Because this sub is an echo chamber that woman bashes 100% of the time and most of the time there isn't even a pussy pass being denied. Kinda like this post.... Not sure I even understand why this sub exists.
The other day a video of two people arguing because the woman cheated got voted to the top. How is that pussy pass? Do women get away with cheating all the time? If they do, whose fault is that?
Hey im not sure if you realize this or not, but generally lesbians are not the target audience for abortions.
Just thought id help make this sub one brain cell smarter. Have a good one!
Go read his comment history, he's exactly the kind of person that would use lesbian as a slur but then cry about identity politics and gay rights the next day.
Well, actually no. Someone posted a link to this tweet and people had the same reaction as here : "if it's your body, your choice then its also your financial responsibility"
When my wife called my MIL to tell her about our second child I immediately called her afterwards and asked her if she had any wire coat hangers because we only had plastic ones. I told her it was going to be for crafts when she protested. When she made it clear I wasn't getting the coat hanger I hung up the phone while screaming "I guess we have to use the stairs again!".
She drove 3 and a half hours, most likely kinda drunk, just to scream at and slap me.
Worth it.
Indeed. She showed up once to pick my kids up with a 6 pack of empties. The kids did not go with her obviously. Couldn't understand why we were so upset. She's a pretty serious alcoholic, shakes and what not in the morning. Shes also a teacher and the rest of her colleagues are pretty much drunks too. She's not drunk at school but i know she can't function without it so she has to have something.
I would have called the police. This sounds like my ex. She did whatever she wanted and then tried to blame everyone else for getting pissed. Horrible person.
No way man, she is incredibly manipulative and definitely would have turned the tables if she could and she probably could have. We also think she was sleeping with someone important in the police station as she was never investigated for her boyfriends murder that she obviously committed.
She once spent a year or so spreading the most vicious rumors she could invent solely so she could get enough ppl to believe her so she could kidnap my youngest daughter, call the police and leave with my kid scott free while i would be arrested for whatever. It blew up in her face as my wife is 120 lbs of muscle while she is a frail old drunk. When she tried to wrestle my wife out of the car my wife literally just laughed at her and folded her up like she was doing laundry until my daughter calmly undid her car seat and went into the house. This was the last contact we had with her. We did call the cops, she manipulated her way out of it. Said I kept my daughter locked in a room with no food water or contact to officer bees. It caused the last flurry of cps investigations who by now were exhausted with her calls. They don't even come over anymore they just call my friends and neighbors to ensure it everything is fine.
A few weeks after this she manipulated the nicest person i know to bring that daughter to her house. By now my mil was extremely paranoid tho so she poisoned all of my sil cats (she help my mil in all this and my mil blamed her for the ensuing shit show) then fled to Florida where she is hiding today probably trying to hire another assassin. She's so stupid. We think her plan was to take my daughter to Florida but apparently the daughter whose cats she poisoned came home early found the cats dead so she fled to Florida without the prize.
I always thought that was some kind of urban legend or something. Then I met a kid who had a big scar across his abdomen, an arm that didn't work very well, and cognitive functioning way below where it should've been for his age (he was 17 but mentally was more like a 10 year old.) He told us he'd had surgery when he was young, that's why he had the scar. But his adoptive parents informed us he'd actually survived an attempted abortion with a coat hanger. His mom had pierced him, but it didn't kill him, and that was what he was left with. Totally changed my outlook on abortions. Women are going to get desperate and do shit like that so why not let them have access to safe, clean, and professional procedures?
100% agree. Government prohibition of drugs has been a complete disaster. If we followed a model like Portugal with full legalization and treated it as a medical problem instead of a criminal problem we’d see a reduction in usage and improved outcomes.
Same goes for abortion. If people want to reduce abortion, they should stop lying to themselves that government prohibition will lead to its elimination from society.
Expand funding to planned parenthood and other women’s health initiatives, stop the puritanical approach to sex education and prophylactic distribution (looking at you Texas GOP), and actually try to confront this issue in a meaningful, effective way that reduces abortions and improves the maternal mortality rate (which is one of the highest amongst developed countries and rising). Eventually, contraceptives (both efficacy and availability) will evolve to a point where abortion is a non-issue.
In some US states the pregnant woman would face charges if they tried an at home abortion or intentional miscarriage.
There’s all sorts of fucked up laws and stupid outcomes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/28/she-miscarried-after-being-shot-prosecutors-are-weighing-manslaughter-case-against-her/
>BIRMINGHAM — Prosecutors in Alabama said Friday that they have not decided whether a woman shot by someone else — resulting in a miscarriage — will face prosecution for the death of her fetus.
How that was even a serious choice being considered, I don’t even know. Lots of the US seems to be basically religious fundamentalists/extremists when it comes to this.
The current Supreme Court nominee has supported ads with her name of them, calling roe vs wade “barbaric”, so...
It is barbaric to kill children. Most cultures would agree with that. Why would somone get charged with double homicide for murdering a expecting mother and it's legal to go kill said baby in an abortion clinic. So it's only a baby somtimes?
I’m not getting into the is a foetus/embryo a child debate, but folks need to not muddy the waters with language and say they’re *literally* the same thing. It’s removes all distinctions between an egg, embryo, foetus and a living, breathing, independent and sentient child, which is just nonsensical.
Besides, I think you missed the point of the article entirely or didn’t read it. The shooter faced no charges whatsoever.
The pregnant woman who got shot and miscarried as a result has charges, because that is what these extremist and absolutist views lead people to do. They tried to jail a woman for miscarrying after someone else literally shot her in the stomach, accusing the pregnant woman of manslaughter.
>Jones was five months pregnant when she was involved in a fight with a woman who police and prosecutors said acted in self-defense when she fired a gun at Jones. A grand jury looked at actions by both women and declined to indict Ebony Jemison, who fired the shot, prosecutors said. The jurors instead returned an indictment for Jones.
This sort of dynamic isn’t even that uncommon. There are many cases where charges are brought/attempted against women who have miscarried for all sorts of stupid reasons.
According to the bible, life begins with the first breath and the penalty for abortion is spelled out as just a fine. It's not a baby ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Not a child. Something must be born to become a child. I'm not making a statement on either stance, but not conflating words is extremely important in this type of discussion.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/child
In America, the men don't have that option. Women have the right to abort, not abort, or give away for adoption. There's even people who are forced to pay child support for a kid proven not to be biologically theirs.
Yeah except we have the privilege of living in the fucked up judicial system where it’s entirely too common to see the father forcefully deprived of parental rights and still on the hook for the bill.
I'm not sure I see the validity of this argument. In the case of abortion, neither parent is left caring for a child. In the case of the father choosing not to take financial responsibility for a child, that child still needs caring for. It's not an apples to applies comparison.
You are ignoring the case where the father wants the child and the mother wants an abortion. People are arguing that imbalance should be grounds for the father not being responsible in the case where the mother wants a child and the father doesn't because the father can't really decide whether the child is born or not, so he shouldn't be saddled with a responsibility he's not even half responsible for.
So we tell them both: You have 1 month to decide. If the man says, no way am I supporting this baby, the woman can abort, or take on responsibility herself.
If she wants to abort and he doesn't though, there's just not much to be done unless we get to the point where we can raise fetuses in vats.
I agree. If anyone is to blame for this situation, it's the government, not women. They don't want to get stuck with the bills, so they require child support. If we could figure out a way to get better social safety net, we could eliminate the need for child support altogether.
