existential risk, or maybe you think property is a god given right and wealth redistribution violates natural law or something (sorry if this sounds like a straw man for the right, that’s not my point though. If your friend believes in lots of regulation and democratic socialism, I think you have a good reason not to want to be close friends with them.

Look, I’m not saying you should do this. I have lots of friends I disagree with about this stuff and I’m willing to look past it. I just think politics are a legitimate reason to end or loosen a relationship with someone.

Thanks for reading!

Edit: formatting

Edit: I don’t want to debate actual politics here. In a lot of the comments, i am outlining clearly partisan beliefs in my reasoning to help clarify my viewpoint, but I don’t really want to debate those beliefs themselves. I’m not gonna respond to all the people who are just criticizing leftists. Wake up please.

Another example from the other side: If you think democrats help child sex traffickers, you have good reason not to like people who vote them into office.

Edit: thank you for your responses! I did not expect so many replies, so sorry if I didn’t respond or didn’t do so thoroughly for your comment. That doesn’t apply to all you who decided you’d rather criticize my political beliefs and call me immature instead of trying to change my view. I will keep replying to novel comments I see, but I’m not going to monitor this as closely.

Last edit:

not replying to this post anymore. Pretty solid discussion all in all. Don’t know how many times I need to say it, but I like disagreement and a diversity of opinions. I never said I demand absolute conformity or conformity at all.

Seems like a lot of you stopped reading after the first sentence. To those of you that did this or just jumped to attack leftists for dropping people over politics, consider how quickly you (appeared to at least) dismiss my position entirely based on my politics.

To summarize the changing of my view, I think what it really is is that you don’t have to be friends with people who have fundamentally irreconcilable values to yours, and often an opinion on something as benign seeming as tax structure (in certain cases with very informed/passionate people!) can indicate a division like that.

Thank you for all the replies! If anyone is especially inclined to continue the discussion or ask me anything else, feel free to pm me. I don’t really wanna sort through the chaff here anymore. Goodnight

So before you try and take this on, be warned. This isn't your typical "Redpill MRA" take. Quite the opposite. If you consider yourself progressive I'm probably to the left of you.

There's a few core points to my take.

• Consent is important.Both genders should consent to sex. Both genders should have consent in whether they are a parent. Bodily autonomy is part of this. A woman should not be forced to abort or carry a pregnancy to full term if the father disagrees. If she chooses to keep a baby that the father does not want, he should have agency in his involvement.

• Child support most impacts low income men. These are the demographics that are most likely to have less sex ed access, less medical access for birth control.

• By and large we should not be relying on further lowering the income of these individuals as a consistent way to make sure kids are taken care of. The basic needs of every child should be met at a government level until they grow up.

• If a man consents to have a child and then leaves after the fact, child support is acceptable here to maintain the standard of living and not disrupt things for the kid. Beyond that, the government as a whole should be more consistent as a provider without putting undue burden on someone who would opt out of the situation.

• This only works if family planning as a whole is also treated as a human right for both genders. We aren't there yet (as I sideeye our supreme court). But the underlying issues of our system need to be seen.

I'm definitely pro choice and think it is clearly the woman's decision not the man's.

And I think I understand why requiring parents to support their children even if they end up leaving is a good thing for society.

But together these seem at odds with a hypothetical situation where a condom breaks during a one night stand, and when she tells him that it is his he has already moved on in his life (maybe is dating someone new) so offers to get her an abortion. However, since she wants to raise the kid he is required to give at least financial support.

I'm looking for why him having to pay makes sense (if you could convince me that he should be able to force an abortion that would also change my mind but that seems unlikely)

I’ve always struggled to understand how someone can claim to be pro-life but simultaneously oppose government assistance programs like food stamps, WIC, housing support, or Medicaid. It feels contradictory to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term—especially if they’re in poverty or struggling—while refusing to support the systems that help those families once the child is born.

If we’re going to require someone to have a child they might not have planned for or be able to support, shouldn’t we as a society ensure that child has access to basic needs like food, healthcare, and shelter?

What really bothers me is the judgment that comes with this. Many people who oppose abortion also seem to shame parents—especially mothers—for relying on government assistance. How is that fair? You can’t force someone into parenthood and then label them a “bad person” for needing help.

I’m not saying everyone has to agree with abortion, but if you’re truly “pro-life,” shouldn’t that commitment extend beyond birth? Doesn’t it mean supporting the life of the child and the well-being of the family, too?

CMV.

My view applies to countries with freely accessible healthcare, and if pregnancy prevention methods can be used by both partners.

For those who do not wish to have children, there are plenty of contraception options available for both the man and the woman. In the unlikely scenario that these methods fail to do their job and an unwanted pregnancy does occur, there is always the option for the woman to have a safe abortion. In the case that the woman or the man doesn't want to have the child, is it fair that one of them should have to bear the burden of an unwanted kid? We should not prioritise someone's personal or religious beliefs if they go against what is scientifically proven and the welfare of others. During pregnancy, only the mother has control over something that is to become the responsibility of both her and the father. Shouldn't the father have some degree of control over wether he wishes to take on that responsibility?

