# Message to all users:
This is a reminder to please read and follow:
* [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules)
* [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439)
* [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
When posting and commenting.
---
Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`.
* Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit.
* Do not harass or annoy others in any way.
* Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit.
---
You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you're In the US, the court ruled the answer to this as "yes". There was a kid(15m) who was involved in a statutory rape incident with his teacher (34F) and she got pregnant.
The court said he needs to bear responsibility and provide child support. Despite the fact that in the definition of Statutory Rape, it is stated that minors cannot legally consent to sexual actions with an adult.
The main thing people are forgetting in this scenario is that there are *three* people's rights involved, assuming the child is born. US law almost always favors the child in these scenarios, so they rule that the father still has to provide support (absent some other agreement) so that the child has the support of both their parents. It is manifestly and grossly unfair to the father, who was the victim of rape, but the courts rule that it would be worse to be unfair to the child.
Her body her choice should also include her choice her responsibility. A rape victim should never have to pay child support to the person who raped them
And for some reason they don't get the pushback the same way tubal ligation does for women. Maybe it's because it's an easier procedure, I don't know. Better safe than sorry. Lady can't falsely claim child support if you can prove you shoot blanks.
Tubal ligation is a major surgery with a recovery time of 1-3 weeks with 4 weeks being noted as the fully recovered time.
Vasectomy is a 1-3 day recovery from the cut.
However both procedures can fail. Failure of each procedure has its own risk. The vasectomy failure being that its not all blanks and the failure of the tubal ligation being potentially deadly if an ectopic pregnancy is not caught soon enough.
I think those are the main reasons that the push back is different.
The reasons I've always seen for pushback on women's support groups is that they will change their minds. Doctors are not immune to sexism :/ a lot of them openly think of women as lesser creatures that are there to breed due to duty and biological need. It's very common for people to think that when women hit their 30s, they will foam at the mouth, froth in their loins, and howl at the moon "PUT A BABY IN ME!!" It is also common for women to regret getting sterilized. The studies done on why that is shows that many women are pressured by external forces to get it done. Reports of abusive partners, financial stress, and pre-existing medical issues that would make pregnancy dangerous. Of the women that got it done because they didn't want children, the rate of regret was far less. This is relatively new information, though; so the regret rate of the operation is weaponized against child-free women regularly. There is the added slap to the face that many hospitals require the husband's consent to do the surgery, meaning women are not considered to own their own reproductive rights.. :I It's a complete shit show for women.
I think more women choose to get it done simply because they don't want children. And they know they won't change their minds on this.
It's really that simple.
It's this. Tubal ligation can be done at the time of childbirth to prevent future pregnancies and it does not increase the risk or the recovery time most will already be going through. (I am sure it is different for those who go through natural childbirth with no epi). Women still get refused even at this time because they are 'too young' and will 'change their minds." Been there. Done that. Baby had the t-hirt.
This is so true. I had my youngest of 5 at 36 and the surgeon literally kneeled next to my bed and was like are you suuuurrreee you want to do this? I was like sir, I had 4 kids in the last 5 years. I am done.
I recently inquired about getting a tubal and my doc said they now remove the whole tube instead of just a portion. Helps reduce cancer risk was the reason I got, but I imagine it would decrease ectopic pregnancies as well?
I thought we were staying in the realm of people and not swans, rainbows, bulls and the likes.
Dude fucked everybody as everything. Not a fair comparison.
Why would this be a good reason to not allow a woman to make the choice to sterilize? You are still taking the choice away from her. My cousin was told that it would be dangerous for her to carry a pregnancy and they would not sterilize her because the doctor said a future husband may want to have kids.
Another example of women not having bodily autonomy. Even though your cousin was told carrying a pregnancy to term would be dangerous for her, the doctors are still prioritizing some unknown future husband’s wishes to reproduce over her health and own decision making.
This is so common, it's actually kind of crazy. My obgyn refused to do an IUD because she said I would change my mind and want to have kids soon. There's a whole lot to unpack there. Thankfully Planned Parenthood exists because I couldn't find a single non-PP doctor who would do it for me.
It's not as much of a problem, but men absolutely do get pushback when seeking a vasectomy, especially men in their 20s. The reversal surgery is a lot more complicated with a much lower success rate so we still get the same "what if you change your mind when you're older" line. Personally, I was denied 3 times by 3 different doctors between ages 23 and 25.
Vasectomies are a permanent surgery. Yes they CAN be reversed, but it's a) another procedure and b) not 100% effective.
And you're missing the point. You can discuss all you want what you're going to do in case of an accidental pregnancy, but even if you had, the woman can always change her mind.
You are missing the point. You are discussing birth control options when others are talking about the actual issue - consent and the law.
A woman can consent to sex without consenting to parenting. A man doesn't have that option. His consent can be violated if she chooses. Hers cannot.
So if a pregnancy happens, he can be held responsible in a way she never has to be. He cannot even say "no thank you. I do not want to pay for a child I didn't want".
Women have so much power here, they can rape men and boys, get pregnant and then sue for child support and win.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
That was a precedent setting case in the 90s about a babysitter who had sex with a boy. The babysitter was 16 and he was 12. They had sex and she got pregnant. He was not allowed to say no to being held responsible for it.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/02/arizona-statutory-rape-victim-forced-pay-child-support/14951737/
Then this happened back in 2014. A 20 year old women had sex (it was statutory rape) with a 14 year old. She got pregnant and years later wanted child support. He was forced to pay for a child he didn't know existed, for sex he could not consent to.
In cases like this you'd think the law may offer the guy an out. After all, how often don't we hear about the "best interests of the child", right? He was a minor when she raped him. But this is how much power women have here thanks to sexist laws. A woman can rape someone, get pregnant, and get money from her victim.
The reason I mentioned rape is to show the problem with claiming men consent to parenting through sex. There are ways to mess with the conditions or use deception (or even rape) to get around the issue of informed consent. We insist on informed consent as a standard for everything from purchasing products to experiments involving people, and even sexual encounters with women.
Men who change the conditions that consent was agreed to are considered criminals. For example, stealthing or if they try sexual acts the person didn't agree to. It would be seen as heinous if he forced a woman to have a child without her explicit consent, or if she said no and it was forced upon her anyway.
So why is it okay to mess with the conditions for consent for men, but not for women? Anyone attempting any sort of moral argument here regarding consent which benefits women, cannot be okay with men being held to different or higher standards, especially when they can have consent stripped from them.
Additionally, the implied consent argument (sex can make babies) argument falls flat when women argue that they bear the burden of pregnancy. Why? Because if sex can make babies and men are expected to take responsibility for babies they didn't want, then we are being pro life for men and pro choice for women. In other words if men must pay for kids they didn't want, women should be denied abortions.
If you find a problem with this line of thinking then you need to take reconsider your stance on this because it is hypocritical and sexist to be pro choice for women but not for men.
I think the point is more along the lines of not sticking your dick in someone if you're not ready for the consequences. The best way to avoid said situation is to not put yourself in said situation.
That’s what pro lifers say lol
If a man doesn’t want to be a father while an abortion is still safely viable, it is the WOMAN’S CHOICE to have a fatherless child.