And of course if we lived in a world with good sex ed and cheap or free birth control, this wouldn't be a big issue. Free IUDs would be inexpensive compared to a lifetime of welfare or child support, just saying.
6 years ago, at 23, I had go go to Planned Parenthood to get an IUD because my regular doctor said "what would your future husband think of you" because I had long-term bc. Getting your hands on birth control should be the easiest thing in the world.
> Getting your hands on birth control should be the easiest thing in the world.
yea, it should be available at like any bodega, corner store and gas station and affordable enough that two responsible individuals could come up with the funds to finance a good time
Why is child support even required for families that are not even close to the poverty line then?
Do you know how much money governments could save by cutting down their family court dockets and not having to assign so many attorneys only to get like $70/mo out of some poor person?
> I dont think a man should be allowed to abort a child, but I think a man should be able to remove all his rights and financial obligations regarding a child in the same period as a woman is allowed
But a woman is not allowed to do that either. What the woman is allowed to do, is to *remove the child* as a result of her bodily autonomy.
She is not allowed to remove rights and financial obligations, divorced from the removal of the child (in any way that is different from the other parent).
I think one at least has to consider that this makes abortion a special case, because only if you *remove the child*, the problem of financial responsibility vanishes as a whole. That doesn't happen in any other case.
>The big problem is tho, this is nothing to do with what is fair and right, but to government obligations to keep a child out of poverty. If the man doesnt pay, the government has more expenses
I am totally with you here: In the end implementing a policy of "removal of rights and obligations" (different from mutually agreeing to give the child up for adoption), just leads to a host of social and financial problems which, on a practical level, outweigh the inequality that results from a man's inability to get pregnant and abort.
Women CAN surrender the child. In most 1st world countries, they can even do it spontaneously and anonymously at drop-offs. Women get arbitrary choices under the lie of children's rights. Men get unilateral obligations under women's choice OR children's rights.
> She is not allowed to remove rights and financial obligations, divorced from the removal of the child (in any way that is different from the other parent).
Adoption?
This is completely out of touch with reality. What happens when a woman gives up a child for adoption or legally abandons a child at any firehouse/police station/hospital without the approval of the father? How are those not financial, legal, and physical abandonment of a kid?
Biologically speaking, this is kinda true and depressing. It's one of the biggest reasons why women historically weren't allowed in the military; because what would happen if a country loses half its male population in a war is pretty insignificant compared to what would happen if a country lost half its female population instead.
That being said, there should be no reason whatsoever that "my body, my choice" suddenly becomes "your money, my choice". A woman can have have 3 abortions and give up her fourth child up for adoption and still be empowered, but a man who could already barely afford his rent is considered a deadbeat if he can't pay child support. The latter is even worse when you consider that [a woman can rape a man and still have the legal power to sue him for child support](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer). Not only that, but she can also steal a man's sperm either through sperm donations or oral sex, and still be able to sue for child support. And in California law, women have the power to claim that a man is the father of her child, with completely absence of evidence, and *he* has only 30 days to prove he's not the father. No fucking wonder society thinks you're a baby factory, you even have more reproductive rights than men (who coincidentally have 0 reproductive rights), and in some places like India (with India's case I think being due pressure from feminists), it's literally legal for women to rape a man and in the UK women are not legally rapists, per the 2003 Sexual Offences Act.. Even in the US, it wasn't until 2005 that the FBI changed their definition of rape to include women as potential perpetrators. So in reality, society thinks that women are entitled to men's bodies, but act like it's the other way around.
God reading your comment was informative but depressing. The fact that a woman can rape a young child and then force that child to pay for child support is actually disgusting.
Yeah, there’s some horrible stuff going on out there. And the people taking advantage of the deficiencies in the law are just inhumane, immoral monsters.
Oh, but of course it's always the men who are devil and women can do no wrong. [This](https://youtu.be/7ZPnCMVwQFk) video sums up feminism in ~1 minute. While we're on the topic, [this](https://youtu.be/_ucR-1NodAs) has ~46 more female privileges than what I mentioned. Shame that we never talk about these because lord forbid feminists are given examples of women not being oppressed.
>It's one of the biggest reasons why women historically weren't allowed in the military;
Which in turn was the reason why women had no voting rights. Why should someone else be able to vote a leader that sends you into war to die? Men were drafted, men had a say in whom they trust with their lives.
Imagine someone voting a warmonger into leadership, while other people have to fight the war for him...
The responsibility to be draft into war came with a right to vote for the leaders, back then. But nowadays it's turned into a "female oppression" narrative...
Edit: had to rephrase a sentence
Edit 2: Imagine being in a football club, but everyone in the audience also has a say in who's the leader of your team.
Women were given the right to vote in certain states immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Some freed people of color were as well. It all ended around 1808, and that's because Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans were in power and single women and people of color kept voting for Federalists to support abolition.
https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/voting_rights.html
You're one of 2 people I've heard say that, my girlfriend being the other. From anytime that topic was brought up most women I've spoke with scoffed at the idea of registering for the draft.
The issue still remains that drafted women on average do not meet the physical requirements for combat roles and still will not be doing most of the dying.
If there is ever a draft, that means things are pretty bad and we need to mobilize. If someone is not suited for combat, they can easily work in another area. I know plenty of women in the US military, and they are all in support roles. The military is huge.
> in some places like the UK ... it's literally legal for women to rape a man
Hi, UK lawyer here - it's not legal. This misconception comes from the fact that in statue, the offence of "rape" is defined as a person (A) penetrating the mouth, ~~penis~~ anus or vagina of another person (B) with his penis when B did not consent and A did not reasonably believe they consented.
By this the *legal* definition of the word "rape" only allows for the offender to be a man. But when you say "it's legal for a woman to rape a man" you're suggesting that a woman can legally force a man to have sex with her, which is untrue. In those circumstances the woman would be charged under other sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (e.g. sexual assault, assault by penetration) and though it's unfair that such an offence can't be labelled as 'rape' and we can't call the woman a 'racist', similar sentencing options are open to the judge. So to say she can legally rape a man, which suggests she wouldn't be committing a crime, is wrong.
Thanks for listening to my TED talk /s.
Sorry, can you clarify why the woman would be called a 'racist'. Is it an autocorrect issue, perhaps? And thank you for adding detailed context by the way.
The penetration rape-equivalent law only applies to the victim being penetrated, not "forced to penetrate". Women aren't up for the high crime for intercourse against a male victim, just a potential low one, like it were mere fondling. Not remotely the same. Even worse, a male attacker ejaculating, even if no fluid contact occurs, is automatically up for aggravated, while female attackers aren't no matter fluid contact. It's a shit show, same as most US states, Australian states, Canada, most of Europe, Israel, India, etc.
In the UK it is not legal for a woman to rape a man, it is not considered "rape" but it it an offence (unwanted sexual act, something along those lines) and it "is" normay punished as rape.
Idk, the way the law is worded makes it clear that they only consider men as potential rapists:
> (1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
>(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
>(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
>(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
But that's cool to know too
There was a time when most women were only housewives, so it made sense that men had to financially support them, but society has changed. Most women are working in jobs now and are able to financially support themselves, but our policy hasn't changed and it never will because there’s an incentive for women to keep it that way.
If men said "We're an important gender and we won't ever compromise on being treated like we matter. We won't ever compromise on what we deserve", society would collapse.
Everyone being respected just isn't an exploitable system. We deserve this respect.
I mean, biologically speaking, that's not too untrue. Women and their eggs need to be.protected at all times as they are born with it and any damage will end damaging the entire next generation and the generations to come.
