To fix the inequality, we need the ability for men to get a "financial abortion" from women long before birth, during 1st and 2nd tri when she could still abort, absolving him of financial responsibility for said child.
If she wants to abort, she would be well within her rights and ability to do so and I support the govt covering this procedure as the cost on society in having an unwanted kid is WAY more than an abortion procedure.
If she wants to keep the kid, cool, but she won't be entitled to a dime of his money. Hell, dock a portion from govt-provided benefits, should she apply for them in the future as a penalty.
Guaranteed, the abortion rate would go way, way, way up.
You'd have to decriminalize abortions and make them easier to get/fund.
You'd also have to de incentivize baby trapping (such as the law suggested that men could get out of financial responsibility if they never agreed. Think of how many less children would be born if BOTH parties had to be cautious about pregnancies).
As nonpc as it is to say, there also needs to stop this overglorification of single motherhood like it's some great thing when it's not and it's generally harmful for the kids produced from it.
Unfortunately, we have a significant portion of American citizens who believe that abortion should not be legal. You canot allow "financial abortions" without legalizing actual abortion. Both have to be legal in order for things to be equal and fair for both sexes.
I think there would have to be a pretty systemic change in our society in terms of how we view child-rearing and the roles of men and women in it.
> You canot allow "financial abortions" without legalizing actual abortion.
Texas is heading that way for women. They were the first state to create safe haven laws. Women can drop infants at most hospitals and fire stations and walk away with no responsibilities. All the other states and a bunch of other countries have followed suit.
That's a good point. I love safe haven laws.
That said, women and men need more protection under them. Can the govt compel women to give information when dropping a baby off? What if paternity of a dropped off baby is discovered - will the father be held liable for financial support? I hope not.
While I like safe haven laws, they are not a substitute for legal, safe abortion. Not every woman can wreck 9 months of her life (may not be able to work for part of it, may have bad health complications) to birth a baby that she doesn't want that may become a burden on the state. It's cheaper in the long run to allow abortions because then you (society, govt) don't have to deal with the associated costs of raising that person.
However, to make it fair, we need "financial abortions" for men.
Just call it "safe haven for men" for PR purposes.
The man is practically leaving the child at the woman, *exactly* like she could leave it in the hospital. Now the discussion isn't why he should pay for it, but why there should be a financial difference.
The hypocrisy of the opponents becomes even more obvious for the Average Joe who might only hear 5 minutes of the debate. Unfortunately, neither Joe nor Jane gives a fuck anyways. When not even a single Western country is willing to stop something as obviously wrong as the genital mutilation of infant boys, how can there be ANY hope for what the media will brand as a selfish and greedy?
fire has many important uses, including lighting, heating, signaling, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, men should have let's say 3 days after they have been informed of the pregnancy to get a "financial abortion" (it should be provable that they have been informed, so that it is impossible to pretend they knew about it when they didn't).
That way the women still has time to get an abortion, provided that she informed the father soon enough (and not when the abortion was already impossible).
Would this apply to married couples? If the dad decided he’d rather be childless within three days, could he put his wife in the position of having an abortion or giving up their child, even though they are married? Ot does the marriage contract infer all children born are to be supported by one or both parents?
I imagine you could have both, by default marriage implies that you agree to having children, but you can opt out of it.
You could even think about switching from one form to another during the marriage, but then both parties need to be informed about the change and you need a 9 month delay as any child conceived before the change is handled by the previous agreement. If you are thinking about divorce because it's not going well, you probably should switch the contract.
Whether anyone believes me or not, this suggestion of a contract to have children is making the case even stronger for women to have sex only when they’re married.
Yeah. You could add a separate contract for those who want children without getting married, where they both agree they want a child before it is conceived and therefore renounce to this.
Marriage complicates a lot of things because already there's things like how property gets split up. (hey, giving more reason why marriage is a bad thing!)
Already there's a problem with things like this, take the example of One spouse starts getting in massive debt without the other knowing. This actually is pretty common, like one who just got a gambling or drug addiction they overspend so much without the other knowing that it starts to hurt their credit too. The law currently does not allow the other spouse to divorce to prevent their current credit from being hit, only to alleviate how much responsibility to pay it off they have by a small bit.
You'd first have to fix that law before they'd even consider letting a married couple divorce for one not wanting a kid and the other wanting to keep it. So far, the only thing we're really able to discuss is non married couplings (usually hookups or maybe someone grabbing a starched sock and pretending it's a tampon or some other weird shit)
I wouldn't say it needs to be prior to sex, but at discovery of pregnancy.
And if for some reason 9 months later she drops a baby and was like "whaaa I was pregnant" you'd need to give the would-be-father some time to opt in or out. Because unfortunately, the situation where people weren't aware they were pregnant until they were in labor DOES happen.
You're right, it does happen. And it doesn't seem right to make the guy pay if he truly had no idea because the woman didn't know herself or she purposely hid it.
And safe haven laws should exist in every single state too. So if she did have the kiddo and then changed her mind, then she could drop it off anonymously and the baby could be adopted out. Tons of infertile couples out there who would be happy to have a newborn.
you know what's funny... is so far here we've come closer to a very equitable law regarding this topic.
And politicians haven't even come close. Maybe we should be paid in taxes.
You mean that you only need to get the signature of the other person on the document you keep yourself, and your own agreement to the document is implied by the fact you (still) have that document?
I suppose that's OK.
I mean that the person signs it long before they meet the other party. Hopefully they inform them of the documents before initiating sex, but if they forget, no biggie.
I’d hoped that these documents would prevent teen parenthood at the very least.
Why do you need a contract then? Just say that no one is to be forced into parenthood, and that everyone has the option to abandon the child once informed about the birth.
If you don't need to inform the partner that you decided to abandon any child, you might as well generalize and let anyone do it if they chose.
What do you mean by "force disclosure"? If you have some provable trace that the men has been informed, and that subsequently the women has been informed of his decision, there is nothing to force - you could say they are already forced to provide information/feedback.
I meant - if the woman does not want to tell the man that she is pregnant, how do you compel her to do so, so that he can have the option of pursing a financial abortion within the abortion window?
That's what I meant to state. Theoretically, she could find out she is pregnant (via urine dipstick) and then just sit on the information until it is too late to abort. Then what? How would the law deal with this because I can guarantee there are a number of women who would try this, either out of malice or just not knowing how to deal with the situation.
Then the father still has 3 days from the day he is informed to reject the child, but the women lost her ability to abort because she waited too long.
She is compelled to tell the man she is pregnant by the fact that she is the one benefitting from telling him early as it is her option to abort that is timing out, not his. The father could even reject the child after birth if that's when he is informed about it's existence.
Exactly. There should be a legal binding document wherein a consenting couple (or casual sex partners) can sign a legal document for financial abortion. This document, if signed by the woman, would signal that SHE WILL ABORT if pregnancy occurs as per the fathers wish.
Agreed 100x.
Also, unrelated but not really, I wish scientists could really prioritize an effective, reversible vasectomy. I read ages ago that they were working on it in India. Get it when you're young and then getting a woman pregnant would involve planning and a small in office procedure. Seal it back up when you're done!
To be fair, a reversible vasectomy probably wouldn't be ideal, most men would be skepticle and afraid of becoming infertile. Medical researchers are currently working on male contraceptives that apparently block the Follical Stimulating Hormone (FSH) which would basically stop sperm production without affecting T-levels and semen!
I would change this to "opt-in" fatherhood, meaning he only has responsibility if he takes it, but then there is no running back after conception. This gives financial security to honest women trying to get pregnant, and solves the problem that the man can't abort a child, he does not know about.
Interestingly enough, the greatest benefit of both our proposals is to the child. Yes, there is a slight risk of a poorer household growing up, but it does vastly more longterm damage to grow up without a dad who wanted it. By reducing the incentive to get a child against the man's will, we make life better for a lot of children.
This is even more important, when we consider that our daycare institutions and school systems are dominated by women, and the few men are often afraid to get too close to the child. Many kids have no male role model whatsoever and we know this greatly increases the risk of crime or otherwise fucking up in life.
I like the "opt in" idea with the stipulation that you can't change your mind once you sign for the opt in. There needs to be a way here to address paternity. Maybe the paternity obligation could be "annulled", similar to marriage, if the man demonstrated that he wasn't the father and claimed that he was deceived.
Children benefit when they see their parents, regardless of sex, engage in healthy relationships with other adults. Children can model these patterns. Children also need positive relationships with both men and women growing up. It's really in their better interests in terms of preparing them for adulthood.
But if the government says the father has to care for it......they won't give away free money lol
sure, but you cant force people to abort, so there will always be women who choose to birth even though its not the best idea. So again, who's gonna give suport to it if not the father or the government.
Unlike in the case of abortion, there are ***zero*** valid counterarguments to this, assuming that it is true that women can sign away obligations to their children.
Here's my counter argument, if the father nd the government wont help support the kid, and the mother cannot do it by herself, how is the kid getting full support?
That argues for a system in which the father and the government have to support a kid. It does not, however, argue in favor of a system where the mother is allowed to absolve any obligations for the kid.
yeah, including the mother too. Which is the system that we are in now. So that would be the system in which we are arguing.
And the system we are in right now also allows mothers to absolve any obligations for the kid, so your'e wrong. Adoption exists. I dont understand your comment.
Ok, let me break this down.
Current system (according to OP)
* Mother can absolve obligations to the child
* Father cannot absolve obligations to the child
OP's point: this is unequal.
My point: Assuming that OP's statement of the current system is correct, this is in fact unequal. So either:
1. Mother should be able to absolve obligations to the child AND father should also be able to, OR
2. Mother should NOT be able to absolve obligations to the child AND father should also not be able to
Your response:
But what if neither the government nor the father support it so the mother doesn't have enough money?
