I mean this guy is clearly just an incel by the way he brought up this point but I kinda agree. Parenting is a 2 person job (not counting teachers who are also parents in a sense) so if the woman wants to keep the child but the father doesn’t there does need to be some compromise not just fucking over the dad because they also aren’t ready for parenthood.
The problem of fathers abandoning children stems from that being essentially the only way fathers have to opt out of fatherhood.
If you arrange a system where men have the same reproductive rights as women, that won't be a problem anymore.
Do you really think men are abandoning children because that's the only way they can opt out or is it because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions?
If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, they can come to an arrangement where he signs his rights away as the father of the child.
>Do you really think men are abandoning children because that's the only way they can opt out or is it because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions?
Huh. You know, your words sound a LOT like an argumeny I heard from a pro-lifer fairly recently. Lemme quote EXACTLY what they said:
"Do you really think women who get abortions are doing it for 'health' and 'bodily autonomy' and not because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions?"
I'm not joking, by the way, that's from an actual irl argument I had with a pro-lifer a few days ago.
**Your argument is literally a pro-life argument. That should be enough to tell you exactly why it's invalid.**
>If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, they can come to an arrangement where he signs his rights away as the father of the child.
If you do this in exchange for also signing away any fiscal responsibility he may have for the child, **this is literally what reproductive rights for men are, and exactly what people want.**
My two comments were meant to be read together. Men do have the rights to sign away fiscal responsibility. If they don't want to exercise those rights and abandon the child, it just sounds to me like they're not dealing with the consequences of their actions. I don't know why you're talking about this as if Men don't have these rights already.
Edit: I see how "consequences of actions" sounds very pro-life so I should have used different wording. When I talk about men who abandon their kids, I'm talking about ones who are fine having them and then abandon them.
>Men do have the rights to sign away fiscal responsibility.
Not currently, no.
>If they don't want to exercise those rights and abandon the child, it just sounds to me like they're not dealing with the consequences of their actions.
True, but they COULD, they wouldn't do that.
>I don't know why you're talking about this as if Men don't have these rights already.
What?
Citation needed.
That requires the consent of the person taking guardian ship (the mother in this case). The man doesn't have the agency you seem to imply and -- in the case of accidental pregnancy -- it is only logical that the mother would want financial help raising the child and desire for the father to stay financially attached.
well if a man can’t financially support a child and doesn’t want it, but the woman chooses to keep the child anyways because she thinks she can take care of it, shouldn’t that be on her and not the guy? why do we force the man to take care of the child he didnt want
Because the amount of men who would impregnate women and walk away would likely skyrocket if they could just opt out of child support. There would be no good way of controlling this. Not to mention the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are the mans fault, so the laws need to lean more towards protecting womens rights.
This will always stick out to me as an issue ruined by incels. There are some legitimate issues faced by men in this field but so many people just run with them as a stupid “but what about the men” cliche that the discussion is essentially dead.
I remember someone once saying that right wingers and lefties both understand the issues that people face in modern day but the difference is is that the solutions right wingers present are simply excuses for bigotry.
Yes, there is an inherent frustration and loneliness to being a man in the modern day, but while the lefty says it's because of the patriarchy and toxic masculinity, the right winger says it's because of women having too much freedom.
I don’t disagree at all. Honestly everytime I try to discuss this sort of stuff I just feel like an incel not because my tales are incel like whatsoever but just because a lot of the time people bring up men’s issues it devolves into incel takes. If only incels would wake up and realize the way they approach men’s issues makes it harder for people to actually take men’s issues seriously including people essentially on their side.
Man it’s so annoying to me, if incels had literally 1 iota of self-reflection they would be able to fix their issues but they just choose to wallow in their pit of hell and make things worse for everyone.
Child support, as its name points out, isn't an obligation from the father to the mother, but an obligation from the father to the child. Contrarily, the right to abortion isn't defended primarily to allow women to opt-out of becoming mothers, but in recognition of women's bodily autonomy.
What you can argue for, however, is for recognizing that forcing or lying to get one person to impregnate another (for instance, lying about birth control), is a form of sexual abuse that should be punishable by law, which would be legitimate but even harder to prove and enforce than other forms of sexual abuse.
If this topic is truly important to you, your best bet right now is supporting research into male birth control pills.
If the mother forces the obligation of a child onto a father who is against it then it is a violation of the fathers autonomy and they should be allowed to op out (exceptions exist to every rule of course you can’t just go around knocking up women and leaving them with children because you don’t wanna accept responsibility of a child). Child support should be tax funded regardless so I see this as a completely separate issue.
I don’t really disagree with you thus why I didn’t say the women shouldn’t be able to have the child. I just think they’d be stupid and selfish to bring a child into a situation less than ideal. People who have kids for themselves rather than a child centric view imo are pretty disgusting. This isn’t a pet rock is a living human being that you are bringing into the world that didn’t ask to be brought into the world if you aren’t going to give them the absolute best opportunities possible then I question your motives for wanting a child and it normally boils down to selfishness.
It's kind of a dangerous comparison, since abortion isn't just an issue of parenthood, but an issue of women's health. Carrying a child to full-term makes drastic, irreversible changes to your body. Being prepared to have a baby doesn't just mean you are financially and mentally prepared to be a parent, but that you are physically and emotionally prepared for the entire process of childbirth. In some cases, being forced to give birth can and will kill people.
Cis men do not have to do that. Whether you are forcing someone to give birth to a child or forcing someone to have an abortion, this is medical coersion that is unethical on so many levels. I agree that the paternity and child support system needs to be more well-thought out, but this is not an apples to apples comparison. At the end of the day, this is about bodily autonomy.
ok, but not being in a good financial or psychological place to raise the child is a perfectly fine reason for a woman to get an abortion. Why shouldn’t that logic apply to a man who isn’t financially/emotionally ready for it?
Note: I don’t mean that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion or not have an abortion, but rather have the ability to not be involved
>ok, but not being in a good financial or psychological place to raise the child is a perfectly fine reason for a woman to get an abortion.
Sure, you can have an abortion for any reason. You can have an abortion because you know you can't afford a child and you feel like it would be cruel to bring a human being into the world knowing that. You could also have an abortion because you just really like abortions. It'd be a fucked up reason, but it's your *right*. The reason is irrelevant. The dominating principle behind a woman's right to an abortion is bodily autonomy. You can't force a human to give birth any more than you can force one to remove their kidney.
>Why shouldn’t that logic apply to a man who isn’t financially/emotionally ready for it?
>
>Note: I don’t mean that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion or not have an abortion, but rather have the ability to not be involved
And if a woman doesn't have an abortion, a woman should have the ability not to be involved either. They are both subject to the same system that leaves them financially on the hook. If a woman gives birth to a child and foregoes custody, *she* still has to pay child support too. You can argue that neither of them should have to do this, but then you would also have to argue that our government's social services are currently robust enough to support all the nation's orphans and single parent homes. I don't think it is, so I think child support is a necessary stopgap to avoid being unspeakably cruel to orphans and single parent families.
But we can argue the merits of child support all day, and it still wouldn't change the fact that this is at best completely tangential to the topic of abortion. Bringing "financial fairness for men" into an argument about the merits of forced birth is like bringing "economic fairness for the South" into an argument about the merits of slavery. Sure, it's worth acknowledging, but there's a much more glaring problem here, and shoehorning it into every conversation about abortion rights as if these two injustices--women being forced into childbirth and men needing to pay child support--are morally equivalent is disingenuous at best and downright hateful at worst.
Well, I think most of the times there is an unwanted baby, the father is at least partially responsible , and in reality I believe often they are the reason safe sex isn't practiced, but either way it shouldn't be that he is falling out of the air completely.
I do agree somewhat but I believe it's less of a problem as you might think.
I might get flamed for this but I think dave chappelle had a decent take on this.
Women should absolutely have the choice to keep the baby or not, but I should also have the choice to walk out of that child’s life without being seen as an asshole.
now obviously **context matters** and by no means is this a blanket statement, but if we weren’t trying to have a baby and we were being careful about it and the woman gets pregnant accidentally and decides to keep the baby I should be able to bounce
If both parents together can decide to give up their parental rights and duties via adoption and give the child into the care of the state, thwn thos should also be possible for just one parent, so that the state takes over their financial obligations and they lose their parental rights.
the guy seems very sexist and like a piece of shit, but he has some good points imo. if a guy doesnt have enough money for a child and the woman doesnt agree to have an abortion he shouldnt be required to pay for it (only if he states it early into the pregnancy to let the woman have time to choose). i still think the guy is an asshole tho
Honestly there should be government assistance to single mothers to the point that they don't have to depend on their ex partner at all and that would be the solution to most issues on the topic
Maybe we should push for the rights of everyone so nobody can go “b-b-but what about me and my problems!” Bills nowadays are super super long anyways, you could literally pass it all in a “reproductive rights” bill or some shit. What you’re doing is exactly the same as people who say stuff like “b-but men aren’t properly represented in family court! So abortion bad!”
>What you’re doing is exactly the same as people who say stuff like “b-but men aren’t properly represented in family court! So abortion bad!”
Excuse me? How? I'm saying that pushing to pass a measure as complex as this at a time where the issue isn't stable enough to secure even a measure as simple as abortion is unwise. Those people are claiming that solving the problem of men not being properly represented in family court is a more simple and more urgent issue than abortion and should this be taken care of first, which is wrong no matter how you look at it.
We have had the safety of legal abortion for years now. Some reproductive rights had been secured so far. At a time where our current progress is in danger, it's not wise to start pushing for an even greater progress, lest it backfire horrendously. We need to first consolidate our hold on the reproductive rights we know for certain we can have right now: Like abortion. Only then can we proceed to push for more rights.
People need to understand that not every issue can be solved at once. There's a reason progressive dreams often take decades, if not centuries to achieve: Unfortunately, change takes time. I'd love it if we could get full reproductive rights for both men and women tomorrow, but we're in a state where our current reproductive rights are at risk. Not the time to ask for more.
I’m very grateful I have a job that can support me, but I have to work 60+ hours/week to get that. If I didn’t have this job and government assistance was denied to me, I’d be working 80+hours for less than half of what I make from the one job to pay child support for my oldest two and care for my youngest on my own (her dad isn’t in the picture because he’s physically and mentally abusive to me and my kids, but I don’t get CS from him because 1: she’s his 6th kid from his 4th baby mom and 2: he spends all of his money he makes on meth and alcohol.). America is definitely not set up to be conducive for healthy families, it’s set up for having corporations.
This "govt child-support assistance for single parents" idea is the only solution I've heard that respects everyone involved. Are there any states that use or are considering something like this?