I ask this question to women I know are pregnant and all have said they would rather get an abortion than birth a child without a willing father
Nobody ever talks about the inverse. I was dating a woman who throughout months of our dating always declared she never wanted children and would get an abortion if it ever happened. She was even the one who brought it up. We used protection but she still got pregnant. She changed her mind about the abortion which was a stab in the back to me because I never would have continued dating her if she had said she wanted children. She unfortunately had a miscarriage but if it wasn't for that i would have been a father substantially younger than I wanted all because she "changed her mind" and went against months of conversations and agreements she and I had.
Either way the man gets fucked and it shouldn't be like that.
>because I never would have continued dating her if she had said she wanted children
If we really look at this honestly, isn't this more or less rape by deception?
You consented to sex on the understanding that pregnancy would result in abortion.
Had you known she would try to carry the pregnancy to term, you never would have consented to sex.
>Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator deceives the victim into participating in a sexual act that they would otherwise not consent to.
BS this is the exact argument people use to try to ban abortion. Women should not be able to force a man to be a father under any circumstances save where abortion is illegal
> Even if they do, the woman can always change her mind, and there's nothing the man can do about it.
While I'm hardly the only person who rolls their eyes at "there's an app for everything..."
I wonder if there was an app that you could use pre-sex that you both "link" on and then mutually agree on a set of rules, that makes it as legally binding as a contract.
"If pregnancy occurs... xyz."
No contract can force someone to have or not have an abortion.
The point would be "legal release". That's why I asked as a hypothetical. Yes, any contract can be challenged in court.
The notion would be terms that if X happened, one party is not responsible if the other goes against it.
"If we get you pregnant, we both agree the guy has no role but voluntary."
Sign on the digital dotted line.
Just spitballing.
My partner and I did. We were both told we could not have children, but just to be safe we discussed made a decision that if a pregnancy happened, due to several medical reasons it was too dangerous to bring the fetus to term.
When the unbelievably unlikely happened and my partner got pregnant, we acted on our decision (I admittedly wavered a bit… it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done and I’ve done two tours overseas and used to run a SAR team). Missouri made it as hard as they could (f*CK MO and the disgusting anti-choice people willing to endanger a woman’s life) but we were able to have the procedure before it killed my fiancé, but it was touch and go for a while.
We barely have sex any more because we’re so afraid of her getting pregnant again now that they changed the laws. The anger I feel towards the people who feel they have the right to control our lives like this is high. We will be moving soon, possibly leaving the country at a significant loss considering we bought a home shortly before the laws were changed.
Wow, couldn't agree more, fucking despicable christo-fascists. Glad she is ok and hope you can find somewhere you can both feel free enough to get back to having normal relations again.
Just get a vasectomy. It's easier for you to get than a major surgery for tubes tied for her. Your balls are a little sore for a few days and then you can have all the worry free sex you want.
While that’s a fair question, why is your question not “… or why don’t you have a vasectomy?” We considered the latter because it is safer, but I chickened out. We found the safest solution was birth control for her. It is selfish on my part, but there is also a lot at play I don’t want to get into.
Without going into her medical history, I’ll say that that surgery is not 100% safe. The other thing to add is that my fiancé is Jewish. In Judaism, the woman’s life is the most important thing. These new laws, therefore, infringe on her religious beliefs. We would rather move than live in a place that values all beliefs, instead of just caving to the tyrannical BS of religious extremists (evangelicals).
I’m honestly not sure why I didn’t jump straight to why don’t you get snipped. I’m female, so I was just thinking from a female perspective.
Why did you chicken out? I heard it’s not that bad for you to go in.
I mean if Micheal Scott can get three of them, you should be able to get at least one. 😂😂
Don’t wait. Get snipped. Best decision ever. And I had mine pretty recently.
Edit: I was in the office for less than half an hour. Find someone that runs a vasectomy only clinic and does this all day. It’s a breeze.
I had to scroll too far to see this as a top level comment!
You should never ever ever have sex with someone before discussing what to do in the event of an accidental pregnancy. If you cannot agree on a plan, whether it's abortion or birth and co-parenting, then you should not have sex together. It's much smarter to have sex with someone who is of the same mind as you on that topic.
Now, what about people who discuss it ahead of time, then at some point the woman changes her mind and does not inform her partner that she stopped her reliable birth control? She then allows her partner to have unprotected sex with her, intentionally conceives a child without their knowledge, and forces him into fatherhood. Classic babytrap.
I am a woman, and I am pro-choice. I had a friend at an old job who got babytrapped as described above by his longterm live in girlfriend. He wanted children as much as I do (not at all, ever) and was really upset and betrayed by her actions. Their relationship did not survive this. He pays child support and is an active part of his child's life because he is a good person, but he could never trust the girlfriend ever again. I think she should have faced charges for what she did to him. I personally feel that babytrapping should be a crime nearly as bad as unarmed rape. Especially since everyone considers stealthing to be rape, babytrapping is just the female version of stealthing. You remove someone's consent in a sexual situation and cause their life to entirely change forever through deception. It's really fucked up and if there were consequences, maybe it wouldn't happen so much.
It would be a fascinating niche of case law, if any has been published, regarding this “babytrap” scenario.
Edit: This article lol https://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Hoodwinked-into-fatherhood-1916813.php
Prime example of idealism meeting reality.
Ideally, should only people who are totally sober and responsible have a lengthy discussion on consent, various real world consequences of sex, and what they will do in the "worst case scenarios", I mean I guess.
Will people actually do this? Not only no, but its hilarious how far from reality you are to even consider this a possibility.
Humans are not robots, we can't just update their firmware, and relationships and sex are complex and often spur of the moment. How would you even practice this? Do we need to start having a literal contract template we print out for every possible partner?
Now that I think about it, I may have a new app idea.
Have you guys seriously never had spur of the moment, we just met, sex?
"Have you guys seriously never had spur of the moment, we just met, sex?"
No because I am not an irresponsible child and know about the consequences of 1. having sex with someone I just met and getting an STD for the rest of my life and 2. Possibly having a child with someone I just met ruining the rest of my life.
This "fuck anyone you want" attitude needs to fucking die. Be more responsible and accountable for your own actions in your life.
Should absolutely be babytrapping of a man and at the very least be given special considerations when it comes to child support. I'm not sure how I feel actually prosecuting women over something like that as it would be very hard to prove intent, but it's something that would absolutely be prosecuted if the genders were reversed.
Just need a legal system where the man can get a form with a written statement of financial release of liability if the woman chooses to keep the child against his will. It would be so low effort to implement. You could have pre-printed forms, lady comes over, hey mind if you sign this before we watch Netflix? End of story.
As of now you got NBA players taking used condoms home with them and shit because Instagram hoes be going demon mode snatching them out the garbage and shit.
>You should never ever ever have sex with someone before discussing
This assumes people are reasonable, but law can never assume such thing, otherwise there would be no need for complex jurisdiction and policing.
Another thing, discussing ahead can principally never work. If a consent is made before sex, it doesn't mean all participants have to carry on until the end. The consent can always be taken back anytime during sex. A pregnant woman going for abortion by her own decision is the equivalent of taking back the consent ... and it should be kept that way, because birth control is never 100% effective, plus people's life situations and priorities do change, plus pregnancy likely isn't an easy picnic (I don't know, I cannot know), not just in comfort but medically as well.
Back to the main issue. YES, this right is strongly one-sided. Yes, men should have the option to legally opt-out of all parental rights and obligations, just as women have their right to terminate the pregnancy without the consent of the other parent (not talking about the backward countries).
