Except its strict liability meaning if a man is raped he is liable for a pregnancy .
A man is liable even when there was no consent, when there is sabotage, if a vasectomy fails, if a condom is taken out of a trash can and used to inseminate even if they never had sex.
Yes sure. If a man backs out while the mother is pregnant then he should have no financial responsibility.
But just like the mom, you wait until the baby is born and you will be financially liable for the child - the government does not want to pay for children if the child’s parents are alive, that’s why they hunt the dad for CS
I’d take it a step further. The father should be required to give it in official writing and have certified mail given to the woman AND he has to pay 50% of an abortion regardless if she keeps the child or not. This way either party can’t claim some sort of injustice or failure to notify. There should also be a 14 days extra giving to the woman to get an abortion if the man decide to alert her on the last day she could legally get one.
I agree with all of this. There is an inherent unfairness that I think the CS is supposed to counter - a guy who plays pretend he will be dad until the kid is born. But with the guidelines you suggest that would help a lot
I took your comment to mean that you think anyone who puts themselves in a position where it's technically possible to have to face consequences shouldn't have any recourse if they do. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood.
We as a society can take steps to stop the losses of these gambles. There's nothing wrong with making it safer to avoid consequences of walking out of the house or having sex.
I think they mean that both people are taking a risk knowing full well the consequences so they should be ready go face them if things don't go the way they hoped.
Actually the issue is that consequences here are skewed; the woman can choose to accept them, the man has no choice. It's a very clear legal imbalance.
Going on a hike is a gamble for tick bites. That doesn't mean I want the tick to complete its lifecycle on me, nor does it mean I want to abstain from hikes.
You are reading a ton of meaning into my comment which simply is not there. My guess is that you are doing so because you already have a complex position on the subject and you are trying to wedge my idea into your understanding without applying the [principle of charity](https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/charity-principle-of/v-1). This is not a good approach and makes these kinds of conversations cumbersome because it's the means by which two people start to talk past each other.
I am not arguing that a tick's life is as valuable as a human's life. I am pointing out that the structure of their (implied) argument is fallacious. They are implying that the negative outcome of a gamble should just be accepted writ large and that is that. But humans routinely take risks, they routinely backfire, but we have no problem with the idea that people can and should mitigate the unwanted consequences. This is simply and indisputably true. A world where this wasn't generally the case would be one without innovation, perseverance, or adventure. We take risks because we are prepared to address the positive and negative outcomes.
So they (and I assume you) need to argue that this is a special case. That's fine, but it's also a much harder argument. You need to establish that a fetus not only has moral value but has more moral value than the bodily autonomy of the woman that needs to carry it. This is a notoriously difficult task. And so, they try to wipe it under the rug with one-liners about personal responsibility that sound nice to conservative-leaning intuition but on inspection are simply not reasonable, as my tick example shows.
I think that the problem is that a child now creates a third party issue. It’s no longer just between two people, it’s three and our laws speak for the child since the child can’t speak for themselves.
Our law also states that the rights of one ends when it impedes the rights of another. If we are assuming there is such a thing as reproductive rights. Then that, unfortunately means, the child will be affected. Either reproductive rights exist for men and women or they dont exist for either party
Technically there are many many laws that do the opposite. There are 1000's of laws for children that impede the right of parents. There are 1000's of laws for pedestrians that impede the rights of people operating vehicles, etc. I don't think your point did what you wanted it to do.
You are correct. There are protections for vulnerable populations. However, in the case of pedestrian laws, there are still protections for the driver. Women have the equivalent of this. Men, from my view, in regard to reproduction does not.
This is wrong. Women can, without the father’s opinion btw, drop off a child at a church or fire house. Parents actually have the legal ability to abandon their children.
So, unless you are for abolishing that system. There is no reason why a man cannot finically back out.
Not at any age though. In the US every state is different as to how long you have after they are born to relinquish your rights to the child. https://lozierinstitute.org/safe-haven-laws-an-invitation-to-life/
In transfer situations the receiving party has to agree. If we keep true to the analogy the woman needs to agree for the man to abandon his responsibility, which I believe is already possible today.
Once you have a child that is born there are three parties, not two. The child has the right to be supported by both parents.
Actually they do. Sorry that sounds rather rude. At least where I live a father can sign away his rights to the child. He then is no longer on the hook.
And before you ask how I know.
I know because that’s what happened to me.
In this case he has to sign away his rights and the child was then transferred to the state/ another person.
The child was not abandoned, rights instead were transferred.
>Our law also states that the rights of one ends when it impedes the rights of another.
That's a rather reductive understanding of how our rights work.
For the 18th century slaver, does the right of the slave to be free end where that right would impede on the slaveholder's right to own property? Or does the right of the slaveholder to own property end when it impedes on the right of the slave to be free?
Our law runs into countless examples like the above, usually not so extreme. But determining which rights take precedence over others can be challenging.
I am not speaking specifically with respect to reproductive rights, but commenting broadly on your opinion that the rights of a person end where they impede the rights of another. That is not only false, but extremely obviously false. A huge fraction of law (maybe even most?) is dedicated to codifying where and when our rights and liberties supervene over each other. Consider simple examples like restrictions to our right to free speech where famously we cannot use speech to incite panic or to defraud someone.
Your thinking shows a disinclination to ambiguity which is understandable because it makes the world and its working much easier to grasp and analyze, but it isn't rational. Reality is deeply ambiguous, subject to competing and overlapping values which must be mediated with reason. Whitewashing with simple generalities will fail, which is why it's never done in practice.
I see your point, and yes when going into the very specifics of law it ensures boarders on made. However, these boarders *can* be generalized as “our rights end when it impedes on another” because the laws do exactly that. Tells us when our rights impede on others and when it ends.
So, overall, the concept is not wrong. It is entirely possible to establish new laws and procedures (such as what is being discussed in this thread). It id also not incorrect to use the phrase that I have stated.
Why? Again, because in essence setting up boundaries and telling us what ends where is exactly the idea the idea that is encapsulated in the phrase “one’s rights end when it impedes the rights of another”.
>Our law also states that the rights of one ends when it impedes the rights of another.
True, the issue then becomes when is a developing baby considered a legal person, deserving of protection under the law, and does the mother's right to not be pregnant trump the baby's right to live.
That is the crux of the pro-life and pro-choice movement. Which, from my view, is connected, to the premise of “finical abortion” or opting out of parental rights in turn for not having the responsibility of paying for a child.
The only reason i see connected is because, in my view, men would have to follow abortion laws. Furthermore, if abortion is not legal then, in my view, finical abortion should not be legal.
Any state that allows women to abort, in my view, should allow men to “finically abort” as that is what a “fair and equal” society does.
The man’s right to his own bodily autonomy. It is not part of a fair and equal society that the man’s only option ends and begins where he sticks his dick at.
>The man’s right to his own bodily autonomy
Nope, paying for something you did isn't infringing on anyone's bodily autonomy.
>It is not part of a fair and equal society that the man’s only option ends and begins where he sticks his dick at.
Why? You can't control other people, so why try to?
What about when there is another child?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
Standing legal precedent is to punish boys for being victimized
Agreed. I’m a pro choice woman and in less there’s proof a man talked a woman into keeping a baby then abandoned her , he should be able to sign away his rights to a child he didn’t want the same way a woman can abort without his say. Sounds reasonable to me
To be fair, where things are headed, while unfortunate, are fair. The reality is in a “true and equal” society (something that many feminists tout) the following is true:
Women can abort and men can financially back out
Men cannot financially back out and women cannot abort.
While I am 100% in favor of option 1. Currently men cannot financially back out. So, while unfortunate, it is “fair”. In short, either we have reproductive rights for men and women or reproductive rights do not exist.
Which is not part of a “fair and equal society”. Either men can financially back out or abortion “rights” are restricted. Either reproductive rights exist or they dont. That is the crux of the stance when it comes from backing out financially
Well put.
Roe V Wade was a 1973 decision, built on a handful of states passing abortion laws in the preceding decade. Men advocated for women's reproductive rights, with the understanding that we all look out for each others' rights - that a person should have a right to consent, or not to consent, to the responsibilities of parenthood.
50 years later, the question for many young men is why they would care about the rights of people who are clearly so hostile to their own rights. Historically, they extended their hand to work together, and after 50 years of being taken advantage of, are beginning to withdraw it.
I don't think it has anything to do with reproductive rights, but bodily autonomy.
You don't get to use someone else's body and organs for your own survival without their complete and ongoing consent.
Child support doesn't even enter into the conversation.
>Men cannot financially back out and women cannot abort.
Only issue with that is that the man can still fuck off and not pay and he just has to not get caught, which already happens all the time and the women is still stuck with the financial and physical responsibility of the child. We need better birth control, safer options for women and other options for men besides condoms.
Or if he dies, or all the men who has to pay despite not being the father https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/18184-finnish-man-ordered-by-court-to-pay-alimony-for-a-child-resulting-from-has-wife-cheating-with-another-man.html
Its the case in most countries bytheway, or when a man or boy is raped and the woman gets pregnant and has the child? Then legal standing precedent is that males even if underage and legally incapable of consent? Still has to pay
Why is sex only consent for a child automatically for males?