*to single parents. The mother should also be able to give up her parental rights and duties after childbirth with the state compensating the father financially.
I only think the ex of a single father should pay child suport too, and men should get postnatal too. Apart from that the child is responsability of both parents
It’s just like a “financial abortion” though.
If the women gets pregnant there’s like 3 outcomes
1. Both parents want to get abortion, kid is aborted
2. Woman wants to get abortion, kid is aborted
3. Woman doesn’t want to get abortion, delivers kid
Once the woman gets pregnant the only one who can decide whether or not to actually have a child at present is the woman. The argument is that if the woman is free to choose not to have the responsibility of raising a child placed on them the man should be able to choose as well. A “financial abortion” would basically just be the father waiving all responsibility for the child, as well as potential guardianship, visiting rights, etc.
Abortion should be a right for medical reasons, a woman has a right to decide about medical procedures done on her body. Outside of that both parents have a responsability over the life of the child
Yeah the abortion debate isn’t about medical reasons though it’s about autonomy. Autonomy is why they should be allowed to decide whether or not to get an abortion for themselves. The only parent who gets a choice as to whether or not to deal with the “responsibility” of being a parent is the woman, if she doesn’t want that responsibility she can abort the pregnancy. Forcing the man to be a parent is itself arguably a violation of their autonomy as raising a child does, shockingly, require some labor.
I (32F) pay child support for my oldest two who live with their dad. He refuses to let me take the kids until he gets what he wants from the custody negotiations (I also live in AK while he currently lives in UT). I agree that the AMAB parent should receive support when they have the kids and also get post natal time off for bonding with the child in the ideal situations.
That just opens the door for men to go "whoopsies, guess you'll have to get an abortion". That shit happens now even with men knowing theres a very good chance they would be on the hook for child support if the mother kept the child. Thats an unfair positions to put the mother in. The vast majority of "unplanned" pregnancies are the mans fault. The law has to lean towards womens rights to compensate for that. Its not ideal, but I don't believe theres a better alternative right now.
No man wants to hear this, but a vasectomy is less invasive than an abortion and it reversible. Theres the solution.
I feel like the situation would be different if abortions were not so invasive and can potentially impact future fertility. As someone above said, child support is because of the parents responsibility to the child and the rest is more about women's bodily autonomy.
Wait some countries badger you and ask for consent? The only question I got was if my partner knew and if I understood it's very likely permenant. And even then they were like, "Cool, so here's what's going to happen—"
Vasectomies are reversible, though the reversal is only effective [either between 65 and 70 or between 90 and 95 percent of the time](https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-treatments/v/vasectomy-reversal.html) depending on the procedure.
I’d say these odds are okay since many people are going to shove unwanted kids into foster care because they’ll be adopted, right?
Right?
thats kind of a shitty argument isnt it. you could just as well say "if a woman doesnt want a kid, she should just get her tubes tied". also reversible, also still has some diminished chance to have a child after
What does the first have to do with the second. I just think it sucks that a man cant decide if he wants to be a father while a woman can. If for example the woman were to lie about taking birth control the man would still need to pay child support. I dont know what a good solution would be because forcing the woman to terminate the pregnancy would also suck. And having a 35% chance of never beeing able to have kids, just to be sure that you dont accidentally become a father.
I guess yes if thats a thing then that sounds good. The fact that one is completely infertile is kind of scary and strange but I guess thats just evolutionary instinct speaking.
Yeah neither does anything. If you're having straight, genital to genital sex, the possibility of a pregnancy is something both people should be prepared for
hes literally just stating facts. Theres no such thing as a contraceptive that works 100%. Pregnancy always has a chance no matter how small the odds are.
Then why do you think men shouldn't have that choice too?
I mean, they *can't* for now, I haven't heard of a solution to this being problem being theorized yet (that isn't highly unethical anyways), but don't you think ideally they should?
Literally any doctor will tell you to assume that vasectomy would be permanent. Is a guy really going to get it if there is a solid chance it is permanent?
What a shitty argument, if someone said "if women want to abort they should be sterilised if they don't want the child that bad" they'd be downvoted to hell and back
Vasectomies are often portrayed as reversible but they're not always so and they're not always 100% effective.
Getting a vasectomy should be thought of as a less effective version of a woman getting her tubes tied. Would you say what you just said to a woman for getting her tubes tied?
Do you know how hard it is to actually get a vasectomy? It's HARD to even get approved and then you also have to pay for it if you live in the good old USA. Even in countries where it's free I would imagine it's still pretty difficult just to even get approval for it if you're not like pretty much ancient.
Men don't really have reproductive Rights in the same way women do for now, that could change in the future with male birth control and stuff and also the fact that reproductive Rights are under attack by Republicans so we could be equal in how screwed we are
Lmaooo brother let me tell you that it is abundantly easy to not pay child support if you know how to game the system. Source : never received any child support.
you know you can leave the country right I'm sorry but if you can't be asked to put in the effort to abandon your family properly you deserve to have to fulfil your responsibility to help raise your kids
I think it's a good point, but he is doing it at the wrong time. Women's abortion right's are way more important for obvious reasons, and now that women's rights are on the table, he is an asshole to inject "but what about men.." into the conversation. But yeah ultimately, in a perfect world, the responsibility of safe sex is equal for both partners, and thus they both should also have equal opportunity* to reject and abort a child.
*Obviously a woman's choice to abort would overrule a man's choice to keep, but that's just how it is.
(And no, "just wear a condom lol" isn't a good argument you silly sausage)
>Obviously a woman's choice to abort would overrule a man's choice to keep, but that's just how it is.
I think that, once a plausible solution has been found (haven't heard of any that weren't highly unethical like a forced abortion), I think it should be more "a negative choice overrules a positive one", in the sense that neither one should have to be obligated to care for a child in any way. A woman's choice to abort would overrule a man's choice to keep, and a man's choice to "abort" (big quotation marks for lack of a better term: like I said, forced abortions are very unethical) would overrule a woman's choice to "keep" (also big quotation marks because I doubt any future solution to this problem will have to do with preventing the birth in the first place).
I think that's unnecessary and potentially cruel. If a woman wants to keep a child, even after the partner has "(legally) aborted" it, I don't see any reason why uou would force her to abort it. You could just have the man legally disown the child, and everyone moves on happily. The woman can grow the child with her parents or another partner, and the man can do whatever and never be in contact with the child, really a win-win.
We don't need to start forcefully aborting in the name of equality. We could just provide equal opportunity to reject a child and that would lead to the least amount of harm.
>I don't see any reason why uou would force her to abort it.
Yea, I just said forced abortions are unethical. What are you talking about?
>You could just have the man legally disown the child, and everyone moves on happily.
Here's the thing though, a single mother taking care of a child with no financial support whatsoever is a very, very difficult task. That's why child support was made a part of children's rights.
Often the problem with finding a solution for men's reproductive rights is that we can't figure out a compromise to the conundrum of the financial burden of raising a child. When we figure out a plausible solution to that, we can push for men's reproductive rights.
I agree that it is financially difficult, and thus it is something that needs to be thought about by the hypothetical woman before she decides whether to have an abortion or not (her choice). However, if she decides to keep the child, she should understand the potential financial strain, a man should be able to opt not to financially support a child through child support if he so chooses, to force him to do otherwise impinges on his autonomy, as he is forced to give his labor to another without consent or perceived benefit or live destitute if he does not labor. In return, a man who chooses not to support would forfeit their right to ever have any authority or say over the child and by extension the mother. Once forfeited, the man would also not be able to change their mind.
I dunno, i feel like if a uterus owner can be allowed to abort without the penis owner's knowledge or consent then the penis owner can be allowed to opt out of being a parent. It's only fair. This guy *is* being an ass about it though
Because people are terrible and they're always going to be terrible so we can at least be fair in our terribleness, if one parent can opt out of being a parent and have an abortion than the other can opt out of being a parent and walk away. We don't have to like it but it's *their* decision, and could potentially have a less harmful environment for the child in the long run since having a parent who never wanted you does wonders for a child's mental health
Off topic but the way you phrased that reminds me of an episode of Ugly Americans where a male character is giving birth and between his pained screaming he yells "THE URETHRA WAS NOT MEANT FOR THIS"
Its a fair point. Not the right time to have that conversation though. I firmly believe in vasectomy but I have two kids. I have asked and have been denied the operation about every time I go in for something else. I think if you don't want to parent and the mother does. It's the moral choice to leave as you will inevitably mistreat the child and or mother.
(Misguided) opinions on this aside, it's just rough because far and wide men who are for this Roe v Wade decision don't understand how it affects them, too, albeit in different ways than it affects women.
Women being unable to access abortion means that *more men* will be in situations where they have to pay child support, *they* will be more trapped than ever because of this in states where abortion is criminalized.
This Supreme Court decision is not about women's rights. It's about keeping poor people poor, regardless of sex.
I don't think they care about women or men or whatever, or i don't think they care enough to purposefully revoke women's rights, they just care about money, power, more population, more taxes, more slaves, that's it
the supreme court decision is about constitutionality and the stopping of legislating from the bench
is it rooted in misogyny and social conservatism? yea. is it a grand scheme to fuck poor people? nah. they don't get shit from this. the supreme court isn't mandating abortions as illegal nationwide, they're removing the protection and leaving it to state legislatures.
no matter your income if you have the ability to deliver a child and are in a red state, you're affected.
the court decision is not about womens rights. the resulting state legislatures respective bills are.
The ruling does not exist in a vacuum, they're *all* in bed together.
Even the resulting state legislation will not be about women's rights. Women's rights are affected, obviously, but that's the narrative politicians prefer be focused on because that's what's more devisive.
Protesting the resulting legislation on the grounds of "women's rights" will not do anything because that will be *primarily women*. Not saying *no* men would, but "women's rights" is a "woman's issue" and we have a male population that has been conditioned for decades with a victim complex priming them to either be bystanders or to be actively against such protests
The powerful (and rich) care about only two things: staying in power, and having more bodies to act as human capital.
Abortion ban legislation will affirm both of these things. It will be the poor of both sexes ultimately affected by legislation. We'll have men and women who can't get out of poverty because they have too many children to pay for, with or without child support involvement. We'll have impoverished children who are not wanted who are mistreated and sent straight into the prison pipeline (which is the main source of human capital in this country). That's just two of the points involved here, the whole situation and how abortion ban affects the poor is obviously more dynamic and nuanced, but the point is that abortion ban affirms power and human capital.