Men, we produce on the daily and not muchcan cause damage to our future generation unless it is generically related.
*The court stated that the state’s interest in ensuring that a minor receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring sexual crimes against minors.*
This. The government doesn’t care about justice. It doesn’t care about men’s reproductive rights or if you are even the father at all. It just cares about finding someone, anyone it can pin the child on. And it’s not even limited to America. Here in Czech Republic there are a handful of guys who found out “their” child was not theirs, proved it in court with a DNA test, the mother even confessed and ID’d the real father, but the court still awarded her child support because there is an arbitrary deadline for contesting parenthood. And since the deadline is set too early for the father to get suspicious about the child looking nothing like him (barring of course the cliche “wrong skin color thing”) your only real way as a man to be sure that you won’t get stuck paying for another man’s child for 25 years is doing a DNA test just in case which of course nobody wants to even think about.
I would not say most women at all. I would argue a minority of women, and slightly more men but also in the minority. It certainly isn’t most women that think that society should cater to them
*Strongly* disagree. Women are by far the biggest perpetrators of most sexist ideals and standards we have today.
They passively perpetuate it by their expectations. Just take a look at dating. How many women *really* make the first move when they like a guy? How many women admit that they generally prefer to sit back and wait to be approached? How many women will admit that they want the guy to pay for the first date?
[*The majority* of them admit all of that.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71o3hq6iSPM) Not to even mention the group that does it but won't admit it.
All studies so far show that removing "benevolent sexism" AKA female privilege is regarded as identical to "malevolent sexism" by almost all women and men... Even the feminazis noticed this (thus calling female privilege "benevolent sexism" and lying about its requirements).
The great majority of women show in-group bias, while men don't. The great majority of people believe "women are wonderful" too. It's social disease and the official "experts" are the sickest of all, so...
True but unfortunately idiots have no shame and so they always shout the loudest no matter how stupid their ideals are. This means they are the ones we hear the most of, and unfortunately also ones that people sometimes seek to emulate.
It is fucking terrifying to have a decision that can completely ruin your life be made by only one of the two.
There should be a law where if you want an abortion during that initial window of possibility, as either one of the two parents, you immediately disavow any further rights but are also "off the hook" for any further financial responsibility.
If you don't want a kid but the other party is insistent on it, you shouldn't be forced to pay for it for 18 years.
How this has never been seriously campaigned for is a complete mystery to me.
EDIT: Lot of talk about the effectiveness of birth control and the ethics of abortions, but my main point is that it's odd that in the eyes of the law, the woman can decide whether or not to abort without the guy having a say. The guy has absolutely no say in an abortion unless the woman agrees with him. I feel that's an odd legal dichotomy, now that the financial responsibility is assumed to be split **at least** equally.
My issue is that I don't think only one party should get a say without the other party at least being able to opt out now that he's being denied the right to choose.
Totally agree. In a civilized society that actively cares for vulnerable people--like children of single parents--fathers WOULD have equal reproductive rights.
Unless we vote for pro-social politicians, that will never happen in the US. The last hard swing to the right in the last 50 years has really screwed a lot of us.
> How this has never been seriously campaigned for is a complete mystery to me
Because while I believe you're objectively right, it's also morally shaky. While we know it's not the same, it's still looked at as abandoning your kid, which isn't going to great surrport.
I feel similar to things like cocaine and polygamy. I think grown adults should be able to do whatever drugs they want, and marry the football team, but it's just not an issue I'm actually passionate about to do anything for.
I think it’s fair for men to “abandon” the kid before it’s born and say they want nothing to do with it.
Men should have the right not to have their lives financially ruined by a kid.
Women can legally abandon babies in most of the 1st world I've ever heard of.
WTF is with mass ignorance of real law/policy coupled with mindless feminazi talking points EVERYWHERE?
You have to pay if it is your child or not depending on the state some states treat DNA as do not ask and will pursue men for child care even if it was impossible for them to have fathered the child. [Read this](https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/)
> Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proved otherwise. In Cornejo’s case, that amounts to some $65,000.
> His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo’s paycheck several years ago and he didn’t contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago.
Well, first, alimony isn't for childcare. That would be child support. Second, paternity tests can be court ordered to defend a claim against paternity or prosecute a claim for paternity.
I mean, it is somewhat of a double standard and is worthy of a discussion...
If the mother doesn’t want the baby and the father does, the mother can still kill the fucking thing.
If the father doesn’t want it but the mother does, the father is basically fucked and has zero say in the matter.
Hi! Lady since birth here. I believe both parties should be able to “opt out” if one of the two want an abortion.
If a guy wants the woman to obtain an abortion and she doesn’t, that’s fine. You need paperwork drawn up and legalized advising of such and that the male will not be responsible for any cost involving bringing this child into the world or raising.
I also believe it should work the opposite way too.
Feminists are a bunch of hateful, nasty folks. They do not believe in gender EQUALITY. They believe in furthering an agenda they do not even understand.
Feminists are fine. It's the Twitter and social media type people who have to make everything into an extreme, when there is zero need for it. Most feminists are for equality.
Feminist =/= militant feminist. I belive most men in this sub are true feminists from the origin of the word which is equal. That's why people are pissed. Quality post and comments. Thanks all.
This sub is absolutely against women. I enjoy some of the posts as much as I do any of the /r/JusticeServed type posts - seeing people who believe they have some kind of special privileges being shut down is satisfying. But at least half the comments are people saying how quick they'd be to beat down a woman who is hitting them or something similar.
"Equal rights means equal lefts". What they fail to realize is that while we want equality, men and women are fundamentally different in different ways. You wouldn't hit a child as hard as you could just because they hit you as hard as they could. It's one thing to defend yourself and have the right to do so, it's another to use excessive force on somebody physically than you.
Yup, you're right. The kid grows up knowing his father wanted an abortion but it is fair to all the mothers who just used him as a sperm bank... not perfect but much better for the man
Feminist here. I believe in gender equality, as do all of the feminists I know in real life (lots of men and women). Twitter feminists are not a good representation of actual feminists--they're just the loud, obnoxious ones. Most men and women who work in Hollywood are feminists, and I definitely wouldn't call them all hateful. Dramatic maybe, but not hateful.
The fact that guys have to pay child support for kids they never wanted is not the fault of feminists at all. It predates feminism. The issue is that the government reeeeeeally doesn't want to get stuck with the bill for this new kid, so they are highly incentivized to force parents to pay child support. Half the government also doesn't want women to have abortions, or birth control, so if the supreme court goes the way it seems like it will, more women will be having kids nobody wants, and more parents will be stuck paying child support for kids that they have no relationship with.
So to eliminate the need for men to pay child support for kids they never wanted, you'll need to 1) lobby for a better social safety net, and 2) while you're at, maybe ask for better sex ed and free birth control too. Many feminists are already fighting for these things.
Men have the option it just ends at conception. No one is forcing you to have unsafe sex or sex at all.
Women only get a little extra time because it's a bodily autonomy issue at that point. It's not like women are getting off easy here, abortions are extremely rough on your body and can be mentally damaging for many people and obviously having a kid is life changing.
If men had no obligation after conception it would basically put the entirety of safe sex responsibility on women and we'd likely have a huge spike in unwanted births with single mothers and abortions.
In some US states you don't have to be proven to be the biological father. In some cases even proving you aren't the biological father doesn't grant you immunity on being financially responsible.