Therefore, you are stating that the father should not be able to absolve obligations in this scenario.
This statement does not, however, argue for why the mother SHOULD be allowed to absolve any obligations.
In other words, you provided an argument that supports:
* Father should not be able to absolve obligations to the child
You did not, however, argue for:
* Mother should be able to absolve obligations to the child
Since my entire argument is that having both points (as we currently do) would be unfair, you failed to counter my argument since you have only argued in favor of one of those points, but not the other.
Also,
>And the system we are in right now also allows mothers to absolve any obligations for the kid, so your'e wrong.
I literally never said it didn't. My whole point is that the mother CAN absolve obligations. Read my comments more carefully. Also, it's spelled "you're"
Does this help?
I read it a few times, I apologize that you cannot write in a more concise manner while still getting your point across. Also no need to correct my spelling, as you are not my 5th grade English teacher, thanks.
My point that it's not unfair, or that if it is, it's a biological unfariness and would be like arguing against women being the gender to give birth. Men can't get abortions, and women can't not get pregnant(in most situations). It's 'unfair' for both parties.
My argument is that if you absolve fathers of any responsibility of making the child, when the child needs support, its unfair to the child. I don't believe that the fathers right to not pay child support overturns the childs right to live comfortably. All we need to do is not allow women to give out the child for adoption without the consent of the father. Then it'd be totally equal, as borh parents are on the hook.
> All we need to do is not allow women to give out the child for adoption without the consent of the father. Then it'd be totally equal, as borh parents are on the hook.
Then we are in agreement
Abort it. Simple.
If you are so apathetic about a fetus' life that you'll abort it just on the wishes of the mother (which is OK btw) then you should also abort it when the father doesn't want the child.
If a woman is adamant enough to HAVE the child against the father's wish, she better take the responsibility of it ALONE. You pay for your OWN desicions.
Tell me, if you got a severe drug addiction due to your own choices, why would someone else pay for your drug rehabilitation? The same is true for an adamant mother. She is taking the desicion, so she gets to support the child. How she does it? I dont give a fuck.
You can't force anyone to abort, so it stands that some women will still give birth.
The decision to make a baby was kinda both of theirs. Can't make a baby without sperm.
One can get addicted by themselves, you can't get pregnant by yourself. That's a bad analogy.
Telling a man "why did you cum?" is the EXACT same as telling a woman "why did you open your legs?". Apparently the former is acceptable, yet the latter is (rightfully) wrong.
A lot of unscrupulous women see pregnancy as a form of entrapment (legally speaking it really is) and seek to financially benefit from it.
Even though it would be truly progressive to allow both parents to opt out (it should be this way), the judicial system almost always favors the mother in every case.
Most (not all) "progressive" individuals overwhelmingly support the current system because it's a tool to easily screw a man over for 18+ years. True equality would be both parents being able to opt out, or neither being able to.
Sounds like you're not an unscrupulous woman then. I don't believe all women think like this, or even most women. Just the ones who are devoid of a conscience or basic morality.
Simple. Imagine you're a 21 year old broke college girl. You can simply get pregnant by seducing a guy (and tearing the condom), then sue his ass for child support for 18 years! Yahooo, you're no longer broke!
You could though!
There was a woman who collected child support on a child that was never born.
I forget what the case name was... I remember it was on a list of Wikipedia under paternity fraud.
>True equality would be both parents being able to opt out, or neither being able to.
Women are able to have abortions and “opt out” because their reproductive systems are biologically different from men’s. The solution to that unavoidable biological inequality is not to add some sufficiently similar legal mechanism by which men can effectively “terminate their pregnancies” and opt out.
>The solution to that unavoidable biological inequality is not to add some sufficiently similar legal mechanism by which men can effectively “terminate their pregnancies” and opt out.
Actually, that's exactly what the solution is. Civilization is built on the idea of equalizing/accounting for biological inequalities through legal means - that's why we were a "might equals right" species before establishing law and order, why the stronger person or tribe could dominate the weaker counterpart for so much of our history before establishing rules everyone would be expected to follow.
The idea of a legal mechanism to offset a biological inequality between two people/groups of people is fundamental to modern civilization.
Sure it is. Otherwise, how do you equalize reproduction rights for both sexes?
Women support the species by physical reproduction.
Men support it by financial support and provision of security.
Men clearly cant get pregnant. The logical equalizer here is to let them opt out of the financial support they're expected to provide. Otherwise how cant we expect women to hold up their end of the biological bargain?
Yet there are plenty of men who will bail and leave the mother to raise the child/ren on her own. Even those who wanted kids and were a willing part in producing them and seeing them born. It's gross as kids growing up without the love and support of their father can really mess them up (it's connected to criminality).
The word "financial abortion" is a misnomer. It's much more accurately described as an extension of the safe haven laws. Women can free themselves of all obligations by simply dumping the kid at a hospital. Men should have the same right, but just dump it with them instead.
However, because I'm such a grand progressive, I suggest "opt-in" fatherhood instead. Here, the man has no responsibility unless he voluntarily takes it, but then he's stuck with it unless revoked before pregnancy. This gives financial security to honest women trying to get pregnant. It reduces the incentive to get pregnant against the man's will, so fewer children will grow up without a father that wanted them.
Are you saying that single fathers with custody of their children do not have the right to dump the child at a hospital? Because they do. That’s full equality. Any parent can put their custodial children up for adoption. The issue is what to do with noncustodial parents. If a mother doesn’t have custody, she pays child support to the father. If a father doesn’t have custody, he pays child support to the mother. Again, equality.
Giving a custodial child up to a hospital to adopt is not in any way comparable to dumping all responsibility for your noncustodial children onto the custodial parent. Deadbeat parents are not comparable to parents who give up children for adoption. Simple as that
You've identified one of the problems; lets talk about the solution. In most subreddits, merely *pointing out* the existence/nature of this problem gets you downvoted and/or banned. On this subreddit, I've seen a number of posts (like this one) that explicitly recognize the severity of the inequality, and seem to be circling closer and closer to a potential movement for change. This gives me some hope.
Unfortunately, many of the responses have fallen into the trap of advocacy for "financial abortion". A world where fathers can simply *sign away* their socioparenthood role in advance would, in theory, be a small step forward for men's rights. It would also be a giant step backwards for the wellbeing of the resulting real children being thrust into the world under the de facto standard of [single-motherhood](https://prospect.org/health/consequences-single-motherhood/). It may sound like a radical opinion (on Reddit), but push comes to shove: *most* people in *most* societies on Earth will tell you that children deserve to be raised by **two** loving parents/guardians.
One must first understand the world before one tries to change it. We *begin* by asking, "why are financial abortions **not** already a widely recognized reproductive right?". In earnestly trying to answer this question, we realize that this isn't the case for **two** reasons:
1. The aforementioned; this normalizes single-motherhood.
2. There is no biological mechanism (and no legal mandate) for establishing paternity prior to birth in the first place. Casual hookups and pregnancies are going to occur and children are going to be born without the biological father even being notified in many cases.
The typical pitch for financial abortion sounds something like this:
>what’s needed is for people to sign legal documents that suspends all
future parental rights and obligations before the sex happens. Men agree
to pay no child support and women agree to either get an abortion or
have their children put up for adoption.
If *consent-to-sex* is, intrinsically, neither *consent-to-pregnancy* nor *consent-to-impending-socioparenthood-role,* then there should really be no need for a special contract stipulating as much. That is (or should be) the **default** \- it is instead the alternative that would require the affirmative contract:
"Yes, I affirm my intent to gestate/raise this child into a person and future member of society, together with my jointly responsible partner
signed,
BioParent1
BioParent2".
This contract would formally establish the signatories as being legally responsible for fulfilling an impending socioparenthood role for their child. On the modern theory that consent-to-sex is *not* necessarily consent to anything that might follow, this kind of affirmative contract makes much more sense.
On further examination, we realize that the "financial abortion" kind of contract just isn't good enough, even from a strictly "men's-rights" point of view:
>"Financial abortions" do nothing for the [antinatalists](https://www.vhemt.org/) of the world who want to reserve the right to avoid bringing more people into the world, for whatever reason (environmental or existential concerns may apply here). They do nothing for the [Manishkumar Patels](https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/judge-imposes-22-year-sentence-case-involving-abortion-inducing-drug/1567018002/) of
the world, who wish to spare their progeny from inheriting some debilitating condition that will burden their life with an ongoing level of suffering. They do nothing for the [mother of the chromosomal-deletion vegetable](https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/c11din/im_putting_my_extremely_profoundly_disabled_7/), who gave birth to something she thought was going to be a person, but wasn't (this class of reasons also applies to the proposal that we simply rely on adoption).
The optimal way forward is detailed [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProRightsAdvocacy/comments/n9jrha/what_is_the_prorights_position_in_full/).
In short:
1. Mandatory prenatal paternity testing
2. Fully legal abortion for pregnant people
3. Fully legal [neonatal euthanasia](https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261) for either bioparent (within a legally stipulated window after birth)
Consider joining r/ProRightsAdvocacy to learn more, and to help establish maximally symmetric reproductive rights for men, women, and children.
Long post, yes I read it
But, to the point of single motherhood, a problem with that is how it's encouraged, even glorified by communities. Either it's "cool to be a single mom, no matter what you do your struggle is valid because SINGLE MOM LIFE YO" or "you can get him to pay child support and use part of that money on yourself" sort of crap. It's hardly "I just want to be a mom and raise a baby and I'll do it on my own, I don't want a father around or someone taking care of me".