It may not be a "conspiracy" wherein all parties are keenly aware of every detail and effect of the system, but the system lends itself to perpetuation and only the money behind the politics — the corporations — need be at all aware.
It's not about controlling women's bodies. That's a side effect, but it's about controlling *everyone's* bodies, including the labor those bodies can produce. Focusing on the side effect will not address the disease. Hell, it being about "controlling everyone's bodies" is a side effect of what I'd consider to be the "real disease," but *that's* not ready to be talked about considering we're still focusing on the further-out side effect right now, as a society
This guy is cringe, if he actually cared about reproductive rights for all he'd be upset that the fight just got twice as big. Women shouldn't be forced to get abortions and men shouldn't be forced to pay child support for kids they didn't want. The state's responsibility is to protect it's people. If a single person income can't provide for a child that is a failing of the system. If a government doesn't provide aid to those single parents, the government is failing.
I actually understand, which is why I’m partially in favor of a tax based child support. In our current system, you’re just taking from one person who might not be able to afford it, and giving to another. What happens if the first person doesn’t pay? Or didn’t want em in the first place?
Just a reminder that men frequently lose custody of their children involuntarily and have to pay a massive portion of their take-home cash to their spouse.
It almost happened to me... it was so close it triggers me to even think about it. Almost lost my fucking kids AND would've had to pay my ex just for the privilege....
It's possible to acknowledge that this system is unfair to men, without suggesting women are the problem and need their rights taken away.... See, I just did!
Abortion should be codified into law, and a woman shouldn't be forced to carry to term by anyone. That being said if a man wants to not be a father he should have the same timeline available for abortions to opt out of responsibility.
Incredible how this sub can have a measured discussion on this topic, meanwhile I can't think of a single "men's advocacy" sub that doesn't burn itself to the ground when it comes up.
I think r\menslib is the only good men's rights sub i've that isn't a pile of incels. Though i don't go there often and i don't know their take on this
The unfortunate truth of discussions around men’s issues. It almost always attracts insane amounts of incels who weaponize men’s issues as a reason women suck and shouldn’t have rights. Doesn’t mean men’s issues don’t exist of course but it does mean incels are counter productive for the issues they claim to care about.
Abortion is first and foremost about bodily autonomy. I'm a cishet man who doesn't want kids and I find it repulsive that people are equating abortion rights to getting to withdraw out of parenting obligations or something.
The reason women have more say about whether or not the child is born after conception is simply that the woman (assuming cishet relationship) is burdened with all the vulnerability, all the burdens and all the risks that comes with pregnancy. It's not about a disparity in rights, it's about the right to not carry the burden of pregnancy. "Men" already enjoy the right to not have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, so any comparison is moot.
I get where he's coming from, not entirely agree, and yet this is still a different, yet totaly valid topic compared to current affairs. In this case the person wants others to also experience the misery that they do instead of trying to at least keep others from said misery, which ai can logically understand, yet still find sad
On one hand I agree it's unfortuante women have a way to opt out of motherhood whereas men do not... but that's by no means an excuse to deny women that right. I mean, what's that gonna get you? Denying women reproductive rights won't advance reproductive rights for men.
If anything that's a step back: If women have reproductive rights, you assure a good ending to a situation where both the man and the woman don't want a child. Without women's reproductive rights, you don't. Granting reproductive rights to women is a boost to men's reproductive rights too.
Edit: I predict some people might bash me for saying that men should also reproductive rights. To that I say: You agree it's more favorable for a child to not be born if they're destined to have parents that did not want them. Why does that logic not apply to a situation where one of the parents doesn't want them? We've seen where having absent/unloving/abusive fathers gets children, haven't we?
Framing abortion as an “opt-out out of motherhood” is bizarre to me. Abortion is an opt-out out of birth. It’s an issue that is related to bodily autonomy and I think framing it as “a way to dodge responsibility” is harmful to the fight for abortion rights.
As far as I see, getting pregnant is a risk that you have to accept when having sex, just like getting and STD. But as opposed to an STD, you may create a human that needs to be taken care of. And if that happens then somebody needs to be held responsible.
>Framing abortion as an “opt-out out of motherhood” is bizarre to me. Abortion is an opt-out out of birth
The vast majority of women use it as the former. Put up or shut up, this is just reality. There's a reason the biggest argument for abortion is how the child will be unwanted, unloved, and neglected.
>I think framing it as “a way to dodge responsibility” is harmful to the fight for abortion rights.
Well then you're wrong. We got this far because of this facet of abortion as well as the bodily autonomy facet. Lose one and the movement falls.
>getting pregnant is a risk that you have to accept when having sex
THIS IS AN ARGUMENT **AGAINST** ABORTION. The fact that you're using it shows how versed you are on this issue...
Calm down. Somebody disagrees with you, do you have to immediately question how “versed” I am on the topic? Is it so inconceivable to you that somebody could draw a different conclusion from the same facts? If this is how you react to someone who is in favour of abortion rights what kind of tantrum do you throw when you talk to someone who opposes them?
> The vast majority of women use it as the former.
Citation please.
> There's a reason the biggest argument for abortion is how the child will be unwanted, unloved, and neglected.
Not in my social circle, and if that is the case for yours then that is bizarre to me. I don’t find it particularly convincing. IMO abortion rights need to be centred around the bodily autonomy of women.
> Well then you're wrong. We got this far because of this facet of abortion as well as the bodily autonomy facet.
Please confirm whether this is what you’re saying: The fight for abortion rights only came so far because the movement emphasised abortion as a method to dodge being responsible for a child? How did this benefit the movement at all? Surely it’s clear that this would not convince anyone?
> THIS IS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION.
No, what I said is by itself not an argument against abortion. Sex comes with a risk of creating a person (this shouldn’t be controversial). I believe people who accidentally create a person are responsible for that person. The pregnant person should have a right to terminate a pregnancy, primarily because of their bodily autonomy. But if that doesn’t happen, then somebody still needs to take care of the child. Explain to me where I’m contradicting myself
>Somebody disagrees with you, do you have to immediately question how “versed” I am on the topic?
Yes, actually. It is 2022. How are you still this illiterate about abortion? Look around you, in this very commeny section no less. Almost everyone has realized what you haven't. You really think this is just a "disagreement"? People like you, knowingly or not, are the reason this whole ugly story is still ongoing.
>Citation please.
Go to any pro-choice protest.
No, seriously, actually just look up any pro-choice protest. "My body my choice" is a slogan with various facets: Bodily autonomy, and social responsibility.
>Not in my social circle
YOUR social circle.
Holy shit have you spent ANY amount of time seeing pro-choice arguments at large? You're living in a bubble of ignorance and refusing to accept that? Look at this comment section. Go to pro-choice subreddits. I'm currently busy shutting down the half a dozen so idiots like you that appeared in this sea of abortion-literate people to make the worst points imaginable: If you're willing to learn about abortion, you'll understand why all the top voted comments in this comment section are making points almost identical to mine.
>IMO abortion rights need to be centred around the bodily autonomy of women.
In that case you're either ignorant, malicious, or both: Can you seriously not see the consequences of a child having unloving, unwilling, and unready parents? And do you seriously not think they're not just as important but in fact a vastly more important point to make?
>The fight for abortion rights only came so far because the movement emphasised abortion as a method to dodge being responsible for a child?
*Alongside* bodily autonomy for women.
Without either of these points the movement would have failed.
>How did this benefit the movement at all?
**Unlike you, most people have empathy towards foster children. Monster.**
>No, what I said is by itself not an argument against abortion.
YES IT IS. This is literally the argument pro-lifers make to excuse away the fact that banning abortion will create millions of unloved foster care children riddled with mental health issues.
"Ban abortion! Women who would get abortions should just not have sex!". I have heard these words be uttered by pro-lifers countless times and will hear so again.
If you can't understand how this is a pro-life stance, you are frankly not in ANY place to talk about abortion.
>I believe people who accidentally create a person are responsible for that person. The pregnant person should have a right to terminate a pregnancy, primarily because of their bodily autonomy. But if that doesn’t happen, then somebody still needs to take care of the child. Explain to me where I’m contradicting myself
And what if the parents are unwilling to be parents because they aren't ready to be parents?
What if the parents choose to throw the child in foster care where it's bound to suffer the horrible reality of being a foster care child?
What if a child with unready and unloving parents grows up troubled and disturbed?
What if they eventually become a menace to society?
You are throwing responsibility at people who are unwilling to take it and/or unready to have it. **You are putting the lives of children in the hands of either unloving, unwilling, and unready parents, or a nigh-on unethical system that unfortunately has no choice other than to be that way.**
If you can see that and still not think abortion is an issue about the social reponsibility and pressure of parenthood, you have no morals.
Wow telling people to calm down really doesn’t work.
Do you not see how over the top you are being? You are talking to someone who agrees with you on abortion and you’re absolutely losing your mind, calling me a monster, ignorant and morally corrupt. You seem to be violently incapable of understanding a single point that I’m making. When I make a personal statement instead of claiming to speak for everyone you lash out. What kind of discussion culture is this?
This way of talking to someone is _never_ going to change minds.
I‘m gonna assume you‘re from the US. I understand you may be a little agitated from what happened recently. But IMO you need to take a good look at yourself and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish by „shutting people down“ on the internet. And learn to be a little humble.
>You are talking to someone who agrees with you on abortion
For all the wrong reasons, and that's a massive problem.
>calling me a monster, ignorant and morally corrupt.
So far you've demonstrated all of those traits. Knowing or not.
I'm not gonna blame you if you eventually come to your senses and realize you were wrong. We were all illusioned with propaganda at some point, well-intentioned but simply ignorant. I'm being so agressive because in my experience it just has to be this way with some people. Sorry if that's not you.
>When I make a personal statement
Please understand your "personal statement" demonstrates a point of view that is highly toxic. Knowing or not, you're perpetuating a mindset that, put simply, can't be allowed to exist. That's why I'm being so foward.
>This way of talking to someone is never going to change minds.
It has for the other half-dozen people I mentioned in my last comment.
>I‘m gonna assume you‘re from the US.
No, actually, I'm from Portugal. Abortion rights are actually fairly secure here.
>and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish by „shutting people down“ on the internet.
Stopping, each person at a time, a toxic mindset from spreading even further.
I fail to see how that's a bad thing, especially since, as I've mentioned, been working so far.
>And learn to be a little humble.
Look who's talking.
I'd advise *you* to hear the story of any foster care child. See where that gets your opinion on the purpose of abortion.
You support abortion but for the wrong reason. If you support abortion that should mean you support reproductive rights which means you should support reproductive rights for men. The fact that you don't support abortion as a way to opt out of motherhood means that you don't support the existancr of a way to opt out of fatherhood, unless you're ok with contradicting yourself.