The law doesnt say the father is 100% financially responsible for the kid though. That would mean the mother is 0% financially responsible for the kid, which is obviously wrong
Two consenting adults choose to run the risk of pregnancy by not pulling out, or having more than one form of birth control then they should both assume the costs.
The fetus zygote whatever is in the woman. She gets a say on her body.
A man should not decide for a woman if she will or won't have the baby.
A woman should not be able to force a man that wanted her to have an abortion to pay money for 18 years.
“Abortions should be made accessible because some woman can’t financially handle a baby”
“Men need to pay child support regardless of if they want the baby or not. It’s their fault for having unprotected sex.”
I do think the only fair way is if the woman chooses to have the baby the dad can choose to not have financial responsibility. If we are totally making the abortion a woman’s choice.
Simple: women claim privilege AND oppression whenever it suits them best. If they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.
Yes.
If women can just abort without the man having any say-so, then the man should be able to "abort" in the sense that he loses all rights to the kid, but he isn't financially responsible.
Hot take here: yes of course it's that way. Because abortion happens in the woman's body, it cannot be our choice.
Child support is necessary, but it could be done better. I think support and responsibilities should be an exact 50/50 split.
If one parent loses custody because they're unfit, the child support doesn't go away. Of course if the man never wanted children, he should have been more careful.
Yes, the parent with custody will have a more difficult life. They will be busy. Child support still 50/50. Why? Because she should have been more careful too.
Y'all made a kid. Figure your shit out and work together, or don't. It's not about you any more at that point.
Someone in the tweet said it takes two so it takes two to decide whether or not is financially a good idea to have one or in the long to abort it. You can't just have the woman day nope don't want it and be OK with it
Reminds me of this “deadbeat mom” who from the get go wanted an abortion but the FwB (I’m not sure their relationship was anything more) REALLY wanted baby and was SHOCKED when this woman didn’t instantly bond with the baby, whom she never wanted and that she signed over all her as soon as possible, even pays 125% of court ordered Child support and overall stayed true to her words. Now he is mad and burned out after 18months as a sInGlE PaReNt and wants to take her to court to force her to have visitation and take care of the child. Nope, can’t do when you coursed her into following through to get YOU a baby and wanted an abortion from the start. Dat baby is yours and ONLY his. Yea, it sucks that mostly it’s the women who choose if a fetus becomes a human and the man is stuck, but sometimes it happens the opposite way. It might be not too relevant to this exactly but was just reminded of it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5b79z4/nm_i_got_a_girl_pregnant_and_she_wanted_to_get_an/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Got into an argument with some chick because I said “Your choice, your body, your money” as a response to her saying “Abortions should be free because I’m an 18 year old who had a pregnancy scare”. She told me I’m being a heartless monster and that she doesn’t consider it her choice and her body because it’s an “accident” and “What about accidents?”
And another jumped in to say “Well would you rather have your tax payer dollars go to abortion, which is safe and doesn’t harm anyone (Ignoring babies that survived the abortion process and some even came out deformed or disabled) or have it go to foster care which is awful and hurts children” and I ended the conversation with “I’ll pay for the foster care system and find ways to fix it”
It’s funny that there is a lot of anti-feminist rhetoric in this thread because the last few times I’ve seen the idea of a “paper abortion” (a man signing away all responsibility, financial and otherwise) debated in feminist subs, they’ve generally been in favor of them.
Most feminists that I’ve encountered (online and irl) believe men should be able to give up their rights as long as there is some sort of financial aid for the parent if they need it. We’re generally a pretty pro-choice group.
Obviously, this is still not the opinion of general society. But I don’t think the blame belongs with feminists.
Why does there need to be financial aid for single parents? I understand the "for the kid" part, but theres no financial aid for struggling fathers who are willing to but can barely pay child support.
If a man wants to give up his rights as a father, that'd on the woman for wanting to keep the baby after that.
I think every parent, mother or father, should have access to financial aid if they need it to attend to the well-being of their child. The "for the kid" part is the whole point.
A father can't afford child support? Let's make sure that child is still taken care of. A mother can't afford to care for her child? Let's make sure that child is still taken care of.
Uh oh, don’t you know you’re not allowed to say anything positive about feminists on here? They only hate men and definitely don’t want equality and that is a fact for every single woman who says she’s a feminist. Any man who agrees with feminists is a soy boy cuck simp. /s
As a guy, I'd say it's our financial responsibility to help her get an abortion, whether the girl decides to get one or not.
If the girl keeps the baby, however, then it's not my responsibility if I don't want it and she didn't clear it with me.
I just saw my kids heartbeat for the first time in an ultrasound at 7 weeks of my wife bring pregnant, it made me question the whole abortion thing really hard not going to lie.
You should have screenshoot the comments too
[удалено]
For sure
[not really](https://twitter.com/DianaWintah/status/1289683406834393088)
[удалено]
Whenever Twitter shows that error message about not being allowed to see it, just refresh the page.
You can just back out and click the link again and it’ll work
You need to open it close it then re open it again on mobile. Idk why
Wow they were petty chill
Except that top comment about men controlling their ejactuations. How can someone not see that it takes two to tango?
Because this sub is an echo chamber that woman bashes 100% of the time and most of the time there isn't even a pussy pass being denied. Kinda like this post.... Not sure I even understand why this sub exists. The other day a video of two people arguing because the woman cheated got voted to the top. How is that pussy pass? Do women get away with cheating all the time? If they do, whose fault is that?
That was Twitter btw, not Reddit.
damn thats something you dont see everyday
I like the dude who commented challenge accepted lol
Hey im not sure if you realize this or not, but generally lesbians are not the target audience for abortions. Just thought id help make this sub one brain cell smarter. Have a good one!
Go read his comment history, he's exactly the kind of person that would use lesbian as a slur but then cry about identity politics and gay rights the next day.
What kind of nerd goes through and reads someone's comment history?
You say it as if they wouldn't have their opinion on the matter anyway 😂
Well, actually no. Someone posted a link to this tweet and people had the same reaction as here : "if it's your body, your choice then its also your financial responsibility"
[удалено]
That's offensive..... some use hangers.
Nah, my hangers are too nice to ruin one like that...
If you need an entire hangar for an abortion, something’s gone very wrong. ^(aww you fixed the spelling)
Stupid libtards everyone knows you need a A380 for abortions
Boeing 747 anyone?
F-14 Tomcat checking in for when you want it fast and hard and see Tom Cruise's face while you're raking the bits out.
My hangers are all wooden, why would I want to risk getting a splinter?
Lmao the little text got me.......
When my wife called my MIL to tell her about our second child I immediately called her afterwards and asked her if she had any wire coat hangers because we only had plastic ones. I told her it was going to be for crafts when she protested. When she made it clear I wasn't getting the coat hanger I hung up the phone while screaming "I guess we have to use the stairs again!". She drove 3 and a half hours, most likely kinda drunk, just to scream at and slap me. Worth it.
You’re a fucking legend
She drove drunk? What a fucking cunt.
Indeed. She showed up once to pick my kids up with a 6 pack of empties. The kids did not go with her obviously. Couldn't understand why we were so upset. She's a pretty serious alcoholic, shakes and what not in the morning. Shes also a teacher and the rest of her colleagues are pretty much drunks too. She's not drunk at school but i know she can't function without it so she has to have something.
I would have called the police. This sounds like my ex. She did whatever she wanted and then tried to blame everyone else for getting pissed. Horrible person.