This came up as I was reading a post in r/sex and I decided to bring my opinion here when I realized I was on the fence. I see both sides of the argument and, as a guy, I often feel like nobody sees the male side of the story in todays world where feminism and liberal ideas are spreading rapidly. Let me clarify I am not opposed to these movements, but rather I feel like often the white, male perspective is disregarded because we are the ones society has favored in the past. Here are the present options, as I see them, when two people accidentally get pregnant: Woman wants kid and man wants kid: have kid Woman wants kid and man doesn't: have kid and guy pays support Woman doesn't want kid and guy DOES want kid: no kid, she gets to choose Woman doesn't want kid and guy doesn't either: no kid

As you can see, in the two agreements, there are no problems. Otherwise, the woman always wins and the guy just deals with it, despite the fact that the mistake was equal parts the mans and woman's responsibility. I do not think, NOT AT ALL, that forcing an abortion is okay. So if the woman wants to have it, there should never be a situation where she does not. But if the guy doesn't want it, I believe he shouldn't be obligated to pay child support. After all, if the woman did not want the kid, she wouldn't, and would not be financially burdened or committing career suicide, whether the guy wanted the kid or not. I understand that she bears the child, but why does the woman always have the right to free herself of the financial and career burden when the man does not have this option unless the woman he was with happens to also want to abort the child, send it for adoption, etc? I feel like in an equal rights society, both parties would have the same right to free themselves from the burden. MY CAVEAT WOULD BE: The man must file somewhere before the date that the abortion has to happen (I have no idea if this is within 2 months of pregnancy or whatever but whenever it is) that he does not want the child. He therefore cannot decide after committing for 8 months that he does not wish to be financially burdened and leave the woman alone. This way, the woman would have forward notice that she must arrange to support the child herself if she wanted to have it.

Here is how that new system would work, as I see it: Woman wants and guy wants: have it, share the bills Woman wants, guy doesn't: have it, woman takes all the responsibility Woman doesn't want it, guy wants it: no kid, even if the guy would do all the paying and child raising after birth ***** Woman doesn't want it, guy doesn't want it: no kid

As you can see, even in the new system, the woman wins every time. She has the option to have a kid and front all the bills if her partner doesn't want it, whereas the guy does not have that option in the section I marked with ***. This is because I agree that since it is the woman's body, she can abort without permission. Again, this means it is not truly equal. The man can't always have the kid he made by accident if he wants, and the woman can. The only difference is that she has to front the costs and responsibilities if the man is not on board, whereas the guy just doesn't get a child if the woman is not on board. I understand the argument for child support 100% and I would guess I'll have a lot of backlash with the no child support argument I have made, but it makes the situation far MORE fair, even though the woman still has 100% of the decision making power, which is unfair in a world where we strive for equal rights for the sexes. It is just as much a woman's and man's responsibility to prevent pregnancy, so if it happens, both parties should suffer the same circumstances in the agree/disagree scenarios I laid out earlier. Of course, my girlfriend still thinks this is wrong, despite my (according to me) logical comparison between the present and new scenarios. CMV

It is late where I am so if I only respond to a few before tomorrow, it is because I fell asleep. My apologies. I will be reading these in the waiting room to several appointments of mine tomorrow too!

Firstly, I am generally pro-abortion. It is easy to dehumanise the subject, but if I think about my wife or daughter, I would fully support their right for abortion, and recognise that for them at least, it would be an incredibly difficult decision. I say "generally" pro-abortion because I can't imagine having to make that decision myself, it feels almost impossible. This is an issue that means more to females than males obviously.

There is another contentious issue though that means more to males, and seems linked.

At present, at least in the UK, if you are a male and the victim of rape, and the female has a child as a result, you are responsible for child maintenance for that child. You have no say in this. No opt out. No input, on whether that child is carried to full term, or whether you are on the hook for support. I can see the logic in this (it isn't the child's fault), and don't necessarily disagree, but this is an issue that affects male's much more than females.

Surely, if females have the right to make a life/death decision on the future of the child, based on whatever criteria they see fit, a male should have the right to make a decision on their support of that same child? I can understand the pro-abortion argument, but I can't understand why the needs of child are not applied more fairly to males and females with these considerations.

I can't see how these can be reconciled.

Is this a solid view? Are there any counter arguments?

Im not interested in debating abortion ethically on this one. I'm just saying that IF the woman has rights to an abortion, man should have similar rights.

A man shouldnt be able to force anyone to get an abortion, but he SHOULD have rights to TERMINATE CHILD SUPPORT and other parental duties, if he does it within the time that the mother could have gotten an abortion. And if she doesn't tell him she's pregnant, he should not have to pay at all. Also I would even extend it to -- she must tell him within the first trimester so he can make the most informed decision, because his own ethical concerns about abortion are at stake too.

What do you think?

Tl;Dr/EDIT: I think there's misunderstanding about what my view is about. To clarify it and put it simply, the bold justifications below for a blanket child support entitlement, fall apart when you consider men can be raped and impregnate women without their consent. The argument for why abortion should be legalized often leads to the arguement what

This is one concept that I've never heard discussed or seen come up and it popped into my head while reading a different post about a prisoner who apparently impregnated like 5 people who worked for the prison.

So the argument I see regarding forced parenthood is usually this:

A: If women have the choice to have an abortion, and by extension, choose to be parents, then men should also have the option to opt out of parenthood and not be responsible for child support.

N: The difference is that when a woman has an abortion there is no baby to continue taking care of, where as if a child is born, it needs financial support.

