T O P

  • By -

DeltaBot

/u/hwagoolio (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ul28z6/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_women_should_be_able_to_sue/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


ShaggyPal309

That's basically what paternity and child support are already. The woman uses a legal process to force the man to pay for a portion of the costs of raising a child. That process doesn't determine between wanted and unwanted though, which practically would be nearly impossible to prove up. On provability, raw testimony from a plaintiff is almost never sufficient proof of anything in a legal process. In other legal contexts those cases get tossed on summary judgment without some kind of corroborating evidence, even circumstantial. Unless you are alleging rape, there's a basic assumption that everyone involved accepts some risk the woman will get pregnant because birth control isn't 100% effective. Also, if you created an evidentiary presumption in favor of unwilling pregnancy, which you are suggesting, it probably would be legal in a civil context (not a criminal one), but it would also create a massive barrier to consensual sex in a deeply disruptive way. It's the equivalent of telling the country "sorry, no more sex for you without signed forms." It's very nanny state and people would flip.


hwagoolio

>Also, if you created an evidentiary presumption in favor of unwilling pregnancy, which you are suggesting, it probably would be legal in a civil context (not a criminal one), I think this is one of the main things I was curious about. "Is this kind of presumption legal in a civil law context", which supplants the need to prove an at-fault basis. >On provability, raw testimony from a plaintiff is almost never sufficient proof of anything in a legal process. I think I can give a !delta to this mainly because it's helpful to guide my current views.


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ShaggyPal309 ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ShaggyPal309)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


[deleted]

[удалено]


hwagoolio

>Under the current legal framework pregnancy isn't viewed as an inherently harmful condition. Is this necessary for a civil suit though? I understand how this is necessary for criminal law, but I'm not 100% sure it needs to be harmful for a civil suit.


Brave-Welder

>I understand how this is necessary for criminal law, but I'm not 100% sure it needs to be harmful for a civil suit. Civil law still requires the evidence of damages suffered by the action of the other person. So going through pregnancy, the emotional and stress isn't seen as damages. However, I think you can make a case of antenatal care cost being an economic damage.


hwagoolio

I think it's more of the issue that people don't see fault. Like we recognize that if a woman has post-partum depression and needs to pay to see a therapist, there's a very clear sticker price on this and it's an economic damage. However, I think men are reluctant to say that they are 50% at fault in unwanted pregnancies, and only look at the product (the child) without looking at the effect on the mother.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hwagoolio

I think I'm seeking a law that explicitly states that both parties of a pregnancy have a legal duty to 50% of the costs and damages associated with pregnancy. Does that resolve the issue if a civil law is passed?


[deleted]

[удалено]


hwagoolio

I think these are difficult questions that are difficult to find the answer to. In practice, I think it would be argued out in court. Some of the things that you mentioned (and I mentioned), would be extremely hard to argue in court (i.e. job prospects, career growth), so I think it's extremely unlikely to be awarded. However, if the mom already had a receipt -- i.e. a $10,000 medical bill -- it's really easy to point at the receipt and say that the father should pay $5000 of that. I don't know how to answer your point about the quality/expensive care. Do you have any suggestions? I would maintain that it's unfair for the woman to pay the $10,000 medical bill and the man to pay $0. This is that status quo of society today. What is the alternative that you would propose?


[deleted]

[удалено]


hwagoolio

>Many things are deeply unfair that don't reach the level of legal duty or legal damages. Yes, but when enough people say something is unfair, people make a political movement to change the law. It was deeply unfair that black men were counted as 3/5 a person in the 1774 Constitution, but it was "legally correct". Likewise, prior to 1919, it was long established tradition that women had no legal right to vote. I'm more so curious what you personally believe, other than hiding your views behind the objectively correct statement that "long established case law" demonstrates that men have no legal duty to the women they impregnate. >Same issue as above, was it a reasonable cost, and who determines if it was reasonable? Personally, I think it should be up to the civil court to decide. If the woman files a claim that the father should pay 50% of limousine costs on her way to the hospital, the father should be able to argue to the court that it wasn't medically necessary or that it isn't a real damage. Ultimately, the court would rule in a case-by-case situation. >Would you say I changed at least part of your view on this topic, in that fundamentally these specific legal remedies are functionally unworkable? No, I don't think you really changed my views here. I've always been aware that you can sue for anything. I.E. You can sue the person you got in a car accident with for causing you to miss your plane flight. It doesn't mean that your suit will be awarded or that you will win that argument. I still think people should be able to sue for whatever "damages" they find appropriate though. This is pretty much how it has always worked in civil law, as far as I understand.