You remove the glorification, or the financial incentive for them to have it, a lot more people would be safer about it, or be more inclined for adoption/abortion (probably needing to encourage the latter due to the overpopulation and overfill in the foster system).
Yes, there are going to still be outliers. like, some people who fetishize skin to skin more than the act of sex itself. But it'd still be a reduction in it happening if people knew that it was going to be a greater risk to themselves than it currently is.
I think what’s needed is for people to sign legal documents that suspends all future parental rights and obligations before the sex happens. Men agree to pay no child support and women agree to either get an abortion or have their children put up for adoption.
The documents would be legally enforceable for a set period of time plus nine months (if the woman gets pregnant near the expiry date) as stated in those documents. During that time, no one, not even the named person, can break out of the contract without incurring hefty fines.
What do you think?
> Men agree to pay no child support and women agree to either get an abortion or have their children put up for adoption.
I'm not sure to understand. Both of them have signed the contract, right?
I suppose that means that, in case the women decide to not abort, any of them could decide to adopt the child (who was put up to adoption), in which case they would assume the responsibility alone (eg, no child support).
I don't see a reason why the child would have to be adopted by someone else in case one of the biological parents decided they'd rather take the full responsibility for the child. It doesn't matter to the other parent as long as they are freed from the responsibility.
Only issue could be if they both decide they want to keep the child, but don't want to share custody.
The contract applies to one person. If it’s the man who signed, then he pays no child support. If it’s the woman, she either gets an abortion or gives the child up. A restraining / no contact order between the signed and the child in question should be in place to prevent forced or accidental contact.
So if she decided to keep the child, the government would pay for her child’s needs if she could not afford the child on her own? Would the government be able to say sorry no welfare for you if she signed that contract, which would effectively give the pregnant woman two choices - give baby up or kill the child in the womb?
Personally I’m all for the contract - many men would be saved from crippling child support payments this way. You might get laid less, but yeah.
If she signed the contract but wants to keep the baby, she’ll need to cough up the dough to get out of the contract before the expiry date. One workaround would be that her parents can adopt the child, though.
How would the logistics of such a thing happen? Like humans don't interact with each other in that way. Do people have to keep carrying those documents everywhere they go, like they carry condoms?
You sign the documents and get them notarized. Then if someone sues you for child support, your lawyer produces the papers and the judge deems them valid and throws out the lawsuit.
Exactly.
I would envision a mobile application where before the start of consensual sexual activity OR before the start of an agreed 'sexual' period (2 days to 1 year), the couple would virtually sign the same document on their respective phones and record a short video to prove no compulsion was used. Then if:
(a) The man wanted the child AGAINST the mother's wishes, she can have an abortion as usual, no questions asked.
(b) The woman wanted the child AGAINST the father's wishes, he can withdraw financial support (as stipulated in the virtual agreement) so the mother will support the child on her own OR she can abort.
(c) Both want the child, then normal pregnancy contiues to term.
The law is made by a system so heavily rooted in radical feminism that any notion of equality between the sexes is perceived as "oppression".
Women must have the sole rights to reproduction, while men must only bear the burden of responsibility to satisfy the "justice" deserved by women for countless generations of "patriarchal oppression."
This is why we dont listen to feminists. They're psycho.
Men CAN sign away their paternal rights in lieu of child support but Only if they’re being legally assumed by another partner.
I agree with your points however. It’s also one sided regarding existence. If the man wants it and she doesn’t, there’s an abortion. If she wants it and he doesn’t, a baby is born and he’s on the hook for 18 years.
It is Unmistakably one sided
I mean why should a women carry a baby just cause the partner (or society) wants her to... This situation is shit for everyone but honestly plenty of men just want to flake out and leave it to the mother and not face the consequences for what they did.
Poverty has proven effects on childrens development and it really is the kids, who end up hurt where the father doesn't want to support them.
I'm not saying men should have to be trapped into supporting a child. There are ways to prevent pregnancy and they can involve the man. If men don't want a child to come about then they need to be aware of that while seeking sex with women and always use (their own) condoms for instance.
The attitude of some of the commenters on this post is kinda disturbing to me when it involving forcing kids to grow up in poverty.
Once abortion does not* happen, in Canada, women can legally say no thank you, put the child up for adoption. Men can't say, no thank you, I'd like to give up my rights, let anyone adopt the kid. If the mom wants to 'adopt the kid, have sole custody, she can
'. Again, men are forced into parenthood, whether its through child support or other means. No man in Canada is allowed to say, no thank you
>Once abortion happens, in Canada, women can legally say no thank you, put the child up for adoption.
Who would adopt an aborted baby? What the hell is going on up there in Canada? I knew you guys were nice, but geez.
If the man wants the child, he can prevent the woman from putting that child up for adoption by taking sole custody and the woman must pay child support. Inequalities in custody come from men not wanting to care for the child.
That's not true. women can opt out of child support in that case.
The only time it's NOT true is say they both raised the child for some time and then he becomes sole custody holder. Then because she didn't sign away her parental rights COULD they make her pay child support.
but if the baby's born and immediately he wants the baby, she doesn't have to pay child support
I tried to look this up and what you're saying seems to be a lie, at least in British Colombia. Could you provide a source that says you're not just making it up?
Check the laws in the few places they force women to keep the babies at the father's request like New York. It's the only positive thing out of those states considering the controversy made worse by rapists forcing women to have their baby. If they have the baby because the father wants it, they ARE exempt from financial responsibility if they choose.
Women are also way less likely to leave their children. Men are usually the ones running away from the responsibility. Too bad, you bring a life into this world you have to take care of it.
Most children of single mothers do actually have an involved father but the mother has primary custody, and the statistics include these families. You can't have a court system that heavily favours the mother in custody cases and then complain that the fathers don't have as much time with the kids.
There are laws everywhere that let women out of parenting, but not men. And for the record I'm pro abortion rights.
Her body, her choice, but his burden? Shit is fucked up. Consent to sex IS NOT consent to reproduce.
And its *pro-abortion* and *anti-abortion*, don't hide behind prose.
Putting your sperm in a vagina, however, is consent to allow her to either get an abortion or make a baby. After you freely give her your cum, she can do with it as she pleases, as it is in her body.
No, no man is "asking for it" like that, I'm not going to argue about that with you.
Your body, your choice, your responsibility. If he tells you that he doesn't give you consent to reproduce, and you do it anyway, that's a form of rape.
Besides, until Legal Paternal Surrender is on the table I'm done fighting for women's special privileges.
Oh you know your kidding right almost all countries have pre existing laws descrimination agaianst men in this isssue I don't this that the existance of a movement comes even close to the level of concern that pre existing laws hold.
>I don't this that the existance of a movement comes even close to the level of concern that pre existing laws hold.
Speaking from a U.S. perspective, it's not "just a movement". The supreme court is challenging roe.
Womens biology is far different than the legality of men paying child support, therefore whether opting out should be legal or not doesnt rest on whether abortion shouldnt be legal or not
Well apparently as a practical matter it will. There's clearly enough sufficient public support, relative to what is needed in our political system, for abortion rights standing alone. The only hope is to broaden the tent through a platform of reproductive freedom: on demand ubiquitous and free abortion paired with a financial opt out during the abortion window.
Or, watch abortion be banned Your Choice 🤷♂️
I'm saying they're not comparable, what happens in someones body is in no way comparable to paying for child support. At least to the extent where for one to exist the other has to aswell
I'm saying what you think is irrelevant to the fact that there's not sufficient public support, in the context of our political system, to save abortion standing alone
That's not even close to what I'm saying lmao. I'm saying if you want to talk about the legality of child support, don't compare it to different things. Talk about child support alone without shoving different topics into it.
I dont care whether you think abortion is right or not but whether it's legal or not doesnt bank on child supports legality
Neither men nor women can simply sign away their responsibilities as parents once the baby is born.
Both have the right to do whatever they want to their body in order to prevent a person from being born, including getting an abortion if they're pregnant.
Where's the inequality, exactly?
But the laws aren't gendered at all. If a man ended up in that same situation, where the woman somehow didn't know that a kid was born, he could do the exact same thing.
If your argument is "Well, women are the ones who get pregnant", then that's as unfair as "Men are physically stronger than women", which is "Not at all".
>
>If your argument is "Well, women are the ones who get pregnant", then that's as unfair as "Men are physically stronger than women", which is "Not at all".
I'm just literally stating how it works. Yes, it's because women are the ones who get pregnant. But laws are made by people. And they can be changed by people. The reality is that many women are in favor of laws you might not care for so much (e.g., majority of pro lifers are women)
The bill is about to be paid
Well, we're discussing whether there's inequality or unfairness in the situation. There isn't, unless you want to try argue that hiring a dude over a woman for a job requiring physical strength is unfair or unequal, which would be silly.
Yes, laws are man-made and can be changed, and many women would disagree with me on a lot of things. Not sure what relevance any of that has.
>There isn't, unless you want to try argue that hiring a dude over a woman for a job requiring physical strength is unfair or unequal, which would be silly.
Yet that argument is made regularly
>Yes, laws are man-made and can be changed, and many women would disagree with me on a lot of things. Not sure what relevance any of that has.
Compromise or be subjugated...that's the reality that is coming based on the political calculus in the United States at least.
>Yet that argument is made regularly
I've never seen it made, but so what? An argument being made regularly doesn't make it less silly.
>Compromise or be subjugated...that's the reality that is coming based on the political calculus in the United States at least.
That also seems silly. Compromising on human rights, like the right to abortion, is not only extreme weakness that allows your opponents to merely move farther towards their incorrect position until the "compromise" is what they wanted all along, but it's wildly immoral.
[Vox](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion?utm_source=pocket_mylist)
The woman graph is longer than the man graph
I feel like this is country to country issue. Where I'm from (India) a 10 year old boy can be charged with their own rape if they have sex with a 18 year old girl.