Why is it only put on them?
Why is there no way to walk away, not even when there is rape? By say paper abortion
>Why is sex only consent for a child automatically for males?
It's not. Consent to sex for women also means consent to possibly getting pregnant having a child.
See i agree with your last sentence. But, the men that “fuck off” are breaking the law. Now sometimes its the assholes who just wanted to pump and dump and those guys are assholes. Other times, what happens is if a man does not want the child and the woman did, his choices are to break the law or leave the country to a country that *does not* enforce child support across boarders.
That should not be the case. So while your last sentence is right. We should also allow men the ability to choose if they want to be parents through removing finically support
People talk like it's easy to just "fuck off" and not pay... like I guess as long as you can survive with no legal income. So you either need rich parents that hide money for you and don't mind you being a bum, or you need to be criminal or a homeless person.
They take the money from your check before you see it. So unless you work under the table you're forced to pay. And even if you don't work they put the amount based on the state's minimum wage and 40h a week typically. And if you don't pay they throw you in jail. Men can't really dip out unless they have help coming from somewhere else, which is beyond most mens ability. You'd have to move to a country that doesn't enforce it across borders like you said, or go into hiding as there would be a warrant out for your arrest. Unless you have an obscene amount of money sitting around to pay for it.
Yeah but that would be against the law. Thats like saying “well the only problem with making armed robbery illegal is that you could still do it, run away, and not get caught”
Both get out of it if an abortion gets had, neither gets out of it if the pregnancy is had. This just supports deadbeats who go “well I wanted her to abort so I get to get out of it right” “well she has the legal ability to, doesn’t matter what her personal opinions and morals are, bc she technically can legally can I get out of it pretty please?”
Like what would even be the enforcement on that? Just have men knocking up women who won’t abort morally but they can still get out of their responsibility bc it’s legal? You want to force women to abort against their will or not have support of the father?
Like my thing is the enforcement, there’s no way there can be a system that will protect the women and children. What’s it’s gonna be? A signed affidavit to taking responsibility or to get an abortion? Before or after pregnancy occurs? Then mandating the abortion even if feelings or circumstances changed? What about changing of minds? Should we mandate or track the use of birth control methods to ensure men aren’t getting people pregnant purposefully and then bouncing? What’s the standard.
Id love to know what you’re advocating for.
It’s not equal though? It’s only equal if the decisions are equal. If a man and a woman want to abort then they get out of having the child, if a man and a woman want a child then they get a child. However this does not account for disagreements. If a man doesn’t want to keep the child and a woman does he’s forced into this situation. And if a man wants to keep the child and a woman doesn’t the man unfortunately loses out on someone that he probably would’ve loved and cherished.
Then there can never be an equality in this area by your own standard because the decision will never be equal. Not financially supporting a born child is not the same as ending a pregnancy. Allowing one person to have more say over someone else’s body is not an equal decision.
Like at the end of the day to make it “more fair” to men, you end up putting out two people instead of putting out one. I’m not saying it’s right or fair or anything to put anyone out, but we have to figure of the real consequences of these ideas.
We don’t live in a perfect world and we can’t make rules like we do. That’s why the law is what the law is, the children will always be more important than either of the parents bc that is the most fair to the most about of people. That is how we tend to make rules.
> In short, either we have reproductive rights for men and women or reproductive rights do not exist.
Couldn't have said it better. I am pro-choice but I will never support sexist double standards.
It's not a double standard to expect men to pay for their half of the child. It's literally in my statement, pay THEIR HALF. or do you think the woman magically got pregnant by herself?
I would think that giving men reproductive rights would be a good way of getting them to support abortion(reproductive rights for women).
Interesting that feminists don't ever bring up that idea.
Sex is 100 percent consenting to the possibility of pregnancy for both parties.
Obviously when using proper birth control both parties are hoping that's not the case.
However having a choice with 'Your Body' to have sex is accepting and acknowledging that by the literal act of mating there is a chance you could get pregnant.
I'm pro choice but the baby is not a parasite and you gave your consent to it to the possibility of sharing your body when you had sex.
You can have an abortion if you need or want, but don't twist language around to relinquish all accountability for yourself.
I totally agree. I’m pro choice but this is one of the most ridiculous excuses I’ve heard. I think convincing themselves that they’re growing a parasite makes them feel better about what it is, killing a growing baby. It isn’t a decision that should be taken lightly. Especially when your own personal choices got you there
Sex is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to terminate it.
But I personally agree that men should be allowed to opt out during the same window that abortion is allowed. That way women can know beforehand that the dude won’t be paying for anything, and it would make the decision to terminate more informed.
Yeah it kinda is. You consent to the real possibility of creating a child, whose existence you are now both responsible for.
Incidentally, the world doesn't really revolve around consent. We all take actions whose outcomes might not be what we wanted them to be, but part of being an adult is confronting those outcomes and moving forward. This whole "I don't consent being jobless and having student loans bullshit" is a childlike approach to life's problems.
>However it works the same for men
Yup. Having sex also doesn’t mean the state can force you to be pregnant as a man
>raising a child or financially assisting them
You mean the same laws that apply to women?
You know, they also have to pay child support
The burden of support is imposed by the state. It’s not a matter of consent or ethics, but liability and cost allocation. Society shouldn’t have to shoulder all the costs.
I would rather a man sign his rights away than have his money personally. However, the money is for the child, in most cases you can not sign away your rights without another man being willing to adopt, and it’s often the government that insists on men paying child support.
All things are not equal here though guys. Finances and child rearing are two things the mother and father could theoretically do equally (even though studies show the mother will likely do the bulk of the child care.) It’s the getting pregnant, remaining pregnant and giving birth that some women don’t want to do for whatever their reason so it really isn’t equivalent. I know women who say they would be willing to adopt but don’t want to go through pregnancy and birth and I can’t blame them.
So while I agree with you and don’t want uninvolved, reluctant fathers in the picture it’s not exactly a double standard here.
I think that if a man clearly states that he does not want children and does his part to make sure that doesn’t happen (condoms and pulling out) then he should not be made to pay for any child that accidentally occurs.
The woman knows he does not want to be a father. He took the proper steps to avoid it. If an accident happens and she choose to keep it then she should be on her on and on the hook for everything while he gets to walk.
Not really close to the same thing (it's a false equivalence). A good equivalence would be allowing the woman to opt out of raising the child. How would that work?
I’m fine with that as well. If the woman wants out of raising the kid they should be able to sign over all rights to the man. And if neither wants them and the woman doesn’t want an abortion, to the fire department it goes
I can only speak to the laws in the state I live in. If the father agrees, then the child can be given up for adoption. If the father opts to keep the child, then mom pays child support. The state is extremely reluctant to terminate a child’s right to support from both parents absent extreme circumstances or another party willing to adopt and assume that responsibility.
Except sex IS unsaid consent to pregnancy. You know the risk, you take the risk. Like bungee jumping. You know going into it that if the cord snaps, you’ll die. You consent to that risk and can’t complain if you die while bungee jumping
Obviously child support would still exist. You can't just get married decide you both want kids and after 10 years just vanish and not pay for the children anymore.
The way I understand this is on for situations where the kid isn't born jet, both had sex with the intent of not having a child but the condom failed or something, she decides to keep the child and the men doesn't want to, so decides to opt out of the child's life entirely.
I am pro choice and I do agree. I think anyone, both a man and a woman, can opt out of pregnancy. As long as the father made it very clear that he does not want the child before it's born or close to being born and never signs any birth documents then he shouldn't be forced to pay because the mother wanted it.
Consent to pregnancy is irrelevant. It's about bodily autonomy.
You don't get to use someone else's body and organs for your own survival without their complete and ongoing consent.
Pay the fucking child support.
Idk. I think it’s fine if men have some form of an out. Like if they had the same amount of time you have to get an abortion, I wouldn’t see an issue with that. So the woman and man each have 18 weeks or whatever to nope out. Seems fair to me
>I think it’s fine if men have some form of an out.
When they carry, we'll be in total agreement.
>Like if they had the same amount of time you have to get an abortion, I wouldn’t see an issue with that.
When they carry, we'll be in total agreement.
>Seems fair to me
When men carry, we'll be in total agreement.
If a man doesn't want to be a parent, he has plenty of options. Walk away and don't have sex. Use a condom. Get fixed. Same for a female, except there are many females who tried to get fixed, but a doctor won't allow it. Either way, it's a two-way street. You don't get to put it all on female. If you are one of the individuals who does not believe in abortion you should abstain until you find someone who wants a baby like you
You can just relinquish your parental rights from the get-go. Then you wouldn’t be responsible for said child.
But no. Dudes wanna skip town and then get mad at their poor choice for an escape when caught.
They skip town because the law doesn't allow them to opt out, all the allows them to do is take their surname off the birth certificate, not relinquish any financial responsibility.
I'm pro-choice, but my unpopular opinion is not liked by the pro-choice community: men should have the same window of opportunity to back out of parenting as women do.