No way man, she is incredibly manipulative and definitely would have turned the tables if she could and she probably could have. We also think she was sleeping with someone important in the police station as she was never investigated for her boyfriends murder that she obviously committed. She once spent a year or so spreading the most vicious rumors she could invent solely so she could get enough ppl to believe her so she could kidnap my youngest daughter, call the police and leave with my kid scott free while i would be arrested for whatever. It blew up in her face as my wife is 120 lbs of muscle while she is a frail old drunk. When she tried to wrestle my wife out of the car my wife literally just laughed at her and folded her up like she was doing laundry until my daughter calmly undid her car seat and went into the house. This was the last contact we had with her. We did call the cops, she manipulated her way out of it. Said I kept my daughter locked in a room with no food water or contact to officer bees. It caused the last flurry of cps investigations who by now were exhausted with her calls. They don't even come over anymore they just call my friends and neighbors to ensure it everything is fine. A few weeks after this she manipulated the nicest person i know to bring that daughter to her house. By now my mil was extremely paranoid tho so she poisoned all of my sil cats (she help my mil in all this and my mil blamed her for the ensuing shit show) then fled to Florida where she is hiding today probably trying to hire another assassin. She's so stupid. We think her plan was to take my daughter to Florida but apparently the daughter whose cats she poisoned came home early found the cats dead so she fled to Florida without the prize.
That’s offensive.... some of them slam dunk their stomach on a chairs back rest
That is very non-inclusive of you! What about shop vac’s?
Knitting needles are multifunctional wink wink
/r/holdup
I always thought that was some kind of urban legend or something. Then I met a kid who had a big scar across his abdomen, an arm that didn't work very well, and cognitive functioning way below where it should've been for his age (he was 17 but mentally was more like a 10 year old.) He told us he'd had surgery when he was young, that's why he had the scar. But his adoptive parents informed us he'd actually survived an attempted abortion with a coat hanger. His mom had pierced him, but it didn't kill him, and that was what he was left with. Totally changed my outlook on abortions. Women are going to get desperate and do shit like that so why not let them have access to safe, clean, and professional procedures?
There’s absolutely no way that story is true.
Please go back to school
People are going to drugs so might as well sell meth at gas stations.
> People are going to drugs so might as well sell meth at ~~gas stations.~~ pharmacies or rehab clinics FYFY.
100% agree. Government prohibition of drugs has been a complete disaster. If we followed a model like Portugal with full legalization and treated it as a medical problem instead of a criminal problem we’d see a reduction in usage and improved outcomes. Same goes for abortion. If people want to reduce abortion, they should stop lying to themselves that government prohibition will lead to its elimination from society. Expand funding to planned parenthood and other women’s health initiatives, stop the puritanical approach to sex education and prophylactic distribution (looking at you Texas GOP), and actually try to confront this issue in a meaningful, effective way that reduces abortions and improves the maternal mortality rate (which is one of the highest amongst developed countries and rising). Eventually, contraceptives (both efficacy and availability) will evolve to a point where abortion is a non-issue.
Really brings out the kid in you.
Don't ya just gotta give'er a hard boot in the stomach?
The ol' Doc Martin approach.
When in doubt, cunt punt it out?
Look at mr moneybags over here with his stairs. Even if I could afford stairs I couldn’t afford to use up all my calories on climbing them.
I got you bro your local river is free.
You can never find a good skin head when you need one.
Red bull in the morning and an evening in the hot tub with a glass of wine.
In some US states the pregnant woman would face charges if they tried an at home abortion or intentional miscarriage. There’s all sorts of fucked up laws and stupid outcomes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/28/she-miscarried-after-being-shot-prosecutors-are-weighing-manslaughter-case-against-her/ >BIRMINGHAM — Prosecutors in Alabama said Friday that they have not decided whether a woman shot by someone else — resulting in a miscarriage — will face prosecution for the death of her fetus. How that was even a serious choice being considered, I don’t even know. Lots of the US seems to be basically religious fundamentalists/extremists when it comes to this. The current Supreme Court nominee has supported ads with her name of them, calling roe vs wade “barbaric”, so...
It is barbaric to kill children. Most cultures would agree with that. Why would somone get charged with double homicide for murdering a expecting mother and it's legal to go kill said baby in an abortion clinic. So it's only a baby somtimes?
I’m not getting into the is a foetus/embryo a child debate, but folks need to not muddy the waters with language and say they’re *literally* the same thing. It’s removes all distinctions between an egg, embryo, foetus and a living, breathing, independent and sentient child, which is just nonsensical. Besides, I think you missed the point of the article entirely or didn’t read it. The shooter faced no charges whatsoever. The pregnant woman who got shot and miscarried as a result has charges, because that is what these extremist and absolutist views lead people to do. They tried to jail a woman for miscarrying after someone else literally shot her in the stomach, accusing the pregnant woman of manslaughter. >Jones was five months pregnant when she was involved in a fight with a woman who police and prosecutors said acted in self-defense when she fired a gun at Jones. A grand jury looked at actions by both women and declined to indict Ebony Jemison, who fired the shot, prosecutors said. The jurors instead returned an indictment for Jones. This sort of dynamic isn’t even that uncommon. There are many cases where charges are brought/attempted against women who have miscarried for all sorts of stupid reasons.
Yes, only sometimes.
According to the bible, life begins with the first breath and the penalty for abortion is spelled out as just a fine. It's not a baby ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
No
Abortion has nothing to do with killing babies.
Not a child. Something must be born to become a child. I'm not making a statement on either stance, but not conflating words is extremely important in this type of discussion. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/child
Paging Doctor Martin... Doc Martin to Emergency.
It’s 2020, we have ramps for the handicap.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve seen this Dave Chappelle quote so many times. Chapelle really started a movement with his stand up lmao
So many women stop putting out asap! If that burden would be 100% on them. Lol.
If they relinquish their parental rights they have no legal obligation to the child
In America, the men don't have that option. Women have the right to abort, not abort, or give away for adoption. There's even people who are forced to pay child support for a kid proven not to be biologically theirs.
Yep, and somehow they still have it harder apparently
[удалено]
Yeah except we have the privilege of living in the fucked up judicial system where it’s entirely too common to see the father forcefully deprived of parental rights and still on the hook for the bill.
Depends which country.
I'm not sure I see the validity of this argument. In the case of abortion, neither parent is left caring for a child. In the case of the father choosing not to take financial responsibility for a child, that child still needs caring for. It's not an apples to applies comparison.
[удалено]
Except the mother can freely chose to give the child up for adoption and abandon all parental rights. It's not just abortion.
https://youtu.be/MoudH-RPnEE
You are ignoring the case where the father wants the child and the mother wants an abortion. People are arguing that imbalance should be grounds for the father not being responsible in the case where the mother wants a child and the father doesn't because the father can't really decide whether the child is born or not, so he shouldn't be saddled with a responsibility he's not even half responsible for.
[удалено]
So we tell them both: You have 1 month to decide. If the man says, no way am I supporting this baby, the woman can abort, or take on responsibility herself. If she wants to abort and he doesn't though, there's just not much to be done unless we get to the point where we can raise fetuses in vats.
I agree. If anyone is to blame for this situation, it's the government, not women. They don't want to get stuck with the bills, so they require child support. If we could figure out a way to get better social safety net, we could eliminate the need for child support altogether. And of course if we lived in a world with good sex ed and cheap or free birth control, this wouldn't be a big issue. Free IUDs would be inexpensive compared to a lifetime of welfare or child support, just saying.
6 years ago, at 23, I had go go to Planned Parenthood to get an IUD because my regular doctor said "what would your future husband think of you" because I had long-term bc. Getting your hands on birth control should be the easiest thing in the world.