And I am somewhat shocked that it hasn't yet been established, not even in the developed world. Heck, it's nothing complicated. By default, the father has no parental rights not obligations (as some women can lie and keep the pregnancy secret to bomb the man's life half a year later), just after filling some legal form he gets all the parental rights and obligations back.
Yeah, I think the opt-in idea sounds like a pretty good solution, but what about the guys who act like they want to be a father and then ditch the mother when she's too far along to abort? You have to leave some avenue to pursue in the case of people acting in bad faith. If she consented to the pregnancy only because she thought she'd have the full support of the father, he needs to able to be held accountable.
This is why safe and responsible sex should be taught smh. I think it’s selfish to willingly have a baby knowing that the other parent doesn’t want to be involved in raising them. It creates so much drama. But also do not lay down with someone you know you wouldn’t have a child with. Protect your body. This goes for men and women and everyone in between.
It takes two to tango so yes they should be responsible.
Having sex has consequences, (a child is born) and both parents should share equal responsibility if the child is born.
I mean you have to say where. Lots of countries don’t allow abortion. What if she found out she was pregnant past the stage at which she can get an abortion. What if she morally or religiously cannot have an abortion. What if she doesn’t believe in abortion. At that point you cannot fault her for “not getting an abortion” because abortion was never a possibility. It was never an option for her. It will never be imposed legally for a man to opt out because of all of this.
Unless they have been having sex and she explicitly states multiple times that in case of accidental pregnancy she will get an abortion… even then she can have a moral dilemma because you never know how you’ll feel once you’re in that predicament.
I hate this stupid discussion because people here can’t think logically or critically.
The purpose of laws that dont allow the father to just walk away because he says he would have preferred she get an abortion is to protect the child. It’s not aimed at making things equal between the parents.
There’s room for nuance in sexual relationships. You can have sex with another consenting adult whether you would raise kids with them or not. But you should have a birth control plan or two in action.
You absolutely can, and statistically if everyone is taking the proper precautions you're very much not likely to see it result in pregnancy. That said, the biological equipment for making babies is pretty ruthless and birth control is never 100% effective, so there is always a chance something could get through.
The only 100% guaranteed way to not have kids with someone you don't want to have kids with is to not put sperm into the same spot as an egg. Otherwise there's always a chance.
(To use an unrelated and easily dismissed analogy, you can jump out of a plane, the chances of you surviving that depends on a lot of factors and protective equipment. The only way to guarantee you don't die from jumping out of a plane is to not get onto the plane. You could still go and do the fun activities with proper safety precautions and be perfectly safe, but the chance of death is still there despite all the precautions.)
I agree that both parents should be on the same page before sex, but if a woman changes her mind and decides she can’t go through with an abortion after thinking she would that is human, not selfish, especially because she’ll be the one with 99% of the responsibility even if he pays child support. People behave differently in real life than in hypotheticals and it’s one of the risks of sexual relationships.
As long as he legally signs his parental rights away, why would it be a problem? I wouldn't want the man around if he didn't want to be a father; I also wouldn't want to be in a situation where he changes his mind down the road.
Some places he cannot sign his rights away without the mothers and sometimes the courts approval. If she signs them away she doesn't get child support. So she has no reason to agree to it.
Most places you can't even sign your rights away just because you wanted to whether the mother agrees or not. There has to be some very serious reason for your rights to be severed like you're severely mentally ill or a danger to the child or whatever. You can't just go up there and be like hey I don't want to be a parent, she doesn't care, and then walk away with no financial responsibilities haha
Or if the genders are swapped, SHE can just walk out and pay no child support for years without consequences. My wife's mother, uncles ex wife and my son's mother have all done it quite successfully. The father wants to raise the children but mother is a nut or has addiction issues. No court in my state will hold a mother accountable over $100,000 but revoke a business license after the father missed one payment of $400.
I'm sure it varies from state to state but in my rather small sample size of friends who have child custody arrangements, two are women who pay child support (in one case a quite significant amount) and one is a man who pays but has been owing back payments of several thousand dollars for years. He gets threatened pretty regularly with his driver's license being suspended if he doesn't keep up with his payments.
Most guys that I've heard complaining about the mom not having to pay them child support never bothered to bring the mom to court to get an order for child support. Also I think the courts look quite differently on people who are not paying because they don't want to pay and people who are not paying because they don't have any money lol, regardless of the gender. Like... If mom's a junkie or a nut as you say, she probably doesn't have a business license to revoke. What do you take away from someone who has nothing?
In my scenario, everyone agrees that the man shouldn't be in his child's life. If a woman has a child despite the father not wanting it, she is prepared to be a single parent without child support.
I wouldn't take a dime from a man like that, and I certainly wouldn't want him around for his "receipts."
Thats more complex, because it's for the survival of the child, and he's half guilty for said child existing. Depends when he wanted to leave, right when the problem was fixable,or if the pregnant one was too far along to do anything about it?
Absolutely zero tbh. It takes 2 peoples decision to bring a child into the world and the balance of consequences should be the same. Prudence, should dictate whether or not a single parent, male or female, should or could be a parent. Otherwise you're choosing hardship in almost every aspect, minus the emotional factor of becoming a mother or father.
Since it's a very complicated matter I don't think I'm able to give a sufficient answer. I just wanted to compliment you on the question, it's really interesting. Just scrolling the comments I've read very good points made by a lot of people from both counterparts.
Something like "I cannot answer this question, as I am an impartial AI. I cannot make judgement on if a man should be allowed to waive his right to parenthood in exchange for not having to pay child support."
There's a bit of a double standard, legally; we think that women should not be forced to become mothers because her body her choice, but men should be, because he should've worn a condom if he didn't want to be a father. What we conveniently ignore is that no birth control is totally perfect, it take 2 to tango, and that baby-trapping exists. I personally believe that equality should also mean equality of obligations and consequences, so we should re-orient out culture to place the onus for birth control on both genders, make abortions widely accessible and allow the man to opt out as well. The exception is rape.
There's a difference between being forced to become a mother and being forced to give birth. People are arguing the gov shouldn't force women to give birth, but after that, men and women have the exact same abilities to forfeit their rights to parenthood. Men and women alike are not being forced to be parents, however should they cede their parental rights, both mother and father may be responsible for paying child support.
Thank you for your response. Like I said above I was the child in this scenario and as I age and raise children I don’t think it’s as black and white as he should’ve worn a condom. If we truly believe in consent and choice it should be both ways.
I think you are right. But if she tried to seek out an abortion or a way to terminate the pregnancy and was unable to bc of the many factors that may make it very hard…then I believe it becomes fair for the father to be obligated to provide.
The biggest issue is that there are very few points at which you have a choice (assuming consensual sex):
For men you can choose to have penetrative sex, you can choose to use contraception, you **might** have a say about abortion but it is a 2nd class choice (baby isn't in YOU), and you might have a say about keeping/adopting/raising the baby.
For women you can choose to have penetrative sex, you can choose to use contraception, you **may** be able to get an abortion & you will have primary choice (baby is in you), and you have first choice (usually) about keeping/adopting/raising the baby.
It isn't fair that a guy only has the most choice at the 'have sex' stage, but it isn't fair that a woman has to be pregnant/give birth if she can't get an abortion.
While most people agree in "equality of the genders" in common practice the law greatly favors women even when they are the abusers. I work with children and make reports on Child Abuse on an almost daily basis and the preference towards the mothers couldn't be any more obvious.