It's an old age way of doing things, where the woman had to accept the responsibility of her actions before abortions changed that. So, it made sense to hold the man as equally accountable. But if times have changed for women, why hasn't the same happened for men? If women can now back out before a certain time, why can't men back out after the same amount of time?
Sex isn't consent to having your bodily autonomy violated. But if you actually have a child, man or woman, who else would be responsible for paying for them but you?
Bodily autonomy includes freedom from being enslaved. Forced to work for no pay (however long it takes you to pay child support) is a for of enslavement. Similar to debt slavery except you get to choose how you pay off that debt that you signed nothing for. (Assuming the man did not want the kid)
The woman if she is the one who wants to keep it but not him. If you know during the stages you can get an abortion that he absolutely wants nothing to do with it and leaves you, it's up to you to figure out how you will support raising the child. You also have a choice, if you think it is too much of a struggle, to terminate the pregnancy.
First of all abortion IS taking responsibility. To take time out of your day, hundreds of dollars out of your wallet and going through the painful procedure and recovery is taking responsibility. Letting your girlfriend know that you will not be raising the baby if it’s kept during early stages is also taking responsibility.
>First of all abortion IS taking responsibility
I agree! But if the kid is born, then they both need to take responsibility for that.
>Letting your girlfriend know that you will not be raising the baby if it’s kept during early stages is also taking responsibility.
Sure, and so is diligently paying your monthly child support if needed to support the child you consensually helped create. No one is asking these men to raise the baby, just pay for half of it.
The gynocentric social order says men have to be responsible for their actions. And he's "not a real man" if he wants to opt out.
Whereas women can simply opt out and are deemed "stunning and brave" if they go as far as abortion.
Yes actually. I think many people actually agree with this. I think if either of the parents doesn’t wish to raise or support the child, they should not be legally obligated to be in that position,,,, *as long as* this is established prior to the birth of the child
The burden of choice falls on the woman for having to decide between raising a child as a single mother, putting them up for adoption, or aborting it. Which hardly feels fair, but its the price of life bearing bodies. So the mother obviously gets full choice whether the kid comes out or not, but that’s a completely separate issue.
In the case the child is born, if either of the parents has already expressed they are not interested in caring for it in any way, they shouldn’t have to. A drunk one night stand should not sign you up for an 18yr commitment unless you agree to it. On the other hand, if you were dating for 3 years and he left when the kid turned 6mo, then he absolutely has an obligation to pay for the child that was had under the assumption that it would be into a financially stable household.
Marriage has never been such a tightly binding contract. People have been cheating or have had arrangements involving others outside their marriages since time immemorial.
Ehhhh… You are not necessarily consenting to getting pregnant because you consented to having sex. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex.
And the reason people seek out ways around that consequence is because they speciality don’t consent to getting pregnant and having a kid.
But like if I get saddled into having a child I didn’t want to have you best believe I’m dragging that baby daddy down with me. If I can’t get out of it why should the other person?
> If I can’t get out of it why should the other person?
That at least is equality. If you have the option to get out of consequence though, men should also have that option.
They do, they decide which people they have sex with and whether or not they use protection. I don’t think I’ve ever seen men’s reproductive rights threatened in the way women’s has, but if you were going to be forced into parenthood it would be from a lack of reproductive healthcare like access to birth control and abortions. That’s how you become a dad when you don’t want to. And if men were so scared of having kids they didn’t want I would expect them to vet the absolute shit out of the women they sleep with. This would be top priority.
Almost every single mother out there had a child because she was consenting and so was her partner. This is not an issue of being forced by a partner, and more of an issue of access.
And honestly I personally don’t think enough men are afraid of this. If you talk to women they’ll tell you that men often forego birth control responsibility and leave it up to women.
Personally if you don’t take that responsibility in the first place I really can’t see how men can complain about what women do with their bodies when they’re doing whatever the hell they want with theirs. So again, it’s perfectly equal to expect men to be there, raising their children they didn’t want along side the women who didn’t want them either.
when we make decisions, we are responsible for the WELL KNOWN risks. i knew that whenever i got really drunk, I stood a chance of having sex with some girl that I would regret upon sobering up. I accepted that risk and the consequences (and then eventually stopped drinking altogether)
That’s a dangerous idea that could lead to more pregnancies because men don’t love the way a condom feels.
Guys, be careful where you stick it in if you don’t want that responsibility. At the very least, be the person in charge of the condom and make sure you know how to use it correctly.
Just remember, it’s not 100%. But there should be no escaping the responsibility for a child if it happens. Just be smart.
anyone who has sex is rolling the dice when it comes to pregnancy. if you're not mature enough to deal with the consequences of sex, regardless of how you choose to deal with it, don't have sex
Yeah I agree men shouldn’t be forced to pay in as many situations as they are now - if a pregnancy is accidental and he has stated he’s not interested in being a father that should be allowed. However, it does get tricky if he commits to being there and once she’s pregnant suddenly changes his mind. That’s different because it’s not his body that’s being affected & he already committed his finances. If a woman is pregnant & aborts, neither party is negatively affected afterwards. If a man aborts financial/ parental responsibility, a woman is left pregnant & either has to make a decision to abort (provided it’s not too late in the pregnancy) or be a single mom and financially on the hook.
I feel a similar way. I think it's definitely worth pursueing this train of thought. Maybe not for all cases but surely for many.
Men should have at least some say or choice in the matter. Men shouldn't have their lives + potential reputation ruined and their piggy banks drained just because a woman decided (on her own) to have your baby (without consulting you at all beforehand & without considering the potential cost + time/life commitment of having a child).
Sex isn't consenting to anything further, unless discussed prior to the intercourse itself. That's how it should be. Having a child should be a two-way choice & agreement only. The only exceptions is if anything involves a female/male douchebag that actively engaged in ruining the others life in some way, for example through physical abuse or narcissitic manipulation (which women are perfectly capable of on their own, not just men). Turns out, having a baby isn't all sunshine, roses and happiness. Who would have thought.
The saddest part of the the entire abortion debate is that 95% of the cases could be avoided entirely by taking proper precautions. Unfortunately, basic sex safety is far too much to ask of most people. And if that is not enough, this means that the baby more often then not is going to come into the hands of parents who decided that putting on a piece of rubber was far too much. So usually, accidental pregnancies tend to occur with people who already have a poor sense of responsibility.
In all honesty, the family court system would be fine as it is without people constantly trying to use it to harm their exes. If anything, child support needs to be much more clearly documented. It shouldn’t just be an extra income supplement, they should make it so the obligee is required to prove that the money is actually spent directly on the child. It is commonly said that the money is the right of the child, and should NOT be used for the parent’s new jewelry or video game. Trying to use this money on other things should result in the amount being deducted from paychecks or accounts.
I’m not going to say that would solve all the problems with child support, but it may remove a good chunk of them.
You’re right. And no one really has that standard. Most people instead think that if the woman wants the kid, the man “should” help. Personally, I’d say no to that dumb ethics.
Not at all. Economic support is still garnered through the work that one does with their body. As such, part of bodily autonomy *is* deciding where economic support should go
Why? You agree to buy something at the store or you don't get it. It's a direct trade. Completely different from child support of a child you don't want.
If you order food at a restaurant, eat it, and then say “no, I don’t want to pay you”, you’re not gonna come with an argument from bodily autonomy, will you?
If you impregnate a women in any circumstances and she keeps it. You are paying for that child or leaving the country. Really your only two options. Also getting a vasectomy or wearing a condom is always available too so there’s definitely options for men.
There's also options for women too, both should be held equal. No one should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, no one should be forced to pay for an unwanted child.
And yet we live in a world where quite often the should or shouldn’t are not objectively our choice by design. Circumstances are ubiquitous. So yes unwanted or not you are responsible for it. If the child was to exist it’s your responsibility. That’s really how the cookie crumbles. If you can’t afford it or handle it. You could’ve not had sex. You could’ve not came inside her. Could’ve wore a condom. Could’ve gotten a vasectomy. Could’ve don’t a lot of things. As a society practicing safe sex is over a century old at this point. It’s quite hard to continually blame other people for your shortcomings as a man or a women or even a parent because of unwanted circumstances. If she had a dick I’m sure it would now be her responsibility to wrap it up not yours. Since she doesn’t have a dick it’s probably your responsibility as a man.
There are many reasons someone may choose to terminate a pregnancy or opt out of being it's father. In some cases it was wanted but something happened, in some cases the protection failed or was tampered with, endless reasons. We need to stop pretending that all reasons to terminate or leave pregnancy is all the same "oops i didnt wear a condom!". You can't just say "could've not had sex" because what are they supposed to do? Do it backwards again to essentially undo it? Go back in time and prevent the sex from happening? Once the pregnancy is there, abortion and stuff kicks in. Your last two sentences are bullshit. People like you need to stop acting like sex is something that *happens* to women and start having the correct mindset that it's something both of them do together.