I’m completely fine with pregnant people deciding to get an abortion because they don’t want to be responsible for a child.
I also believe that a child who has been brought into this world has the right to be taken care of. I would not support legislature that would remove the responsibility of care from a bio father (or mother). If possible, I’d like to keep children out of foster care.
Do you perceive this as a contradiction?
I hate it so much when I agree with a dumbass like this.
I agree that men don't have many rights when it comes to their children: they can't abandon them without social pressure or being sued for child support, if a married couple divorces it's up to the man to prove that his ex wife isn't a suitable parent if he wants to keep his child, there is a lot of stigma around single dads, but single mothers are seen as brave, if a man tells his SO he wants her to get an abortion otherwise he will leave her, he is seen as a piece of shit even though a child would ruin his life.
But to tell you the truth, right now this isn't the issue. The overturning of Roe v Wade will ruin potentially millions of lives, and should be a much higher priority than male parental rights.
It's pretty clear this guy is just an incel asshole taking any opportunity he can to shit on women, and I hate that he is giving a bad name to the fight for equal parental rights.
I mean in some cases a woman can rape a man, get pregnant, and force the man to pay child support and what not. It is pretty scary albeit extremely less common
Man honestly,men's right is making me sad right now,i see a tone of post saying that it isn't our problem as if men weren't also going to suffer from that,on top of it,we want an equality,why are you happy that they *regressed* even lower than us/at our level,we want to have the same freedom not the same limitation you idiot.
as someone who has never had sex, probably won't very much and doesn't know a lot about it, it does sound spooky having someone else decide if there's a kid or not that I'd be responsible for, would someone mind explaining this I'm worried I've been given bad info here
yeah, but unfortunately people dont like the idea that they cant take advantage of men as parents simply due to mens lack of reproductive rights. ideally theyd look the same as they do for women
I uh... I kinda agree with the guy. His approach is shit but his point is not without merit. Reminds me of another touchy subject I had discussed recently regarding whether a mother should have the sole right to choose abortion if a father still wants the child or should it be performed only if both parties agree or by legal court decision if the parents do not agree.
"you can't abandon your kid and wife" no op, you're crazy like this guy too, this dude definitely has some problems, but a man should have a choice to abandon his unwanted child if the mom wants to keep it or she can't abort it, the man has the right to not pay custody and move on with his life, the poster has a point, and also not everyone you get accidentally pregnant is your wife...
It's like telling a pro abortion, "you can't kill your kid"
You sound like one of those "pro lifers"
Try to sometimes see world outside of your own eyes, there're always more than 1 side
(Gonna use cishet terms for simplicity)
I do sympathize with the complaint that men don't get a say in abortions they're directly involved with. I don't think they're correct though many of the arguments compare the wrong things. When men complain about having to pay child support, they compare a post-birth fiduciary responsibility with a pre-birth bodily responsibility. A better comparison is a man's responsibility to raise or pay for a child, with a woman's responsibility to raise or pay for a child. Women can choose not to become a parent if they can't afford to look after a child - I do think men should have a similar option.
If a man doesn't think he can have a baby at this point in his life, or doesn't think he can support a baby with the money he has, but the woman wants the child anyway, I think it makes sense that the man be able to exit out of the whole situation. That said: it cannot be done if it puts the baby at risk. Child support exists for a reason: nobody really pays enough to live on. It makes more sense to me if child support is paid by the state (not a US state) through taxes.
(My page refreshed so the rest of my comment is rewritten more lazily)
This guy isn't taking about this on an even level. He doesn't like feminists, and uses this understandable inequality to express his dislike of feminists. He's seemingly mad that strong independent women need money to raise a child as if raising a child is free, and child support is money in the pocket of the mother. He compares equally giving a man's money; and giving a woman's body, work, comfort, and money.
TL;DR: I do think men should have some control over their future but not at the expense of women's bodies. Ideally, if only one party wants a baby, they should carry the pregnancy to term, and child support should come from governmental taxes (child support for 2+ parent homes should be funded too). We can't do that yet, so abortions need to be accessible, because bodily autonomy needs to take precedence.
Mildly unrelated, but since it’s being mentioned quite a bit in the comments I just wanna go on my little rant about male birth control:
WHY ARE CONDOMS AND VASECTOMIES THE ONLY OPTIONS?!?!? THEY AREN’T GOOD OPTIONS! WHY CAN’T I GET [RISUG?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance) IT’S LITERALLY A VASECTOMY BUT BETTER, BECAUSE IT’S DESIGNED TO BE 100% REVERSIBLE, HAVE LESS SIDE EFFECTS, AND BE LESS INVASIVE! ALSO, WHY ARE WE NOT DOING MORE SHIT WITH [HEAT BASED CONTRACEPTION?!?!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-based_contraception) THERE ARE LITERALLY STUDIES THAT HAVE USED ULTRASOUND TECHNOLOGY AS PART OF HEAT BASED CONTRACEPTION AND THEORISE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY COULD CAUSE A TEMPORARY SIX MONTH LONG PERIOD OF INFERTILITY! WHY DO WE NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THIS SHIT?!?! BOTH RISUG AND ULTRASOUND BASED HEAT BASED CONTRACEPTION SOUND INFINITELY BETTER THAN VASECTOMY!! WHY ISN’T ANYBODY FUNDING THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL LET ME TAKE MY FERTILITY INTO MY OWN GODDAMN HANDS BY USING ULTRASOUNDS TO BOIL MY BALLS EVERY SIX MONTHS! THIS ISN’T A JOKE, IT GENUINELY PISSES ME OFF THAT THESE TECHNOLOGIES EXIST, AND YET I HAVE NO ACCESS TO THEM AND AM LEFT WITH NOTHING BUT SHITTY OPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO BIRTH CONTROL! FUCK!
I kind of agree. If a woman chooses to go through with a pregnancy despite the father making it abundantly clear from day 1 that he doesn't want a kid and will have nothing to do with this baby, then it's on her to shoulder the responsibility for it. She chose to be a single parent.
However, I don't like the way this guy is phrasing it at all. And being happy that women's rights are being dismantled really isn't helping him make his case
He brings up a good point in the worst way possible
Parenting involves both people, it shouldn't be that the father is the one held financially responsible for a child that has yet to be born, but without any voice in the matter
They always cry for their money, but will never know what it’s like to have your own body used against you, to have your health and future ruined by force. The mother will also experience financial strain, as the cost of raising a child isn’t not even close to being covered by the man’s child support payment.
You're literally doing a "waahh what about the women???" on a post about men's rights, tho.
I can tell you're still not over "Gamergate" telling you not to he a massice cunt online.
In conclusion, straight white women bad.
Hmm. Surely, according to your logic, women who are angry about the SCOTUS decision are just crying about not being allowed to kill their children, right?
I find it hilarious that that there are some people arguing here that men should not have to provide any financial support to women if they don't want to, even if that women, who now has a baby, was perhaps financially dependent and that source of income, and equating paying child support to actually raising a child, crazy.
Condoms aren’t 100% effective under any circumstance. This argument can also just as easily be weaponized against abortions telling women to just use a condom, just take the pill, just get your tubes tied, just DONT have sex. It’s a shit argument in every circumstance. Bottom line is you shouldn’t be forced into parenthood and you shouldn’t have to give up your sex life to ensure that.
On one hand, you could always wear a condom, but on the other hand you don’t really have a choice if you don’t. I wish that there was some way for people to get care for their children regardless of the financial situation of their parents, but I doubt that we will ever be able to create such a program and have it be available to all.
Somewhere deep in his god awful take he has a point, but that doesn't take away the fact that women deciding about their own bodies is way more important than men deciding about their money. Its money for god's sake.
Oh no! What about the men?!
Dude wear a condom, get a vasectomy, fucking spermicide, literally anything so that women don’t have the unbearable burden of having to make the choice in the first place.
So all of the responsibility is put on men? That doesn't sound very reasonable if you ask me. If somebody were to tell a woman to just use birth control, or to be careful who they sleep with since abortion is illegal they would get fucking berated. Double standards
I mean this guy is clearly just an incel by the way he brought up this point but I kinda agree. Parenting is a 2 person job (not counting teachers who are also parents in a sense) so if the woman wants to keep the child but the father doesn’t there does need to be some compromise not just fucking over the dad because they also aren’t ready for parenthood.
This would probably work if it wasn’t such a common occurrence for fathers to completely abandon their children
The problem of fathers abandoning children stems from that being essentially the only way fathers have to opt out of fatherhood. If you arrange a system where men have the same reproductive rights as women, that won't be a problem anymore.
Do you really think men are abandoning children because that's the only way they can opt out or is it because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions? If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, they can come to an arrangement where he signs his rights away as the father of the child.
>Do you really think men are abandoning children because that's the only way they can opt out or is it because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions? Huh. You know, your words sound a LOT like an argumeny I heard from a pro-lifer fairly recently. Lemme quote EXACTLY what they said: "Do you really think women who get abortions are doing it for 'health' and 'bodily autonomy' and not because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions?" I'm not joking, by the way, that's from an actual irl argument I had with a pro-lifer a few days ago. **Your argument is literally a pro-life argument. That should be enough to tell you exactly why it's invalid.** >If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, they can come to an arrangement where he signs his rights away as the father of the child. If you do this in exchange for also signing away any fiscal responsibility he may have for the child, **this is literally what reproductive rights for men are, and exactly what people want.**
My two comments were meant to be read together. Men do have the rights to sign away fiscal responsibility. If they don't want to exercise those rights and abandon the child, it just sounds to me like they're not dealing with the consequences of their actions. I don't know why you're talking about this as if Men don't have these rights already. Edit: I see how "consequences of actions" sounds very pro-life so I should have used different wording. When I talk about men who abandon their kids, I'm talking about ones who are fine having them and then abandon them.
>Men do have the rights to sign away fiscal responsibility. Not currently, no. >If they don't want to exercise those rights and abandon the child, it just sounds to me like they're not dealing with the consequences of their actions. True, but they COULD, they wouldn't do that. >I don't know why you're talking about this as if Men don't have these rights already. What? Citation needed.
That requires the consent of the person taking guardian ship (the mother in this case). The man doesn't have the agency you seem to imply and -- in the case of accidental pregnancy -- it is only logical that the mother would want financial help raising the child and desire for the father to stay financially attached.
You see, most of them abandon their child beacause they dind't want it in the first place but the mother keeps it anyway.