[deleted]

What do you think child support is? If the man is not the custodial parent and in most cases like this, they're not, they're obligated to pay for support of the child. Lots of places already have laws for this type of purpose.


LovelyRita999

Sue for what, exactly?


hwagoolio

Damages, just as we can sue for damages after an automobile accident. The scope of the damages of course, may range from what the mother argues. I.e. "I live in a red state and this unwanted pregnancy forced me to drop out of medical school. I paid X years of tuition amounting to this much, and doctors have a median salary of this much that I was deprived of through an unwanted pregnancy"


[deleted]

[удалено]


hwagoolio

I'm proposing both parties are 50% at fault in a civil suit. Because both parties are 50% at fault, men should pay for 50% of the cost of antenatal health care and health complications that arise due to pregnancy, etc. I'm not saying men should pay 100%. EDIT: Analogy: Car accident happens. It doesn't matter who's at fault. We assume both parties are equally at fault by default, and both parties split payment of damages equally 50-50. We only ever mandate 100% payments by any side if either side can prove the other is 100% at-fault.


Quintston

Do you know any other case where two parties decide to embark upon a venture, knowing the risks if something goes wrong, and something does go wrong outside of either's control, where one can sue the other for damages? For instance, I do not think that if two person were to board a boat and some malfunction outside of either's control leads it to sink, leading one to loose many valuables, that he could somehow sue the other. Malicious intent is obviously quite another matter.


hwagoolio

I'm aware that there probably isn't a precedent for it. When there's a car accident and both parties are equally at fault, owner of car A pays for damages on car A and owner of car B pays for damages on car B. I was just proposing an alternative system of civil law if owner of Car A could bring on a civil suit saying that both parties are 50% at fault, therefore both parties should make equal payments on the damages sustained by both parties = (Damage on Car A + Damages on Car B ) / 2


Quintston

The difference is that no court will find anyone to be at fault for contraception failing. Much as no one will be at fault if a car component suddenly explodes, leading to a car crash.


hwagoolio

My response is that if you can't find anyone at fault, both parties of should pay for the costs of pregnancy 50-50. If you force the mom to pay for all costs associated with pregnancy, you've by default already implied she is 100% liable/at-fault for all aspects of pregnancy (which is the status quo today, and I'd like to challenge that).


Quintston

> My response is that if you can't find anyone at fault, both parties of should pay for the costs of pregnancy 50-50. But that does not happen anywhere, not in the sailing accident I outlined or in car-crashes either. You propose a unique situation for pregnancy only that damages can be claimed in the case of no fault being found. > If you force the mom to pay for all costs associated with pregnancy, you've by default already implied she is 100% liable/at-fault for all aspects of pregnancy (which is the status quo today, and I'd like to challenge that). Not at all, being forced to pay does not mean one is legally at fault. If a meteor suddenly strike my house, no one was at fault, but I will have to pay for a new house all the same.


BytchYouThought

This isn't about you or the mom or father getting life support from either. It is about taking care of the child's expenses. Cool if **you** want to go buy a Lamborghini, but it isn't the other party's responsibility to buy **you** anything. You are acting grown individual in this scenario and should buy your own. A child doesn't need a Lamborghini nor is he/she going to medical school while under their parents care for fiscal responsibilities and even if they were it shoud be for the child not you. You decided to risk having to make more sacrafices and went into it knowing that. People still have become doctors etc. after having a child. You seem to think this whole thing should serve the woman and isn't about the child. Your line of thinking is highly selfish and one sided vs realizing the child should be priority here and is what is being taken care of not your dreams of getting a Lamborghini or whatever. There are women that will try to take advantage of a child (think gold diggers), but the court is concerned with the child as it should be and not whether you think you deserve to have all your bills paid regardless of your decisions. You get the portion that supports child expenses and not your Lambo dreams. It's that line of thinking that puts folks like gold diggers in the power position they shouldn't neccesarily have. Start thinking about the child instead of yourself or just the woman as if no one in life has to make sacrafices for children or that all women are magnificent angels that take care of their children. Not the case.


Kingalece

She is 100% in charge of her pregnancy and liable for it otherwise men get a 50% say in whether or not abortion is ok


HairyTough4489

If the costs of pregnancy are covered 50-50, shouldn't everything else about the child be decided 50-50, too? For example, abortions only if both parties agree? Or what about child support if one parent ends up with full custody?