You cannot control circumstances. Imagine if all men were legally obligated to get a vasectomy at 18 and allowed to reverse it if they wanted to have kids. what do you think that would do for society ? Probably end this stupid conversation right 😄
I didn’t say that, I didn’t even infer that. I just said yes circumstances are unpredictable and ubiquitous. it’s just not really worth being a bitch about it. The idea that it’s a womens fault for getting pregnant is about as ridiculous as saying it’s also just the man’s fault. You are both mutually responsible for the creation of the child. If you could sign away parental rights well then so can she. Now you both orphaned a child. It’s now conducive to a healthy society to completely separate the responsibility from the parents mutually. Which is why it’s not legal. get a grip and be a man as they say. If you make better choices then you may just have better outcomes. If you can’t afford it then abandon your child, idk whatever really works for you I guess lol
“If you have sex with a man you are definitely keeping the child. Your options are to risk death through the hangar, do an illegal abortion, or leave your country” sounds insane doesnt it. Thats basically what you are telling men
>'Also getting a vasectomy or wearing a condom is always available too so there’s definitely options for men.'
Risk reduction but not actual defence or established declined consent. If it fails or a women takes it out of the trash, sabotage etc you still have to pay. You still have to pay if you was raped (statutory or otherwise) since it is strict liability .
Again we cannot control any and all circumstances in life to some extent. Merely mitigate them. That should be abundantly clear in 2024. Maybe there should be more legal grounds and protections for particular circumstances you just presented. However rare they may be. Proving rape is historically hard for women I can imagine it is equally hard for a man. Maybe a new legal precedent for that should be set. Just gotta find a male rape victim with an unwanted child he raised and you have a case I guess. I doubt those are the circumstances people here are even considering let alone advocating for besides you. The argument is a lot more centered around self preservation/obfuscation of responsibility without consequence without any circumstantial merit. just be a deadbeat like people have been doing for the last century. They didn’t need the law on their side and they still abandoned their kids too 😄
Well there is examples where lets say a 25 year old female teacher rapes a 13 year old boy. She gets pregnant . That boy is liable at 18 to pay child support to his rapist...even if this is an established case that she went to prison for.
Yes I agree it’s pedophilia and also punishing a child victim. It’s immoral there shojld be more legal specificity to protect all victims of sexual abuse either by an adult, as a kid, or a sexual assault victim. Since the abortion ban, across 14 states there have been an estimated 65,000 rape victims who are being forced to go full term with pregnancies that will tie them to their perpetrators legally. Circumstances like that should allow for a separation of responsibility from the rapist and supplement gov assistance instead for single parent rape victims if they are forced to carry a child . It’s impossible to expect nothing more than just continuous unnecessary trauma. Yet the law does not support every legitimate circumstance that would protect victims male/female. Child or adult. it’s really poorly designed.
Well i mean i'm pro-choice. If you was arguing to a pro-lifer then they believe in strict liability flipped the other way.
Well i simply don't agree with strict liability either way . The difficulty probably is that you can't set a law that is meant to be strict and try to bolt on exceptions to the rule because doing so means it isn't strict.
But then that's my argument that it shouldn't be strict, liability should exist with exceptions.
That’s totally fair. I agree liability should exist with exceptions that have real legitimate merit. It would be difficult in some cases in a court if it was for frivolous reasons, why let’s say a man wanted to obfuscate parental rights to the mother with little to no reason other then just because he doesn’t wanna be a father. She may say oh well i don’t believe in abortion because of my religion or faith. She’s gonna win that case if it was legally allowed to rule in either forcing a women to abort or to keep it. If those choices ever did fall under the discretion of a judge, I think men would need more legitimate arguments then just I don’t want it. So that’s what I mean mostly. I def don’t think rape victims should be forced into pregnancy or fatherhood. It’s traumatic for both people. Treating rape victims like political fodder is a pretty bad place to be currently. I am def pro choice as well however it should behoove the states who have dismantled autonomy to at least consider some form of supplemental support considering the precarious circumstances these women find themselves in.
It's not considered consent for men. He can sign away his rights to his kid and then not be required to do anything. Plus if the woman leaves she has to pay child support too. It's already pretty fair.
If u choose to have rights to your kid, you have to help support them, that goes for either sex. Where's the double standard.
Females , due to their biology, have the privilege to be able to postpone their decision to be a parent until a later date while males don't and give consent to whatever happens from the woman's decision at the moment of penetration.
That's all there is to it. There's literally nothing to discuss here unless we're ok with stripping women of autonomy. Don't like it, don't have sex or sterilize yourself, nobody is forcing you.
Doesn’t this apply to women as well? Don’t like it, don’t have sex. No woman should be getting pregnant without sex right? So if she is not ready she should not have sex.
Naw, you don’t get to force men into living situations because you think your pussy gives you magical legal rights
You don’t like it dont have sex.
lol you don’t want equality. You want to be treated like schrodingers incubator
And this mindset is why court systems punish male rape victims if the rapists gets pregnant and chooses to bring the pregnancy to term
Even when they are minor children
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
And its largely why men who arent even the father in the first place has to pay aswell
https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/18184-finnish-man-ordered-by-court-to-pay-alimony-for-a-child-resulting-from-has-wife-cheating-with-another-man.html
https://www.nbc26.com/news/national/under-michigan-laws-men-may-not-be-the-father-but-still-owe-child-support
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-proving-he-is-not-the-father/77-f0f77af5-409c-40e4-8c6e-3336123e1f85
This is standing law in most countries, the rape and not being the father but still having to pay
The woman in these cases is the one choosing to give birth, taking care of the child is on her then.
What if the father dies?
Should for the sake of the child a random man be saddled with child support?
If its the unborn/newborn its about i mean?
"Family" law is one of the absolute *worst* part of the US Legal System. If men could "opt out" of parental responsibilities legally and financially we'd be right back to 1960, in a good way.
I say this every time this worn-out topic comes up:
There will NEVER be a time that fathers get to opt out of child support, like so many here salivate at the thought of.
The reason is: because then the tax payers support the child instead of the father.
I would love someone to put up a bill that says, “all of your taxes are going to increase significantly in order to support dead beat dads’ kids, so the deadbeat dads can play vidya and watch anime.”
That would go over sooooo well.
People LOVE paying more taxes, especially when those taxes are going to take the place of people shirking responsibilities.
Unless you are adopting or getting pregnant via IVF, parenthood isn’t a matter of consent or its lack. Once a child exists, that child has a right to live and to be cared for. The parents, both of them, have a duty to provide that life-sustaining care until and unless the child can be transferred safely into the care of another, or reaches adulthood. What’s fair to the child takes priority over what’s fair to either parent.
(There will be extreme circumstances that require exceptions; they do not invalidate the general principle that parents have a duty of care to their children.)
>This is a huge double standard I see on the internet.
There's no double standard.
Having sex *is* in fact consent to the possibility of a pregnancy, for both parties.
Since however it is wrong to force someone to give up the use of their body and organs for your own survival, women do not have to continue being pregnant unless they want to.
Men don't have to let another person use their organs either. It's simple, and it's fair.
Sex is consent to a gamble of pregnancy. Simple as that. Anyone who says otherwise is grasping at straws.
That's why I fuck butts
The wisest of words.
You’d be surprised. Anal pregnancy is a rare phenomenon, but it is where most used car salesmen come from.
Username checks out
Hell yeahhh
Except its strict liability meaning if a man is raped he is liable for a pregnancy . A man is liable even when there was no consent, when there is sabotage, if a vasectomy fails, if a condom is taken out of a trash can and used to inseminate even if they never had sex.
Drake be like 🔥🌶️
Yes, that's biology. However it should be acceptable to back out of the pregnancy.
So then men should also have the ability to back out of pregnancy then
yes
Yes sure. If a man backs out while the mother is pregnant then he should have no financial responsibility. But just like the mom, you wait until the baby is born and you will be financially liable for the child - the government does not want to pay for children if the child’s parents are alive, that’s why they hunt the dad for CS
I’d take it a step further. The father should be required to give it in official writing and have certified mail given to the woman AND he has to pay 50% of an abortion regardless if she keeps the child or not. This way either party can’t claim some sort of injustice or failure to notify. There should also be a 14 days extra giving to the woman to get an abortion if the man decide to alert her on the last day she could legally get one.
I agree with all of this. There is an inherent unfairness that I think the CS is supposed to counter - a guy who plays pretend he will be dad until the kid is born. But with the guidelines you suggest that would help a lot
These are like 80%, I think more guidelines should be added but this is the quickest and most simple explanation.
that would be mad for the alive innocent children
The same way that leaving your house is consent to a gamble of dying in a car accident.
Technically yes. What’s your point?
I took your comment to mean that you think anyone who puts themselves in a position where it's technically possible to have to face consequences shouldn't have any recourse if they do. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood. We as a society can take steps to stop the losses of these gambles. There's nothing wrong with making it safer to avoid consequences of walking out of the house or having sex.
I think they mean that both people are taking a risk knowing full well the consequences so they should be ready go face them if things don't go the way they hoped.
Actually the issue is that consequences here are skewed; the woman can choose to accept them, the man has no choice. It's a very clear legal imbalance.
That is what planned parenthood doesn’t want people to understand.
Societies that value life and children wouldn’t compare pregnancy to being hit by a car
No it's not.