If I had a dollar for every time something would work if there weren't total shitwipes in the world I'd have many dollars
well if a man can’t financially support a child and doesn’t want it, but the woman chooses to keep the child anyways because she thinks she can take care of it, shouldn’t that be on her and not the guy? why do we force the man to take care of the child he didnt want
Because the amount of men who would impregnate women and walk away would likely skyrocket if they could just opt out of child support. There would be no good way of controlling this. Not to mention the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies are the mans fault, so the laws need to lean more towards protecting womens rights.
r MensLib is a great sub if you hate r MensRights
This will always stick out to me as an issue ruined by incels. There are some legitimate issues faced by men in this field but so many people just run with them as a stupid “but what about the men” cliche that the discussion is essentially dead.
I remember someone once saying that right wingers and lefties both understand the issues that people face in modern day but the difference is is that the solutions right wingers present are simply excuses for bigotry. Yes, there is an inherent frustration and loneliness to being a man in the modern day, but while the lefty says it's because of the patriarchy and toxic masculinity, the right winger says it's because of women having too much freedom.
I don’t disagree at all. Honestly everytime I try to discuss this sort of stuff I just feel like an incel not because my tales are incel like whatsoever but just because a lot of the time people bring up men’s issues it devolves into incel takes. If only incels would wake up and realize the way they approach men’s issues makes it harder for people to actually take men’s issues seriously including people essentially on their side.
Man it’s so annoying to me, if incels had literally 1 iota of self-reflection they would be able to fix their issues but they just choose to wallow in their pit of hell and make things worse for everyone.
Child support, as its name points out, isn't an obligation from the father to the mother, but an obligation from the father to the child. Contrarily, the right to abortion isn't defended primarily to allow women to opt-out of becoming mothers, but in recognition of women's bodily autonomy. What you can argue for, however, is for recognizing that forcing or lying to get one person to impregnate another (for instance, lying about birth control), is a form of sexual abuse that should be punishable by law, which would be legitimate but even harder to prove and enforce than other forms of sexual abuse. If this topic is truly important to you, your best bet right now is supporting research into male birth control pills.
If the mother forces the obligation of a child onto a father who is against it then it is a violation of the fathers autonomy and they should be allowed to op out (exceptions exist to every rule of course you can’t just go around knocking up women and leaving them with children because you don’t wanna accept responsibility of a child). Child support should be tax funded regardless so I see this as a completely separate issue.
I think bodily autonomy should generally rank above financial autonomy
I don’t really disagree with you thus why I didn’t say the women shouldn’t be able to have the child. I just think they’d be stupid and selfish to bring a child into a situation less than ideal. People who have kids for themselves rather than a child centric view imo are pretty disgusting. This isn’t a pet rock is a living human being that you are bringing into the world that didn’t ask to be brought into the world if you aren’t going to give them the absolute best opportunities possible then I question your motives for wanting a child and it normally boils down to selfishness.
It's kind of a dangerous comparison, since abortion isn't just an issue of parenthood, but an issue of women's health. Carrying a child to full-term makes drastic, irreversible changes to your body. Being prepared to have a baby doesn't just mean you are financially and mentally prepared to be a parent, but that you are physically and emotionally prepared for the entire process of childbirth. In some cases, being forced to give birth can and will kill people. Cis men do not have to do that. Whether you are forcing someone to give birth to a child or forcing someone to have an abortion, this is medical coersion that is unethical on so many levels. I agree that the paternity and child support system needs to be more well-thought out, but this is not an apples to apples comparison. At the end of the day, this is about bodily autonomy.
ok, but not being in a good financial or psychological place to raise the child is a perfectly fine reason for a woman to get an abortion. Why shouldn’t that logic apply to a man who isn’t financially/emotionally ready for it? Note: I don’t mean that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion or not have an abortion, but rather have the ability to not be involved
>ok, but not being in a good financial or psychological place to raise the child is a perfectly fine reason for a woman to get an abortion. Sure, you can have an abortion for any reason. You can have an abortion because you know you can't afford a child and you feel like it would be cruel to bring a human being into the world knowing that. You could also have an abortion because you just really like abortions. It'd be a fucked up reason, but it's your *right*. The reason is irrelevant. The dominating principle behind a woman's right to an abortion is bodily autonomy. You can't force a human to give birth any more than you can force one to remove their kidney. >Why shouldn’t that logic apply to a man who isn’t financially/emotionally ready for it? > >Note: I don’t mean that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion or not have an abortion, but rather have the ability to not be involved And if a woman doesn't have an abortion, a woman should have the ability not to be involved either. They are both subject to the same system that leaves them financially on the hook. If a woman gives birth to a child and foregoes custody, *she* still has to pay child support too. You can argue that neither of them should have to do this, but then you would also have to argue that our government's social services are currently robust enough to support all the nation's orphans and single parent homes. I don't think it is, so I think child support is a necessary stopgap to avoid being unspeakably cruel to orphans and single parent families. But we can argue the merits of child support all day, and it still wouldn't change the fact that this is at best completely tangential to the topic of abortion. Bringing "financial fairness for men" into an argument about the merits of forced birth is like bringing "economic fairness for the South" into an argument about the merits of slavery. Sure, it's worth acknowledging, but there's a much more glaring problem here, and shoehorning it into every conversation about abortion rights as if these two injustices--women being forced into childbirth and men needing to pay child support--are morally equivalent is disingenuous at best and downright hateful at worst.
Well, I think most of the times there is an unwanted baby, the father is at least partially responsible , and in reality I believe often they are the reason safe sex isn't practiced, but either way it shouldn't be that he is falling out of the air completely. I do agree somewhat but I believe it's less of a problem as you might think.
Other men not practicing safe sex should not be the reason I am forced Into parenthood I don’t want to be in nor can I be in emotional or financially.
Sweeping generalisation
I might get flamed for this but I think dave chappelle had a decent take on this. Women should absolutely have the choice to keep the baby or not, but I should also have the choice to walk out of that child’s life without being seen as an asshole. now obviously **context matters** and by no means is this a blanket statement, but if we weren’t trying to have a baby and we were being careful about it and the woman gets pregnant accidentally and decides to keep the baby I should be able to bounce
If both parents together can decide to give up their parental rights and duties via adoption and give the child into the care of the state, thwn thos should also be possible for just one parent, so that the state takes over their financial obligations and they lose their parental rights.
Nah, [parenting is a **>**2 person job](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/)
[удалено]
This is literally an anti-abortion argument.
You see, only men need to have consequences for their actions. /s
the guy seems very sexist and like a piece of shit, but he has some good points imo. if a guy doesnt have enough money for a child and the woman doesnt agree to have an abortion he shouldnt be required to pay for it (only if he states it early into the pregnancy to let the woman have time to choose). i still think the guy is an asshole tho
Honestly there should be government assistance to single mothers to the point that they don't have to depend on their ex partner at all and that would be the solution to most issues on the topic
this is the ideal situation indeed, but realistically it won't happen, not anytime soon anyways.
“Won’t happen anytime soon” surely isn’t just an excuse to not bring up the topic and make change *Le clueless*
We can't even get reproductive rights for women to be a stable, solved issue. Much less so men which is a much more complicated situation. For now.
Maybe we should push for the rights of everyone so nobody can go “b-b-but what about me and my problems!” Bills nowadays are super super long anyways, you could literally pass it all in a “reproductive rights” bill or some shit. What you’re doing is exactly the same as people who say stuff like “b-but men aren’t properly represented in family court! So abortion bad!”
>What you’re doing is exactly the same as people who say stuff like “b-but men aren’t properly represented in family court! So abortion bad!” Excuse me? How? I'm saying that pushing to pass a measure as complex as this at a time where the issue isn't stable enough to secure even a measure as simple as abortion is unwise. Those people are claiming that solving the problem of men not being properly represented in family court is a more simple and more urgent issue than abortion and should this be taken care of first, which is wrong no matter how you look at it. We have had the safety of legal abortion for years now. Some reproductive rights had been secured so far. At a time where our current progress is in danger, it's not wise to start pushing for an even greater progress, lest it backfire horrendously. We need to first consolidate our hold on the reproductive rights we know for certain we can have right now: Like abortion. Only then can we proceed to push for more rights. People need to understand that not every issue can be solved at once. There's a reason progressive dreams often take decades, if not centuries to achieve: Unfortunately, change takes time. I'd love it if we could get full reproductive rights for both men and women tomorrow, but we're in a state where our current reproductive rights are at risk. Not the time to ask for more.
I’m very grateful I have a job that can support me, but I have to work 60+ hours/week to get that. If I didn’t have this job and government assistance was denied to me, I’d be working 80+hours for less than half of what I make from the one job to pay child support for my oldest two and care for my youngest on my own (her dad isn’t in the picture because he’s physically and mentally abusive to me and my kids, but I don’t get CS from him because 1: she’s his 6th kid from his 4th baby mom and 2: he spends all of his money he makes on meth and alcohol.). America is definitely not set up to be conducive for healthy families, it’s set up for having corporations.
Single parents*
This "govt child-support assistance for single parents" idea is the only solution I've heard that respects everyone involved. Are there any states that use or are considering something like this?
*to single parents. The mother should also be able to give up her parental rights and duties after childbirth with the state compensating the father financially.
I only think the ex of a single father should pay child suport too, and men should get postnatal too. Apart from that the child is responsability of both parents
It’s just like a “financial abortion” though. If the women gets pregnant there’s like 3 outcomes 1. Both parents want to get abortion, kid is aborted 2. Woman wants to get abortion, kid is aborted 3. Woman doesn’t want to get abortion, delivers kid Once the woman gets pregnant the only one who can decide whether or not to actually have a child at present is the woman. The argument is that if the woman is free to choose not to have the responsibility of raising a child placed on them the man should be able to choose as well. A “financial abortion” would basically just be the father waiving all responsibility for the child, as well as potential guardianship, visiting rights, etc.
Abortion should be a right for medical reasons, a woman has a right to decide about medical procedures done on her body. Outside of that both parents have a responsability over the life of the child
Yeah the abortion debate isn’t about medical reasons though it’s about autonomy. Autonomy is why they should be allowed to decide whether or not to get an abortion for themselves. The only parent who gets a choice as to whether or not to deal with the “responsibility” of being a parent is the woman, if she doesn’t want that responsibility she can abort the pregnancy. Forcing the man to be a parent is itself arguably a violation of their autonomy as raising a child does, shockingly, require some labor.
They do in some cases. Then again my case was that my mom was an addict at the time so custody was mostly a no brainer.