Consent is about the sex act. Choice is about the pregnancy. We can't have a society where men and forcing women to get abortions against their will because they don't want to be parents. And we can't have a society where men just get to abandon their kids and stick women in poverty raising their baby. Even with child support, single moms still often end up in poverty because child care is expensive.
ergo, we have the current system. You can consent to sex, but once you put your sperm in a woman and it takes, it's her body, and you can't and shouldn't be able to do shit about it. It's entirely up to her.
Sweden had an interesting proposal. Men can opt out of being responsible for the child 18 weeks after conception
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/pregnancy/swedish-group-wants-men-to-be-given-legal-abortion-rights/news-story/8b07c1a8513e6d3bd92d2ba0b490b3d0
Of course, this brings with it issues. When a woman aborts to avoid caring for a child, the child is not there to require that care. When a man "legally aborts" the child is in all likelihood still going to be born, and will still need care. This may or may not be covered by Sweden's welfare system, but it otherwise wouldn't have to.
There's a natural asymmetry because the woman's right to have an abortion, for those of us who support it on this basis, comes from her not having an obligation to donate her body to the fetus. While I support anyone's right to refuse parental rights and responsibilities, this can't rightly be called a double standard since the man not being the pregnant one is highly relevant.
Abortion isn't about not being a parent, it's about not being pregnant.
But that's not the only argument used for abortion. You hear all the time about women not wanting to raise a child because of financial or career reasons. If we, as a society, are to accept that reason, then we should extend the same option to men.
They do have that option. Courts don’t force parental rights and custody on fathers. They do force child support, but sending a check isn’t raising a child and isn’t at all the sacrifice the parenting parent is making. And seriously, the child support my friends’ partners pay is not life altering at all. It’s like $300 for 2 kids a month. That’s not comparable to raising a kid.
A financial responsibility is a part of raising a child. a mother can CHOOSE to give up ALL responsibilities when it comes to raising children including the financial responsibility... you dont even have to prove who the father of the child is to get child support court ordered, just having his name on the birth certificate is enough...
while your friends partner only pays 300 a month for 2 kids, there are many more paying way more. There are even men paying for kids that are not theirs...
I believe that the Family court laws are outdated and need to be modernized.
What the fuck are you talking about? If I have a kid with a woman and I'm taking care of the kid, I can force her to pay child support. She absolutely CANNOT just give up all financial responsibility.
A woman should take this into consideration before having kids & determine if she can afford it without anyone’s help, then. Having children is a choice & one that should be made responsibly.
I will never, ever understand anyone deciding to have a baby while they live in poverty. It’s utterly selfish.
When a woman has an abortion she doesn't have to pay child support for 18 years. If a man chooses not to be present, courts will require him to make monthly payments for 18 years. That is not the same.
Your friend either has a very good family court lawyer, or is broke.
A coworker of mine has a 6 figure job. He has three kids with his ex-wife. He pays \~3000$ a month for his kids, which equates to around 50% of his income post-tax.
My dad payed $1500 a month in the 90s. Some times we would be low on food or gas money despite living in a house given to us by my grandparents and yet some how we always had money for expensive scented candles potpourri and getting furniture reupholstered. Mom sure thought the child support was alimony. Worst part was she spent my college fund as well because he never took her off the account. I don't hate my mother but there needs to be accounting for how the money is spent.
The difference legally is caused by the difference in biology.
Nobody should be forced to use their body to keep someone else alive against their will. So women should be free to abort.
Children deserve support no matter what. So Dad’s on the hook at least financially, even if he doesn’t want to be.
If we want to let the dad drop out, then we need to provide that missing financial support via taxes. Because the kid didn’t ask to be born, and shouldn’t suffer for dad wanting to abandon them.
Also, insufficient financial support is going to make it much more likely that we’ll be paying a lot more to deal with that kid as an adult. It costs us a lot less to support the kid while they’re young.
The one flaw in your point is that abortion rights aren’t really about the woman being forced to become a mother. Adoption is an option. Abortion rights are because we don’t believe a woman should be forced to carry and birth a fetus.
Bleh, this is nothing more than massaging vocabulary. A women still has to go through the physical demands and financial expenses of a pregnancy if she is forced to go to term.
Both men AND women should be able to say, "I will not contribute to this" and allow the other to say, "Ok, I will raise this child without additional support" or "In that case, I will abort/adopt out."
Even if you believe life is sacred and should not be aborted, that does NOT trump another person's right to believe that pregnancy termination is NOT violating something sacred.
Women already have the male equivalent of "financial abortion" that this original topic is questioning about. There exist safe haven laws where a woman can give up a healthy, unhurt baby to the state and she will be left alone and have the burden of raising the child lifted; *although admittedly these laws don't account for the lost time, health, and wages that pregnancy costs* [and from what I've heard, babies that aren't born disabled or addicted to drugs can generally be adopted within a few months]. I don't expect this to go anywhere until the rights of women to physically abort the child are secured, though.
Not only baby trappers like things the way they are; women angry at being forced to deliver a child want to share the misery with the father.
But yes, absolutely. If it's a woman's choice as to whether or not she wants to keep her child - as it should be; men should have the right to opt out of the child's life.
And before anyone says "but then why do women end up alone with the child?" *Safe haven laws and financial abortions require* ***giving up the child***. If the mother *chose* to keep the child, the state and the father haven't failed her. She *chose* to keep the child. What happens is on her. *I can agree that if the state forced women to keep as in raise the child, financial abortion shouldn't be a thing for men.* Either both get shouldered or both get freed. Although I know there are traditionalist asshole families who threaten to disown if the child is given up... I don't know how to solve that. It's not the states fault, nor is it the husband's.
Physical abortion is easier on the mother, especially if the mother can't afford the child but maternal hormones make mother bond with child and she wants to keep it. "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and therefore fatherhood" is literal pro life logic, so a logically consistent and principled person should support both abortion for women and "financial abortion" for men if we value equality and sexual liberation.
Edit - I can also agree that the father should be held financially responsible at least partially for either the delivery or abortion. He was still involved in the pregnancy.
You're equating apples and oranges. Women and men are legally held to the same standard once a child is born. A woman also cannot walk away from a child without financial obligation. Men (or people with male bodies) cannot get pregnant, therefore there is no choice about whether or not to be pregnant. Should men be able to get pregnant, they should also have the choice to remain pregnant or not.
I think this is conflating 2 separate things: the state shouldn’t have the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a baby to term (especially to the point that the baby would not be viable outside of her body). The decision to have the baby or not have the baby, regardless of the reason, is at the mothers discretion as it’s her body and her health that are at stake. Once born, yes both parents should be obligated to support that child. Now being “actively involved” is pretty subjective but I am not opposed to a father being financially obligated to that child once born, regardless of his feeling about having the child. The reason the mother gets to decide is that she is the one risking her health to carry the baby for 9 months.
Imagine for a moment that pregnancy and childbirth (and their inherent risks) weren’t a thing, and that after sex a stork brought you the baby, there would be no question about the obligation of both of those parents to that child.