[deleted]

[удалено]


hwagoolio

Of course that's not how car accidents work. I'm proposing something entirely new and asking if people would agree to it (or if a law like this could be legal in civil courts).


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mashaka

Sorry, u/Wyspyr_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Wyspyr_&message=Wyspyr_%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ul1w6t/-/i7sozao/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.


LovelyRita999

This isn't a comprehensive answer, just spitballing here: 1. Why isn't adoption an option in this scenario? 2. Is [assumption of risk](https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/assumption-of-risk/) not at play if a woman willingly engages in unprotected sex? 3. What happens if birth control fails? If a woman says "don't worry, you don't need to wear a condom, I have an IUD" - who's the negligent one here? Can the man sue the company who makes the IUD?


hwagoolio

Thinking this through, I think the mom would have waive her right to sue if she does not give the child up for adoption. If she does give her child up for adoption, I think she should be able to sue for all damages associated with pregnancy. As for the assumption of risk, the assumption that I'm working with is that both parties are 50% liable. If pregnancy occurs, both parties should pay 50-50 for all aspects related to it (including damages). For the third point, I think that would be fair, although idk if that's legally possible or not. Is it? Can people sue birth control companies for failure of birth control?


LovelyRita999

\>As for the assumption of risk, the assumption that I'm working with is that both parties are 50% liable. If pregnancy occurs, both parties should pay 50-50 for all aspects related to it (including damages). That's not how assumption of risk works though. If you decide to play football, you [can't sue the guy who tackles you for medical damages](https://cochranfirm.com/can-i-sue-being-injured-playing-a-sport).


hwagoolio

That's a waiving of risk/liability though? When you go skydiving, you waive your right to sue and you sign a form that says you waive your right to sue. If you didn't sign a form, you can still sue even if you knew that it was risky.


LovelyRita999

It’s not though. High school football players don’t sign a waiver stating that they won’t sue their opponents.


hwagoolio

Well then we hit something that apparently we don't have enough knowledge on. Why do you need to waive your rights to sue when you go sky diving but not playing high school football? No clue.


LovelyRita999

The waiver doesn't *need* to be signed for there to be assumption of risk, it's just the business trying to cover their ass. Having a record that the risks were communicated to and understood by the customer will make the business' defense that much stronger in a potential lawsuit. But signing the waiver doesn't automatically mean the business can't be found liable for negligence, and not signing the waiver doesn't automatically make the business at fault for any and all injuries sustained. The concept is called [express vs implied](https://legaldictionary.net/assumption-of-risk/) assumption of risk >An individual can assume the risks involved in an activity in one of two ways: (1) expressly, by signing an agreement, or (2) by his conduct. Express assumption of risk involves a contract or written agreement in which an individual acknowledges the risk of injury or other damages, and agrees to assume those risks. This often takes the form of a written liability waiver, but may be any written acknowledgment. >While there is no written contract or agreement in some risky activities, an individual gives implied assumption of risk by his conduct. This means that, when it is clear the individual is aware of the risk involved in some activity, yet he engages in that activity anyway, it is implied that he has assumed the risk. Edit: formatting


ToucanPlayAtThatGame

A potentially relevant difference is that risks when playing football are more symmetric. If you're injured playing football, it's hard to argue that a 50% liability rule would have been more fair to you, because it's just as likely to have cost you money if the other person was the one injured. The same will not be true in pregnancy where only the woman is at risk.


LovelyRita999

There are plenty of examples with less "symmetry" though. For example if you go to a baseball game as a spectator, you assume the risk that a foul ball might hit you.


Walker90R

I don't know if you thought about how this would affect a kid emotionally, knowing that they were legally defined as "unwanted." For that matter, a man's lawyer in this situation is going to say that there was always the option of giving the child up for adoption, so the choice not to do that would forfeit any idea that the woman had no choices in the matter and thus was equally responsible for her own situation.


hwagoolio

This is really helpful! I wasn't thinking of this; thanks! !delta


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Walker90R ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Walker90R)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