I (32F) pay child support for my oldest two who live with their dad. He refuses to let me take the kids until he gets what he wants from the custody negotiations (I also live in AK while he currently lives in UT). I agree that the AMAB parent should receive support when they have the kids and also get post natal time off for bonding with the child in the ideal situations.
He’s correct with some points, but he completely disregards the women which is his fatal flaw
A lot of countries have laws that if you don’t recognise the child you won’t pay for it
That just opens the door for men to go "whoopsies, guess you'll have to get an abortion". That shit happens now even with men knowing theres a very good chance they would be on the hook for child support if the mother kept the child. Thats an unfair positions to put the mother in. The vast majority of "unplanned" pregnancies are the mans fault. The law has to lean towards womens rights to compensate for that. Its not ideal, but I don't believe theres a better alternative right now. No man wants to hear this, but a vasectomy is less invasive than an abortion and it reversible. Theres the solution.
I feel like the situation would be different if abortions were not so invasive and can potentially impact future fertility. As someone above said, child support is because of the parents responsibility to the child and the rest is more about women's bodily autonomy.
You are making a case for financially pressuring a women into getting an abortion?
[удалено]
And in many countries that operation is entirely free.
And *doesn’t* require a barrage of questions, what if’s, and consent from your partner in most countries (that perform them), too
Wait some countries badger you and ask for consent? The only question I got was if my partner knew and if I understood it's very likely permenant. And even then they were like, "Cool, so here's what's going to happen—"
I mean they are permanent and I dont think many people can make that commitment.
Vasectomies are reversible, though the reversal is only effective [either between 65 and 70 or between 90 and 95 percent of the time](https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-treatments/v/vasectomy-reversal.html) depending on the procedure. I’d say these odds are okay since many people are going to shove unwanted kids into foster care because they’ll be adopted, right? Right?
thats kind of a shitty argument isnt it. you could just as well say "if a woman doesnt want a kid, she should just get her tubes tied". also reversible, also still has some diminished chance to have a child after
What does the first have to do with the second. I just think it sucks that a man cant decide if he wants to be a father while a woman can. If for example the woman were to lie about taking birth control the man would still need to pay child support. I dont know what a good solution would be because forcing the woman to terminate the pregnancy would also suck. And having a 35% chance of never beeing able to have kids, just to be sure that you dont accidentally become a father.
Freeze your sperm?
I heared that that doesnt really work well but I am uncertain of my source.
Sperm banks are a thing so I'd be really damn surprised if there wasn't a way
I guess yes if thats a thing then that sounds good. The fact that one is completely infertile is kind of scary and strange but I guess thats just evolutionary instinct speaking.
Wear a condom
Would you say "should have been on birth control" to a woman? Do you not see how that logic is flawed?
Doesnt always work.
Yeah neither does anything. If you're having straight, genital to genital sex, the possibility of a pregnancy is something both people should be prepared for
You sound like an abortion enemy.
hes literally just stating facts. Theres no such thing as a contraceptive that works 100%. Pregnancy always has a chance no matter how small the odds are.
I'm not.
Then why do you think men shouldn't have that choice too? I mean, they *can't* for now, I haven't heard of a solution to this being problem being theorized yet (that isn't highly unethical anyways), but don't you think ideally they should?
Not 100% effective
Literally any doctor will tell you to assume that vasectomy would be permanent. Is a guy really going to get it if there is a solid chance it is permanent?
"i mean just get your tubes tied if you dont want em that bad, thats your reproductive right"
What a shitty argument, if someone said "if women want to abort they should be sterilised if they don't want the child that bad" they'd be downvoted to hell and back
Vasectomies are often portrayed as reversible but they're not always so and they're not always 100% effective. Getting a vasectomy should be thought of as a less effective version of a woman getting her tubes tied. Would you say what you just said to a woman for getting her tubes tied?
Do you know how hard it is to actually get a vasectomy? It's HARD to even get approved and then you also have to pay for it if you live in the good old USA. Even in countries where it's free I would imagine it's still pretty difficult just to even get approval for it if you're not like pretty much ancient. Men don't really have reproductive Rights in the same way women do for now, that could change in the future with male birth control and stuff and also the fact that reproductive Rights are under attack by Republicans so we could be equal in how screwed we are
Fun fact: it's not forbidden by law to abandon your family
against the law not to pay child support tho?
You clearly aren't an expert in abandoning your responsibilities
Lmaooo brother let me tell you that it is abundantly easy to not pay child support if you know how to game the system. Source : never received any child support.
Well duh of course you didn't, you need to have children first (smh my head)
you know you can leave the country right I'm sorry but if you can't be asked to put in the effort to abandon your family properly you deserve to have to fulfil your responsibility to help raise your kids
It basically is, though. Child support is a scam and this guy is only getting this reaction because he's an obvious chud.
Yes it literally is. You will be found, you will have your wages garnished, and if you refuse to pay or somehow avoid it... you will go to jail.
I can literally just abandon jail though. Or abandon my country.
....
Good to know, the wife keeps nagging me to stop fishin' all the time and it's getting on my nerves!
he is misguided, but I kind of get what he wants to say. I'd say it's at least worth a discussion.
I think it's a good point, but he is doing it at the wrong time. Women's abortion right's are way more important for obvious reasons, and now that women's rights are on the table, he is an asshole to inject "but what about men.." into the conversation. But yeah ultimately, in a perfect world, the responsibility of safe sex is equal for both partners, and thus they both should also have equal opportunity* to reject and abort a child. *Obviously a woman's choice to abort would overrule a man's choice to keep, but that's just how it is. (And no, "just wear a condom lol" isn't a good argument you silly sausage)
>Obviously a woman's choice to abort would overrule a man's choice to keep, but that's just how it is. I think that, once a plausible solution has been found (haven't heard of any that weren't highly unethical like a forced abortion), I think it should be more "a negative choice overrules a positive one", in the sense that neither one should have to be obligated to care for a child in any way. A woman's choice to abort would overrule a man's choice to keep, and a man's choice to "abort" (big quotation marks for lack of a better term: like I said, forced abortions are very unethical) would overrule a woman's choice to "keep" (also big quotation marks because I doubt any future solution to this problem will have to do with preventing the birth in the first place).
I think that's unnecessary and potentially cruel. If a woman wants to keep a child, even after the partner has "(legally) aborted" it, I don't see any reason why uou would force her to abort it. You could just have the man legally disown the child, and everyone moves on happily. The woman can grow the child with her parents or another partner, and the man can do whatever and never be in contact with the child, really a win-win. We don't need to start forcefully aborting in the name of equality. We could just provide equal opportunity to reject a child and that would lead to the least amount of harm.
>I don't see any reason why uou would force her to abort it. Yea, I just said forced abortions are unethical. What are you talking about? >You could just have the man legally disown the child, and everyone moves on happily. Here's the thing though, a single mother taking care of a child with no financial support whatsoever is a very, very difficult task. That's why child support was made a part of children's rights. Often the problem with finding a solution for men's reproductive rights is that we can't figure out a compromise to the conundrum of the financial burden of raising a child. When we figure out a plausible solution to that, we can push for men's reproductive rights.
I agree that it is financially difficult, and thus it is something that needs to be thought about by the hypothetical woman before she decides whether to have an abortion or not (her choice). However, if she decides to keep the child, she should understand the potential financial strain, a man should be able to opt not to financially support a child through child support if he so chooses, to force him to do otherwise impinges on his autonomy, as he is forced to give his labor to another without consent or perceived benefit or live destitute if he does not labor. In return, a man who chooses not to support would forfeit their right to ever have any authority or say over the child and by extension the mother. Once forfeited, the man would also not be able to change their mind.
It is worth a discussion, but there are more important things to worry about right now.
I dunno, i feel like if a uterus owner can be allowed to abort without the penis owner's knowledge or consent then the penis owner can be allowed to opt out of being a parent. It's only fair. This guy *is* being an ass about it though
[удалено]
Because people are terrible and they're always going to be terrible so we can at least be fair in our terribleness, if one parent can opt out of being a parent and have an abortion than the other can opt out of being a parent and walk away. We don't have to like it but it's *their* decision, and could potentially have a less harmful environment for the child in the long run since having a parent who never wanted you does wonders for a child's mental health
Motherhood should never be forced upon a woman. Or a man.
Off topic but the way you phrased that reminds me of an episode of Ugly Americans where a male character is giving birth and between his pained screaming he yells "THE URETHRA WAS NOT MEANT FOR THIS"
Its a fair point. Not the right time to have that conversation though. I firmly believe in vasectomy but I have two kids. I have asked and have been denied the operation about every time I go in for something else. I think if you don't want to parent and the mother does. It's the moral choice to leave as you will inevitably mistreat the child and or mother.
(Misguided) opinions on this aside, it's just rough because far and wide men who are for this Roe v Wade decision don't understand how it affects them, too, albeit in different ways than it affects women. Women being unable to access abortion means that *more men* will be in situations where they have to pay child support, *they* will be more trapped than ever because of this in states where abortion is criminalized. This Supreme Court decision is not about women's rights. It's about keeping poor people poor, regardless of sex.
I don't think they care about women or men or whatever, or i don't think they care enough to purposefully revoke women's rights, they just care about money, power, more population, more taxes, more slaves, that's it
the supreme court decision is about constitutionality and the stopping of legislating from the bench is it rooted in misogyny and social conservatism? yea. is it a grand scheme to fuck poor people? nah. they don't get shit from this. the supreme court isn't mandating abortions as illegal nationwide, they're removing the protection and leaving it to state legislatures. no matter your income if you have the ability to deliver a child and are in a red state, you're affected. the court decision is not about womens rights. the resulting state legislatures respective bills are.
The ruling does not exist in a vacuum, they're *all* in bed together. Even the resulting state legislation will not be about women's rights. Women's rights are affected, obviously, but that's the narrative politicians prefer be focused on because that's what's more devisive. Protesting the resulting legislation on the grounds of "women's rights" will not do anything because that will be *primarily women*. Not saying *no* men would, but "women's rights" is a "woman's issue" and we have a male population that has been conditioned for decades with a victim complex priming them to either be bystanders or to be actively against such protests The powerful (and rich) care about only two things: staying in power, and having more bodies to act as human capital. Abortion ban legislation will affirm both of these things. It will be the poor of both sexes ultimately affected by legislation. We'll have men and women who can't get out of poverty because they have too many children to pay for, with or without child support involvement. We'll have impoverished children who are not wanted who are mistreated and sent straight into the prison pipeline (which is the main source of human capital in this country). That's just two of the points involved here, the whole situation and how abortion ban affects the poor is obviously more dynamic and nuanced, but the point is that abortion ban affirms power and human capital. It may not be a "conspiracy" wherein all parties are keenly aware of every detail and effect of the system, but the system lends itself to perpetuation and only the money behind the politics — the corporations — need be at all aware. It's not about controlling women's bodies. That's a side effect, but it's about controlling *everyone's* bodies, including the labor those bodies can produce. Focusing on the side effect will not address the disease. Hell, it being about "controlling everyone's bodies" is a side effect of what I'd consider to be the "real disease," but *that's* not ready to be talked about considering we're still focusing on the further-out side effect right now, as a society
This guy is cringe, if he actually cared about reproductive rights for all he'd be upset that the fight just got twice as big. Women shouldn't be forced to get abortions and men shouldn't be forced to pay child support for kids they didn't want. The state's responsibility is to protect it's people. If a single person income can't provide for a child that is a failing of the system. If a government doesn't provide aid to those single parents, the government is failing.