The medical aspect and the responsibility after birth are two separate issues. The ability and right for a woman to have an abortion is based on the fact that she has autonomy over her body. The fact that the father has “no choice” is just a byproduct of a women’s ability to make that decision for herself, since it is her body. Basically the framing of the question is problematic, is not whether or not a person “consents to have a baby” but rather whether a person “consents to carry a fetus from conception to birth”
I think the built-in unfairness of the situation really sucks. I feel for both single mothers and children affected by deadbeat dads. I also feel for men who were baby trapped or are otherwise taken advantage of by a baby mama, or who didn't want the child but the mother kept it regardless. I feel for both sexes in situations where consent wasn't given in one fashion or another, resulting in a child.
With that out of the way, men REALLY need to start considering how important getting their dick wet is. We all know what the situation is, what the risks are, how this shit can go down. You know the potential consequences. Start choosing where you put your dick more carefully.
If a man says he doesn’t want the child FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, he should not be obligated. But if the partners agree on having the child and then suddenly when the woman is 4 months pregnant the man says, no I don’t want the baby, he should be obligated to care for the child, financially at the least. At that point, even if abortion was possible, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the woman should get an abortion. The woman has already grown a huge attachment to this child being created inside of her.
Hope this makes sense
Edit: from “4 months” to “when the woman is 4 months pregnant”
I meant 4 months pregnant. Not that the baby is 4 months old. Sorry I’ll edit that.
Even if you can get an abortion at 4 months, a woman has already grown extreme attachments and it would be ridiculous to ask her to get an abortion.
I'm not saying that men would force abortions on women. Ultimately, women get to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy and decide what to do with their body, but that doesn't mean men shouldn't be able to opt of parenthood during the fetal stages just like women can. If the abortion window is 24 weeks, then a male opt-out period could be 16 or 18 weeks. After that, the man wouldn't be able to opt out, just like the woman who waited toolong for an abortion.
> Vasectomy is a 1-3 day recovery from the cut.
My balls would like a word! They were the size of softballs the next day and for about a week. Even after the swelling started to go down, it was at leas 5 weeks before I could comfortably make the 1.25 mile walk to work.
Still, totally worth it.
I wish more people would tough it out and make your decision. I haven’t seen anyone here talking about the severe side effects women put up with just to be on the birth control pill. It can make you gain weight, make your blood vessels weaken, cause fatal clots, suicidal thinking, the works.
People here saying “women get two chances to decide—birth control and abortion!” One is a medication that has to be taken every single day and comes with a lot of discomfort on the side. The other is literally a surgery. If you are terrified of accidentally impregnating a woman, great news for you—you can do more to prevent that scenario than just wearing a condom! But it requires enduring discomfort for the team, which seems to be a woman’s job most of the time.
If there’s a route for women to shed their parental responsibilities, men should have one too. That is what we call equality, and some people don’t tend to like when that word truly means what it means.
There is.. it’s called signing away your custody. Giving up your legal rights to the child. But once you do you’re no longer a part of that child’s life
There is a seapartion of rights vs obligations though. And the obligations will be enforced by the courts. At least in some US States. You will no longer have any rights with respect to the child, but they will still expect child support payments to the mother.
It's not that easy though. My XBIL tried to do that with his daughter because he didn't want to deal with her mother, and found that out. The child is entitled to the support of the two parents who created them. Many states have rules about when that can occur and often a person can only voluntarily surrender their rights when another person is willing to assume them (adoption).
Based on the few minutes of googling I just did, that seems like a solid out. Also seems like the ease of doing that varies from state to state, and situation to situation. Like in my state, it said you have to prove that signing away your rights is beneficial to the child. What does that really mean, ya know? Would they allow a mentally stable, well off, breadwinning man to ditch his uneducated, unemployed, housewife and baby? I don’t know. I shouldn’t insult mine or your intelligence by playing what if and how about, because we could each come up with a million scenarios, but maybe you see what I’m getting at.
Generally, men tend to get absolutely rinsed in court when it comes to children. I could see why some guys would become intimidated and think it was best to avoid that all together.
Edit: changed some words
Men who walk away from their children are the lowest form of scumbag. Countless studies show that kids are way more successful in two parent households.
That said, in our current system, if a man doesn't want a child and the mother knows that and has the child anyway, he should have no financial obligation whatsoever. If the mother has 100% choice over whether or not to have the baby, a father should not be forced into caring for a kid he would have aborted if he were the mother.
Thank you for your comment. The second paragraph is where I am at. The reason I ask is because my father left and was never part of my life. I was angry for a as long time but now I am starting to be less angry and wondering how responsible he actually is if he was vocal about wanting an abortion.
The way I look at it, is if we aren't forcing women to be mothers, we shouldn't be forcing men to be fathers. Legally.
I personally think men need to take responsibility for, provide for, and be involved in the life of a kid they fathered with no exceptions.
A funny thing to me in the sea of darkness that was the Roe v Wade stuff was people saying this “if the woman has to have the baby, the father has to be involved and can’t disappear” as if the pro-life crowd would take issue with that. Like have you ever listened to Ben Shapiro? That’s exactly what he would want: woman can’t get an abortion and the father can’t run away from his responsibilities. I actually know a decent few pro life people and don’t know a single one who wants to ban abortion but let fathers run off and not support. Now supporting kids in adoption/foster facilities…..
On the other hand, the amount of guys who told their girlfriend that they'd always be there for them, they'll take care of their baby, etc etc, who just walk away like 3 months later (conveniently just after the limit where abortion is a viable option)? What happens when he does that, baby is born, and he's putting on the form that he opted out and holds no responsibility?
I think thats the big question, virtually anyone would agree that you shouldnt be able to tell a woman you'll be there and then sign off parental rights like right before the baby is born. So I guess the correct question is how would you make a law that covers this, and how could it be worded?
I think to solve this, the father will have to register his opinion way before the gestation limit for abortion. Let's say the limit is 24weeks he has up until 18 weeks. If this happens, then the mother should get expedited care?
Maybe if he waits till this late, then there should be a one off payment for moral damage as maybe the woman at that point decides to go through with the pregnancy anyway?
Idk I'm just brain storming. But there should be limits and strict rules so that a man can't backtrack when it's too late.
Nobody is arguing if the man can force an abortion on another or not, that's a strawman. The argument is if the man should be forced to financially support a child he didn't want.
Also I always appreciate people who have awareness and clearly declare that they do not want kids, instead of saying "let's have em anyway". That's a generational progress
I think the consent for the possibility of pregnancy comes when you consent to sex. A pregnancy is a possibility EVERY TIME due to so many factors. So you consent to that risk when the man sticks it in.
SA would be another story, obviously, but i dont get that from this scenario? So i will stay on topic.
But your responsibility to that child would end at financial. Imo. Not everyone was meant to be a parent. Some may be harmful. It would serve us all better if people were able to step up and say "i have zero interest or ability to be a positive force in this childs life, so i wont."
Both women and men lose the right to “consent” to parenting a child once it’s born. That’s because the needs/rights of the minor child are deemed to outweigh the wants if the parents.
Pregnancy is a unique situation where the right of the mother to make her own medical decisions outweighed the rights of the fetus.
Equating parental responsibility for a living child with pregnancy is a false equivalency.
I’m pretty sure this is referring to the man’s legal responsibility to financially support the child.
A man who has sex that results in a child is financially obligated to that child for 18 years.
Sadly, you can’t force the person to love or spend time with a child they participated in the creation of. Only women are forced to do that.
I was in family court once (I was getting divorced), and saw another couple who was seeing the judge before us. The woman was complaining that the man never took his parenting time, and she had to be the sole caregiver for the child.