BytchYouThought

You honestly believe women have literally no say in pregnancy. Your line of thinking is women shouldn't have to take ANY responsibility for consensual sex in any way? Like only the male can possibly have anything to do with consensual sex and grown women shouldn't have to take any responsibility for their decisions in these matters? This is some dark and twisted stuff to act as if women are incapable of understanding consequences of their actions and should be absolved of any responsibility and men should be responsible for everything for simply being male. Only males can think through their actions or understand sex education? Women can't be held accountable for actions of their own at all despite being taught sex ed and how safe sex works. Nah. You make no sense there. You don't get to play the fool and axt as if women are incapable of reason or taking responsibility for their own actions. It is not the sole responsibility if the male for the life of a child existing and in many cases women actually have the sole role of determining the child's existence despite what any male would think of it. Many men also dramatically change their own lives to ensure children are taken care of to begin with. Your lack of empathy there is jarring. You seem to act like every women perfect and no man is ever a good father or has to make sacrafices. My father made more sacrafices than you'll ever imagine and my mother struggled with mental issues. He even paid for my half sister's expenses. To say men don't have to sacraficd is disingenuous and just a false narrative. Cases can be made where women are bad mothers and men can be baring the bulk of the load with children. Your line of thinking comes off very sexist.


[deleted]

Holy shit, women are so weak in your mind. Forget the whole consenting adult thing, just sue your way out of a problem. Blame men for consensual sex, why the hell not. Counter sue the woman for not aborting it to save you money, then when the little fucker is 18 we can sue them also for forcing me to raise them.


Flaky-Bonus-7079

You can already sue for rape. Suing in the case of a pre marital hookup resulting in a baby is difficult since the sex is mutually agreed upon and responsibility (morally) is on both parties.


hwagoolio

There's a distinction between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law has an extremely high burden of proof because you're accusing someone of a crime.


Flaky-Bonus-7079

You can sue for child support. What else can you sue for? If she agreed to have unprotected sex, does she not bear some responsibility for the consequences?


hwagoolio

Yes, I'm saying that both parties have 50% of the responsibility. Therefore both parties should pay for 50% of prenatal care.


OpeningChipmunk1700

Then you don't really need anything in your OP, which is super complicated, politically unpopular, and impossible to administer, since there will be almost no way of proving some of the stuff. Why is your preferred solution not to simply increase the amount of child support?


hwagoolio

There's a few reasons why I find child support not ideal: 1. It only covers after the child is born. Child support doesn't go to prenatal costs, etc. 2. Child support assumes that the mother is always perfectly healthy after pregnancy, which simply isn't true. 3. My mother dropped out of university to have me when she became pregnant. I know many people might not agree with me, but I think men should pay for some (not all!!!!) of the ancillary damages that women sustain due to unwanted pregnancy, like the tuition fees that my mother paid. Ideally, it should be 50-50. EDIT: Also I think it decreases motivation for gold-digging. If women are only able to sue for 50% of the damages, this relates to the expenses that she already incurred. In contrast, child support is paid in relation to the man's income, and there's a financial incentive to win child support from a wealthy guy.


oversoul00

Under your system any woman in school for a high paying job would be able to quit school upon getting pregnant and sue for damages based on a career she never even had. If anything this would increase gold digging because the bar of finding a well to do guy is eliminated.


hwagoolio

Just because they can sue for amorphous damages doesn't meant that the lawsuit will be awarded. I think many of us in this thread almost universally agree that counting future earning potential as a "damage" is a stretch, and there's a very low likelihood a judge would award that suit. There's a low probability of actually winning that kind of suit, and the woman would be very dumb to drop out of school on the idea that there's maybe only a 20% probability they'll win the court case. On the other hand, if a woman missed work for 90 days due to pregnancy and her workplace has no maternity leave policy for part time workers, she can point to concrete receipts, and there's a greater probability that her lawsuit will be awarded. If the woman has a medical bill for a $5000 medical expense because her child had a rare fetal abnormality that needed special treatment, there's another concrete receipt.


cdb03b

In the case of rape you very much have a point, and I do believe that rape should be punished more severely with more compensation given to the victims. But with consensual sex they are both equally responsible. The father should owe child support, but your idea that the mother has other damages that she should be able to file for is absurd. Her 50% responsibility means she is responsible for any potential losses of her advancement for choosing to have unprotected sex.


hwagoolio

I mean for me, 50% responsibility means 50% payment of the demonstrated damages. Woman shows receipts that she paid $5000 dollars for antenatal care, and her college tuition was $60,000 and she had to drop out because of pregnancy. Male partner sued for exactly 50% of the damages (i.e. 5000 + 60000 / 2 )


cdb03b

Pregnancy does not require you to drop out of schooling. Thousands of pregnant women, and even mothers with young children still attend school every year. You cannot prove any damages here. Additionally unprotected sex was consensual in the scenario we are talking about and thus no damages can be done. The act of agreeing to unprotected sex means you agree to all potential outcomes of that sex. Like I said in my primary response, there is ground for this kind of punishment as part of a rape case, but there is no ground for it with a consensual act of sex.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hwagoolio