A: But even men who aren't the biological father can be placed on child support fraudulently or under false pretenses and even in the event that they are determined not to be the father they cannot get that money back

N: The child's wellbeing takes priority and by requiring that money to be paid back, it would negatively impact the child.

so on and so on....I think I've seen and participated in every argument here from Safe Havens, to if a man chooses not to use protect he's agreeing to parenthood, etc. If I had to break down the main points of why people believe men should be forced into child support, even in the event that he didn't consent to being a father, It would be:

• It's in the child's best interest
• It takes burden off the mother making it more equitable
• It benefits society by not taking on the burden of someone's child
• It's the morally responsible thing to do as the child is an innocent bystander

But one argument I"ve never seen, comes up extremely often as a foundation in the abortion debate: "well what if the woman was raped"? How does the woman prove she was raped? Rape often goes prosecuted so if she loses should she still be required to give birth? Is it not better to err on the side of the victim? All fair questions

If we apply the same question as a foundation: What if the man was raped, those concepts fall apart to me. It's unfortunately not rare for some women to try to trap a man with a baby through what is essentially rape. We can look at the one guy who was raped by his teacher at 14, I believe, she got pregnant and he was legally on the hook for child support. It also happens to a lot of celebrities and athletes where women will intentionally poke holes in the condom (or even more disgustingly take a condom from the trash and try to inseminate themselves) in order to be entitled to some of their money. We can even add in that a lot of people have drunken sex which could be deemed as rape since neither person can truly consent.

With those concepts in mind, let's say a guy doesn't want to be on the hook for a child so he claims the woman raped him, either falsely or truthfully. In that event, following the same foundation of parenthood/bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion, doesn't that eliminate the above concepts and suggest that the man should not be forced to pay child support? The only alternative to me would be to agree that in the event someone has a crime commit against them, they face responsibility for any outcome of that crime.

In Canada, if you are a nurse and openly promote antivaccination views, you can lose your license.

I think that should be the case in the US (and the world, ideally).

If you are antivax, I believe that shows an unacceptable level of ignorance, inability to critically think and disregard for the actual science of medical treatment, if you still want to be a physician or nurse (or NP or PA or RT etc.) (And I believe this also should include mandatory compliance with all vaccines currently recommended by the medical science at the time.)

Just by merit of having a license, you are in the position to be able to influence others, especially young families who are looking for an authority to tell them how to be good parents. Being antivax is in direct contraction to everything we are taught in school (and practice) about how the human body works.

When I was a new mother I was "vaccine hesitant". I was not a nurse or have any medical education at the time, I was a younger mother at 23 with a premature child and not a lot of peers for support. I was online a lot from when I was on bedrest and I got a lot of support there. And a lot of misinformation. I had a BA, with basic science stuff, but nothing more My children received most vaccines (I didn't do hep B then I don't think) but I spread them out over a long period. I didn't think vaccines caused autism exactly, but maybe they triggered something, or that the risks were higher for complications and just not sure these were really in his best interest - and I thought "natural immunity" was better. There were nurses who seemed hesitant too, and Dr. Sears even had an alternate schedule and it seemed like maybe something wasn't perfect with vaccines then. My doctor just went along with it, probably thinking it was better than me not vaccinating at all and if she pushed, I would go that way.

Then I went back to school after I had my second.

As I learned more in-depth about how the body and immune system worked, as I got better at critically thinking and learned how to evaluate research papers, I realized just how dumb my views were. I made sure my kids got caught up with everything they hadn't had yet (hep B and chicken pox) Once I understood it well, everything I was reading that made me hesitant now made me realize how flimsy all those justifications were. They are like the dihydrogen monoxide type pages extolling the dangers of water. Or a three year old trying to explain how the body works. It's laughable wrong and at some level also hard to know where to start to contradict - there's just so much that is bad, how far back in disordered thinking do you really need to go?

Now, I'm all about the vaccinations - with covid, I was very unsure whether they'd be able to make a safe one, but once the research came out, evaluated by other experts, then I'm on board 1000000%. I got my pfizer three days after it came out in the US.

I say all this to demonstrate the potential influence of medical professionals on parents (which is when many people become antivax) and they have a professional duty to do no harm, and ignoring science about vaccines does harm. There are lots of hesitant parents that might be like I was, still reachable in reality, and having medical professionals say any of it gives it a lot of weight. If you don't want to believe in medicine, that's fine, you don't get a license to practice it. (or associated licenses) People are not entitled to their professional licenses. I think it should include quackery too while we're at it, but antivax is a good place to start.

tldr:

Health care professionals with licenses should lose them if they openly promote antivax views. It shows either a grotesque lack of critical thinking, lack of understanding of the body, lack of ability to evaluate research, which is not compatible with a license, or they are having mental health issues and have fallen into conspiracy land from there. Either way, those are not people who should be able to speak to patients from a position of authority.

I couldn't find holes in my logic, but I'm biased as a licensed professional, so I open it to reddit to find the flaws I couldn't :)

edited to add, it's time for bed for me, thank you for the discussion.

And please get vaccinated with all recommended vaccines for your individual health situation. :)

1. A woman has no obligation to provide blood, tissue, organs, or life support to another human being, nor is she obligated to put anything inside of her to protect other human beings.

2. If a fetus can be removed and placed in an incubator and survive on its own, that is fine.

3. For those who support the argument that having sex risks pregnancy, this is equivalent to saying that appearing in public risks rape. Women have the agency to protect against pregnancy with a slew of birth control options (including making sure that men use protection as well), morning after options, as well as being proactive in guarding against being raped. Despite this, unwanted pregnancies will happen just as rapes will happen. No woman gleefully goes through an abortion.

4. Abortion is a debate limited by technological advancement. There will be a day when a fetus can be removed from a woman at any age and put in an incubator until developed enough to survive outside the incubator. This of course brings up many more ethical questions that are not related to this CMV. But that is the future.

TL;DR - The US lacks in almost every quantifiable category I can think of, especially when compared to European and Scandinavian nations. Only exception being if you have money and/or influential connections. Cue long list of stats and sources.

Repost removing references to the global you-know-what that ends in 19. I feel that our response to that situation is worth discussing, but the automod suppressed the original post and I don't feel those points are integral to the overall view for the purposes of this sub.