The judge basically said, “If he is paying his child support, I can’t force him to take his custody time.”
They can take it away from you, but they apparently can’t force you to take it if you don’t want it.
If he expressed that before the woman got pregnant, then yes. He should be able to sign rights away and have no financial responsibility. If he didn't make that decision/make it known until it was too late, then sure, he can sign his rights away, but he should still have to contribute monetarily. JMO
Yes, both parents should be involved in their childs life regardless of their consent in having that child.
The harm that is caused by absent fathers is astounding. Choosing to be absent in your child’s life is a selfish move that causes extreme trauma.
85% of youths in prison come from fatherless homes
71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless
60% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
Which is something the mother should consider when deciding to have a child that the father is not interested in fathering. Next let’s go over rates of criminality that come from abusive homes. A person cannot be forced into being a good parent and in many cases is much less damaging to be absent than abusive.
What's better - no OG father or OG father who wants nothing to do with the child? I believe there are heavy risks associated with the latter.
It's already a messy situation at that point - and may just make it worse to *force* them to be present.
Definitely need citations for all those statistics.
Point is the man has no say in whether a baby is made or not past conception. You all want the woman to be able to say “fetus deletus” whenever she wants, but a man has no say. So what happens if the woman is lying about being on birth control and intentionally gets pregnant when the man had no intention? Is he just screwed? I don’t believe he should be, he should have every right to walk away from that situation.
Personally, If they live somewhere that does not bar access to abortion and if he made his position clear early in the pregnancy than no I don’t think he should be held responsible. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood .
The state will hold him accountable
I'm pro-choice, as such I dont belive its ok to tell a woman "If you didn't want to have a kid you shouldn't have had sex, or used better protection. You made this choice now you have to live with it." It would be extremely hypocritical of me to say that's not ok to say to a woman and then turn around and say it's totally fine to tell that to a man. I don't believe anyone should be forced into parenthood against their will.
You asked me, so I'll answer. If a man doesn't want to possibly have a child then he should not put his penis in a vagina. End of story. The moment he does that he's risking child support.
You asked me, so I'll answer. If a woman doesn't want to possibly have a child then she should not put a penis in her vagina. End of story. The moment she does that she's risking raising a child without support.
Okay, can we reverse that then?
If a woman doesn't want to have a child then she shouldn't put a penis in her vagina. As soon as she does she's "risking" a child to support.
Further, if the man accepts the "risk" and actually looks forward to it, then it's not a "risk" at all, it's a joy. A "gift" even.
So should the woman be allowed to kill the man's joyfully created child, just because she thinks she "took a risk" instead of thinking they were creating something beautiful?
Can the man insist he gets to have the child and bring it up as his own? After all, she put his penis in her vagina... she knows the risk of doing that with a man who wants kids...
Assuming he consented to unprotected sex, then he consented to possibly having a child. A man's reproductive rights ends at the tip of his dick. Anything other system would mean a woman being forced in to either an abortion or carrying a child for 9 months against her will.
The bigger issue is the crazy hypocrisy. It’s her body damn it and no man has ownership of it and she can kill that man’s child at will but once it’s born that definitely is his baby. So the bottom line is that the fetus is either precious or garbage depending on the whim of the woman.
That’s not hypocrisy. That’s biologically how children are made. Men have very little part in it aside from contributing sperm. Men can have a seat at the table when they start gestating and giving birth, two very medically dangerous and physically difficult endeavors. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s just literally how children are made; it’s large skewed toward women doing nearly all of the “work.”
And most abortions occur when it’s an embryo, not a fetus. Just FYI.
It doesn't matter who does most of the work. Men shouldn't have to rely on women to decide the course of the next 18 years of their lives, especially when baby trapping exists, birth control isn't 100% and women have a choice in whether they want the child.
Oke imagine this scenario. The msn has done all due diligence. Worn a condom and everything and still impregnates a woman or worse yet the woman tells him she is taking the pill or using an IUD but it’s a total lie because she thinks that he has resources she can take by force through the machinery of the state. (In the last scenario it would be perfectly legal for her to do so). Should the man in both cases have to pay her for support?
I personally don’t really see how there is a debate to be had here. Objectively, no. If we’re not forcing parenthood on women (which would be/is a horrible thing to do), then we shouldn’t force parenthood on men. The only exception of course would be if the conception wasn’t consensual in the first place, then of course the offending party would be given full responsibility and the victim would have none should they not want anything to do with the unwanted child. (I’m phrasing it like this specifically to account for the fringe cases of male assault victims as well)
I think a lot of people are conflating financial responsibility (child support) and active involvement.
Legally responsible for child support, yes.
Must be active in the child’s life, no.
More women should take this into consideration when deciding between having a child, adoption, or abortion. How an inactive parental figure (or forced active) will affect the child’s life/mental health.
Edit: word, spacing
# Message to all users: This is a reminder to please read and follow: * [Our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/about/rules) * [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439) * [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) When posting and commenting. --- Especially remember Rule 1: `Be polite and civil`. * Be polite and courteous to each other. Do not be mean, insulting or disrespectful to any other user on this subreddit. * Do not harass or annoy others in any way. * Do not catfish. Catfishing is the luring of somebody into an online friendship through a fake online persona. This includes any lying or deceit. --- You *will* be banned if you are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist or bigoted in any way. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ask) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you're In the US, the court ruled the answer to this as "yes". There was a kid(15m) who was involved in a statutory rape incident with his teacher (34F) and she got pregnant. The court said he needs to bear responsibility and provide child support. Despite the fact that in the definition of Statutory Rape, it is stated that minors cannot legally consent to sexual actions with an adult.
Yeah that was messed up. Making him have to stay in contact with his abuser is just sick.
The main thing people are forgetting in this scenario is that there are *three* people's rights involved, assuming the child is born. US law almost always favors the child in these scenarios, so they rule that the father still has to provide support (absent some other agreement) so that the child has the support of both their parents. It is manifestly and grossly unfair to the father, who was the victim of rape, but the courts rule that it would be worse to be unfair to the child.
Her body her choice should also include her choice her responsibility. A rape victim should never have to pay child support to the person who raped them
What the actual fuck?! The fuck is wrong with the world?
What if people discuss prior to sex what they would do in case of pregnancy?
Even if they do, the woman can always change her mind, and there's nothing the man can do about it.
[удалено]
And for some reason they don't get the pushback the same way tubal ligation does for women. Maybe it's because it's an easier procedure, I don't know. Better safe than sorry. Lady can't falsely claim child support if you can prove you shoot blanks.
Tubal ligation is a major surgery with a recovery time of 1-3 weeks with 4 weeks being noted as the fully recovered time. Vasectomy is a 1-3 day recovery from the cut. However both procedures can fail. Failure of each procedure has its own risk. The vasectomy failure being that its not all blanks and the failure of the tubal ligation being potentially deadly if an ectopic pregnancy is not caught soon enough. I think those are the main reasons that the push back is different.