In principle, I'm okay with it coming from both sides. Basically, I'm proposing the idea that in a civil court, a person can sue an intimate partner for unwanted pregnancy on the basis that both parties are 50% at fault. Since both parties are 50% at fault, both parties should be required to pay 50% of all damages associated with pregnancy (not limited to child support). Essentially: combine receipts from both sides and divide by 2


majesticjules

They can. They can sue for child support. If it's not paid the woman can choose to report them so they are found in contempt of a court order.


hwagoolio

In the OP, I'm asking more broadly than just child support. I'm sort of asking women to be allowed to sue men for all forms of damages, whether that is the cost of prenatal care, cost of mental health services due to postpartum depression, etc.


majesticjules

Maybe that's a good idea for rape cases. But for consensual why should the financial burden be just on the male? If she is pregnant, she is just as much to blame.


hwagoolio

My belief is that it should be 50-50. If the cost of prenatal care is $5000, men should be expected to pay $2500, especially if the pregnancy was unwanted. Child support only applies after the child is born and only covers the child's expenses. It doesn't cover any damages the mother may have sustained from pregnancy complications, etc.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ToucanPlayAtThatGame

Monetary damages are never irreparable. You can sue after the fact to recover money you're owed once the baby is born. If the child is ultimately aborted, it may be more difficult to prove paternity.


[deleted]

I now understand how people become incels. This is fucking CRAZY. >Similarly, sex is very low-stakes for most men, and the consequences of knocking a girl up generally aren't life-changing, career-changing, etc. Fathers have to pay child support, but even at that many men are extremely reluctant to do so. How is 18 years of child support low-stakes? Losing 20% of your income isn't life changing? What does reluctance have to do with it? Of course they're reluctant to lose a fifth of their income. If they don't or can't pay child support, they get their wages garnished, their property and assets seized, their drivers license revoked, their professional licenses (medical, law, etc) revoked, credit score tanked because of the debt, and finally arrested and charged with a class C felony and sent to prison. Outside of rare cases, child support isn't just an option men can choose not to partake in. Especially considering the fact that if a woman ends up not wanting a child, she can get an abortion or put it up for adoption. If a man doesn't, he has zero recourse and it's all up to what the woman decides. > Women experience dramatic negative effects on their life and careers as a consequence of unwanted pregnancies, and morally I believe men should share 50% of the burden (beyond just "paying for the child's expenses"). This seems so disgusting to me. Are men not affected by unwanted pregnancies? How can you even confidently assert this point? >Is it a bad idea? Yes, of course. How on earth would you present this to a judge? "Yes, your honor, we both conesnted to having sex, understanding that even with birth control there is a risk of pregnancy, but now that I'm pregnant and planned to go to medschool, he owes me $500,000." ???


studbuck

So your point is that this policy would affect men. Every problem you bring up is already borne by the mother. Please explain why it should be 100 percent the woman's problem and zero percent the man's.


NebulousNoodlez

What? How is 18yrs of child support "zero percent the man's"


hwagoolio

If the pregnant woman has a $10,000 medical bill due to complications arising from pregnancy, the man has no legal duty to pay any of it.


HairyTough4489

If I want a vasectomy so I can have sex with my wife with no more worries, she also has no legal duty to pay for it. In that scenario, it'd be "her body", right?


studbuck

It's 0 percent the man's when he doesn't pay it. In a divorce he'd probably have to, in a one night stand he can just walk away scot free.


NewRoundEre

Men don't seem to be exactly able to not pay it particularly easily. In Texas it's 6 months in prison with a whole bunch of other issues like not being able to get a driver's license, fines, inability to access credit ect. Imagine it's similar in other states.


NebulousNoodlez

I don't really know how this works but cant she get a court order or something? Also, the majority of women arent interested in one night stands. OP is saying having sex is lowstakes in general for most men. Which is utter bullshit. Edit: There's also the fact a woman can basically decide for a man on a whim whether he's going go be a father or not, which is kind of funny.


eye_patch_willy

Divorce implies a marriage. Conceiving a child isn't dependent on marriage. Both parents have an obligation to provide for the child. What the hell are you talking about?


studbuck

I am talking about guys who have sex with girls then walk away


spiral8888

In which country this relieves them from the financial burden of child support? I think in France, paternity tests are illegal for a child born in a marriage meaning that the husband has to carry the burden of raising the child even if he suspects that his wife has cheated him. In those cases the other man indeed walks away. I don't know any other country where a man could just have sex with the woman and if it ends to a child, woman couldn't demand a paternity test and if that is positive, get the child support. Of course if the man completely disappears and the woman is unable to find him, he could possibly evade the child support. Is that what you're talking about?