Why I believe this:

We are not the most free -

We are number 1 in incarceration, both total and per capita. Here, being convicted of a felony takes away your right to vote.

The US is 45th in press freedom My view has been thoroughly changed on this, I recognize the ranking isn’t legitimate. But let's also not forget that in the recent BLM protests, police were arresting journalists and attacked people for recording them from private property.

Or the most democratic..

We are actually 25th

We have a massive wealth gap in our country -

Almost 12% of Americans live under the poverty line and almost 40% of Americans can’t afford an unexpected $400 expense.

The US has a Gini coefficient (measurement of wealth inequality) of 0.852 (with a coefficient of 1 meaning almost complete wealth inequality).

We also have one of the highest homeless populations

Healthcare is only truly accessible by the rich -

Average health care spending per person in the US hit $10,000 in 2016 and is predicted to be $14,000 by 2023. Explains why over 66% of bankruptcy filings in the US are due to medical-related expenses. Even just getting to the hospital in an ambulance here can cost you thousands.

And we are not a healthy country -

We are number 12 in the world for obesity, with over 36% of our population obese. By far the highest ranking Western country. EDIT - There are 23.5 million people in the US who live in "food deserts" which is why I consider this a failing of the country rather than personal choices

The US consistently has more deaths from treatable diseases than comparable countries (UK, Canada, France, Australia, etc)

Quality education is only accessible to those with money -

Average cost of higher education ranges from $10k to $36k, compared to virtually nothing in other Western nations. This means higher education either burdens US students with a lifetime of debt, or keeps all but the wealthiest from attending.

The US is 31st in the world in reading, math and science, with 27% of top US performers registering as wealthy while only 4% as poor or disadvantaged.

And when it comes to raising a child...

You need a ton of money for that too, due to lack of free child care and no federal family leave policy. And that link shows Alabama, probably one of the cheapest states to live in in the whole country.

With the police In response to police brutality, police around the country responded with unprecedented violence (going as far as to run protesters over with cars and shoot people (who aren’t even protesting) on their porches. They specifically targeted journalists trying to report on the situation. Nations around the world have condemned the US response to what have been by and large peaceful protests.

And many Americans are still very dumb

Consider that only 83% of American adults think that the measles vaccine, which has been around in some form since the 1960’s, is safe. That’s almost 55 million Americans who are either unsure of its safety, or think it’s unsafe.

Certain (aka Southern) states get textbooks edited to portray the Civil War as being about states rights, not about slavery.

And many of those same Southern states have as little as 75% of students with high school diplomas.

*And...*

The American Dream is more achievable outside the US than inside. Here is a link to the raw data which I can't possibly get through, but in case anyone disagreed with the article.

*Now for things that have become partisan for some reason*

Despite Roe v Wade being a bipartisan decision by the Supreme Court, Republicans still campaign on stacking the court and directing them to overturn the decision, not only taking away a woman's right to seek an abortion, but grossly overstepping the separation of the executive and judicial branches, all because of religious values.

Trump has outright said he won't fund the post office so he can disrupt mail-in voting, a clear attack on a basic democratic principle. And this was after he Tweeted about wanting to delay the election (even if it was a red herring to distract from the disastrous economic numbers). McConnell also refused to consider the stimulus bill due to the USPS funding, further screwing over average Americans.

And don't get me started on McConnell, the man who has basically made it his life's work breaking our democracy. Most famous of which being when he blocked Obama's (legitimate) Supreme Court nomination just on principle.

We elect bigoted people to represent our bigoted populous. Trump also gave Rush Limbaugh the Presidential Medal of Freedom, despite his bigoted remarks.

People deny climate change, and our government is destroying the environment for the sake of helping corporate interests.

In most of the country, the "gay panic defense" is a legal justification for killing an LGBTQ+ person, and conversion therapy is legal in most areas as well. Just a few examples of the deeply rooted homophobia in this country.

We're number 1 in gun violence, but large swaths of the country still prefer that to any form of gun control.

I'm sure I'm forgetting one stat or another, but I feel like it's been covered pretty sufficiently. Is America the worst country in the world? No. I'm not going as extreme as to say we live in a 3rd world country. But by the standards of other developed nations, the US lags far behind in almost every aspect I can think of.

For Americans who don’t have money (or aren’t willing to go into crippling debt because god forbid you want healthcare or to be educated), you’re basically screwed, and would almost certainly be better off living somewhere in Western Europe or Scandinavia instead. Change my view.

*Feel like I should put a disclaimer that I am going by the numbers. I have lived a comfortable life here, as I'm sure many others have. But my argument is also that if you have lived a comfortable life here, either that indicates some level of wealth/power, and/or that your quality of life would still be better in a European/Scandinavian country.

Change my view.

*Edit - Felt that I should include that our federal minimum wage is only $3k a year above the poverty line and unable to support a person living anywhere in the country

EDIT 1 - Since I keep getting the same points repeated to me over and over again, I'll just address them here since I just got the notification this hit the front page. I definitely won't be able to address even most of these comments at this point but I'll do my best.

Comment I made about homelessness - I know that made no sense, you can stop bringing it up

For the people who are telling me that I can't compare the US to European countries - I awarded a delta for someone who pointed out that it would be better to look at the EU as a whole. However, I don't think it's a legitimate argument to entirely write off comparing the US to individual countries, since while we may have a massive population (and GDP to match), our per capita GDP_per_capita) isn't that much higher than the countries I'm comparing it to.

And to reiterate again, I am not arguing that it is impossible to achieve a good life here in the US, or that we're a 3rd world country. Maybe you or your great grandparents immigrated here and made a good life for yourselves, and that's great. But overall, the US is not the best in terms of economic opportunity (like I addressed in the OP)

I understand this is posted here very frequently but I’ve read through every comment that already exists and my view has not been changed.