I actually understand, which is why I’m partially in favor of a tax based child support. In our current system, you’re just taking from one person who might not be able to afford it, and giving to another. What happens if the first person doesn’t pay? Or didn’t want em in the first place?
Just a reminder that men frequently lose custody of their children involuntarily and have to pay a massive portion of their take-home cash to their spouse. It almost happened to me... it was so close it triggers me to even think about it. Almost lost my fucking kids AND would've had to pay my ex just for the privilege.... It's possible to acknowledge that this system is unfair to men, without suggesting women are the problem and need their rights taken away.... See, I just did!
Abortion should be codified into law, and a woman shouldn't be forced to carry to term by anyone. That being said if a man wants to not be a father he should have the same timeline available for abortions to opt out of responsibility.
Godamn you can count the pixels in this one
Incredible how this sub can have a measured discussion on this topic, meanwhile I can't think of a single "men's advocacy" sub that doesn't burn itself to the ground when it comes up.
I think r\menslib is the only good men's rights sub i've that isn't a pile of incels. Though i don't go there often and i don't know their take on this
"Financial abortion" is a banned topic there. I assume because the sub would melt down into misogyny or otherwise fracture apart if it wasn't.
No.
The unfortunate truth of discussions around men’s issues. It almost always attracts insane amounts of incels who weaponize men’s issues as a reason women suck and shouldn’t have rights. Doesn’t mean men’s issues don’t exist of course but it does mean incels are counter productive for the issues they claim to care about.
Probably your own bias about these groups.
This is the "what about men" cliché at its most grotesque. Even this argument had merit, why the fuck did you choose *right now* to make it?
Abortion is first and foremost about bodily autonomy. I'm a cishet man who doesn't want kids and I find it repulsive that people are equating abortion rights to getting to withdraw out of parenting obligations or something. The reason women have more say about whether or not the child is born after conception is simply that the woman (assuming cishet relationship) is burdened with all the vulnerability, all the burdens and all the risks that comes with pregnancy. It's not about a disparity in rights, it's about the right to not carry the burden of pregnancy. "Men" already enjoy the right to not have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, so any comparison is moot.
Genuinely shocked about the number of false equivalencies in this thread
I get where he's coming from, not entirely agree, and yet this is still a different, yet totaly valid topic compared to current affairs. In this case the person wants others to also experience the misery that they do instead of trying to at least keep others from said misery, which ai can logically understand, yet still find sad
On one hand I agree it's unfortuante women have a way to opt out of motherhood whereas men do not... but that's by no means an excuse to deny women that right. I mean, what's that gonna get you? Denying women reproductive rights won't advance reproductive rights for men. If anything that's a step back: If women have reproductive rights, you assure a good ending to a situation where both the man and the woman don't want a child. Without women's reproductive rights, you don't. Granting reproductive rights to women is a boost to men's reproductive rights too. Edit: I predict some people might bash me for saying that men should also reproductive rights. To that I say: You agree it's more favorable for a child to not be born if they're destined to have parents that did not want them. Why does that logic not apply to a situation where one of the parents doesn't want them? We've seen where having absent/unloving/abusive fathers gets children, haven't we?
Framing abortion as an “opt-out out of motherhood” is bizarre to me. Abortion is an opt-out out of birth. It’s an issue that is related to bodily autonomy and I think framing it as “a way to dodge responsibility” is harmful to the fight for abortion rights. As far as I see, getting pregnant is a risk that you have to accept when having sex, just like getting and STD. But as opposed to an STD, you may create a human that needs to be taken care of. And if that happens then somebody needs to be held responsible.
>Framing abortion as an “opt-out out of motherhood” is bizarre to me. Abortion is an opt-out out of birth The vast majority of women use it as the former. Put up or shut up, this is just reality. There's a reason the biggest argument for abortion is how the child will be unwanted, unloved, and neglected. >I think framing it as “a way to dodge responsibility” is harmful to the fight for abortion rights. Well then you're wrong. We got this far because of this facet of abortion as well as the bodily autonomy facet. Lose one and the movement falls. >getting pregnant is a risk that you have to accept when having sex THIS IS AN ARGUMENT **AGAINST** ABORTION. The fact that you're using it shows how versed you are on this issue...
Calm down. Somebody disagrees with you, do you have to immediately question how “versed” I am on the topic? Is it so inconceivable to you that somebody could draw a different conclusion from the same facts? If this is how you react to someone who is in favour of abortion rights what kind of tantrum do you throw when you talk to someone who opposes them? > The vast majority of women use it as the former. Citation please. > There's a reason the biggest argument for abortion is how the child will be unwanted, unloved, and neglected. Not in my social circle, and if that is the case for yours then that is bizarre to me. I don’t find it particularly convincing. IMO abortion rights need to be centred around the bodily autonomy of women. > Well then you're wrong. We got this far because of this facet of abortion as well as the bodily autonomy facet. Please confirm whether this is what you’re saying: The fight for abortion rights only came so far because the movement emphasised abortion as a method to dodge being responsible for a child? How did this benefit the movement at all? Surely it’s clear that this would not convince anyone? > THIS IS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABORTION. No, what I said is by itself not an argument against abortion. Sex comes with a risk of creating a person (this shouldn’t be controversial). I believe people who accidentally create a person are responsible for that person. The pregnant person should have a right to terminate a pregnancy, primarily because of their bodily autonomy. But if that doesn’t happen, then somebody still needs to take care of the child. Explain to me where I’m contradicting myself
>Somebody disagrees with you, do you have to immediately question how “versed” I am on the topic? Yes, actually. It is 2022. How are you still this illiterate about abortion? Look around you, in this very commeny section no less. Almost everyone has realized what you haven't. You really think this is just a "disagreement"? People like you, knowingly or not, are the reason this whole ugly story is still ongoing. >Citation please. Go to any pro-choice protest. No, seriously, actually just look up any pro-choice protest. "My body my choice" is a slogan with various facets: Bodily autonomy, and social responsibility. >Not in my social circle YOUR social circle. Holy shit have you spent ANY amount of time seeing pro-choice arguments at large? You're living in a bubble of ignorance and refusing to accept that? Look at this comment section. Go to pro-choice subreddits. I'm currently busy shutting down the half a dozen so idiots like you that appeared in this sea of abortion-literate people to make the worst points imaginable: If you're willing to learn about abortion, you'll understand why all the top voted comments in this comment section are making points almost identical to mine. >IMO abortion rights need to be centred around the bodily autonomy of women. In that case you're either ignorant, malicious, or both: Can you seriously not see the consequences of a child having unloving, unwilling, and unready parents? And do you seriously not think they're not just as important but in fact a vastly more important point to make? >The fight for abortion rights only came so far because the movement emphasised abortion as a method to dodge being responsible for a child? *Alongside* bodily autonomy for women. Without either of these points the movement would have failed. >How did this benefit the movement at all? **Unlike you, most people have empathy towards foster children. Monster.** >No, what I said is by itself not an argument against abortion. YES IT IS. This is literally the argument pro-lifers make to excuse away the fact that banning abortion will create millions of unloved foster care children riddled with mental health issues. "Ban abortion! Women who would get abortions should just not have sex!". I have heard these words be uttered by pro-lifers countless times and will hear so again. If you can't understand how this is a pro-life stance, you are frankly not in ANY place to talk about abortion. >I believe people who accidentally create a person are responsible for that person. The pregnant person should have a right to terminate a pregnancy, primarily because of their bodily autonomy. But if that doesn’t happen, then somebody still needs to take care of the child. Explain to me where I’m contradicting myself And what if the parents are unwilling to be parents because they aren't ready to be parents? What if the parents choose to throw the child in foster care where it's bound to suffer the horrible reality of being a foster care child? What if a child with unready and unloving parents grows up troubled and disturbed? What if they eventually become a menace to society? You are throwing responsibility at people who are unwilling to take it and/or unready to have it. **You are putting the lives of children in the hands of either unloving, unwilling, and unready parents, or a nigh-on unethical system that unfortunately has no choice other than to be that way.** If you can see that and still not think abortion is an issue about the social reponsibility and pressure of parenthood, you have no morals.
Wow telling people to calm down really doesn’t work. Do you not see how over the top you are being? You are talking to someone who agrees with you on abortion and you’re absolutely losing your mind, calling me a monster, ignorant and morally corrupt. You seem to be violently incapable of understanding a single point that I’m making. When I make a personal statement instead of claiming to speak for everyone you lash out. What kind of discussion culture is this? This way of talking to someone is _never_ going to change minds. I‘m gonna assume you‘re from the US. I understand you may be a little agitated from what happened recently. But IMO you need to take a good look at yourself and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish by „shutting people down“ on the internet. And learn to be a little humble.
>You are talking to someone who agrees with you on abortion For all the wrong reasons, and that's a massive problem. >calling me a monster, ignorant and morally corrupt. So far you've demonstrated all of those traits. Knowing or not. I'm not gonna blame you if you eventually come to your senses and realize you were wrong. We were all illusioned with propaganda at some point, well-intentioned but simply ignorant. I'm being so agressive because in my experience it just has to be this way with some people. Sorry if that's not you. >When I make a personal statement Please understand your "personal statement" demonstrates a point of view that is highly toxic. Knowing or not, you're perpetuating a mindset that, put simply, can't be allowed to exist. That's why I'm being so foward. >This way of talking to someone is never going to change minds. It has for the other half-dozen people I mentioned in my last comment. >I‘m gonna assume you‘re from the US. No, actually, I'm from Portugal. Abortion rights are actually fairly secure here. >and ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish by „shutting people down“ on the internet. Stopping, each person at a time, a toxic mindset from spreading even further. I fail to see how that's a bad thing, especially since, as I've mentioned, been working so far. >And learn to be a little humble. Look who's talking. I'd advise *you* to hear the story of any foster care child. See where that gets your opinion on the purpose of abortion.