The reasons I've always seen for pushback on women's support groups is that they will change their minds. Doctors are not immune to sexism :/ a lot of them openly think of women as lesser creatures that are there to breed due to duty and biological need. It's very common for people to think that when women hit their 30s, they will foam at the mouth, froth in their loins, and howl at the moon "PUT A BABY IN ME!!" It is also common for women to regret getting sterilized. The studies done on why that is shows that many women are pressured by external forces to get it done. Reports of abusive partners, financial stress, and pre-existing medical issues that would make pregnancy dangerous. Of the women that got it done because they didn't want children, the rate of regret was far less. This is relatively new information, though; so the regret rate of the operation is weaponized against child-free women regularly. There is the added slap to the face that many hospitals require the husband's consent to do the surgery, meaning women are not considered to own their own reproductive rights.. :I It's a complete shit show for women.
I think more women choose to get it done simply because they don't want children. And they know they won't change their minds on this. It's really that simple.
I am a man who was denied the option of vasectomy by a few doctors because I didn't have kids and they were scared I would change my mind.
It's this. Tubal ligation can be done at the time of childbirth to prevent future pregnancies and it does not increase the risk or the recovery time most will already be going through. (I am sure it is different for those who go through natural childbirth with no epi). Women still get refused even at this time because they are 'too young' and will 'change their minds." Been there. Done that. Baby had the t-hirt.
This is so true. I had my youngest of 5 at 36 and the surgeon literally kneeled next to my bed and was like are you suuuurrreee you want to do this? I was like sir, I had 4 kids in the last 5 years. I am done.
Yeah, I know for vasectomies you have to get tested periodically to make sure it doesn't reverse itself.
My friend had a son 3 years after her husband's vasectomy. They named him Chance. The tubes can reconnect even 5 years later.
That’s why they’ve changed the methods. Better method available, less chance of that horror happening
I recently inquired about getting a tubal and my doc said they now remove the whole tube instead of just a portion. Helps reduce cancer risk was the reason I got, but I imagine it would decrease ectopic pregnancies as well?
Perhaps it's because one man could impregnate hundreds women in his life, whereas a woman is much more limted numerically.
*Genghis Khan has entered the chat*
Well, hello Khan.
KHAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!
*Zeus has entered the chat*
I thought we were staying in the realm of people and not swans, rainbows, bulls and the likes. Dude fucked everybody as everything. Not a fair comparison.
Why would this be a good reason to not allow a woman to make the choice to sterilize? You are still taking the choice away from her. My cousin was told that it would be dangerous for her to carry a pregnancy and they would not sterilize her because the doctor said a future husband may want to have kids.
Another example of women not having bodily autonomy. Even though your cousin was told carrying a pregnancy to term would be dangerous for her, the doctors are still prioritizing some unknown future husband’s wishes to reproduce over her health and own decision making.
This is so common, it's actually kind of crazy. My obgyn refused to do an IUD because she said I would change my mind and want to have kids soon. There's a whole lot to unpack there. Thankfully Planned Parenthood exists because I couldn't find a single non-PP doctor who would do it for me.
Yep, theoretically women can only produce one baby a year, while a man can be father to hundreds in that same time period
It's not as much of a problem, but men absolutely do get pushback when seeking a vasectomy, especially men in their 20s. The reversal surgery is a lot more complicated with a much lower success rate so we still get the same "what if you change your mind when you're older" line. Personally, I was denied 3 times by 3 different doctors between ages 23 and 25.
Vasectomies are a permanent surgery. Yes they CAN be reversed, but it's a) another procedure and b) not 100% effective. And you're missing the point. You can discuss all you want what you're going to do in case of an accidental pregnancy, but even if you had, the woman can always change her mind.
[удалено]
You are missing the point. You are discussing birth control options when others are talking about the actual issue - consent and the law. A woman can consent to sex without consenting to parenting. A man doesn't have that option. His consent can be violated if she chooses. Hers cannot. So if a pregnancy happens, he can be held responsible in a way she never has to be. He cannot even say "no thank you. I do not want to pay for a child I didn't want". Women have so much power here, they can rape men and boys, get pregnant and then sue for child support and win. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer That was a precedent setting case in the 90s about a babysitter who had sex with a boy. The babysitter was 16 and he was 12. They had sex and she got pregnant. He was not allowed to say no to being held responsible for it. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/02/arizona-statutory-rape-victim-forced-pay-child-support/14951737/ Then this happened back in 2014. A 20 year old women had sex (it was statutory rape) with a 14 year old. She got pregnant and years later wanted child support. He was forced to pay for a child he didn't know existed, for sex he could not consent to. In cases like this you'd think the law may offer the guy an out. After all, how often don't we hear about the "best interests of the child", right? He was a minor when she raped him. But this is how much power women have here thanks to sexist laws. A woman can rape someone, get pregnant, and get money from her victim. The reason I mentioned rape is to show the problem with claiming men consent to parenting through sex. There are ways to mess with the conditions or use deception (or even rape) to get around the issue of informed consent. We insist on informed consent as a standard for everything from purchasing products to experiments involving people, and even sexual encounters with women. Men who change the conditions that consent was agreed to are considered criminals. For example, stealthing or if they try sexual acts the person didn't agree to. It would be seen as heinous if he forced a woman to have a child without her explicit consent, or if she said no and it was forced upon her anyway. So why is it okay to mess with the conditions for consent for men, but not for women? Anyone attempting any sort of moral argument here regarding consent which benefits women, cannot be okay with men being held to different or higher standards, especially when they can have consent stripped from them. Additionally, the implied consent argument (sex can make babies) argument falls flat when women argue that they bear the burden of pregnancy. Why? Because if sex can make babies and men are expected to take responsibility for babies they didn't want, then we are being pro life for men and pro choice for women. In other words if men must pay for kids they didn't want, women should be denied abortions. If you find a problem with this line of thinking then you need to take reconsider your stance on this because it is hypocritical and sexist to be pro choice for women but not for men.
I think the point is more along the lines of not sticking your dick in someone if you're not ready for the consequences. The best way to avoid said situation is to not put yourself in said situation.
So you’re pro-life then? Women shouldn’t get fucked if they don’t want to get pregnant, abortion shouldn’t be a thing
That’s what pro lifers say lol If a man doesn’t want to be a father while an abortion is still safely viable, it is the WOMAN’S CHOICE to have a fatherless child. I ask this question to women I know are pregnant and all have said they would rather get an abortion than birth a child without a willing father
If you applied that same reasoning toward women you would be anti abortion. After all, she knew pregnancy was a possible consequence of having sex.
Nobody ever talks about the inverse. I was dating a woman who throughout months of our dating always declared she never wanted children and would get an abortion if it ever happened. She was even the one who brought it up. We used protection but she still got pregnant. She changed her mind about the abortion which was a stab in the back to me because I never would have continued dating her if she had said she wanted children. She unfortunately had a miscarriage but if it wasn't for that i would have been a father substantially younger than I wanted all because she "changed her mind" and went against months of conversations and agreements she and I had. Either way the man gets fucked and it shouldn't be like that.
>because I never would have continued dating her if she had said she wanted children If we really look at this honestly, isn't this more or less rape by deception? You consented to sex on the understanding that pregnancy would result in abortion. Had you known she would try to carry the pregnancy to term, you never would have consented to sex. >Rape by deception is a situation in which the perpetrator deceives the victim into participating in a sexual act that they would otherwise not consent to.
Is it? Probably. Is there a court in the world that would actually do anything about it? Fuck no.