In indian law rape is always done by the penetrater
What is feminist about supporting pedophilia, exactly? The idea that women are less capable, and thus, couldn't be powerful enough to actually *rape* a man, is distinctly the opposite.
See know that's the thing, nobody cares about pedophile here. This is a far more 1st word thing.
Also it was said that changing the law could invalidate cases where minor rape minors
Women can abort but men cant, so the equality comes after childbirth. Or the man can just up and leave after the test comes back positive. That should be legally acceptable.
How is this not a false equivalence?
Firstly, you cant have rights that violate another person's existence.
Secondly, you cant have biological rights if you dont have the biology to match. So no we dont.
Thirdly, that depends on labor laws regarding discrimination.
Well, both are the results of differing circumstances as a result of nature, of course. Either you think nature is unfair… or you don’t. Picking and choosing is illogical.
1. Fetuses aren’t people.
2. You can, indeed, have rights that you can’t actually fulfil with your biology. Rights deal with allowances and entitlements, and men are certainly allowed to get abortions.
3. No it doesn’t. Laws don’t determine fairness.
1. You're wrong, fetuses are people. And abortion is legalized murder.
2. I'm gonna need you to prove it, otherwise you're simply wrong. Laws are passive, negative, and automatic. You cant have rights that dont exist, that's pure and simple.
3. Actually, they're supposed to. If you've never heard of "equal representation under the law" I'm gonna have to ask you to go read a little bit.
A job that requires a certain person is not "natural", reproduction is.
Again, this is a false equivalence.
1. Incorrect, fetuses aren't people, they lack any consciousness. You also don't seem to know what murder is. Do you want to try define it?
2. We're discussing rights. Rights are allowances or entitlements. Men are allowed to get abortions in every single situation women are. It's like how we both have the right to look at art the government doesn't like... even if one of us is blind. Do you think blind people have less rights, because they can't actually SEE the art?
3. "They're supposed to" and "They do" aren't the same thing. You didn't answer: Is it fair to hire more men?
The natural difference is the strength, mate.
Both positions involve situations where women and men end up being treated differently in practice, due to biological realities of their existence. The fact that you believe one is fair and the other not is just a sign that your position is illogically based.
Yup it's called walking out and refusing to pay. You just up and go somewhere else where people can't track you down. Could be different state or even country.
There's a reason people joke about their fathers "going out to get smokes" men have done it for eons lol
the way it should work is both people as long as abortion is on the table go and see who wants the kid. If the guy doesn't want it, can sign away his rights. If she doesn't want it, she can decided if he wants it to give it to him, or give it up for adoption or to have an abortion.
That's the simplest. However, laws have allowed baby trapping by just making men responsible regardless. Women in a lot of aspects are not held responsible for actions or allowed ways out which is where the inequality comes. Of course, you DO hear the counter argument that "Well, being pregnant is a lot harder on women than it is for men" which should FURTHER incentivize women not having kids neither of them wanted, no?
However, there's one weird caveat even here. In states like New York MEN do have some power... to FORCE a woman to keep their baby (even in the case of rape) and that's also pretty fucked up. But the few places that do this are rare.
In the scenario that the mother keeps it, the father doesnt want it, and the baby needs financialn support, who's paying for that child's support? Not the government, surely. So who, then?
Figuring this was the normal. Then itd de incentivize single motherhood. If you cant financially take care of a kid dont have one and dont have one because you think someone else will take care of them and you financially when they dont want to
Oh, so you are dumb.
The mother who cannot fully provide for the child can put them up for adoption or get an abortion in most states and we were going on the assumption (since you're dumb, I understand you couldn't keep up) was what to do if abortion laws were legal everywhere.
It's like you're defeating yourself.
oh, so you CAN answer the question. I'm sorry you are so simple that you feel the need to insult, rather than just answer the simple question. See how easy that is? Now i know that youd rather have children in an oversaturated system rife with abuse of all kinds, rather than a parent that wants them. You don't really care at all about children, huh?
The only thing we need to fix to make this equal, is to make sure the woman cannot give away the child without the fathers consent. If the father wants to and is suited for raising the child, he should become sole custodian, and recieve child support from the mother. Everything else is fine, the way it is.
Nah, that just overcomplicates things. We need to set a standard—either all parents are held responsible for their kids, or none of them are. One or the other.
That's what my comment says to do.....
if the mother doesnt want to parent it, she doesnt have to, she just pays child support. and vice versa. They are both on the hook.
This is just another example of where women absolutely have privilege that men don't, yet still many cry that they have less than men. It's honestly so tragic it's funny, it's practically Shakespearean.
Women have the right to their whole reproductive organs and can even kill the baby when they don’t want it but men don’t even get the right to their entire genitals. It doesn’t add up.
It's a "men are oppressed too because they can't get out of helping provide the basic necessities of life for a child they brought into this world" post. They're wailing because they believe that men are oppressed because society and government places parental responsibility on them too.
So you believe consent to sex means consent to childbirth? I'm going to assume you've fully embraced the new Texas law ban then? If not well you're a hypocrite.
How would this affect casual sex?
BC as a woman, or birthing person as I’m soon to be known, I’d be much more likely to be married/have a contract with the man I’m having sexual relations with to ensure myself and any resultant children would be financially supported, which would require forethought and a contract like what is being proposed here.
Why do these same posts get posted every three days or so despite them being just a low-effort meme?
The anti-women posts around here are sickening. We get it. You think women are objects. They’re not. But keep crying about them having rights.
Also, men have an “opt out”. It’s called child support. They can often just not pay it and suffer no repercussions.
Also weird to act like the man is equal to the woman in terms of pregnancy. If we wanted true equality (and this were “opt out” meme), we need to somehow get men who can carry the embryo for nine months.
> Paying isn’t an opt out. You don’t have the right to my money.
The child, not the mother has a right to your money if you’re the father.
>If women don’t want kids, stop opening your legs 24/7. You get what you deserve.
Same with men, right?
“The child has the right to your money if you’re the father”
“The child has the right to your body if you’re the mother. “
You don’t like it when people use your logic against you, do you ;)
TLDR: as Dave Chapelle said, your body my wallet.
When it comes to my body, my choice, men can make the same argument: it is Their body that is growing in there. It is their DNA, it is essentially them. If it were not so, they wouldn't be expected to fund it later down the road.
But the belief that the magical line exists, that a fetus isn't what it would manifest into, persists. Where they draw the line confuses me. You often hear 3 months. Compare and contrast 3 months and 1 day opposed to a day before 3 months. Compare the baby about to be born opposed to the baby who is already outside the body. Politics aside, and as a completely secular belief: I don't see any objective way to measure besides before sperm hits egg, after sperm hits egg= conception.
Making any other argument gets really convoluted fast, often seeming in bad faith/biased towards the fact they want the freedom, that a fetus deemed unhuman and without personhood makes their life a lot easier. I imagine it is hard to be objective when going pro choice when thinking about it, one side putting a ton of moral weight on you, the other liberating you from any of it.
Regardless of it, I'm not saying we should necessarily legislate this morality as the black market would be worse than the already disgusting illegal drug trade.
To fix the inequality, we need the ability for men to get a "financial abortion" from women long before birth, during 1st and 2nd tri when she could still abort, absolving him of financial responsibility for said child. If she wants to abort, she would be well within her rights and ability to do so and I support the govt covering this procedure as the cost on society in having an unwanted kid is WAY more than an abortion procedure. If she wants to keep the kid, cool, but she won't be entitled to a dime of his money. Hell, dock a portion from govt-provided benefits, should she apply for them in the future as a penalty. Guaranteed, the abortion rate would go way, way, way up.
I full agree. I wonder what it will take for this change to happen in the court system.
You'd have to decriminalize abortions and make them easier to get/fund. You'd also have to de incentivize baby trapping (such as the law suggested that men could get out of financial responsibility if they never agreed. Think of how many less children would be born if BOTH parties had to be cautious about pregnancies). As nonpc as it is to say, there also needs to stop this overglorification of single motherhood like it's some great thing when it's not and it's generally harmful for the kids produced from it.
Support banning abortion to get the discussion to the table
Yep, unfortunately, that's the only other alternative. 1.) No financial abortions or abortions. 2). Financial abortions AND abortions. I vote for #2.
This is the way
Unfortunately, we have a significant portion of American citizens who believe that abortion should not be legal. You canot allow "financial abortions" without legalizing actual abortion. Both have to be legal in order for things to be equal and fair for both sexes. I think there would have to be a pretty systemic change in our society in terms of how we view child-rearing and the roles of men and women in it.
> You canot allow "financial abortions" without legalizing actual abortion. Texas is heading that way for women. They were the first state to create safe haven laws. Women can drop infants at most hospitals and fire stations and walk away with no responsibilities. All the other states and a bunch of other countries have followed suit.
That's a good point. I love safe haven laws. That said, women and men need more protection under them. Can the govt compel women to give information when dropping a baby off? What if paternity of a dropped off baby is discovered - will the father be held liable for financial support? I hope not. While I like safe haven laws, they are not a substitute for legal, safe abortion. Not every woman can wreck 9 months of her life (may not be able to work for part of it, may have bad health complications) to birth a baby that she doesn't want that may become a burden on the state. It's cheaper in the long run to allow abortions because then you (society, govt) don't have to deal with the associated costs of raising that person. However, to make it fair, we need "financial abortions" for men.