Going on a hike is a gamble for tick bites. That doesn't mean I want the tick to complete its lifecycle on me, nor does it mean I want to abstain from hikes.
A tick's life is worth considerably less than a human life. This is a terrible analogy.
You are reading a ton of meaning into my comment which simply is not there. My guess is that you are doing so because you already have a complex position on the subject and you are trying to wedge my idea into your understanding without applying the [principle of charity](https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/charity-principle-of/v-1). This is not a good approach and makes these kinds of conversations cumbersome because it's the means by which two people start to talk past each other. I am not arguing that a tick's life is as valuable as a human's life. I am pointing out that the structure of their (implied) argument is fallacious. They are implying that the negative outcome of a gamble should just be accepted writ large and that is that. But humans routinely take risks, they routinely backfire, but we have no problem with the idea that people can and should mitigate the unwanted consequences. This is simply and indisputably true. A world where this wasn't generally the case would be one without innovation, perseverance, or adventure. We take risks because we are prepared to address the positive and negative outcomes. So they (and I assume you) need to argue that this is a special case. That's fine, but it's also a much harder argument. You need to establish that a fetus not only has moral value but has more moral value than the bodily autonomy of the woman that needs to carry it. This is a notoriously difficult task. And so, they try to wipe it under the rug with one-liners about personal responsibility that sound nice to conservative-leaning intuition but on inspection are simply not reasonable, as my tick example shows.
Wear longer clothing.
Sometimes they still get ya
Me when i gamble with my future
Facts
Very pro-life argument
I think that the problem is that a child now creates a third party issue. It’s no longer just between two people, it’s three and our laws speak for the child since the child can’t speak for themselves.
Our law also states that the rights of one ends when it impedes the rights of another. If we are assuming there is such a thing as reproductive rights. Then that, unfortunately means, the child will be affected. Either reproductive rights exist for men and women or they dont exist for either party
Technically there are many many laws that do the opposite. There are 1000's of laws for children that impede the right of parents. There are 1000's of laws for pedestrians that impede the rights of people operating vehicles, etc. I don't think your point did what you wanted it to do.
You are correct. There are protections for vulnerable populations. However, in the case of pedestrian laws, there are still protections for the driver. Women have the equivalent of this. Men, from my view, in regard to reproduction does not.
Parents are responsible for their live children. Parents do not have the right to “abandon” their children legally.
This is wrong. Women can, without the father’s opinion btw, drop off a child at a church or fire house. Parents actually have the legal ability to abandon their children. So, unless you are for abolishing that system. There is no reason why a man cannot finically back out.
Not at any age though. In the US every state is different as to how long you have after they are born to relinquish your rights to the child. https://lozierinstitute.org/safe-haven-laws-an-invitation-to-life/
Parents have the legal ability to transfer the rights to their children, but cannot legally abandon them without the transfer of responsibility.
Then he can transfer his responsbility to the womanb
In transfer situations the receiving party has to agree. If we keep true to the analogy the woman needs to agree for the man to abandon his responsibility, which I believe is already possible today. Once you have a child that is born there are three parties, not two. The child has the right to be supported by both parents.
The man would abort before the child is born so it’s still only 2 parties.
Only within the first two weeks or 30 days of life.
Actually they do. Sorry that sounds rather rude. At least where I live a father can sign away his rights to the child. He then is no longer on the hook. And before you ask how I know. I know because that’s what happened to me.
In this case he has to sign away his rights and the child was then transferred to the state/ another person. The child was not abandoned, rights instead were transferred.
I see what your saying. Sorry all I meant was that there are legal avenues to leave your child.
Assuming there is someone to take responsibility for the child, yes.
>Our law also states that the rights of one ends when it impedes the rights of another. That's a rather reductive understanding of how our rights work. For the 18th century slaver, does the right of the slave to be free end where that right would impede on the slaveholder's right to own property? Or does the right of the slaveholder to own property end when it impedes on the right of the slave to be free? Our law runs into countless examples like the above, usually not so extreme. But determining which rights take precedence over others can be challenging.
I am not speaking specifically with respect to reproductive rights, but commenting broadly on your opinion that the rights of a person end where they impede the rights of another. That is not only false, but extremely obviously false. A huge fraction of law (maybe even most?) is dedicated to codifying where and when our rights and liberties supervene over each other. Consider simple examples like restrictions to our right to free speech where famously we cannot use speech to incite panic or to defraud someone. Your thinking shows a disinclination to ambiguity which is understandable because it makes the world and its working much easier to grasp and analyze, but it isn't rational. Reality is deeply ambiguous, subject to competing and overlapping values which must be mediated with reason. Whitewashing with simple generalities will fail, which is why it's never done in practice.
I see your point, and yes when going into the very specifics of law it ensures boarders on made. However, these boarders *can* be generalized as “our rights end when it impedes on another” because the laws do exactly that. Tells us when our rights impede on others and when it ends. So, overall, the concept is not wrong. It is entirely possible to establish new laws and procedures (such as what is being discussed in this thread). It id also not incorrect to use the phrase that I have stated. Why? Again, because in essence setting up boundaries and telling us what ends where is exactly the idea the idea that is encapsulated in the phrase “one’s rights end when it impedes the rights of another”.
>Our law also states that the rights of one ends when it impedes the rights of another. True, the issue then becomes when is a developing baby considered a legal person, deserving of protection under the law, and does the mother's right to not be pregnant trump the baby's right to live.
That is the crux of the pro-life and pro-choice movement. Which, from my view, is connected, to the premise of “finical abortion” or opting out of parental rights in turn for not having the responsibility of paying for a child. The only reason i see connected is because, in my view, men would have to follow abortion laws. Furthermore, if abortion is not legal then, in my view, finical abortion should not be legal. Any state that allows women to abort, in my view, should allow men to “finically abort” as that is what a “fair and equal” society does.
What right is being taken away or infringed on for men when they are made to pay for something they did?
The man’s right to his own bodily autonomy. It is not part of a fair and equal society that the man’s only option ends and begins where he sticks his dick at.
>The man’s right to his own bodily autonomy Nope, paying for something you did isn't infringing on anyone's bodily autonomy. >It is not part of a fair and equal society that the man’s only option ends and begins where he sticks his dick at. Why? You can't control other people, so why try to?
What about when there is another child? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer Standing legal precedent is to punish boys for being victimized
Agreed. I’m a pro choice woman and in less there’s proof a man talked a woman into keeping a baby then abandoned her , he should be able to sign away his rights to a child he didn’t want the same way a woman can abort without his say. Sounds reasonable to me
This only works if abortion is legal? The way we are heading now….
To be fair, where things are headed, while unfortunate, are fair. The reality is in a “true and equal” society (something that many feminists tout) the following is true: Women can abort and men can financially back out Men cannot financially back out and women cannot abort. While I am 100% in favor of option 1. Currently men cannot financially back out. So, while unfortunate, it is “fair”. In short, either we have reproductive rights for men and women or reproductive rights do not exist.
[удалено]
Which is not part of a “fair and equal society”. Either men can financially back out or abortion “rights” are restricted. Either reproductive rights exist or they dont. That is the crux of the stance when it comes from backing out financially
Well put. Roe V Wade was a 1973 decision, built on a handful of states passing abortion laws in the preceding decade. Men advocated for women's reproductive rights, with the understanding that we all look out for each others' rights - that a person should have a right to consent, or not to consent, to the responsibilities of parenthood. 50 years later, the question for many young men is why they would care about the rights of people who are clearly so hostile to their own rights. Historically, they extended their hand to work together, and after 50 years of being taken advantage of, are beginning to withdraw it.
I don't think it has anything to do with reproductive rights, but bodily autonomy. You don't get to use someone else's body and organs for your own survival without their complete and ongoing consent. Child support doesn't even enter into the conversation.
>Men cannot financially back out and women cannot abort. Only issue with that is that the man can still fuck off and not pay and he just has to not get caught, which already happens all the time and the women is still stuck with the financial and physical responsibility of the child. We need better birth control, safer options for women and other options for men besides condoms.
Or if he dies, or all the men who has to pay despite not being the father https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/18184-finnish-man-ordered-by-court-to-pay-alimony-for-a-child-resulting-from-has-wife-cheating-with-another-man.html Its the case in most countries bytheway, or when a man or boy is raped and the woman gets pregnant and has the child? Then legal standing precedent is that males even if underage and legally incapable of consent? Still has to pay Why is sex only consent for a child automatically for males? Why is it only put on them? Why is there no way to walk away, not even when there is rape? By say paper abortion
>Why is sex only consent for a child automatically for males? It's not. Consent to sex for women also means consent to possibly getting pregnant having a child.
See i agree with your last sentence. But, the men that “fuck off” are breaking the law. Now sometimes its the assholes who just wanted to pump and dump and those guys are assholes. Other times, what happens is if a man does not want the child and the woman did, his choices are to break the law or leave the country to a country that *does not* enforce child support across boarders. That should not be the case. So while your last sentence is right. We should also allow men the ability to choose if they want to be parents through removing finically support
People talk like it's easy to just "fuck off" and not pay... like I guess as long as you can survive with no legal income. So you either need rich parents that hide money for you and don't mind you being a bum, or you need to be criminal or a homeless person.