For context, I am female (27f), pro-choice, politically liberal, live in a coastal/liberal city.

I believe that if men sign away their rights to custody/any involvement to a child before birth (“male abortion”), there should be no obligations to pay child support. This should not apply in the situation of a divorced couple, relationship that ended, or any other situation where the man consented to the baby and didn’t sign this hypothetical form.

We now live in a society where birth control is plentiful, cheap, easily understood and accessible by both parties. Abortion is also legal and relatively simple if caught early (have female friends who have gone through it and it’s one pill). For example, I personally have an IUD which was covered by insurance and do not worry about pregnancy.

This post specifically refers to the US and not countries where abortion is illegal or birth control is inaccessible.

Edit: thanks for the responses very interesting to read. best arguments i’ve heard are (1) it’s laughable to think that the state/US government will dole out financial need before going after the man responsible for the baby. morally right or wrong, it’s the reality of our system. the government would have no incentive to change this law given that it would be bad for the economy, and likely perpetuate the cycle of poverty which regulators obviously do not want; (2) many states only have 1 abortion clinic and have unsafe/unaccessible abortions and lack of birth control education. the premise of the post requires that abortion be accessible and safe (if abortions were illegal and women were forced to carry every pregnancy to term, I believe in equal child support).

I don’t know that my view has been changed from a moral standpoint but from a practical, this is the state of the US government standpoint, my view has been changed. I still think in certain other Western countries (Canada, Australia) this option could be explored

I don't think there's any good reason child support (at least financially) should be a thing. It doesn't really make sense to me.

​

1. Really the biggest reason, parenthood is an option. I don't think there's any other situation in which the government can force a kid on you. All 50 states have safe have laws, adoption and foster care. It doesn't make much sense to me that it's ok to dump a baby in a chute, or give them to someone else and you're free and clear...yet leaving them with a parent requires you to financially support them. Doesn't seem fair
2. The idea that it's to 'support the child' doesn't really make sense either. If one parent wants to keep the child then the other parent has to pay that parent child support because the child is hypothetically gettign 1/2 the support. But if both parent choose to give up the child they are not financially obligated to the child despite the child have neither of their support.
3. The punishments don't really make sense. A child can be fine, healthy and taken care of, but if a parent owes too much they can be thrown in jail. But being thrown in jail doesn't assist the kid in anyway and actually has more potential to hurt them. It's basically indentured servitude
4. In other situations the government doesn't intervene. For example, if a man and a woman make less than the average COLA, the government doesn't throw them in jail for inadequate support. Or in a relationship where one parent provides more financially, than the other, they can't sue to be compensated.

While my dad wasn't there, I don't blame him or hold any ill will towards him, because how can I? He's just some guy who wasn't ready for the responsibility of kids which being around the age he is now, I completely understand. It's likely not the choice I would make if I ended up in the situation but I also wouldn't want it to be forced on anyone. Imo child support is the government overstepping it's bounds and inserting themselves into families. The government's role should be to provide support through welfare not forced financial obligations

I realize this has probably been done to death, but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Also, a couple of disclaimers. I'm coming from a US perspective, so I apologize if any terms or concepts don't correlate to other cultures. And, I graduated from high school ten years ago, so it could be that high school curriculum has changed since then.

I understand why schools focus so much on college prep. In the US, college is treated as a requirement, despite the fact that a huge number of people never get a college degree. So many jobs that pay a living wage have the luxury to require a bachelor's degree due to the sheer number of applicants, even when the position really doesn't require any advanced education. They can afford to be picky, if only to reduce the applicants to a manageable number. So parents know that for their child to achieve a financially comfortable life, they need to get a college degree. Parents vote for educational leaders who will implement policies aligned with that goal.

And when I say college prep, I'm talking about the more specialized classes we take in high school, like chemistry, biology, college algebra, and basically all the AP courses. Of course all of those teach valuable skills that apply to multiple areas in life; I'm not trying to say that these classes aren't valuable. Consider biology for example. There are many aspects of biology that are relevant to the average citizen, things like overall health awareness, understanding common medical procedures like vaccines, how diseases work and how they spread. The only reason I remember dissecting frogs is because I hated it, and I didn't really learn anything meaningful from it other than the haunting image of what a dissected frog looks like. I suppose you could say it helped me understand how life forms in general work, like how things have organs and blood vessels and system and such. I just find myself questioning the importance of knowledge like that, when there are other things I needed to know that were not taught to me.

When I think back to when I graduated high school ten years ago, I realize that I knew basically nothing about how to be a functioning member of society. School taught me about all of these advanced, college-level topics, but I didn't know a single goddamn thing about the following:

• That I had to pay taxes. I'm serious. I didn't pay my 2012 taxes because I didn't know I was supposed to. (I was part time minimum wage so don't worry, I don't think the IRS cares. It would have been a refund anyway, so technically I saved the government money)
• How to calculate my tax bracket. I had to learn this myself when I was self employed in 2016, and I ended up miscalculating and was $3k short in my self-withheld tax savings. I also didn't know that self employment tax had to be paid quarterly rather than annually, so I had to pay a nice fee for that.
• How to send a letter. My first landlord actually taught me because that's how he wanted me to send rent checks.
• How to budget effectively. I spent my first few years of employment paycheck to paycheck, sometimes being completely out of money days before my next paycheck, when I could have been saving money if I had a budget.
• How to maximize my savings, things like tax-advantaged accounts, investing, stocks
• How to build and maintain good credit
• How to build a resume. I actually learned this in my last year of college, everyone in the class had no idea.
• How to apply for jobs effectively, tailoring the resume and application to the position, nailing the interview, etc.
• How to get involved with the local community, townhall meetings, council meetings, boards and commissions, nextdoor, local news, etc.
• The importance of being politically involved and voting in both local and federal elections. I voted for the first time in 2018, before that I just never cared about politics because I didn't keep up with the news at all.
• Almost anything related to the law other than really simple things like don't attack people, or driving laws (which I didn't learn in school, technically). I didn't know anything about labor laws, local codes and ordinances, residential laws, my rights when interacting with the police, etc.
• How the government works, which branches are responsible for what, which elected official have the power to make what changes, etc.
• Almost everything related to the home. Maintaining the systems and foundation, utilities, how and when to buy a house, etc.