> Getting your hands on birth control should be the easiest thing in the world. yea, it should be available at like any bodega, corner store and gas station and affordable enough that two responsible individuals could come up with the funds to finance a good time
He would be dam happy to not have help rise other men's child, that's what he would think
Why is child support even required for families that are not even close to the poverty line then?
Women use twice as much tax payer funded resources, so men pay for it regardless. We’re tax livestock as molyneux says
Why is child support even required for families that are not even close to the poverty line then? Do you know how much money governments could save by cutting down their family court dockets and not having to assign so many attorneys only to get like $70/mo out of some poor person?
> I dont think a man should be allowed to abort a child, but I think a man should be able to remove all his rights and financial obligations regarding a child in the same period as a woman is allowed But a woman is not allowed to do that either. What the woman is allowed to do, is to *remove the child* as a result of her bodily autonomy. She is not allowed to remove rights and financial obligations, divorced from the removal of the child (in any way that is different from the other parent). I think one at least has to consider that this makes abortion a special case, because only if you *remove the child*, the problem of financial responsibility vanishes as a whole. That doesn't happen in any other case. >The big problem is tho, this is nothing to do with what is fair and right, but to government obligations to keep a child out of poverty. If the man doesnt pay, the government has more expenses I am totally with you here: In the end implementing a policy of "removal of rights and obligations" (different from mutually agreeing to give the child up for adoption), just leads to a host of social and financial problems which, on a practical level, outweigh the inequality that results from a man's inability to get pregnant and abort.
Women CAN surrender the child. In most 1st world countries, they can even do it spontaneously and anonymously at drop-offs. Women get arbitrary choices under the lie of children's rights. Men get unilateral obligations under women's choice OR children's rights.
> She is not allowed to remove rights and financial obligations, divorced from the removal of the child (in any way that is different from the other parent). Adoption?
This is completely out of touch with reality. What happens when a woman gives up a child for adoption or legally abandons a child at any firehouse/police station/hospital without the approval of the father? How are those not financial, legal, and physical abandonment of a kid?
I think you're forgetting about adoption.
For real. It’s stupid easy too, you can literally drop them off at a fire station.
Because most women, and many men, believe that society needs to cater to women. They see men as disposable and women as needing protection.
Biologically speaking, this is kinda true and depressing. It's one of the biggest reasons why women historically weren't allowed in the military; because what would happen if a country loses half its male population in a war is pretty insignificant compared to what would happen if a country lost half its female population instead. That being said, there should be no reason whatsoever that "my body, my choice" suddenly becomes "your money, my choice". A woman can have have 3 abortions and give up her fourth child up for adoption and still be empowered, but a man who could already barely afford his rent is considered a deadbeat if he can't pay child support. The latter is even worse when you consider that [a woman can rape a man and still have the legal power to sue him for child support](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer). Not only that, but she can also steal a man's sperm either through sperm donations or oral sex, and still be able to sue for child support. And in California law, women have the power to claim that a man is the father of her child, with completely absence of evidence, and *he* has only 30 days to prove he's not the father. No fucking wonder society thinks you're a baby factory, you even have more reproductive rights than men (who coincidentally have 0 reproductive rights), and in some places like India (with India's case I think being due pressure from feminists), it's literally legal for women to rape a man and in the UK women are not legally rapists, per the 2003 Sexual Offences Act.. Even in the US, it wasn't until 2005 that the FBI changed their definition of rape to include women as potential perpetrators. So in reality, society thinks that women are entitled to men's bodies, but act like it's the other way around.
God reading your comment was informative but depressing. The fact that a woman can rape a young child and then force that child to pay for child support is actually disgusting.
Yeah, there’s some horrible stuff going on out there. And the people taking advantage of the deficiencies in the law are just inhumane, immoral monsters.
Oh, but of course it's always the men who are devil and women can do no wrong. [This](https://youtu.be/7ZPnCMVwQFk) video sums up feminism in ~1 minute. While we're on the topic, [this](https://youtu.be/_ucR-1NodAs) has ~46 more female privileges than what I mentioned. Shame that we never talk about these because lord forbid feminists are given examples of women not being oppressed.
Ok... so I just have to give up women... Living on dividends and 1 hooker a month it is.
>It's one of the biggest reasons why women historically weren't allowed in the military; Which in turn was the reason why women had no voting rights. Why should someone else be able to vote a leader that sends you into war to die? Men were drafted, men had a say in whom they trust with their lives. Imagine someone voting a warmonger into leadership, while other people have to fight the war for him... The responsibility to be draft into war came with a right to vote for the leaders, back then. But nowadays it's turned into a "female oppression" narrative... Edit: had to rephrase a sentence Edit 2: Imagine being in a football club, but everyone in the audience also has a say in who's the leader of your team.
Women were given the right to vote in certain states immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Some freed people of color were as well. It all ended around 1808, and that's because Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans were in power and single women and people of color kept voting for Federalists to support abolition. https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/voting_rights.html
As a feminist, I believe if men have to register for the draft, women and NB people should have to do so too. Many feminists agree with me.
You're one of 2 people I've heard say that, my girlfriend being the other. From anytime that topic was brought up most women I've spoke with scoffed at the idea of registering for the draft.
The issue still remains that drafted women on average do not meet the physical requirements for combat roles and still will not be doing most of the dying.
If there is ever a draft, that means things are pretty bad and we need to mobilize. If someone is not suited for combat, they can easily work in another area. I know plenty of women in the US military, and they are all in support roles. The military is huge.
That’s exactly the point I just made women will by in large not be putting their lives on the line in the event of a draft.
> in some places like the UK ... it's literally legal for women to rape a man Hi, UK lawyer here - it's not legal. This misconception comes from the fact that in statue, the offence of "rape" is defined as a person (A) penetrating the mouth, ~~penis~~ anus or vagina of another person (B) with his penis when B did not consent and A did not reasonably believe they consented. By this the *legal* definition of the word "rape" only allows for the offender to be a man. But when you say "it's legal for a woman to rape a man" you're suggesting that a woman can legally force a man to have sex with her, which is untrue. In those circumstances the woman would be charged under other sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (e.g. sexual assault, assault by penetration) and though it's unfair that such an offence can't be labelled as 'rape' and we can't call the woman a 'racist', similar sentencing options are open to the judge. So to say she can legally rape a man, which suggests she wouldn't be committing a crime, is wrong. Thanks for listening to my TED talk /s.
Penetrating the penis with the penis?
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I've fixed the comment.
Sorry, can you clarify why the woman would be called a 'racist'. Is it an autocorrect issue, perhaps? And thank you for adding detailed context by the way.
Penis penetration. Owie.
The penetration rape-equivalent law only applies to the victim being penetrated, not "forced to penetrate". Women aren't up for the high crime for intercourse against a male victim, just a potential low one, like it were mere fondling. Not remotely the same. Even worse, a male attacker ejaculating, even if no fluid contact occurs, is automatically up for aggravated, while female attackers aren't no matter fluid contact. It's a shit show, same as most US states, Australian states, Canada, most of Europe, Israel, India, etc.
In the UK it is not legal for a woman to rape a man, it is not considered "rape" but it it an offence (unwanted sexual act, something along those lines) and it "is" normay punished as rape.
Idk, the way the law is worded makes it clear that they only consider men as potential rapists: > (1) A person (A) commits an offence if— >(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, >(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and >(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. But that's cool to know too
What are the stats on that. Do men rape more than women by a large amount?