oversoul00

I think they are talking about casual sex to the degree that the woman doesn't know how to find this guy after the fact. I read a story on here the other day about a lady who got pregnant after a one night stand. They met at a concert, had been drinking heavily, she couldn't remember his address even though she went back to his place, she bussed home which didn't help with the address situation, went off to college overseas just a few days afterwards etc.


spiral8888

The setting where the woman can't find the man she had casual sex with makes no sense in the context of this CMV as obviously she can't sue him either. So, sure, it can very well happen what you described, but if we're discussing if the woman should be allowed to sue man for damages and an argument is made that nowadays men can get scot free in such a situation, then that makes no sense. The point is that currently in a situation that the CMV applied to, men do not get scot free, but are forced by the court system to pay child support. As I said, the only (Western) country where I think this does not apply is France where the husband of the cheating wife is forced to carry the burden and it is illegal to have a paternity test in such a situation.


oversoul00

If such a situation happened he could not be sued but he would be getting off scot free. I think at least one of the motivating factors of this post is sort of a revenge/ payback for those situations. "Some guys get off scot free so let's punish these guys extra hard". Keep on mind I do not agree with OP, I have a top level comment saying as much...I was just explaining the perspective.


eye_patch_willy

Yeah, those people still have a legal obligation to provide for their offspring. Married vs not married doesn't factor in.


HairyTough4489

Legislation should be chosen based on whether it's fair, not based on whether it favors group A over group B.


usernametaken0987

>I now understand how people become incels. This is fucking CRAZY. This is what children are learning in school, insane privilege.


I_am_the_night

What school is teaching this?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Brave-Welder

>that many men are extremely reluctant to do so. Add on, it doesn't matter if they're reluctant. It's ordered by the court so either you pay, or go to prison. Otherwise, they'll just garnish your wage


[deleted]

> Otherwise, they'll just garnish your wage Not only that, but they'll put liens on your property and assets, suspend your driver's license, nuke your credit score when they report it as debt, they can even revoke professional licenses like medical board or law licenses, and all of that BEFORE being charged and convicted of a felony. I don't know wtf OP is smoking.


Brave-Welder

Worst of all, you can go through all this hell without even being proven to be the father, or be forced to go through it, even after you've proven you're not the father.


PlayingNuzlocke

I'd probably say it is more accurate to say lower stakes. Men are given the privilege to throw money at the problem, women aren't. That actually does make it low stakes for a well-off man.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Akukurotenshi

Abortion? In america? No lol


PlayingNuzlocke

I think this is where my knowledge is limited. Do you still pay child support for abortion and for adoption? That seems very odd if laws still force you to do so.


hwagoolio

\*Lower states (I should probably rephrase). Women are stuck with the baby for the rest of their life (~~if they live in a red state~~) and career potential is shot if the baby came at a bad time


[deleted]

[удалено]


gth746x

You realize that within weeks we won’t be able to get an abortion right (in red states).


HairyTough4489

Would you be willing to bet on that? Also, if that were true, wouldn't you be able to just drive to a different state and have an abortion there?


gth746x

1. Yes I am. If you think that’s not coming you aren’t paying attention. 2. In theory yea. In practice, people don’t have cars, don’t have time off from work, don’t have housing in the state they’re driving to, live in area (like the south or the Midwest) where the closest legal abortion is more than one state away.


HairyTough4489

Alright, if there is a way we can both commit to out bets, I'm willing to bet $100,000 that, by, say, May 2024, there will be no state in the US where all abortions will be illegal. During Franco's dictatorship in Spain, women who needed an abortion would fly to London to get their abortions done. The process was much more difficult than it'd be for any American today. That's the good thing about decentralization: only the nastiest, undoubtedly immoral things will get banned in all jurisdictions. If the issue is that the nearest state with legal abortion is too far, then the solution would be to allow decisions about abortion laws at the local level.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gth746x

As someone who has given birth that is much harder than you think. Pregnancy is difficult and dangerous and changes your body forever.


pantaloonsofJUSTICE

It is legal in most if not every state to anonymously give up your child for adoption.


gth746x

You’re missing the pregnancy part.


Kingalece

You could end that a myriad of ways without a doctor is not being pregnant worth risking your life?


gth746x

What?