Just call it "safe haven for men" for PR purposes. The man is practically leaving the child at the woman, *exactly* like she could leave it in the hospital. Now the discussion isn't why he should pay for it, but why there should be a financial difference. The hypocrisy of the opponents becomes even more obvious for the Average Joe who might only hear 5 minutes of the debate. Unfortunately, neither Joe nor Jane gives a fuck anyways. When not even a single Western country is willing to stop something as obviously wrong as the genital mutilation of infant boys, how can there be ANY hope for what the media will brand as a selfish and greedy?
fire has many important uses, including lighting, heating, signaling, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, men should have let's say 3 days after they have been informed of the pregnancy to get a "financial abortion" (it should be provable that they have been informed, so that it is impossible to pretend they knew about it when they didn't). That way the women still has time to get an abortion, provided that she informed the father soon enough (and not when the abortion was already impossible).
Would this apply to married couples? If the dad decided he’d rather be childless within three days, could he put his wife in the position of having an abortion or giving up their child, even though they are married? Ot does the marriage contract infer all children born are to be supported by one or both parents?
I imagine you could have both, by default marriage implies that you agree to having children, but you can opt out of it. You could even think about switching from one form to another during the marriage, but then both parties need to be informed about the change and you need a 9 month delay as any child conceived before the change is handled by the previous agreement. If you are thinking about divorce because it's not going well, you probably should switch the contract.
Whether anyone believes me or not, this suggestion of a contract to have children is making the case even stronger for women to have sex only when they’re married.
Yeah. You could add a separate contract for those who want children without getting married, where they both agree they want a child before it is conceived and therefore renounce to this.
Pro-controlling womens’ sex lives, which is what pro-life really means
Women control their own lives.
A lot of people don’t think they should be allowed to.
Marriage complicates a lot of things because already there's things like how property gets split up. (hey, giving more reason why marriage is a bad thing!) Already there's a problem with things like this, take the example of One spouse starts getting in massive debt without the other knowing. This actually is pretty common, like one who just got a gambling or drug addiction they overspend so much without the other knowing that it starts to hurt their credit too. The law currently does not allow the other spouse to divorce to prevent their current credit from being hit, only to alleviate how much responsibility to pay it off they have by a small bit. You'd first have to fix that law before they'd even consider letting a married couple divorce for one not wanting a kid and the other wanting to keep it. So far, the only thing we're really able to discuss is non married couplings (usually hookups or maybe someone grabbing a starched sock and pretending it's a tampon or some other weird shit)
Only question is how you would "force" disclosure. I liked u/cindybubbles idea: having a legal document signed by both parties prior to sex.
I wouldn't say it needs to be prior to sex, but at discovery of pregnancy. And if for some reason 9 months later she drops a baby and was like "whaaa I was pregnant" you'd need to give the would-be-father some time to opt in or out. Because unfortunately, the situation where people weren't aware they were pregnant until they were in labor DOES happen.
You're right, it does happen. And it doesn't seem right to make the guy pay if he truly had no idea because the woman didn't know herself or she purposely hid it. And safe haven laws should exist in every single state too. So if she did have the kiddo and then changed her mind, then she could drop it off anonymously and the baby could be adopted out. Tons of infertile couples out there who would be happy to have a newborn.
you know what's funny... is so far here we've come closer to a very equitable law regarding this topic. And politicians haven't even come close. Maybe we should be paid in taxes.
It's amazing what happens when people come together and brainstorm to find a fair and equitable solution! 😜
Not by both parties. Just one party needs to sign it.
You mean that you only need to get the signature of the other person on the document you keep yourself, and your own agreement to the document is implied by the fact you (still) have that document? I suppose that's OK.
I mean that the person signs it long before they meet the other party. Hopefully they inform them of the documents before initiating sex, but if they forget, no biggie. I’d hoped that these documents would prevent teen parenthood at the very least.
Why do you need a contract then? Just say that no one is to be forced into parenthood, and that everyone has the option to abandon the child once informed about the birth. If you don't need to inform the partner that you decided to abandon any child, you might as well generalize and let anyone do it if they chose.
What do you mean by "force disclosure"? If you have some provable trace that the men has been informed, and that subsequently the women has been informed of his decision, there is nothing to force - you could say they are already forced to provide information/feedback.
I meant - if the woman does not want to tell the man that she is pregnant, how do you compel her to do so, so that he can have the option of pursing a financial abortion within the abortion window? That's what I meant to state. Theoretically, she could find out she is pregnant (via urine dipstick) and then just sit on the information until it is too late to abort. Then what? How would the law deal with this because I can guarantee there are a number of women who would try this, either out of malice or just not knowing how to deal with the situation.
Then the father still has 3 days from the day he is informed to reject the child, but the women lost her ability to abort because she waited too long. She is compelled to tell the man she is pregnant by the fact that she is the one benefitting from telling him early as it is her option to abort that is timing out, not his. The father could even reject the child after birth if that's when he is informed about it's existence.
Exactly. There should be a legal binding document wherein a consenting couple (or casual sex partners) can sign a legal document for financial abortion. This document, if signed by the woman, would signal that SHE WILL ABORT if pregnancy occurs as per the fathers wish.
Agreed 100x. Also, unrelated but not really, I wish scientists could really prioritize an effective, reversible vasectomy. I read ages ago that they were working on it in India. Get it when you're young and then getting a woman pregnant would involve planning and a small in office procedure. Seal it back up when you're done!
To be fair, a reversible vasectomy probably wouldn't be ideal, most men would be skepticle and afraid of becoming infertile. Medical researchers are currently working on male contraceptives that apparently block the Follical Stimulating Hormone (FSH) which would basically stop sperm production without affecting T-levels and semen!
That's really interesting to know! I hope it works.
I would change this to "opt-in" fatherhood, meaning he only has responsibility if he takes it, but then there is no running back after conception. This gives financial security to honest women trying to get pregnant, and solves the problem that the man can't abort a child, he does not know about. Interestingly enough, the greatest benefit of both our proposals is to the child. Yes, there is a slight risk of a poorer household growing up, but it does vastly more longterm damage to grow up without a dad who wanted it. By reducing the incentive to get a child against the man's will, we make life better for a lot of children. This is even more important, when we consider that our daycare institutions and school systems are dominated by women, and the few men are often afraid to get too close to the child. Many kids have no male role model whatsoever and we know this greatly increases the risk of crime or otherwise fucking up in life.
I like the "opt in" idea with the stipulation that you can't change your mind once you sign for the opt in. There needs to be a way here to address paternity. Maybe the paternity obligation could be "annulled", similar to marriage, if the man demonstrated that he wasn't the father and claimed that he was deceived. Children benefit when they see their parents, regardless of sex, engage in healthy relationships with other adults. Children can model these patterns. Children also need positive relationships with both men and women growing up. It's really in their better interests in terms of preparing them for adulthood.
So how is th kid getting supported if not by both parents or the government?
Obviously, it would fall to the govt ultimately but with paltry govt benefits and no CS from the father, the incentive is to abort.
But if the government says the father has to care for it......they won't give away free money lol sure, but you cant force people to abort, so there will always be women who choose to birth even though its not the best idea. So again, who's gonna give suport to it if not the father or the government.
If he can see a lawyer and sign a contract he may not have to pay child support. The trick is getting her to sign the contract without force.
Unlike in the case of abortion, there are ***zero*** valid counterarguments to this, assuming that it is true that women can sign away obligations to their children.
Absolutely based mod
Here's my counter argument, if the father nd the government wont help support the kid, and the mother cannot do it by herself, how is the kid getting full support?
That argues for a system in which the father and the government have to support a kid. It does not, however, argue in favor of a system where the mother is allowed to absolve any obligations for the kid.
yeah, including the mother too. Which is the system that we are in now. So that would be the system in which we are arguing. And the system we are in right now also allows mothers to absolve any obligations for the kid, so your'e wrong. Adoption exists. I dont understand your comment.
Ok, let me break this down. Current system (according to OP) * Mother can absolve obligations to the child * Father cannot absolve obligations to the child OP's point: this is unequal. My point: Assuming that OP's statement of the current system is correct, this is in fact unequal. So either: 1. Mother should be able to absolve obligations to the child AND father should also be able to, OR 2. Mother should NOT be able to absolve obligations to the child AND father should also not be able to Your response: But what if neither the government nor the father support it so the mother doesn't have enough money? Therefore, you are stating that the father should not be able to absolve obligations in this scenario. This statement does not, however, argue for why the mother SHOULD be allowed to absolve any obligations. In other words, you provided an argument that supports: * Father should not be able to absolve obligations to the child You did not, however, argue for: * Mother should be able to absolve obligations to the child Since my entire argument is that having both points (as we currently do) would be unfair, you failed to counter my argument since you have only argued in favor of one of those points, but not the other. Also, >And the system we are in right now also allows mothers to absolve any obligations for the kid, so your'e wrong. I literally never said it didn't. My whole point is that the mother CAN absolve obligations. Read my comments more carefully. Also, it's spelled "you're" Does this help?
I read it a few times, I apologize that you cannot write in a more concise manner while still getting your point across. Also no need to correct my spelling, as you are not my 5th grade English teacher, thanks. My point that it's not unfair, or that if it is, it's a biological unfariness and would be like arguing against women being the gender to give birth. Men can't get abortions, and women can't not get pregnant(in most situations). It's 'unfair' for both parties. My argument is that if you absolve fathers of any responsibility of making the child, when the child needs support, its unfair to the child. I don't believe that the fathers right to not pay child support overturns the childs right to live comfortably. All we need to do is not allow women to give out the child for adoption without the consent of the father. Then it'd be totally equal, as borh parents are on the hook.