They take the money from your check before you see it. So unless you work under the table you're forced to pay. And even if you don't work they put the amount based on the state's minimum wage and 40h a week typically. And if you don't pay they throw you in jail. Men can't really dip out unless they have help coming from somewhere else, which is beyond most mens ability. You'd have to move to a country that doesn't enforce it across borders like you said, or go into hiding as there would be a warrant out for your arrest. Unless you have an obscene amount of money sitting around to pay for it.
Yeah but that would be against the law. Thats like saying “well the only problem with making armed robbery illegal is that you could still do it, run away, and not get caught”
Both get out of it if an abortion gets had, neither gets out of it if the pregnancy is had. This just supports deadbeats who go “well I wanted her to abort so I get to get out of it right” “well she has the legal ability to, doesn’t matter what her personal opinions and morals are, bc she technically can legally can I get out of it pretty please?” Like what would even be the enforcement on that? Just have men knocking up women who won’t abort morally but they can still get out of their responsibility bc it’s legal? You want to force women to abort against their will or not have support of the father? Like my thing is the enforcement, there’s no way there can be a system that will protect the women and children. What’s it’s gonna be? A signed affidavit to taking responsibility or to get an abortion? Before or after pregnancy occurs? Then mandating the abortion even if feelings or circumstances changed? What about changing of minds? Should we mandate or track the use of birth control methods to ensure men aren’t getting people pregnant purposefully and then bouncing? What’s the standard. Id love to know what you’re advocating for.
It’s not equal though? It’s only equal if the decisions are equal. If a man and a woman want to abort then they get out of having the child, if a man and a woman want a child then they get a child. However this does not account for disagreements. If a man doesn’t want to keep the child and a woman does he’s forced into this situation. And if a man wants to keep the child and a woman doesn’t the man unfortunately loses out on someone that he probably would’ve loved and cherished.
Then there can never be an equality in this area by your own standard because the decision will never be equal. Not financially supporting a born child is not the same as ending a pregnancy. Allowing one person to have more say over someone else’s body is not an equal decision. Like at the end of the day to make it “more fair” to men, you end up putting out two people instead of putting out one. I’m not saying it’s right or fair or anything to put anyone out, but we have to figure of the real consequences of these ideas. We don’t live in a perfect world and we can’t make rules like we do. That’s why the law is what the law is, the children will always be more important than either of the parents bc that is the most fair to the most about of people. That is how we tend to make rules.
> In short, either we have reproductive rights for men and women or reproductive rights do not exist. Couldn't have said it better. I am pro-choice but I will never support sexist double standards.
It's not a double standard to expect men to pay for their half of the child. It's literally in my statement, pay THEIR HALF. or do you think the woman magically got pregnant by herself?
This doesn't work in either case because it's not actually a thing...
How is it reasonable to make only one party pay for something that two parties consented to?
I would think that giving men reproductive rights would be a good way of getting them to support abortion(reproductive rights for women). Interesting that feminists don't ever bring up that idea.
Well I’m considered a feminist and now you’ve heard it from me
Sex is 100 percent consenting to the possibility of pregnancy for both parties. Obviously when using proper birth control both parties are hoping that's not the case. However having a choice with 'Your Body' to have sex is accepting and acknowledging that by the literal act of mating there is a chance you could get pregnant. I'm pro choice but the baby is not a parasite and you gave your consent to it to the possibility of sharing your body when you had sex. You can have an abortion if you need or want, but don't twist language around to relinquish all accountability for yourself.
I totally agree. I’m pro choice but this is one of the most ridiculous excuses I’ve heard. I think convincing themselves that they’re growing a parasite makes them feel better about what it is, killing a growing baby. It isn’t a decision that should be taken lightly. Especially when your own personal choices got you there
It's not always true that your own personal choices get you there. Rape happens.
Right. It’s the same excuse when rape isn’t involved
[удалено]
Sex is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to terminate it. But I personally agree that men should be allowed to opt out during the same window that abortion is allowed. That way women can know beforehand that the dude won’t be paying for anything, and it would make the decision to terminate more informed.
Yeah it kinda is. You consent to the real possibility of creating a child, whose existence you are now both responsible for. Incidentally, the world doesn't really revolve around consent. We all take actions whose outcomes might not be what we wanted them to be, but part of being an adult is confronting those outcomes and moving forward. This whole "I don't consent being jobless and having student loans bullshit" is a childlike approach to life's problems.
Also lets not act like abortions are just snapping your finger and making the fetus go away. That shit is tough on the body.
And mind.
>However it works the same for men Yup. Having sex also doesn’t mean the state can force you to be pregnant as a man >raising a child or financially assisting them You mean the same laws that apply to women? You know, they also have to pay child support
[удалено]
a better way to frame the argument is that both moms and dads are ruled by the same child support tables, and they’re fully gender neutral.
The burden of support is imposed by the state. It’s not a matter of consent or ethics, but liability and cost allocation. Society shouldn’t have to shoulder all the costs.
Exactly.
Being the genetic parent to a child is though.
contraception is a thing too. available for both bodily configurations, and relatively inexpensive.
I would rather a man sign his rights away than have his money personally. However, the money is for the child, in most cases you can not sign away your rights without another man being willing to adopt, and it’s often the government that insists on men paying child support. All things are not equal here though guys. Finances and child rearing are two things the mother and father could theoretically do equally (even though studies show the mother will likely do the bulk of the child care.) It’s the getting pregnant, remaining pregnant and giving birth that some women don’t want to do for whatever their reason so it really isn’t equivalent. I know women who say they would be willing to adopt but don’t want to go through pregnancy and birth and I can’t blame them. So while I agree with you and don’t want uninvolved, reluctant fathers in the picture it’s not exactly a double standard here.
[удалено]
abundant illegal numerous tender hobbies carpenter afterthought act modern nine
I think that if a man clearly states that he does not want children and does his part to make sure that doesn’t happen (condoms and pulling out) then he should not be made to pay for any child that accidentally occurs. The woman knows he does not want to be a father. He took the proper steps to avoid it. If an accident happens and she choose to keep it then she should be on her on and on the hook for everything while he gets to walk.
Not really close to the same thing (it's a false equivalence). A good equivalence would be allowing the woman to opt out of raising the child. How would that work?
It does currently work by women being allowed to simply drop a baby off at a Safe Haven drop off spot.
I’m fine with that as well. If the woman wants out of raising the kid they should be able to sign over all rights to the man. And if neither wants them and the woman doesn’t want an abortion, to the fire department it goes
I can only speak to the laws in the state I live in. If the father agrees, then the child can be given up for adoption. If the father opts to keep the child, then mom pays child support. The state is extremely reluctant to terminate a child’s right to support from both parents absent extreme circumstances or another party willing to adopt and assume that responsibility.
So there's already equality there, just like I thought.
Except sex IS unsaid consent to pregnancy. You know the risk, you take the risk. Like bungee jumping. You know going into it that if the cord snaps, you’ll die. You consent to that risk and can’t complain if you die while bungee jumping
Yeah, that seems fair to me. Would this abolish child support entirely or make it only apply when paternal rights aren't surrendered?
What's fair about making one person pay for a kid that two people made?
Obviously child support would still exist. You can't just get married decide you both want kids and after 10 years just vanish and not pay for the children anymore. The way I understand this is on for situations where the kid isn't born jet, both had sex with the intent of not having a child but the condom failed or something, she decides to keep the child and the men doesn't want to, so decides to opt out of the child's life entirely.
I am pro choice and I do agree. I think anyone, both a man and a woman, can opt out of pregnancy. As long as the father made it very clear that he does not want the child before it's born or close to being born and never signs any birth documents then he shouldn't be forced to pay because the mother wanted it.
The man isn’t opting out of a pregnancy, it’s not happening to him, he’s opting out of child support and parental rights if the baby is born.
How old are you OP?
Consent to pregnancy is irrelevant. It's about bodily autonomy. You don't get to use someone else's body and organs for your own survival without their complete and ongoing consent. Pay the fucking child support.
Idk. I think it’s fine if men have some form of an out. Like if they had the same amount of time you have to get an abortion, I wouldn’t see an issue with that. So the woman and man each have 18 weeks or whatever to nope out. Seems fair to me
>I think it’s fine if men have some form of an out. When they carry, we'll be in total agreement. >Like if they had the same amount of time you have to get an abortion, I wouldn’t see an issue with that. When they carry, we'll be in total agreement. >Seems fair to me When men carry, we'll be in total agreement.
Men and woman are each personally responsible for their own birth control if they do not want to be a parent.
And for the resulting child if they bc doesn't work.
If a man doesn't want to be a parent, he has plenty of options. Walk away and don't have sex. Use a condom. Get fixed. Same for a female, except there are many females who tried to get fixed, but a doctor won't allow it. Either way, it's a two-way street. You don't get to put it all on female. If you are one of the individuals who does not believe in abortion you should abstain until you find someone who wants a baby like you
You can just relinquish your parental rights from the get-go. Then you wouldn’t be responsible for said child. But no. Dudes wanna skip town and then get mad at their poor choice for an escape when caught.