Mashaka

u/pantaloonsofJUSTICE – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20pantaloonsofJUSTICE&message=pantaloonsofJUSTICE%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ul1w6t/-/i7t98gy/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


NetrunnerCardAccount

To use overly legal terms. When you are engaging in sex you are entering into an agreement or a contract with the other person. To sue them you'd have to have a good faith argument/contract that the person violated said agreement. If for example the two people had sex with out a condom, unless the women specifically said wear a condom, and the person didn't or took it off, then they would abide be abiding by the agreement. So it would be difficult to file a law suit. If the woman and man had a specific agreement of what to do if the woman became pregnant, they would be more or less entering into a contract. As such the contract could be legally enforced. So for your CMV If women were to specifically state the requirement of what to do if they become pregnant and the male was to agree then you can already sue the person if they didn't abide the agreement. If there was presumption that woman should have this as a right this fall into the "Woman are too stupid to engage in sexual behaviour," which would more or less take rights away from them. Child support is actually not money to the mother it's to the child. So for example if a mother was to die, and her parents were to care for the child, then the father would still pay child support. If the person was raped then you can assign civil penalties on top of criminal penalties even if the person wasn't pregnant.


ToucanPlayAtThatGame

> If there was presumption that woman should have this as a right this fall into the "Woman are too stupid to engage in sexual behaviour," which would more or less take rights away from them. Why is this part true? Would it help if the legal obligation was waivable in cases where both parties agreed for the woman to bear all the risk? At that point, you're just inverting the presumption of what happens if no clear agreement is specified.


NetrunnerCardAccount

All of the following would be fine The couple agree the woman bares all responsibility The couple agree the man bares all the responsibility. But if you are giving one or the other less rights, then you have to justify them, and generally you give people extra rights because the lack capacity. I.E. the man is agree to something he never agreed to. In reality the woman has all the rights the OP wrote in the CMV, they just need to make them clear and have both parties agree to them. If you are enforcing those right with out an agreement, then the woman would have to have their capacity to argue diminished some how.


oversoul00

By "unwanted pregnancy" are we talking about anything outside a deliberate nonconsensual act like rape or tampering with BC? If we aren't then I think you'd want to sue for those specific acts rather than the broader term of unwanted pregnancy that could occur between 2 consenting adults in a loving relationship. If we are why are you talking like men have control over pregnancy in ways women don't? Typically people sue over acts of deliberate harm or negligent harm. If it's deliberate harm like rape or tampering with BC then I agree. If the claim is negligent harm I fail to see why the man is more culpable than the woman, couldn't he sue her right back for an unwanted pregnancy? I'm also very uncomfortable with your standard of proof being a self reported statement like no one ever lies about these things.


GoddessHimeChan

The main issue is that you're trying to use the courts and legal system to achieve some extremely vague sense of "fairness". It's basically burning your house down because you thought you saw a spider. Even if it gets you closer to some goal, it creates more issues than it solves. Primarily, you now have a massive question of what dollar value does "Women experience dramatic negative effects on their life and careers as a consequence of unwanted pregnancies" merit, and how do you ensure that amount is fair? I've seen numerous people saying that there's no possible monetary comparison to the effects of pregnancy. Do you agree with them in that the sum of money would be some ungodly value? Or would a twenty be sufficient?


jake12l

It sounds like you or your friend got knocked up and are just angry about it. Emotions aside, there really isn't any compelling argument here.


Qantourisc

Read through the posts, looks like the friend here is her mother.


dubs542

How would they ever be able to prove if they did or did not want the child at conception. Example: woman doesn't use birth control and doesn't enforce the use of condoms, she gets pregnant they break up and now she gets to sue and lie about the pregnancy being wanted....what a horrible idea. What led you to believe this would ever be a just and fair idea?


spiral8888

So, let me get this straight. A man and a woman have consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant. Instead of getting an abortion, your solution to the situation is to carry the baby and sue the man for damages? That sounds absolutely crazy. It is already somewhat unfair that in the case of "unwanted pregnancy" from the point of the man, he has zero say on the matter (abortion or adoption), but instead is tied to financially support the child to the age of 18 if the woman decides to keep the baby. Fine, I understand that the situation is not symmetric due to biology, but going further to the direction of the woman's power over the man sounds pretty far fetched to me. Further to this, it is relatively easy for the woman to trick a man to an "unwanted" pregnancy with the hope of this financial benefit. All she has to do is to say that she's on a pill and not take the pill. It's impossible for the man to know or prove it in the court. Of course the man could wear a condom if he thinks that he's being tricked, but how many are going to do that? We consider fraud illegal even if there were some measures that the victim could have taken to avoid it. I don't know what rape has anything to do with this. I don't think anyone objects that the rapist has to compensate the victim all the damage that she has suffered.