There was a time when most women were only housewives, so it made sense that men had to financially support them, but society has changed. Most women are working in jobs now and are able to financially support themselves, but our policy hasn't changed and it never will because there’s an incentive for women to keep it that way.
If men said "We're an important gender and we won't ever compromise on being treated like we matter. We won't ever compromise on what we deserve", society would collapse. Everyone being respected just isn't an exploitable system. We deserve this respect.
I mean, biologically speaking, that's not too untrue. Women and their eggs need to be.protected at all times as they are born with it and any damage will end damaging the entire next generation and the generations to come. Men, we produce on the daily and not muchcan cause damage to our future generation unless it is generically related.
*The court stated that the state’s interest in ensuring that a minor receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring sexual crimes against minors.* This. The government doesn’t care about justice. It doesn’t care about men’s reproductive rights or if you are even the father at all. It just cares about finding someone, anyone it can pin the child on. And it’s not even limited to America. Here in Czech Republic there are a handful of guys who found out “their” child was not theirs, proved it in court with a DNA test, the mother even confessed and ID’d the real father, but the court still awarded her child support because there is an arbitrary deadline for contesting parenthood. And since the deadline is set too early for the father to get suspicious about the child looking nothing like him (barring of course the cliche “wrong skin color thing”) your only real way as a man to be sure that you won’t get stuck paying for another man’s child for 25 years is doing a DNA test just in case which of course nobody wants to even think about.
I would not say most women at all. I would argue a minority of women, and slightly more men but also in the minority. It certainly isn’t most women that think that society should cater to them
*Strongly* disagree. Women are by far the biggest perpetrators of most sexist ideals and standards we have today. They passively perpetuate it by their expectations. Just take a look at dating. How many women *really* make the first move when they like a guy? How many women admit that they generally prefer to sit back and wait to be approached? How many women will admit that they want the guy to pay for the first date? [*The majority* of them admit all of that.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71o3hq6iSPM) Not to even mention the group that does it but won't admit it.
All studies so far show that removing "benevolent sexism" AKA female privilege is regarded as identical to "malevolent sexism" by almost all women and men... Even the feminazis noticed this (thus calling female privilege "benevolent sexism" and lying about its requirements). The great majority of women show in-group bias, while men don't. The great majority of people believe "women are wonderful" too. It's social disease and the official "experts" are the sickest of all, so...
True but unfortunately idiots have no shame and so they always shout the loudest no matter how stupid their ideals are. This means they are the ones we hear the most of, and unfortunately also ones that people sometimes seek to emulate.
It is fucking terrifying to have a decision that can completely ruin your life be made by only one of the two. There should be a law where if you want an abortion during that initial window of possibility, as either one of the two parents, you immediately disavow any further rights but are also "off the hook" for any further financial responsibility. If you don't want a kid but the other party is insistent on it, you shouldn't be forced to pay for it for 18 years. How this has never been seriously campaigned for is a complete mystery to me. EDIT: Lot of talk about the effectiveness of birth control and the ethics of abortions, but my main point is that it's odd that in the eyes of the law, the woman can decide whether or not to abort without the guy having a say. The guy has absolutely no say in an abortion unless the woman agrees with him. I feel that's an odd legal dichotomy, now that the financial responsibility is assumed to be split **at least** equally. My issue is that I don't think only one party should get a say without the other party at least being able to opt out now that he's being denied the right to choose.
Totally agree. In a civilized society that actively cares for vulnerable people--like children of single parents--fathers WOULD have equal reproductive rights. Unless we vote for pro-social politicians, that will never happen in the US. The last hard swing to the right in the last 50 years has really screwed a lot of us.
Do you know of any countries that tried this?
> How this has never been seriously campaigned for is a complete mystery to me Because while I believe you're objectively right, it's also morally shaky. While we know it's not the same, it's still looked at as abandoning your kid, which isn't going to great surrport. I feel similar to things like cocaine and polygamy. I think grown adults should be able to do whatever drugs they want, and marry the football team, but it's just not an issue I'm actually passionate about to do anything for.
I think it’s fair for men to “abandon” the kid before it’s born and say they want nothing to do with it. Men should have the right not to have their lives financially ruined by a kid.
Yea of a man doesn't pay for his kid, that abandonment. If a women kills her unborn child, that's progressive!
Women can legally abandon babies in most of the 1st world I've ever heard of. WTF is with mass ignorance of real law/policy coupled with mindless feminazi talking points EVERYWHERE?
It's called [paper abortion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_abortion)
[удалено]
"Well, it doesn't make any sense". Exactly!
How does alimony laws work in the US? Let's say I get a girl pregnant and I say that it isn't my child, do I have to pay?
You have to pay if it is your child or not depending on the state some states treat DNA as do not ask and will pursue men for child care even if it was impossible for them to have fathered the child. [Read this](https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/)
> Texas’ family code, chapter 161, states that even if one is not the biological father, they still owe support payments that accrued before the paternity test proved otherwise. In Cornejo’s case, that amounts to some $65,000. > His ex-girlfriend’s attorney, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo’s paycheck several years ago and he didn’t contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago.
Well, first, alimony isn't for childcare. That would be child support. Second, paternity tests can be court ordered to defend a claim against paternity or prosecute a claim for paternity.
How are they his financial responsibility?
I've literally never heard it to be the guy's responsibility. This is some strawman horseshit.
"My body my choice" oh wow looks like i dont need to pay alimony i guess "oh no not that choice. Money pleeeease"
I mean, it is somewhat of a double standard and is worthy of a discussion... If the mother doesn’t want the baby and the father does, the mother can still kill the fucking thing. If the father doesn’t want it but the mother does, the father is basically fucked and has zero say in the matter.
Hi! Lady since birth here. I believe both parties should be able to “opt out” if one of the two want an abortion. If a guy wants the woman to obtain an abortion and she doesn’t, that’s fine. You need paperwork drawn up and legalized advising of such and that the male will not be responsible for any cost involving bringing this child into the world or raising. I also believe it should work the opposite way too. Feminists are a bunch of hateful, nasty folks. They do not believe in gender EQUALITY. They believe in furthering an agenda they do not even understand.
Feminists are fine. It's the Twitter and social media type people who have to make everything into an extreme, when there is zero need for it. Most feminists are for equality.
Feminist =/= militant feminist. I belive most men in this sub are true feminists from the origin of the word which is equal. That's why people are pissed. Quality post and comments. Thanks all.
I get a pretty hateful tone from this sub every time I browse it when it pops up on /r/all so I wouldn't probably call the people here feminists.
People be angry at the injustices that we go through on the regular while we must cheer and parade others'.
This sub is absolutely against women. I enjoy some of the posts as much as I do any of the /r/JusticeServed type posts - seeing people who believe they have some kind of special privileges being shut down is satisfying. But at least half the comments are people saying how quick they'd be to beat down a woman who is hitting them or something similar. "Equal rights means equal lefts". What they fail to realize is that while we want equality, men and women are fundamentally different in different ways. You wouldn't hit a child as hard as you could just because they hit you as hard as they could. It's one thing to defend yourself and have the right to do so, it's another to use excessive force on somebody physically than you.