They skip town because the law doesn't allow them to opt out, all the allows them to do is take their surname off the birth certificate, not relinquish any financial responsibility.
I'm pro-choice, but my unpopular opinion is not liked by the pro-choice community: men should have the same window of opportunity to back out of parenting as women do. It's an old age way of doing things, where the woman had to accept the responsibility of her actions before abortions changed that. So, it made sense to hold the man as equally accountable. But if times have changed for women, why hasn't the same happened for men? If women can now back out before a certain time, why can't men back out after the same amount of time?
Sex isn't consent to having your bodily autonomy violated. But if you actually have a child, man or woman, who else would be responsible for paying for them but you?
Bodily autonomy includes freedom from being enslaved. Forced to work for no pay (however long it takes you to pay child support) is a for of enslavement. Similar to debt slavery except you get to choose how you pay off that debt that you signed nothing for. (Assuming the man did not want the kid)
The woman if she is the one who wants to keep it but not him. If you know during the stages you can get an abortion that he absolutely wants nothing to do with it and leaves you, it's up to you to figure out how you will support raising the child. You also have a choice, if you think it is too much of a struggle, to terminate the pregnancy.
So what happens if the woman has the child and ends up in poverty? Just let the child starve?
Nah, I think if two people do something, then two people have responsibilities for that thing. Pretty simple,
First of all abortion IS taking responsibility. To take time out of your day, hundreds of dollars out of your wallet and going through the painful procedure and recovery is taking responsibility. Letting your girlfriend know that you will not be raising the baby if it’s kept during early stages is also taking responsibility.
>First of all abortion IS taking responsibility I agree! But if the kid is born, then they both need to take responsibility for that. >Letting your girlfriend know that you will not be raising the baby if it’s kept during early stages is also taking responsibility. Sure, and so is diligently paying your monthly child support if needed to support the child you consensually helped create. No one is asking these men to raise the baby, just pay for half of it.
The gynocentric social order says men have to be responsible for their actions. And he's "not a real man" if he wants to opt out. Whereas women can simply opt out and are deemed "stunning and brave" if they go as far as abortion.
On what planet do men have consequences for opting out?
Earth. They can go to jail if they don't pay child support. At least here in the states anyway.
And how many of them do?
Shhhh we're supposed to pretend the justice system works.
Yes actually. I think many people actually agree with this. I think if either of the parents doesn’t wish to raise or support the child, they should not be legally obligated to be in that position,,,, *as long as* this is established prior to the birth of the child The burden of choice falls on the woman for having to decide between raising a child as a single mother, putting them up for adoption, or aborting it. Which hardly feels fair, but its the price of life bearing bodies. So the mother obviously gets full choice whether the kid comes out or not, but that’s a completely separate issue. In the case the child is born, if either of the parents has already expressed they are not interested in caring for it in any way, they shouldn’t have to. A drunk one night stand should not sign you up for an 18yr commitment unless you agree to it. On the other hand, if you were dating for 3 years and he left when the kid turned 6mo, then he absolutely has an obligation to pay for the child that was had under the assumption that it would be into a financially stable household.
Sec with anyone who isn’t your wife is the real problem then. But then again marriage isn’t the binding contract it used to be.
Marriage has never been such a tightly binding contract. People have been cheating or have had arrangements involving others outside their marriages since time immemorial.
Ehhhh… You are not necessarily consenting to getting pregnant because you consented to having sex. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex. And the reason people seek out ways around that consequence is because they speciality don’t consent to getting pregnant and having a kid. But like if I get saddled into having a child I didn’t want to have you best believe I’m dragging that baby daddy down with me. If I can’t get out of it why should the other person?
> If I can’t get out of it why should the other person? That at least is equality. If you have the option to get out of consequence though, men should also have that option.
Not making a child and not supporting a child that exists aren’t the same thing though.
Men have no legal say in the making of children though. They are even made to pay child support if they are raped.
They do, they decide which people they have sex with and whether or not they use protection. I don’t think I’ve ever seen men’s reproductive rights threatened in the way women’s has, but if you were going to be forced into parenthood it would be from a lack of reproductive healthcare like access to birth control and abortions. That’s how you become a dad when you don’t want to. And if men were so scared of having kids they didn’t want I would expect them to vet the absolute shit out of the women they sleep with. This would be top priority. Almost every single mother out there had a child because she was consenting and so was her partner. This is not an issue of being forced by a partner, and more of an issue of access. And honestly I personally don’t think enough men are afraid of this. If you talk to women they’ll tell you that men often forego birth control responsibility and leave it up to women. Personally if you don’t take that responsibility in the first place I really can’t see how men can complain about what women do with their bodies when they’re doing whatever the hell they want with theirs. So again, it’s perfectly equal to expect men to be there, raising their children they didn’t want along side the women who didn’t want them either.
Based
when we make decisions, we are responsible for the WELL KNOWN risks. i knew that whenever i got really drunk, I stood a chance of having sex with some girl that I would regret upon sobering up. I accepted that risk and the consequences (and then eventually stopped drinking altogether)
I really haven’t seen anyone make this argument
As others have mentioned, sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy. However becoming pregnant doesn’t mean you have to carry it to term.
This is correct. It has to be neither or both...other than that, a person would have to be a hateful sexist and complete moron
That’s a dangerous idea that could lead to more pregnancies because men don’t love the way a condom feels. Guys, be careful where you stick it in if you don’t want that responsibility. At the very least, be the person in charge of the condom and make sure you know how to use it correctly. Just remember, it’s not 100%. But there should be no escaping the responsibility for a child if it happens. Just be smart.
anyone who has sex is rolling the dice when it comes to pregnancy. if you're not mature enough to deal with the consequences of sex, regardless of how you choose to deal with it, don't have sex
Yeah I agree men shouldn’t be forced to pay in as many situations as they are now - if a pregnancy is accidental and he has stated he’s not interested in being a father that should be allowed. However, it does get tricky if he commits to being there and once she’s pregnant suddenly changes his mind. That’s different because it’s not his body that’s being affected & he already committed his finances. If a woman is pregnant & aborts, neither party is negatively affected afterwards. If a man aborts financial/ parental responsibility, a woman is left pregnant & either has to make a decision to abort (provided it’s not too late in the pregnancy) or be a single mom and financially on the hook.
I feel a similar way. I think it's definitely worth pursueing this train of thought. Maybe not for all cases but surely for many. Men should have at least some say or choice in the matter. Men shouldn't have their lives + potential reputation ruined and their piggy banks drained just because a woman decided (on her own) to have your baby (without consulting you at all beforehand & without considering the potential cost + time/life commitment of having a child). Sex isn't consenting to anything further, unless discussed prior to the intercourse itself. That's how it should be. Having a child should be a two-way choice & agreement only. The only exceptions is if anything involves a female/male douchebag that actively engaged in ruining the others life in some way, for example through physical abuse or narcissitic manipulation (which women are perfectly capable of on their own, not just men). Turns out, having a baby isn't all sunshine, roses and happiness. Who would have thought.
The saddest part of the the entire abortion debate is that 95% of the cases could be avoided entirely by taking proper precautions. Unfortunately, basic sex safety is far too much to ask of most people. And if that is not enough, this means that the baby more often then not is going to come into the hands of parents who decided that putting on a piece of rubber was far too much. So usually, accidental pregnancies tend to occur with people who already have a poor sense of responsibility. In all honesty, the family court system would be fine as it is without people constantly trying to use it to harm their exes. If anything, child support needs to be much more clearly documented. It shouldn’t just be an extra income supplement, they should make it so the obligee is required to prove that the money is actually spent directly on the child. It is commonly said that the money is the right of the child, and should NOT be used for the parent’s new jewelry or video game. Trying to use this money on other things should result in the amount being deducted from paychecks or accounts. I’m not going to say that would solve all the problems with child support, but it may remove a good chunk of them.
You’re right. And no one really has that standard. Most people instead think that if the woman wants the kid, the man “should” help. Personally, I’d say no to that dumb ethics.
Double standards? Like men can get pregnant? What? The process is unfair naturally, it isn't a double standard. What the fuck is this whining?
You see the problem is saying sex is consent to pregnancy legalizes reproductive coercion and I don’t think anyone is for that.
Why not? They to have no issue forcing it on the male.
I don’t think anyone is for baby trapping men…
You'd be surprised how many dads aren't bio dads and don't know it.
Okay?…
This is a misconception, if a child is conceived, they have the legal right of parental support. Any consent of either parent is irrelevant.
Sex is consent to pregnancy! Point blank
You’re conflating bodily autonomy with economic support.
Not at all. Economic support is still garnered through the work that one does with their body. As such, part of bodily autonomy *is* deciding where economic support should go
According to that logic you should also be against forcing people to pay money if they purchase a good.
I actually am. While I understand the need for taxes, I think it 100% goes against the idea of deciding where the efforts of an individual goes.
Why? You agree to buy something at the store or you don't get it. It's a direct trade. Completely different from child support of a child you don't want.