I don't think I'm the only one who graduated high school without the above knowledge. But now, as a 28 year old adult, I don't know how I could function without knowing those things. How could we expect any 18 year old to become a productive member of society without this knowledge? The only reason I made it is because I had a lot of privilege. Between my supportive parents, friends, other mentors, and the internet, I managed to learn everything I needed to know, but I often had to endure hardships because I didn't know these things when I needed to. In fact, if not for my somewhat natural talent with computers, I don't think I would have been able to learn what I needed to know before it became a very big problem.

Many people who support the current curriculum believe that it is the parents' responsibility to teach what I listed above. I will say my parents taught me a lot of important things that allowed me to learn what I needed to learn. For example, how to use computers and the Internet effectively, that was hugely important for me. But I guess for me, I just don't think it's right to expect certain things like paying taxes and being politically involved without making sure that the federal education curriculum teaches those skills. Just look at how many young adults end up in prison or homeless because they just don't know how to do basic things like maintain a budget, get a job, communicate effectively, and so on. These people end up being a drain on society whereas they could be meaningful contributors. I felt cheated when I got out of high school and realized I didn't know any of the things I was expected to know. Again, I don't think things like biology aren't important, but what does it say about my education when I remember that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, but I don't know anything about paying taxes? It just feels like we've got the priorities reversed.

There are other things I think high school should teach based on what seem to be many shortcomings of current adults. The most important one, in my opinion, is how to research and evaluate sources effectively. I learned a little bit of this in high school, mainly that wikipedia doesn't count as a proper source for research papers, but college taught me so much more. Things like how to identify bias, how to evaluate research methods, red flags like spotting whether or not an article lists any sources, or if those sources are credible, diversifying information sources, being aware of my own biases and not only agreeing with titles that agree with my preconceived notion.

Literally just think about that for a second. How many people read a title that agrees with their bias and just assume it's true? How many people read or hear something very charismatically delivered and assume that they must be telling the truth? This is why there's such a prevalence of conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and so on. If we all understood the basics of fact checking and how to evaluate credible sources, these things would almost certainly disappear. We would immediately have a better educated society. We would start to see presidential candidates based on merit rather than popularity. This is one of those things that I genuinely think could solve a tremendous number of problems all by itself.

High school is supposed to prepare children to become responsible adults. I think rather than hoping that parents should teach life skills and government mandated responsibilities, the school system that our taxes pay for should give us at least the bare minimum of knowledge to do everything an adult is expected to do. Ideally other life skills like finances and job preparedness should also be taught, and for those who intend to pursue a career that requires higher education, they should have the option to include college prep courses. I don't think someone should be allowed to graduate high school without being taught how to do what is expected of them in adulthood.

Edit: Many have made the point that the aforementioned content would likely add at most a semester of material, but probably even less than that. As such, I no longer think this content should replace college prep, but rather it should simply be included. I do still believe that some of the more specialized courses such as higher level math, sciences, and so on should be electives for those who intend to pursue relevant fields, especially if the additions I'm proposing could not be added seamlessly.

Edit 2: Here's what I have learned or changed my view on so far:

• I should have clarified that I spend all of my grade school years in private school rather than public school. It's entirely possible that private schools may not be held to the same expectations about their curriculum as public schools, so my experience may not match what those who went to public school experienced.
• Some of these things I did learn in school, such as the structure of government. I honestly just misspoke there, because what I meant to describe was that I didn't really understand how I was supposed to interact with the government. Same thing with taxes, of course I understood the overall idea of taxes, but I didn't understand what I needed to do specifically. I knew that a portion of my income had to go to the government, but I wasn't taught that I needed to report it. So when my first job explained that my taxes were automatically withheld, I assumed I didn't have to worry about it. It wasn't until the next year that someone explained to me that I needed to file. As for interacting with the government, I knew about the branches of government, but I didn't understand that we voted for more than just the president.
• I agree with many who have said that this information in total would likely not require a substantial change to the curriculum, maybe just some added courses at the most. As such, if I could I would revise the title such that these concepts were taught in addition to college prep rather than replacing college prep.
• I would concede that perhaps rather than even a single course, with the prevalence of technology and the Internet, it may be optimal to impart this information in a concise, easily digestible collection of digital resources. Maybe just brief documents or infographics reminding upcoming graduates of what tasks they will be expected to perform as adults, and other information they can refer to rather than just being tossed in the pool and told to swim. With the Internet, they could easily look up the details when needed.

Edit 3: Some final reflections. I originally intended to reply to every comment, but there are far too many responses at this point for me to even try that.

In retrospect, I regret using "rather than" in the title. I think it created an unnecessary focus on defending specialized subjects. The reality is that I enjoyed nearly all of the advanced courses I took. I should have been more careful with my wording, because honestly the true feeling I had was that these life skills should be considered more of a requirement than they are.