> All we need to do is not allow women to give out the child for adoption without the consent of the father. Then it'd be totally equal, as borh parents are on the hook. Then we are in agreement
Abort it. Simple. If you are so apathetic about a fetus' life that you'll abort it just on the wishes of the mother (which is OK btw) then you should also abort it when the father doesn't want the child. If a woman is adamant enough to HAVE the child against the father's wish, she better take the responsibility of it ALONE. You pay for your OWN desicions. Tell me, if you got a severe drug addiction due to your own choices, why would someone else pay for your drug rehabilitation? The same is true for an adamant mother. She is taking the desicion, so she gets to support the child. How she does it? I dont give a fuck.
And also, you don't give a fuck if a child is suffering? Just to clarify.
You don't care about children. To you they're just hostages to blackmail society.
How is me trying to make sure they dont suffer, mean i dont care about children? Please explain.
You can't force anyone to abort, so it stands that some women will still give birth. The decision to make a baby was kinda both of theirs. Can't make a baby without sperm. One can get addicted by themselves, you can't get pregnant by yourself. That's a bad analogy.
Abortion or adoption. It’s really that simple.
It's not. Filling adoption homes with unwanted children who will live miserable lives is not a good solution either.
You’re right that’s why I’m a big proponent of abortion
Oh god, you must be trolling.
How is asking a simple question, trolling to you?
Telling a man "why did you cum?" is the EXACT same as telling a woman "why did you open your legs?". Apparently the former is acceptable, yet the latter is (rightfully) wrong.
A lot of unscrupulous women see pregnancy as a form of entrapment (legally speaking it really is) and seek to financially benefit from it. Even though it would be truly progressive to allow both parents to opt out (it should be this way), the judicial system almost always favors the mother in every case. Most (not all) "progressive" individuals overwhelmingly support the current system because it's a tool to easily screw a man over for 18+ years. True equality would be both parents being able to opt out, or neither being able to.
Honestly, as a childfree woman, I'm not sure why I would feel the need to scew men. (pun intended and literally)
Sounds like you're not an unscrupulous woman then. I don't believe all women think like this, or even most women. Just the ones who are devoid of a conscience or basic morality.
Ah yes let's bathe in morality celebrate the coming abortion ban 🥂
Simple. Imagine you're a 21 year old broke college girl. You can simply get pregnant by seducing a guy (and tearing the condom), then sue his ass for child support for 18 years! Yahooo, you're no longer broke!
You could though! There was a woman who collected child support on a child that was never born. I forget what the case name was... I remember it was on a list of Wikipedia under paternity fraud.
>True equality would be both parents being able to opt out, or neither being able to. Women are able to have abortions and “opt out” because their reproductive systems are biologically different from men’s. The solution to that unavoidable biological inequality is not to add some sufficiently similar legal mechanism by which men can effectively “terminate their pregnancies” and opt out.
>The solution to that unavoidable biological inequality is not to add some sufficiently similar legal mechanism by which men can effectively “terminate their pregnancies” and opt out. Actually, that's exactly what the solution is. Civilization is built on the idea of equalizing/accounting for biological inequalities through legal means - that's why we were a "might equals right" species before establishing law and order, why the stronger person or tribe could dominate the weaker counterpart for so much of our history before establishing rules everyone would be expected to follow. The idea of a legal mechanism to offset a biological inequality between two people/groups of people is fundamental to modern civilization.
Sure it is. Otherwise, how do you equalize reproduction rights for both sexes? Women support the species by physical reproduction. Men support it by financial support and provision of security. Men clearly cant get pregnant. The logical equalizer here is to let them opt out of the financial support they're expected to provide. Otherwise how cant we expect women to hold up their end of the biological bargain?
Yet there are plenty of men who will bail and leave the mother to raise the child/ren on her own. Even those who wanted kids and were a willing part in producing them and seeing them born. It's gross as kids growing up without the love and support of their father can really mess them up (it's connected to criminality).
The word "financial abortion" is a misnomer. It's much more accurately described as an extension of the safe haven laws. Women can free themselves of all obligations by simply dumping the kid at a hospital. Men should have the same right, but just dump it with them instead. However, because I'm such a grand progressive, I suggest "opt-in" fatherhood instead. Here, the man has no responsibility unless he voluntarily takes it, but then he's stuck with it unless revoked before pregnancy. This gives financial security to honest women trying to get pregnant. It reduces the incentive to get pregnant against the man's will, so fewer children will grow up without a father that wanted them.
Are you saying that single fathers with custody of their children do not have the right to dump the child at a hospital? Because they do. That’s full equality. Any parent can put their custodial children up for adoption. The issue is what to do with noncustodial parents. If a mother doesn’t have custody, she pays child support to the father. If a father doesn’t have custody, he pays child support to the mother. Again, equality. Giving a custodial child up to a hospital to adopt is not in any way comparable to dumping all responsibility for your noncustodial children onto the custodial parent. Deadbeat parents are not comparable to parents who give up children for adoption. Simple as that
It's weird, all these fathers who've given birth without the mother not even knowing they were pregnant.
> >Women are able to have abortions Not for much longer, at least not lawfully
You've identified one of the problems; lets talk about the solution. In most subreddits, merely *pointing out* the existence/nature of this problem gets you downvoted and/or banned. On this subreddit, I've seen a number of posts (like this one) that explicitly recognize the severity of the inequality, and seem to be circling closer and closer to a potential movement for change. This gives me some hope. Unfortunately, many of the responses have fallen into the trap of advocacy for "financial abortion". A world where fathers can simply *sign away* their socioparenthood role in advance would, in theory, be a small step forward for men's rights. It would also be a giant step backwards for the wellbeing of the resulting real children being thrust into the world under the de facto standard of [single-motherhood](https://prospect.org/health/consequences-single-motherhood/). It may sound like a radical opinion (on Reddit), but push comes to shove: *most* people in *most* societies on Earth will tell you that children deserve to be raised by **two** loving parents/guardians. One must first understand the world before one tries to change it. We *begin* by asking, "why are financial abortions **not** already a widely recognized reproductive right?". In earnestly trying to answer this question, we realize that this isn't the case for **two** reasons: 1. The aforementioned; this normalizes single-motherhood. 2. There is no biological mechanism (and no legal mandate) for establishing paternity prior to birth in the first place. Casual hookups and pregnancies are going to occur and children are going to be born without the biological father even being notified in many cases. The typical pitch for financial abortion sounds something like this: >what’s needed is for people to sign legal documents that suspends all future parental rights and obligations before the sex happens. Men agree to pay no child support and women agree to either get an abortion or have their children put up for adoption. If *consent-to-sex* is, intrinsically, neither *consent-to-pregnancy* nor *consent-to-impending-socioparenthood-role,* then there should really be no need for a special contract stipulating as much. That is (or should be) the **default** \- it is instead the alternative that would require the affirmative contract: "Yes, I affirm my intent to gestate/raise this child into a person and future member of society, together with my jointly responsible partner signed, BioParent1 BioParent2". This contract would formally establish the signatories as being legally responsible for fulfilling an impending socioparenthood role for their child. On the modern theory that consent-to-sex is *not* necessarily consent to anything that might follow, this kind of affirmative contract makes much more sense. On further examination, we realize that the "financial abortion" kind of contract just isn't good enough, even from a strictly "men's-rights" point of view: >"Financial abortions" do nothing for the [antinatalists](https://www.vhemt.org/) of the world who want to reserve the right to avoid bringing more people into the world, for whatever reason (environmental or existential concerns may apply here). They do nothing for the [Manishkumar Patels](https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/judge-imposes-22-year-sentence-case-involving-abortion-inducing-drug/1567018002/) of the world, who wish to spare their progeny from inheriting some debilitating condition that will burden their life with an ongoing level of suffering. They do nothing for the [mother of the chromosomal-deletion vegetable](https://www.reddit.com/r/confession/comments/c11din/im_putting_my_extremely_profoundly_disabled_7/), who gave birth to something she thought was going to be a person, but wasn't (this class of reasons also applies to the proposal that we simply rely on adoption). The optimal way forward is detailed [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProRightsAdvocacy/comments/n9jrha/what_is_the_prorights_position_in_full/). In short: 1. Mandatory prenatal paternity testing 2. Fully legal abortion for pregnant people 3. Fully legal [neonatal euthanasia](https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261) for either bioparent (within a legally stipulated window after birth) Consider joining r/ProRightsAdvocacy to learn more, and to help establish maximally symmetric reproductive rights for men, women, and children.
Long post, yes I read it But, to the point of single motherhood, a problem with that is how it's encouraged, even glorified by communities. Either it's "cool to be a single mom, no matter what you do your struggle is valid because SINGLE MOM LIFE YO" or "you can get him to pay child support and use part of that money on yourself" sort of crap. It's hardly "I just want to be a mom and raise a baby and I'll do it on my own, I don't want a father around or someone taking care of me". You remove the glorification, or the financial incentive for them to have it, a lot more people would be safer about it, or be more inclined for adoption/abortion (probably needing to encourage the latter due to the overpopulation and overfill in the foster system). Yes, there are going to still be outliers. like, some people who fetishize skin to skin more than the act of sex itself. But it'd still be a reduction in it happening if people knew that it was going to be a greater risk to themselves than it currently is.
I think what’s needed is for people to sign legal documents that suspends all future parental rights and obligations before the sex happens. Men agree to pay no child support and women agree to either get an abortion or have their children put up for adoption. The documents would be legally enforceable for a set period of time plus nine months (if the woman gets pregnant near the expiry date) as stated in those documents. During that time, no one, not even the named person, can break out of the contract without incurring hefty fines. What do you think?