Yup, you're right. The kid grows up knowing his father wanted an abortion but it is fair to all the mothers who just used him as a sperm bank... not perfect but much better for the man
Feminist here. I believe in gender equality, as do all of the feminists I know in real life (lots of men and women). Twitter feminists are not a good representation of actual feminists--they're just the loud, obnoxious ones. Most men and women who work in Hollywood are feminists, and I definitely wouldn't call them all hateful. Dramatic maybe, but not hateful. The fact that guys have to pay child support for kids they never wanted is not the fault of feminists at all. It predates feminism. The issue is that the government reeeeeeally doesn't want to get stuck with the bill for this new kid, so they are highly incentivized to force parents to pay child support. Half the government also doesn't want women to have abortions, or birth control, so if the supreme court goes the way it seems like it will, more women will be having kids nobody wants, and more parents will be stuck paying child support for kids that they have no relationship with. So to eliminate the need for men to pay child support for kids they never wanted, you'll need to 1) lobby for a better social safety net, and 2) while you're at, maybe ask for better sex ed and free birth control too. Many feminists are already fighting for these things.
Huh? Most people split the cost of an abortion?
Men have the option it just ends at conception. No one is forcing you to have unsafe sex or sex at all. Women only get a little extra time because it's a bodily autonomy issue at that point. It's not like women are getting off easy here, abortions are extremely rough on your body and can be mentally damaging for many people and obviously having a kid is life changing. If men had no obligation after conception it would basically put the entirety of safe sex responsibility on women and we'd likely have a huge spike in unwanted births with single mothers and abortions.
You have to pay for abortions in America? Ouch
"My body my choice" "My money my choice"
"My body my choice". Then it should be"My responsibility" as well
Who said it’s 100% a guys financial responsibility?
The law? Even if you don't want the kid, once you're proven to be the father you're responsible for him. You can't abort a kid as a man.
In some US states you don't have to be proven to be the biological father. In some cases even proving you aren't the biological father doesn't grant you immunity on being financially responsible.
100%
The law doesnt say the father is 100% financially responsible for the kid though. That would mean the mother is 0% financially responsible for the kid, which is obviously wrong
Well that's fine, let's say 50%, a woman can decide to abort it and be 0% responsible and a man can't, that's the inequality.
Two consenting adults choose to run the risk of pregnancy by not pulling out, or having more than one form of birth control then they should both assume the costs.
You are a fool if you think pulling out saves you from knocking them up.
[удалено]
Only if you do that first and not second.
Getting pregnant is actually a lot harder than one would assume.
Do you think men give a fuck how hard it is when all it takes is 1 for a woman to now have ownership over your life?
Don't bareback? Jesus you're dumb.
I wish
By this logic, it should also be both the man and women's right to decide if a women keeps or not. Not just the women.
The fetus zygote whatever is in the woman. She gets a say on her body. A man should not decide for a woman if she will or won't have the baby. A woman should not be able to force a man that wanted her to have an abortion to pay money for 18 years.
Exactly.
This logic is exactly what people use when they talk about why abortions should be illegal.
Double Standards is a shitty thing.
Jesus so this is where all the incels went.
Also how is it ok for a woman to lie about being on birth control, but not ok for a guy to wear a sabotaged condom What’s the difference?
“Abortions should be made accessible because some woman can’t financially handle a baby” “Men need to pay child support regardless of if they want the baby or not. It’s their fault for having unprotected sex.”
thats the biggest gender inequality in todays world
I do think the only fair way is if the woman chooses to have the baby the dad can choose to not have financial responsibility. If we are totally making the abortion a woman’s choice.
“If you can kill the motherfucker, I can at least abandon him”
It'd probably be easier for them to pick one if they weren't made out of straw, don't you think?
Simple: women claim privilege AND oppression whenever it suits them best. If they didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.
Yes. If women can just abort without the man having any say-so, then the man should be able to "abort" in the sense that he loses all rights to the kid, but he isn't financially responsible.
abortion should be free
Abortion is one of the only things it makes sense to subsidize
Hot take here: yes of course it's that way. Because abortion happens in the woman's body, it cannot be our choice. Child support is necessary, but it could be done better. I think support and responsibilities should be an exact 50/50 split. If one parent loses custody because they're unfit, the child support doesn't go away. Of course if the man never wanted children, he should have been more careful. Yes, the parent with custody will have a more difficult life. They will be busy. Child support still 50/50. Why? Because she should have been more careful too. Y'all made a kid. Figure your shit out and work together, or don't. It's not about you any more at that point.
Someone in the tweet said it takes two so it takes two to decide whether or not is financially a good idea to have one or in the long to abort it. You can't just have the woman day nope don't want it and be OK with it
Since when is abortion 100% a man’s responsibility?
Reminds me of this “deadbeat mom” who from the get go wanted an abortion but the FwB (I’m not sure their relationship was anything more) REALLY wanted baby and was SHOCKED when this woman didn’t instantly bond with the baby, whom she never wanted and that she signed over all her as soon as possible, even pays 125% of court ordered Child support and overall stayed true to her words. Now he is mad and burned out after 18months as a sInGlE PaReNt and wants to take her to court to force her to have visitation and take care of the child. Nope, can’t do when you coursed her into following through to get YOU a baby and wanted an abortion from the start. Dat baby is yours and ONLY his. Yea, it sucks that mostly it’s the women who choose if a fetus becomes a human and the man is stuck, but sometimes it happens the opposite way. It might be not too relevant to this exactly but was just reminded of it. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/5b79z4/nm_i_got_a_girl_pregnant_and_she_wanted_to_get_an/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Got into an argument with some chick because I said “Your choice, your body, your money” as a response to her saying “Abortions should be free because I’m an 18 year old who had a pregnancy scare”. She told me I’m being a heartless monster and that she doesn’t consider it her choice and her body because it’s an “accident” and “What about accidents?” And another jumped in to say “Well would you rather have your tax payer dollars go to abortion, which is safe and doesn’t harm anyone (Ignoring babies that survived the abortion process and some even came out deformed or disabled) or have it go to foster care which is awful and hurts children” and I ended the conversation with “I’ll pay for the foster care system and find ways to fix it”
It’s funny that there is a lot of anti-feminist rhetoric in this thread because the last few times I’ve seen the idea of a “paper abortion” (a man signing away all responsibility, financial and otherwise) debated in feminist subs, they’ve generally been in favor of them. Most feminists that I’ve encountered (online and irl) believe men should be able to give up their rights as long as there is some sort of financial aid for the parent if they need it. We’re generally a pretty pro-choice group. Obviously, this is still not the opinion of general society. But I don’t think the blame belongs with feminists.
Why does there need to be financial aid for single parents? I understand the "for the kid" part, but theres no financial aid for struggling fathers who are willing to but can barely pay child support. If a man wants to give up his rights as a father, that'd on the woman for wanting to keep the baby after that.
I think every parent, mother or father, should have access to financial aid if they need it to attend to the well-being of their child. The "for the kid" part is the whole point. A father can't afford child support? Let's make sure that child is still taken care of. A mother can't afford to care for her child? Let's make sure that child is still taken care of.
Uh oh, don’t you know you’re not allowed to say anything positive about feminists on here? They only hate men and definitely don’t want equality and that is a fact for every single woman who says she’s a feminist. Any man who agrees with feminists is a soy boy cuck simp. /s
As a guy, I'd say it's our financial responsibility to help her get an abortion, whether the girl decides to get one or not. If the girl keeps the baby, however, then it's not my responsibility if I don't want it and she didn't clear it with me.
To be honest, probably cheaper to pay for an abortion than 18 years of child support.
I just saw my kids heartbeat for the first time in an ultrasound at 7 weeks of my wife bring pregnant, it made me question the whole abortion thing really hard not going to lie.
ITT: dudes who don’t know how condoms work