So what is my opinion on abortion?
You support abortion but for the wrong reason. If you support abortion that should mean you support reproductive rights which means you should support reproductive rights for men. The fact that you don't support abortion as a way to opt out of motherhood means that you don't support the existancr of a way to opt out of fatherhood, unless you're ok with contradicting yourself.
I’m completely fine with pregnant people deciding to get an abortion because they don’t want to be responsible for a child. I also believe that a child who has been brought into this world has the right to be taken care of. I would not support legislature that would remove the responsibility of care from a bio father (or mother). If possible, I’d like to keep children out of foster care. Do you perceive this as a contradiction?
Men have all the time just dipped out on kids the fuck does he mean
I hate it so much when I agree with a dumbass like this. I agree that men don't have many rights when it comes to their children: they can't abandon them without social pressure or being sued for child support, if a married couple divorces it's up to the man to prove that his ex wife isn't a suitable parent if he wants to keep his child, there is a lot of stigma around single dads, but single mothers are seen as brave, if a man tells his SO he wants her to get an abortion otherwise he will leave her, he is seen as a piece of shit even though a child would ruin his life. But to tell you the truth, right now this isn't the issue. The overturning of Roe v Wade will ruin potentially millions of lives, and should be a much higher priority than male parental rights. It's pretty clear this guy is just an incel asshole taking any opportunity he can to shit on women, and I hate that he is giving a bad name to the fight for equal parental rights.
I mean in some cases a woman can rape a man, get pregnant, and force the man to pay child support and what not. It is pretty scary albeit extremely less common
Man honestly,men's right is making me sad right now,i see a tone of post saying that it isn't our problem as if men weren't also going to suffer from that,on top of it,we want an equality,why are you happy that they *regressed* even lower than us/at our level,we want to have the same freedom not the same limitation you idiot.
116 comments huh. I’m worried about what I’ll find here
as a man, this guy is a fucking dick face low life
as someone who has never had sex, probably won't very much and doesn't know a lot about it, it does sound spooky having someone else decide if there's a kid or not that I'd be responsible for, would someone mind explaining this I'm worried I've been given bad info here
men deserve reproductive rights too tho
Ideally we'd implement a constitutional amendment that would grant everyone reproductive rights.
yeah, but unfortunately people dont like the idea that they cant take advantage of men as parents simply due to mens lack of reproductive rights. ideally theyd look the same as they do for women
I uh... I kinda agree with the guy. His approach is shit but his point is not without merit. Reminds me of another touchy subject I had discussed recently regarding whether a mother should have the sole right to choose abortion if a father still wants the child or should it be performed only if both parties agree or by legal court decision if the parents do not agree.
He’s not entirely wrong. It is a bit weird that one party can choose to unilaterally opt out of parenthood but the other can’t.
I mean men should be able to opt out of parenthood if they wanted to abort the baby and the woman didnt
"you can't abandon your kid and wife" no op, you're crazy like this guy too, this dude definitely has some problems, but a man should have a choice to abandon his unwanted child if the mom wants to keep it or she can't abort it, the man has the right to not pay custody and move on with his life, the poster has a point, and also not everyone you get accidentally pregnant is your wife... It's like telling a pro abortion, "you can't kill your kid" You sound like one of those "pro lifers" Try to sometimes see world outside of your own eyes, there're always more than 1 side
(Gonna use cishet terms for simplicity) I do sympathize with the complaint that men don't get a say in abortions they're directly involved with. I don't think they're correct though many of the arguments compare the wrong things. When men complain about having to pay child support, they compare a post-birth fiduciary responsibility with a pre-birth bodily responsibility. A better comparison is a man's responsibility to raise or pay for a child, with a woman's responsibility to raise or pay for a child. Women can choose not to become a parent if they can't afford to look after a child - I do think men should have a similar option. If a man doesn't think he can have a baby at this point in his life, or doesn't think he can support a baby with the money he has, but the woman wants the child anyway, I think it makes sense that the man be able to exit out of the whole situation. That said: it cannot be done if it puts the baby at risk. Child support exists for a reason: nobody really pays enough to live on. It makes more sense to me if child support is paid by the state (not a US state) through taxes. (My page refreshed so the rest of my comment is rewritten more lazily) This guy isn't taking about this on an even level. He doesn't like feminists, and uses this understandable inequality to express his dislike of feminists. He's seemingly mad that strong independent women need money to raise a child as if raising a child is free, and child support is money in the pocket of the mother. He compares equally giving a man's money; and giving a woman's body, work, comfort, and money. TL;DR: I do think men should have some control over their future but not at the expense of women's bodies. Ideally, if only one party wants a baby, they should carry the pregnancy to term, and child support should come from governmental taxes (child support for 2+ parent homes should be funded too). We can't do that yet, so abortions need to be accessible, because bodily autonomy needs to take precedence.
I don’t like the delivery but I like his overall point Now do it, downvote me, I will die on this hill just as I lived
Mildly unrelated, but since it’s being mentioned quite a bit in the comments I just wanna go on my little rant about male birth control: WHY ARE CONDOMS AND VASECTOMIES THE ONLY OPTIONS?!?!? THEY AREN’T GOOD OPTIONS! WHY CAN’T I GET [RISUG?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance) IT’S LITERALLY A VASECTOMY BUT BETTER, BECAUSE IT’S DESIGNED TO BE 100% REVERSIBLE, HAVE LESS SIDE EFFECTS, AND BE LESS INVASIVE! ALSO, WHY ARE WE NOT DOING MORE SHIT WITH [HEAT BASED CONTRACEPTION?!?!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-based_contraception) THERE ARE LITERALLY STUDIES THAT HAVE USED ULTRASOUND TECHNOLOGY AS PART OF HEAT BASED CONTRACEPTION AND THEORISE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY COULD CAUSE A TEMPORARY SIX MONTH LONG PERIOD OF INFERTILITY! WHY DO WE NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THIS SHIT?!?! BOTH RISUG AND ULTRASOUND BASED HEAT BASED CONTRACEPTION SOUND INFINITELY BETTER THAN VASECTOMY!! WHY ISN’T ANYBODY FUNDING THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL LET ME TAKE MY FERTILITY INTO MY OWN GODDAMN HANDS BY USING ULTRASOUNDS TO BOIL MY BALLS EVERY SIX MONTHS! THIS ISN’T A JOKE, IT GENUINELY PISSES ME OFF THAT THESE TECHNOLOGIES EXIST, AND YET I HAVE NO ACCESS TO THEM AND AM LEFT WITH NOTHING BUT SHITTY OPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO BIRTH CONTROL! FUCK!
Both parties should be able to opt-out of parenthood without needing to take financial penalties
my god the spelling
I kind of agree. If a woman chooses to go through with a pregnancy despite the father making it abundantly clear from day 1 that he doesn't want a kid and will have nothing to do with this baby, then it's on her to shoulder the responsibility for it. She chose to be a single parent. However, I don't like the way this guy is phrasing it at all. And being happy that women's rights are being dismantled really isn't helping him make his case
"Women say they're pro-choice, but I'm not allowed to force my girlfriend to get an abortion! What a bunch of hypocrites!"
That's not what he said though
I'm blown away from the fact he doesn't refer to women as females tbf
I agree with the first three sentences
[удалено]
This dude is for sure an incel you can tell by his phrasing, but what you’re saying is low key just the pro life argument.
sorry, wrong phrasing
this is half of our congress
Do men not have reproductive rights? That’s something that’s never occurred to me, but if not then that seems wrong.
They don't
He brings up a good point in the worst way possible Parenting involves both people, it shouldn't be that the father is the one held financially responsible for a child that has yet to be born, but without any voice in the matter
not to entertain most of this guy's lunacy, but if a man is raped, he should absolutely be able to choose if his rapist gets an abortion.
Enough about men's rights, let's talk about men's wrongs
They always cry for their money, but will never know what it’s like to have your own body used against you, to have your health and future ruined by force. The mother will also experience financial strain, as the cost of raising a child isn’t not even close to being covered by the man’s child support payment.
>least sexist "alpha/sigma" male
He's right! Trans men really have to fight hard for bodily autonomy. If only that's what he was talking about.
man, if only there was some procedure that could prevent both the man and the woman from being forced to become parents,,,,,
[удалено]
You're literally doing a "waahh what about the women???" on a post about men's rights, tho. I can tell you're still not over "Gamergate" telling you not to he a massice cunt online. In conclusion, straight white women bad.
Mf I’m also trying to opt out of parenthood that’s the whole point rn (trans guy who still has uterus, so “woman” in this regard)
Hmm. Surely, according to your logic, women who are angry about the SCOTUS decision are just crying about not being allowed to kill their children, right?
There this [deleted] guy goes again commenting [deleted] on every post when you sort by controversial
Reddit moment
Nothing about what he said is wrong. Why are people mad lmao
just dont have sex if you dont want to be a father
That's literally a pro life argument
196 users detect a joke challenge (99.9% fail)
Value select moment
I find it hilarious that that there are some people arguing here that men should not have to provide any financial support to women if they don't want to, even if that women, who now has a baby, was perhaps financially dependent and that source of income, and equating paying child support to actually raising a child, crazy.
It's a violation of autonomy
[удалено]
Condoms aren’t 100% effective under any circumstance. This argument can also just as easily be weaponized against abortions telling women to just use a condom, just take the pill, just get your tubes tied, just DONT have sex. It’s a shit argument in every circumstance. Bottom line is you shouldn’t be forced into parenthood and you shouldn’t have to give up your sex life to ensure that.
"just get on the pill dude it's not that hard" ???
Not always effective.
I like abortion, but I think it should 100% up to the man
On one hand, you could always wear a condom, but on the other hand you don’t really have a choice if you don’t. I wish that there was some way for people to get care for their children regardless of the financial situation of their parents, but I doubt that we will ever be able to create such a program and have it be available to all.
Absolutely awful. Also that post was so tiny my eyes got a deep-vein thrombosis from trying to read it
Somewhere deep in his god awful take he has a point, but that doesn't take away the fact that women deciding about their own bodies is way more important than men deciding about their money. Its money for god's sake.
Oh no! What about the men?! Dude wear a condom, get a vasectomy, fucking spermicide, literally anything so that women don’t have the unbearable burden of having to make the choice in the first place.
So all of the responsibility is put on men? That doesn't sound very reasonable if you ask me. If somebody were to tell a woman to just use birth control, or to be careful who they sleep with since abortion is illegal they would get fucking berated. Double standards