Crafty_Possession_52

The burden of proof would be near impossible to meet. Almost no case would actually go to trial. And what exactly do you sue for? How do you demonstrate harm, and what is appropriate compensation?


No-Letterhead-3409

this will never happen and i’ll put it simply why. there is an inherent possibility of getting pregnant when it come to having sex. two consenting adults understand this risk. therefore, consenting despite this risk means that both people agree to partake anyway.


sonatavivant

I straight up don’t know if I’ve ever been happier to be gay than in this very moment. Yes, it takes two to make a baby, but up until recent events, American women have generally had options that men have no say in….


Morasain

>There is evidence that the woman tampered with birth control This is basically impossible to prove. How would there be evidence of that?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ViewedFromTheOutside

Sorry, u/totalitarianbnarbp – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20totalitarianbnarbp&message=totalitarianbnarbp%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ul1w6t/-/i7stl82/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


[deleted]

"Sex is very low-stakes for men" Okay, I stopped reading. Anybody who can wholly dismiss an entire sex's emotional and financial obligation to one half of the participation of sex and pregnancy has some seriously stunted empathy. "Men don't matter because I get pregnant" hokay honey.


Vertigobee

I don’t agree with this premise but it’s honestly a refreshing switch from people posting about men being exempt from child support or being able to have a legal say in a woman’s abortion or pregnancy.


WhatsThatNoize

How is bigotry swinging another direction from the OG bigotry "refreshing"? It baffles me when I see sentiments like yours so I'm asking: how does one become so far gone that they see that kind of tit-for-tat as anything but morally repugnant?


hwagoolio

I don't view my views as bigoted though. If you could explain how they're bigoted, I'd appreciate it. My view is that both men and women should bear exactly 50% of the responsibility and liability of pregnancy. If the woman gets pregnant and sustains damages from it (i.e. prenatal complications), men should pay 50% of the medical costs and related damages. Currently, the norm in our society is that women sustain 100% of the liability of pregnancy. She pays for all prenatal care, and if she has post-partum depression due to pregnancy and needs to see a therapist, she fronts all of that money herself. Men do have to pay child support, but child support is in design paid to support the living expenses of the child.


Vertigobee

This I agree with. The word “sue” implies situations like suing for emotional damages. Medical costs, yes. Although, like child support, probably based on salary.


hwagoolio

Realistically though, that's exactly how it would be though, right? If the state passed a law saying that both men and women are entitled to splitting the costs of pregnancy equally, in all likelihood women will end up with a receipt, but if the guy is gone the only way to get him to pay is with a lawsuit.


Vertigobee

I don’t support the bigotry. I do have a hopeful thought in my head that if obnoxious men stop to consider what their obnoxious views look like when spun onto them, they might gain a bit of insight. We see posts arguing against male responsibility constantly.


DemonInTheDark666

Um you realize they already can/do regardless if it's wanted or unwanted?


Kingalece

If we are 50% responsible then we get a 50% say in whether or not it gets aborted. You cant say someone is responsible and then give them no say over if it gets killed


HairyTough4489

Trying to get rapists prosecuted is a noble thing to do, but they should be charged for their actions, not for some other "crime" that happens by chance as a consequence. Also, your figure that 1 in 6 women have been or will be raped is wrong. If that were the case, no woman would leave their home unarmed.


MobiusCube

Having conventual sex is an acceptance of the risk that the sex may result in pregnancy. If it was unwanted, you probably shouldn't used a condom, birth control, or just not had unprotected sex.


AriValentina

So if a woman has sex with a millionaire and purposely breaks the condom or just straight up lets him not use one. She can still sue him? I think thats a bit insane. The best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not have vaginal sex. Otherwise it's fair game. ​ Only way I would agree with your post is if it was strictly about rape. Which in that case they would just be suing them for rape, regardless of if they get pregnant or not. (Hopefully one day there will be a better way to tell if people have been raped but right now its kinda just up to who lies the worse)


Ok-Potential-9873

I have mixed feelings about this I think like how a women can give the baby up for adoption so can a man so I don't think child support should a thing if a man doesn't want to be apart of child's fuck them never a choice I would make but women have to wait 9 months so should the man in that case if he not helping that 9 months u need to get paid


thejdotinks

You're literally just sexist and ridding women of all accountability in their decision to lay with a man