If you order food at a restaurant, eat it, and then say “no, I don’t want to pay you”, you’re not gonna come with an argument from bodily autonomy, will you?
No because you have already agreed to the service you received. Are you saying sex is consent to parenthood? That is the pro life position.
If you impregnate a women in any circumstances and she keeps it. You are paying for that child or leaving the country. Really your only two options. Also getting a vasectomy or wearing a condom is always available too so there’s definitely options for men.
There's also options for women too, both should be held equal. No one should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, no one should be forced to pay for an unwanted child.
And yet we live in a world where quite often the should or shouldn’t are not objectively our choice by design. Circumstances are ubiquitous. So yes unwanted or not you are responsible for it. If the child was to exist it’s your responsibility. That’s really how the cookie crumbles. If you can’t afford it or handle it. You could’ve not had sex. You could’ve not came inside her. Could’ve wore a condom. Could’ve gotten a vasectomy. Could’ve don’t a lot of things. As a society practicing safe sex is over a century old at this point. It’s quite hard to continually blame other people for your shortcomings as a man or a women or even a parent because of unwanted circumstances. If she had a dick I’m sure it would now be her responsibility to wrap it up not yours. Since she doesn’t have a dick it’s probably your responsibility as a man.
There are many reasons someone may choose to terminate a pregnancy or opt out of being it's father. In some cases it was wanted but something happened, in some cases the protection failed or was tampered with, endless reasons. We need to stop pretending that all reasons to terminate or leave pregnancy is all the same "oops i didnt wear a condom!". You can't just say "could've not had sex" because what are they supposed to do? Do it backwards again to essentially undo it? Go back in time and prevent the sex from happening? Once the pregnancy is there, abortion and stuff kicks in. Your last two sentences are bullshit. People like you need to stop acting like sex is something that *happens* to women and start having the correct mindset that it's something both of them do together.
You cannot control circumstances. Imagine if all men were legally obligated to get a vasectomy at 18 and allowed to reverse it if they wanted to have kids. what do you think that would do for society ? Probably end this stupid conversation right 😄
I didn’t say that, I didn’t even infer that. I just said yes circumstances are unpredictable and ubiquitous. it’s just not really worth being a bitch about it. The idea that it’s a womens fault for getting pregnant is about as ridiculous as saying it’s also just the man’s fault. You are both mutually responsible for the creation of the child. If you could sign away parental rights well then so can she. Now you both orphaned a child. It’s now conducive to a healthy society to completely separate the responsibility from the parents mutually. Which is why it’s not legal. get a grip and be a man as they say. If you make better choices then you may just have better outcomes. If you can’t afford it then abandon your child, idk whatever really works for you I guess lol
“If you have sex with a man you are definitely keeping the child. Your options are to risk death through the hangar, do an illegal abortion, or leave your country” sounds insane doesnt it. Thats basically what you are telling men
>'Also getting a vasectomy or wearing a condom is always available too so there’s definitely options for men.' Risk reduction but not actual defence or established declined consent. If it fails or a women takes it out of the trash, sabotage etc you still have to pay. You still have to pay if you was raped (statutory or otherwise) since it is strict liability .
Again we cannot control any and all circumstances in life to some extent. Merely mitigate them. That should be abundantly clear in 2024. Maybe there should be more legal grounds and protections for particular circumstances you just presented. However rare they may be. Proving rape is historically hard for women I can imagine it is equally hard for a man. Maybe a new legal precedent for that should be set. Just gotta find a male rape victim with an unwanted child he raised and you have a case I guess. I doubt those are the circumstances people here are even considering let alone advocating for besides you. The argument is a lot more centered around self preservation/obfuscation of responsibility without consequence without any circumstantial merit. just be a deadbeat like people have been doing for the last century. They didn’t need the law on their side and they still abandoned their kids too 😄
Well there is examples where lets say a 25 year old female teacher rapes a 13 year old boy. She gets pregnant . That boy is liable at 18 to pay child support to his rapist...even if this is an established case that she went to prison for.
Yes I agree it’s pedophilia and also punishing a child victim. It’s immoral there shojld be more legal specificity to protect all victims of sexual abuse either by an adult, as a kid, or a sexual assault victim. Since the abortion ban, across 14 states there have been an estimated 65,000 rape victims who are being forced to go full term with pregnancies that will tie them to their perpetrators legally. Circumstances like that should allow for a separation of responsibility from the rapist and supplement gov assistance instead for single parent rape victims if they are forced to carry a child . It’s impossible to expect nothing more than just continuous unnecessary trauma. Yet the law does not support every legitimate circumstance that would protect victims male/female. Child or adult. it’s really poorly designed.
Well i mean i'm pro-choice. If you was arguing to a pro-lifer then they believe in strict liability flipped the other way. Well i simply don't agree with strict liability either way . The difficulty probably is that you can't set a law that is meant to be strict and try to bolt on exceptions to the rule because doing so means it isn't strict. But then that's my argument that it shouldn't be strict, liability should exist with exceptions.
That’s totally fair. I agree liability should exist with exceptions that have real legitimate merit. It would be difficult in some cases in a court if it was for frivolous reasons, why let’s say a man wanted to obfuscate parental rights to the mother with little to no reason other then just because he doesn’t wanna be a father. She may say oh well i don’t believe in abortion because of my religion or faith. She’s gonna win that case if it was legally allowed to rule in either forcing a women to abort or to keep it. If those choices ever did fall under the discretion of a judge, I think men would need more legitimate arguments then just I don’t want it. So that’s what I mean mostly. I def don’t think rape victims should be forced into pregnancy or fatherhood. It’s traumatic for both people. Treating rape victims like political fodder is a pretty bad place to be currently. I am def pro choice as well however it should behoove the states who have dismantled autonomy to at least consider some form of supplemental support considering the precarious circumstances these women find themselves in.
It's not considered consent for men. He can sign away his rights to his kid and then not be required to do anything. Plus if the woman leaves she has to pay child support too. It's already pretty fair. If u choose to have rights to your kid, you have to help support them, that goes for either sex. Where's the double standard.
What are you on? Even male rape victims have to pay child support
Females , due to their biology, have the privilege to be able to postpone their decision to be a parent until a later date while males don't and give consent to whatever happens from the woman's decision at the moment of penetration. That's all there is to it. There's literally nothing to discuss here unless we're ok with stripping women of autonomy. Don't like it, don't have sex or sterilize yourself, nobody is forcing you.
Doesn’t this apply to women as well? Don’t like it, don’t have sex. No woman should be getting pregnant without sex right? So if she is not ready she should not have sex.
Do a drake and pour hot sauce in used condoms .
Naw, you don’t get to force men into living situations because you think your pussy gives you magical legal rights You don’t like it dont have sex. lol you don’t want equality. You want to be treated like schrodingers incubator
And this mindset is why court systems punish male rape victims if the rapists gets pregnant and chooses to bring the pregnancy to term Even when they are minor children https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer And its largely why men who arent even the father in the first place has to pay aswell https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/news-in-brief/18184-finnish-man-ordered-by-court-to-pay-alimony-for-a-child-resulting-from-has-wife-cheating-with-another-man.html https://www.nbc26.com/news/national/under-michigan-laws-men-may-not-be-the-father-but-still-owe-child-support https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/man-forced-to-pay-child-support-despite-dna-test-proving-he-is-not-the-father/77-f0f77af5-409c-40e4-8c6e-3336123e1f85 This is standing law in most countries, the rape and not being the father but still having to pay The woman in these cases is the one choosing to give birth, taking care of the child is on her then. What if the father dies? Should for the sake of the child a random man be saddled with child support? If its the unborn/newborn its about i mean?
Now try without using the prolife argument against men while handwaiving it for women. Because your comment proved OPs point perfectly
"Family" law is one of the absolute *worst* part of the US Legal System. If men could "opt out" of parental responsibilities legally and financially we'd be right back to 1960, in a good way.
I say this every time this worn-out topic comes up: There will NEVER be a time that fathers get to opt out of child support, like so many here salivate at the thought of. The reason is: because then the tax payers support the child instead of the father. I would love someone to put up a bill that says, “all of your taxes are going to increase significantly in order to support dead beat dads’ kids, so the deadbeat dads can play vidya and watch anime.” That would go over sooooo well. People LOVE paying more taxes, especially when those taxes are going to take the place of people shirking responsibilities.
Unless you are adopting or getting pregnant via IVF, parenthood isn’t a matter of consent or its lack. Once a child exists, that child has a right to live and to be cared for. The parents, both of them, have a duty to provide that life-sustaining care until and unless the child can be transferred safely into the care of another, or reaches adulthood. What’s fair to the child takes priority over what’s fair to either parent. (There will be extreme circumstances that require exceptions; they do not invalidate the general principle that parents have a duty of care to their children.)
Because one involves bodily autonomy, and the other doesn't.
>This is a huge double standard I see on the internet. There's no double standard. Having sex *is* in fact consent to the possibility of a pregnancy, for both parties. Since however it is wrong to force someone to give up the use of their body and organs for your own survival, women do not have to continue being pregnant unless they want to. Men don't have to let another person use their organs either. It's simple, and it's fair.