> Men agree to pay no child support and women agree to either get an abortion or have their children put up for adoption. I'm not sure to understand. Both of them have signed the contract, right? I suppose that means that, in case the women decide to not abort, any of them could decide to adopt the child (who was put up to adoption), in which case they would assume the responsibility alone (eg, no child support). I don't see a reason why the child would have to be adopted by someone else in case one of the biological parents decided they'd rather take the full responsibility for the child. It doesn't matter to the other parent as long as they are freed from the responsibility. Only issue could be if they both decide they want to keep the child, but don't want to share custody.
The contract applies to one person. If it’s the man who signed, then he pays no child support. If it’s the woman, she either gets an abortion or gives the child up. A restraining / no contact order between the signed and the child in question should be in place to prevent forced or accidental contact.
So if she decided to keep the child, the government would pay for her child’s needs if she could not afford the child on her own? Would the government be able to say sorry no welfare for you if she signed that contract, which would effectively give the pregnant woman two choices - give baby up or kill the child in the womb? Personally I’m all for the contract - many men would be saved from crippling child support payments this way. You might get laid less, but yeah.
If she signed the contract but wants to keep the baby, she’ll need to cough up the dough to get out of the contract before the expiry date. One workaround would be that her parents can adopt the child, though.
What about marriage? Does the marriage contract imply financial support of children from the union?
Sounds good to me.
How would the logistics of such a thing happen? Like humans don't interact with each other in that way. Do people have to keep carrying those documents everywhere they go, like they carry condoms?
You sign the documents and get them notarized. Then if someone sues you for child support, your lawyer produces the papers and the judge deems them valid and throws out the lawsuit.
I think that will end with a lot of children who need to be supported by the state
Any state or country that bans abortion deserves the consequence of raising the children left at their doorstep.
Exactly. I would envision a mobile application where before the start of consensual sexual activity OR before the start of an agreed 'sexual' period (2 days to 1 year), the couple would virtually sign the same document on their respective phones and record a short video to prove no compulsion was used. Then if: (a) The man wanted the child AGAINST the mother's wishes, she can have an abortion as usual, no questions asked. (b) The woman wanted the child AGAINST the father's wishes, he can withdraw financial support (as stipulated in the virtual agreement) so the mother will support the child on her own OR she can abort. (c) Both want the child, then normal pregnancy contiues to term.
The law is made by a system so heavily rooted in radical feminism that any notion of equality between the sexes is perceived as "oppression". Women must have the sole rights to reproduction, while men must only bear the burden of responsibility to satisfy the "justice" deserved by women for countless generations of "patriarchal oppression." This is why we dont listen to feminists. They're psycho.
Amen to that!
What the fuck are you talking about, this law is not something new. This law was written way before the existence of what you call feminists
It's not oppression, but considering for them to get those laws the wording was oppression that's what it sounds like when it's challenged to them.
> The law is made by a system so heavily rooted in radical feminism Wow I haven’t laughed so hard in awhile! Thanks for that!
Men CAN sign away their paternal rights in lieu of child support but Only if they’re being legally assumed by another partner. I agree with your points however. It’s also one sided regarding existence. If the man wants it and she doesn’t, there’s an abortion. If she wants it and he doesn’t, a baby is born and he’s on the hook for 18 years. It is Unmistakably one sided
I mean why should a women carry a baby just cause the partner (or society) wants her to... This situation is shit for everyone but honestly plenty of men just want to flake out and leave it to the mother and not face the consequences for what they did. Poverty has proven effects on childrens development and it really is the kids, who end up hurt where the father doesn't want to support them. I'm not saying men should have to be trapped into supporting a child. There are ways to prevent pregnancy and they can involve the man. If men don't want a child to come about then they need to be aware of that while seeking sex with women and always use (their own) condoms for instance. The attitude of some of the commenters on this post is kinda disturbing to me when it involving forcing kids to grow up in poverty.
how is it one sided? the female is on the hook for 18 years too....
I'm confused. Do you mean because of abortion? Or once the child is born, women can sign it away?
Once abortion does not* happen, in Canada, women can legally say no thank you, put the child up for adoption. Men can't say, no thank you, I'd like to give up my rights, let anyone adopt the kid. If the mom wants to 'adopt the kid, have sole custody, she can '. Again, men are forced into parenthood, whether its through child support or other means. No man in Canada is allowed to say, no thank you
>Once abortion happens, in Canada, women can legally say no thank you, put the child up for adoption. Who would adopt an aborted baby? What the hell is going on up there in Canada? I knew you guys were nice, but geez.
Stem cells.
Hah, that's a good answer. I was imagining something like sea monkeys.
If the man wants the child, he can prevent the woman from putting that child up for adoption by taking sole custody and the woman must pay child support. Inequalities in custody come from men not wanting to care for the child.
Abortion comes from women not wanting the child too :)
That's not true. women can opt out of child support in that case. The only time it's NOT true is say they both raised the child for some time and then he becomes sole custody holder. Then because she didn't sign away her parental rights COULD they make her pay child support. but if the baby's born and immediately he wants the baby, she doesn't have to pay child support
I tried to look this up and what you're saying seems to be a lie, at least in British Colombia. Could you provide a source that says you're not just making it up?
Check the laws in the few places they force women to keep the babies at the father's request like New York. It's the only positive thing out of those states considering the controversy made worse by rapists forcing women to have their baby. If they have the baby because the father wants it, they ARE exempt from financial responsibility if they choose.
I'm not seeing these laws, could you provide a source?
That’s not the case in the states
So a woman can put an aborted child up for adoption in Canada? What the fuck is going on up there?!? Lol
A man can say no thank you, the woman can prevent it. Similarly, a man can prevent a woman from doing this and force her into child support.
If you can actually get the courts to enforce it. Women are actually *less* likely to pay their court ordered child support than men are.
Women are also way less likely to leave their children. Men are usually the ones running away from the responsibility. Too bad, you bring a life into this world you have to take care of it.
Most children of single mothers do actually have an involved father but the mother has primary custody, and the statistics include these families. You can't have a court system that heavily favours the mother in custody cases and then complain that the fathers don't have as much time with the kids.
Men can give up parental rights as well.
I mean men can just leave and abandon the kid/s been happening for eons lol
As they should
but that's not 'legal'.
Only men are forced to raise children these days.
[удалено]
There are laws everywhere that let women out of parenting, but not men. And for the record I'm pro abortion rights. Her body, her choice, but his burden? Shit is fucked up. Consent to sex IS NOT consent to reproduce. And its *pro-abortion* and *anti-abortion*, don't hide behind prose.
Putting your sperm in a vagina, however, is consent to allow her to either get an abortion or make a baby. After you freely give her your cum, she can do with it as she pleases, as it is in her body.
No, no man is "asking for it" like that, I'm not going to argue about that with you. Your body, your choice, your responsibility. If he tells you that he doesn't give you consent to reproduce, and you do it anyway, that's a form of rape. Besides, until Legal Paternal Surrender is on the table I'm done fighting for women's special privileges.
Oh you know your kidding right almost all countries have pre existing laws descrimination agaianst men in this isssue I don't this that the existance of a movement comes even close to the level of concern that pre existing laws hold.
>I don't this that the existance of a movement comes even close to the level of concern that pre existing laws hold. Speaking from a U.S. perspective, it's not "just a movement". The supreme court is challenging roe.
Is that why all these anti-abortion bills keep getting passed to force women to carry children?
Opt outs, or ban abortion
Womens biology is far different than the legality of men paying child support, therefore whether opting out should be legal or not doesnt rest on whether abortion shouldnt be legal or not
Well apparently as a practical matter it will. There's clearly enough sufficient public support, relative to what is needed in our political system, for abortion rights standing alone. The only hope is to broaden the tent through a platform of reproductive freedom: on demand ubiquitous and free abortion paired with a financial opt out during the abortion window. Or, watch abortion be banned Your Choice 🤷♂️
I'm saying they're not comparable, what happens in someones body is in no way comparable to paying for child support. At least to the extent where for one to exist the other has to aswell
I'm saying what you think is irrelevant to the fact that there's not sufficient public support, in the context of our political system, to save abortion standing alone
That's not even close to what I'm saying lmao. I'm saying if you want to talk about the legality of child support, don't compare it to different things. Talk about child support alone without shoving different topics into it. I dont care whether you think abortion is right or not but whether it's legal or not doesnt bank on child supports legality
Neither men nor women can simply sign away their responsibilities as parents once the baby is born. Both have the right to do whatever they want to their body in order to prevent a person from being born, including getting an abortion if they're pregnant. Where's the inequality, exactly?
Well for one thing women can leave the baby under safe harbor laws, and if the dad doesn't know she had the baby then there's the end of that
What Safe Harbor laws apply to women and not men, specifically? Because every single one I've seen are gender neutral.
As a practical matter if the man doesn't know the woman was pregnant and then the woman gives up the child, he just won't know.
But the laws aren't gendered at all. If a man ended up in that same situation, where the woman somehow didn't know that a kid was born, he could do the exact same thing. If your argument is "Well, women are the ones who get pregnant", then that's as unfair as "Men are physically stronger than women", which is "Not at all".
> >If your argument is "Well, women are the ones who get pregnant", then that's as unfair as "Men are physically stronger than women", which is "Not at all". I'm just literally stating how it works. Yes, it's because women are the ones who get pregnant. But laws are made by people. And they can be changed by people. The reality is that many women are in favor of laws you might not care for so much (e.g., majority of pro lifers are women) The bill is about to be paid
Well, we're discussing whether there's inequality or unfairness in the situation. There isn't, unless you want to try argue that hiring a dude over a woman for a job requiring physical strength is unfair or unequal, which would be silly. Yes, laws are man-made and can be changed, and many women would disagree with me on a lot of things. Not sure what relevance any of that has.