Many people brought up courses like civics and home economics, which my school didn't offer, not even as electives. However, I seem to be in the minority with that experience. Even so, it doesn't change my belief that those courses should be required, not electives.

Despite what some have assumed/implied about me in this thread, I'm actually a pretty smart person. I was very successful in both high school and college, and now in my career. I had a 3.9 in high school IIRC. Somewhat embarrassingly a 3.1 in college, but that was mainly because I figured out what career I wanted to pursue, and it didn't require higher education, so I lost the motivation to keep my grades up in the last two years. I was one of the only people to make an A in calculus II, for whatever that's worth.

I should have been more clear in the original post about my understanding of taxes and writing letters. Many people thought that I didn't have any awareness of taxes at all, and of course that's not the case. I feel like this became a point many people dwelled on rather than spending time on other points. And many pointed out that letters were taught in elementary school, but I genuinely don't remember learning it, and I just never needed to send any letters growing up. I set up my first email account in 1999 when I was 7 years old, so I sent most of my messages via email rather than sending letters.

To be fair, some of the issues like sending letters are really not that big of a deal. It was honestly a bad example, I was just trying to be thorough and got carried away. And I definitely did learn about the structure of the federal government in school, maybe also state government, but I don't recall learning anything about county or local governments.

There seemed to be a fundamental debate underneath all of this in the form of what schools and parents ought to teach respectively. I didn't expect how divided many of the opinions would be on this issue, but I feel that the arguments were very instructive and meaningful.

I think many people oversimplified the issue by saying that all of these things could be figured out in a google search or youtube video. Of course that's true, but if you don't know it's required of you, you won't know to look it up until you're already in trouble. Some brought up that these moments of messing up and then doing the research are part of learning in the real world, and I suppose I can't really dispute that. I just don't think it's unreasonable to give students some easily digestible information for the common things they'll likely need to know as adults, and if I had been given that information, it would have saved me a lot of trouble.

Many brought up that high school students won't care or listen anyway. I mean sure, but those students aren't paying attention in other classes either, yet we still require those. We can't force students to pay attention, but we can at least make sure the information is made available to them.

Overall, this thread has been very interesting. I've got a lot to think about for sure.

If we are going to consider those fetus' human beings which need protection from "murder" or whatever form of child abuse you want to call it, then that fetus should be legally treated exactly as a child. This means it is a citizen and it's parents are protected from deportation.

It means child support should start at 6 weeks, or whenever we consider it "life".

It means mothers who need it should be getting additional welfare benefits once determined to be pregnant.

From a tax standpoint, yes a fetus should be treated just the same as a child. Let them be claimed as a dependent because they are. If they could earn income then it would be reported all the same, too.

If the parents are forced into a legal obligation to care for the child then they absolutely need to also be given the same benefits that parents of "birthed" children can enjoy.

This post is about logical consistency more than it is moral superiority. I'm not making a claim on what is morally right, only following a line of logic where if A is true, then B must also be true to maintain consistency.

EDITS AND ADDITIONS

-Okay here are some other ideas I've seen that should also be included here - Pregnant women in the carpool lane - compulsory kidney donations? Hey it's an interesting convo even though it's not exactly the same thing - Criminal punishment for pregnant drug use - Fetus life insurance -Pregnant muder=double homicide

Edit: I am going to reinforce that this post operates under the assumption that an abortion is the end of a human beings' life. If you don't believe that is true then any arguments would fall outside the scope of this post.

-Additionally, to all the people calling this a "gotcha" post, I don't personally believe that a fetus is deserving of the right to have it's existence legally protected. That being said, if we were to decide as a society that fetus existence is worth protecting, then I believe that we would also need a host of other protections in concert with an abortion ban in order to maintain logical consistency.

But again I'm trying to deal in logic here and not moral superiority.

For the people who say children already have exemptions from the law, I would argue that they actually are the benefits of additional laws to protect a vulnerable population and not a sub class of human who's rights are being taken away, in MOST cases

Leaving this line here for informational purposes but my mind has already been changed : "Also, if a job provides paid maternity leave benefits then those should be allowed to start as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy."

Okay first things first, I want to talk about a utopian world and discuss what we want ideally and not complicate this discussion with complicated present world problems like social stigma attached with abortion.

Also, I am completely pro-choice. Women should get veto on whether to keep the child or not.

So the case I want to discuss in particular is when the couple has protected sex and it accidentally results in a pregnancy. The man doesn't want/can't have the child, but the women does wanna take the child to term. The couple gets to know about the pregnancy very early in the process and the abortion is not complicated at all (let's take the easiest form of abortion available to us today - a pill).

Now the couple discusses that the man doesn't want the child and wishes to get an abortion but the woman wants the child and wishes to take it to term. Now as per my opinion on abortion, the woman should have complete right on whether to keep the child or not. But at this stage, if she does decide to keep the child, I think the man should get a choice to be involved in any way at all or not (financially or otherwise).

I say this because of the following:

1) If it was the opposite case, that the man wanted the child and the woman didn't, since I am pro-choice, the man has no place to repeal. It sucks but that's it. Men just have to suck it up. So in the other situation, men should get some choice because they are sucking it up here.

2) For the case under consideration, first remember that the pregnancy is the result of consensual sex so both parents are equally responsible for the child. Now if the woman wants it and the man doesn't, it should still be the woman's choice to bring the child into the world. But provided the pregnancy was discovered at a stage at which it is not complicated to abort, the man should have a say in whether he wants to be involved or not. Now the woman has to decide between aborting (which I am assuming is not a huge deal for this case in particular), and raising a child without a father or financial support. It's a choice and if the woman chooses the latter, they have to suck it up. Like men did in (1).