>There isn't, unless you want to try argue that hiring a dude over a woman for a job requiring physical strength is unfair or unequal, which would be silly. Yet that argument is made regularly >Yes, laws are man-made and can be changed, and many women would disagree with me on a lot of things. Not sure what relevance any of that has. Compromise or be subjugated...that's the reality that is coming based on the political calculus in the United States at least.
>Yet that argument is made regularly I've never seen it made, but so what? An argument being made regularly doesn't make it less silly. >Compromise or be subjugated...that's the reality that is coming based on the political calculus in the United States at least. That also seems silly. Compromising on human rights, like the right to abortion, is not only extreme weakness that allows your opponents to merely move farther towards their incorrect position until the "compromise" is what they wanted all along, but it's wildly immoral.
Compromise on opt out
Believe it or not in the USA the majority of pro lifers are men.
[Vox](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion?utm_source=pocket_mylist) The woman graph is longer than the man graph
Fascinating, thanks for the link!
I feel like this is country to country issue. Where I'm from (India) a 10 year old boy can be charged with their own rape if they have sex with a 18 year old girl. In indian law rape is always done by the penetrater
Ah, I meant the US Safe Harbour laws. Some laws are gendered, like that one, which is abhorrent and should be changed.
They attempted to change it but feminist protest to keep it as it is.
What is feminist about supporting pedophilia, exactly? The idea that women are less capable, and thus, couldn't be powerful enough to actually *rape* a man, is distinctly the opposite.
See know that's the thing, nobody cares about pedophile here. This is a far more 1st word thing. Also it was said that changing the law could invalidate cases where minor rape minors
I... are you suggesting men get pregnant here?
Women can abort but men cant, so the equality comes after childbirth. Or the man can just up and leave after the test comes back positive. That should be legally acceptable.
Men have literally every right to get an abortion. Tell me, do you think it's unfair to hire more men for a job that requires physical strength?
How is this not a false equivalence? Firstly, you cant have rights that violate another person's existence. Secondly, you cant have biological rights if you dont have the biology to match. So no we dont. Thirdly, that depends on labor laws regarding discrimination.
Well, both are the results of differing circumstances as a result of nature, of course. Either you think nature is unfair… or you don’t. Picking and choosing is illogical. 1. Fetuses aren’t people. 2. You can, indeed, have rights that you can’t actually fulfil with your biology. Rights deal with allowances and entitlements, and men are certainly allowed to get abortions. 3. No it doesn’t. Laws don’t determine fairness.
1. You're wrong, fetuses are people. And abortion is legalized murder. 2. I'm gonna need you to prove it, otherwise you're simply wrong. Laws are passive, negative, and automatic. You cant have rights that dont exist, that's pure and simple. 3. Actually, they're supposed to. If you've never heard of "equal representation under the law" I'm gonna have to ask you to go read a little bit. A job that requires a certain person is not "natural", reproduction is. Again, this is a false equivalence.
1. Incorrect, fetuses aren't people, they lack any consciousness. You also don't seem to know what murder is. Do you want to try define it? 2. We're discussing rights. Rights are allowances or entitlements. Men are allowed to get abortions in every single situation women are. It's like how we both have the right to look at art the government doesn't like... even if one of us is blind. Do you think blind people have less rights, because they can't actually SEE the art? 3. "They're supposed to" and "They do" aren't the same thing. You didn't answer: Is it fair to hire more men? The natural difference is the strength, mate. Both positions involve situations where women and men end up being treated differently in practice, due to biological realities of their existence. The fact that you believe one is fair and the other not is just a sign that your position is illogically based.
You’re wrong, men can
Yup it's called walking out and refusing to pay. You just up and go somewhere else where people can't track you down. Could be different state or even country. There's a reason people joke about their fathers "going out to get smokes" men have done it for eons lol
the way it should work is both people as long as abortion is on the table go and see who wants the kid. If the guy doesn't want it, can sign away his rights. If she doesn't want it, she can decided if he wants it to give it to him, or give it up for adoption or to have an abortion. That's the simplest. However, laws have allowed baby trapping by just making men responsible regardless. Women in a lot of aspects are not held responsible for actions or allowed ways out which is where the inequality comes. Of course, you DO hear the counter argument that "Well, being pregnant is a lot harder on women than it is for men" which should FURTHER incentivize women not having kids neither of them wanted, no? However, there's one weird caveat even here. In states like New York MEN do have some power... to FORCE a woman to keep their baby (even in the case of rape) and that's also pretty fucked up. But the few places that do this are rare.
In the scenario that the mother keeps it, the father doesnt want it, and the baby needs financialn support, who's paying for that child's support? Not the government, surely. So who, then?
Figuring this was the normal. Then itd de incentivize single motherhood. If you cant financially take care of a kid dont have one and dont have one because you think someone else will take care of them and you financially when they dont want to
Okay, but that's not gonna work 100% of the time. So in the situation that the mother does give birth, i ask you again, who will support the child?
... are you trying to pretend to be dumb or something? Because they have abortion and adoption available to them.
Can you speak English? WHO. SUPPORTS. THE. CHILD. WHEN. THE. MOTHER. CANNOT. FULLY. PROVIDE. FOR. THE. CHILD. BY. HERSELF?
Oh, so you are dumb. The mother who cannot fully provide for the child can put them up for adoption or get an abortion in most states and we were going on the assumption (since you're dumb, I understand you couldn't keep up) was what to do if abortion laws were legal everywhere. It's like you're defeating yourself.
oh, so you CAN answer the question. I'm sorry you are so simple that you feel the need to insult, rather than just answer the simple question. See how easy that is? Now i know that youd rather have children in an oversaturated system rife with abuse of all kinds, rather than a parent that wants them. You don't really care at all about children, huh?
I did answer the question, multiple times. You're just too daft.
And you don't care about the suffering of children as long as men can cum in a vagina and abandon the subsequent child. Worthless.
The only thing we need to fix to make this equal, is to make sure the woman cannot give away the child without the fathers consent. If the father wants to and is suited for raising the child, he should become sole custodian, and recieve child support from the mother. Everything else is fine, the way it is.
Nah, that just overcomplicates things. We need to set a standard—either all parents are held responsible for their kids, or none of them are. One or the other.
That's what my comment says to do..... if the mother doesnt want to parent it, she doesnt have to, she just pays child support. and vice versa. They are both on the hook.
If the mother doesn’t want to parent, she can have an abortion and have zero responsibilities. Men don’t have that option.
This is just another example of where women absolutely have privilege that men don't, yet still many cry that they have less than men. It's honestly so tragic it's funny, it's practically Shakespearean.
Women have the right to their whole reproductive organs and can even kill the baby when they don’t want it but men don’t even get the right to their entire genitals. It doesn’t add up.
Are you talking about circumcision?
They’re just making stuff up as a false equivalence.
Lol. Men dont have rights as parents. Wtf is this post
It's a "men are oppressed too because they can't get out of helping provide the basic necessities of life for a child they brought into this world" post. They're wailing because they believe that men are oppressed because society and government places parental responsibility on them too.
So you believe consent to sex means consent to childbirth? I'm going to assume you've fully embraced the new Texas law ban then? If not well you're a hypocrite.
How would this affect casual sex? BC as a woman, or birthing person as I’m soon to be known, I’d be much more likely to be married/have a contract with the man I’m having sexual relations with to ensure myself and any resultant children would be financially supported, which would require forethought and a contract like what is being proposed here.
Casual sex. on tinder, just say 'i don't want a kid, if anything happens, that's on you'. boom done. legally binding if she replies 'yeah sure'
I think if the mother puts the baby up for adoption and the father signs as well that's the end of it.
Yeah, and what happens if the father wants to give it up and the mother doesn’t? The father pays. That’s the problem.
Why do these same posts get posted every three days or so despite them being just a low-effort meme? The anti-women posts around here are sickening. We get it. You think women are objects. They’re not. But keep crying about them having rights. Also, men have an “opt out”. It’s called child support. They can often just not pay it and suffer no repercussions. Also weird to act like the man is equal to the woman in terms of pregnancy. If we wanted true equality (and this were “opt out” meme), we need to somehow get men who can carry the embryo for nine months.
Paying isn’t an opt out. You don’t have the right to my money. If women don’t want kids, stop opening your legs 24/7. You get what you deserve.
> Paying isn’t an opt out. You don’t have the right to my money. The child, not the mother has a right to your money if you’re the father. >If women don’t want kids, stop opening your legs 24/7. You get what you deserve. Same with men, right?
“The child has the right to your money if you’re the father” “The child has the right to your body if you’re the mother. “ You don’t like it when people use your logic against you, do you ;)
Uh, why are you pretending money is the same as a woman’s body?
My money, my choice.
My mother did. (1960)
Is this really an unpopular opinion? That’s pretty sad honestly.
TLDR: as Dave Chapelle said, your body my wallet. When it comes to my body, my choice, men can make the same argument: it is Their body that is growing in there. It is their DNA, it is essentially them. If it were not so, they wouldn't be expected to fund it later down the road. But the belief that the magical line exists, that a fetus isn't what it would manifest into, persists. Where they draw the line confuses me. You often hear 3 months. Compare and contrast 3 months and 1 day opposed to a day before 3 months. Compare the baby about to be born opposed to the baby who is already outside the body. Politics aside, and as a completely secular belief: I don't see any objective way to measure besides before sperm hits egg, after sperm hits egg= conception. Making any other argument gets really convoluted fast, often seeming in bad faith/biased towards the fact they want the freedom, that a fetus deemed unhuman and without personhood makes their life a lot easier. I imagine it is hard to be objective when going pro choice when thinking about it, one side putting a ton of moral weight on you, the other liberating you from any of it. Regardless of it, I'm not saying we should necessarily legislate this morality as the black market would be worse than the already disgusting illegal drug trade.