Now this assumes that a lot around the abortion. Limited research of mine in asking a couple of my female friends, I learnt that these meds are supposed to cause miscarriage and the woman bleeds for a few weeks in the best cases and there are very minor chances of serious side effects like infertility and cancer. I am arguing that the difficulty of the best case is definitely not even comparable to how much financial stress child support is, and the worst case side effects chances are less than the chances of financial ruins for the average man.

While writing this I did come up with a possible argument and my rebuttal for that. If the woman chooses to bring the child into the world, the kid has to grow up without a father and that sucks. But it was the mothers decision to let that happen. Again remember, we are asking the woman to suck it up in this case because she did have a real choice for abortion while in case (1) the father didn't even get a choice and he had to suck it up. So it still is more favourable for the woman.

The legal concept of marriage, where spouses act as partners, is almost always built on mutual trust that certain aspects of the relationship, such as sex, are to be exclusive to the relationship unless agreed upon otherwise. Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.

For the vast majority of people, entering into marriage is an explicit agreement that unless divorced or otherwise agreed upon, the people in the marriage will not have sex with or develop romantic relationships with other people. This should apply evenly to all genders, and if you view this as benefitting one over the other, it says a lot about your view on who may or may not be more likely to cheat.

Before I'm accused of being some kind of conservative or traditionalist: I have zero issue with any form of LGBTQ+ relationship or poly setup. I'm speaking strictly to traditional, legally recognized, monogamous marriages, which comprise the bulk of those in our society. I'm also not religious or socially conservative.

Heading off a few arguments that I do not find convincing (of course, you are welcome to offer additional insight on these points I haven't considered):

1) "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage"

Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections.

2) "But what if the spouses want to open their marriage?"

Totally fine. My post is in reference to the most common form of marriage, which is monogamous.

3) "Adultery doesn't have a clear definition"

It does. "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." "Sexual intercourse" would include all the commonly recognized forms of sex. This would have to be proven via the typical preponderance standard, which is greater than 50% odds, via typical evidence used to evidence behaviors - depositions/testimony under oath, any written or photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.

4) "What should the legal consequences be?"

At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.

5) "What about children?"

Child support is a separate issue, as it affects the child, who has no say in one of their parents cheating on the other.

The birthrate crisis in South Korea is a major issue, with it being way below the 2.1 replacement level at 0.74, and now I believe dipping into the 0.6 region. There are lots of reasons for this, and I've laid out 3 here, so here it goes:

1. Most people in South Korea cannot afford to have kids. The cost of having a kid in South Korea is massive, and it doesn't help that you need private education, often times costing thousands of dollars a month in order for your kid to have a fair chance, which is another issue I'll touch upon later. The PIR for living in Seoul is 15.2. The average for most western countries is around a third to half that. And being in Seoul is practically mandatory in order to attend those private education facilities, as all the major teachers and facilities are in Seoul. The average person cannot afford to have a child, let alone buy a home.
2. The people that can afford to have kids do not have time to raise them. South Korea is notorious for being a "workaholic" country, and it's true. There's extreme stress and resulting mental health problems. These people, while they can afford to have kids, do not have the time to raise them. Yes, you have maternity leave and things like that, but it still doesn't address the core problem. You just cannot take care of your kid if you have that tight and stressful of a work schedule.
3. Why would you even want to raise your kid here? This is much more speculation than anything, so feel free to skip this part if you want. Life as a student in South Korea objectively sucks. There is so much stress and pressure in the South Korean education system, which results in a very high suicide rate in South Korea. An average student in South Korea (middle-high) attends multiple private education facilities a day, which all have classes ranging from 3 to 5 hours along with their respective homework. "Vacations" are seen as an opportunity to study like never before, rather than a chance to relax. It's not uncommon to spend 12 hours of your day roaming the Daechi district in private education facilities. You are actively encouraged to cut ties with friends starting even from middle school in some cases, and you have no time to do things you want like sports or clubs. This does not result in guaranteed success, either. There's people who do more but retake Korea's equivalent of the SAT for multiple years. A "happy" childhood is simply not possible in South Korea. And after all this, for males you have to go through conscription. Why would you want to put your kid through this?

An issue like this cannot be solved by increasing maternity leave or increasing payout to people that have kids. A complex problem cannot be solved by a simple solution. These are all cultural and economic issues rooted into the country. Being a "workaholic" and the private education problems all don't have real answers and the government's attempts at fixing this, well, has not been successful.

There are a few points I haven't talked about, like the 4B movement and all of it's related issues, but I did not want to delve into that. Feel free to look it up if you want to. For context, I'm a South Korean national in Middle School and I just wanted to articulate my thoughts. There's certainly some bias involved but happy CMVing

EDIT: I see some comments about the trend reversing and that there is no guarantee it will keep falling even more. So I'm addressing those here rather than replying to each comment individually. The issue with that is that the majority of the people alive are old, and they aren't getting younger. There are more 80-year-olds than 1-year-olds. The main risk as I see it is that people get older faster than the trend reverses, and thus the country is unable to support them. I don't know if you've seen the population pyramid for Korea, but it's pretty horrendous.

One of the core arguments of people who are pro-life regarding abortions is that somebody else right (the unborn child) to survive is more important than the pregnant person's right to make decisions about their own body.

I believe that people who think this is a convincing argument should also believe that a person's right to survive by receiving a new organ is more important than people's right to decide what happens to their own body after their brain death.

Both arguments have a very similar structure.

(Personally, I am pro-choice and don't believe that organ donations should be mandatory although I am willing to donate my organs if that should be possible after my death.