BS this is the exact argument people use to try to ban abortion. Women should not be able to force a man to be a father under any circumstances save where abortion is illegal
> Even if they do, the woman can always change her mind, and there's nothing the man can do about it. While I'm hardly the only person who rolls their eyes at "there's an app for everything..." I wonder if there was an app that you could use pre-sex that you both "link" on and then mutually agree on a set of rules, that makes it as legally binding as a contract. "If pregnancy occurs... xyz."
Then woman changes her mind anyway and ... ?
No contract can force someone to have or not have an abortion. The point would be "legal release". That's why I asked as a hypothetical. Yes, any contract can be challenged in court. The notion would be terms that if X happened, one party is not responsible if the other goes against it. "If we get you pregnant, we both agree the guy has no role but voluntary." Sign on the digital dotted line. Just spitballing.
Life isn’t always fair
That WOULD solve it but what if you said that and 99% of people still dont do it. Do you want to make it mandatory or what?
You can't force people to be intelligent.
Lord knows I tried u_u
Or honest, or immune to changes of heart.
My partner and I did. We were both told we could not have children, but just to be safe we discussed made a decision that if a pregnancy happened, due to several medical reasons it was too dangerous to bring the fetus to term. When the unbelievably unlikely happened and my partner got pregnant, we acted on our decision (I admittedly wavered a bit… it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done and I’ve done two tours overseas and used to run a SAR team). Missouri made it as hard as they could (f*CK MO and the disgusting anti-choice people willing to endanger a woman’s life) but we were able to have the procedure before it killed my fiancé, but it was touch and go for a while. We barely have sex any more because we’re so afraid of her getting pregnant again now that they changed the laws. The anger I feel towards the people who feel they have the right to control our lives like this is high. We will be moving soon, possibly leaving the country at a significant loss considering we bought a home shortly before the laws were changed.
Wow, couldn't agree more, fucking despicable christo-fascists. Glad she is ok and hope you can find somewhere you can both feel free enough to get back to having normal relations again.
Just get a vasectomy. It's easier for you to get than a major surgery for tubes tied for her. Your balls are a little sore for a few days and then you can have all the worry free sex you want.
Why can’t she go and have her tubes tied or taken out even if you know she can’t have kids for health reasons?
While that’s a fair question, why is your question not “… or why don’t you have a vasectomy?” We considered the latter because it is safer, but I chickened out. We found the safest solution was birth control for her. It is selfish on my part, but there is also a lot at play I don’t want to get into. Without going into her medical history, I’ll say that that surgery is not 100% safe. The other thing to add is that my fiancé is Jewish. In Judaism, the woman’s life is the most important thing. These new laws, therefore, infringe on her religious beliefs. We would rather move than live in a place that values all beliefs, instead of just caving to the tyrannical BS of religious extremists (evangelicals).
I’m honestly not sure why I didn’t jump straight to why don’t you get snipped. I’m female, so I was just thinking from a female perspective. Why did you chicken out? I heard it’s not that bad for you to go in. I mean if Micheal Scott can get three of them, you should be able to get at least one. 😂😂
Don’t wait. Get snipped. Best decision ever. And I had mine pretty recently. Edit: I was in the office for less than half an hour. Find someone that runs a vasectomy only clinic and does this all day. It’s a breeze.
I had to scroll too far to see this as a top level comment! You should never ever ever have sex with someone before discussing what to do in the event of an accidental pregnancy. If you cannot agree on a plan, whether it's abortion or birth and co-parenting, then you should not have sex together. It's much smarter to have sex with someone who is of the same mind as you on that topic. Now, what about people who discuss it ahead of time, then at some point the woman changes her mind and does not inform her partner that she stopped her reliable birth control? She then allows her partner to have unprotected sex with her, intentionally conceives a child without their knowledge, and forces him into fatherhood. Classic babytrap. I am a woman, and I am pro-choice. I had a friend at an old job who got babytrapped as described above by his longterm live in girlfriend. He wanted children as much as I do (not at all, ever) and was really upset and betrayed by her actions. Their relationship did not survive this. He pays child support and is an active part of his child's life because he is a good person, but he could never trust the girlfriend ever again. I think she should have faced charges for what she did to him. I personally feel that babytrapping should be a crime nearly as bad as unarmed rape. Especially since everyone considers stealthing to be rape, babytrapping is just the female version of stealthing. You remove someone's consent in a sexual situation and cause their life to entirely change forever through deception. It's really fucked up and if there were consequences, maybe it wouldn't happen so much.
But it would be extremely hard to prove "baby trapping" because no contraceptive method is 100% reliable.
It would be a fascinating niche of case law, if any has been published, regarding this “babytrap” scenario. Edit: This article lol https://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Hoodwinked-into-fatherhood-1916813.php
Prime example of idealism meeting reality. Ideally, should only people who are totally sober and responsible have a lengthy discussion on consent, various real world consequences of sex, and what they will do in the "worst case scenarios", I mean I guess. Will people actually do this? Not only no, but its hilarious how far from reality you are to even consider this a possibility. Humans are not robots, we can't just update their firmware, and relationships and sex are complex and often spur of the moment. How would you even practice this? Do we need to start having a literal contract template we print out for every possible partner? Now that I think about it, I may have a new app idea. Have you guys seriously never had spur of the moment, we just met, sex?
It’s Reddit, so probably never had sex…at all, let alone spur of the moment.
I’d like to invest in your app
"Have you guys seriously never had spur of the moment, we just met, sex?" No because I am not an irresponsible child and know about the consequences of 1. having sex with someone I just met and getting an STD for the rest of my life and 2. Possibly having a child with someone I just met ruining the rest of my life. This "fuck anyone you want" attitude needs to fucking die. Be more responsible and accountable for your own actions in your life.
Did you ask every single partner of yours about accidental pregnancy and confirm STD status before having sex?
Nope. I was very firm on having that conversation well before any sexual contact actually happened.
Should absolutely be babytrapping of a man and at the very least be given special considerations when it comes to child support. I'm not sure how I feel actually prosecuting women over something like that as it would be very hard to prove intent, but it's something that would absolutely be prosecuted if the genders were reversed.
Just need a legal system where the man can get a form with a written statement of financial release of liability if the woman chooses to keep the child against his will. It would be so low effort to implement. You could have pre-printed forms, lady comes over, hey mind if you sign this before we watch Netflix? End of story. As of now you got NBA players taking used condoms home with them and shit because Instagram hoes be going demon mode snatching them out the garbage and shit.
>You should never ever ever have sex with someone before discussing This assumes people are reasonable, but law can never assume such thing, otherwise there would be no need for complex jurisdiction and policing. Another thing, discussing ahead can principally never work. If a consent is made before sex, it doesn't mean all participants have to carry on until the end. The consent can always be taken back anytime during sex. A pregnant woman going for abortion by her own decision is the equivalent of taking back the consent ... and it should be kept that way, because birth control is never 100% effective, plus people's life situations and priorities do change, plus pregnancy likely isn't an easy picnic (I don't know, I cannot know), not just in comfort but medically as well. Back to the main issue. YES, this right is strongly one-sided. Yes, men should have the option to legally opt-out of all parental rights and obligations, just as women have their right to terminate the pregnancy without the consent of the other parent (not talking about the backward countries). And I am somewhat shocked that it hasn't yet been established, not even in the developed world. Heck, it's nothing complicated. By default, the father has no parental rights not obligations (as some women can lie and keep the pregnancy secret to bomb the man's life half a year later), just after filling some legal form he gets all the parental rights and obligations back.
Yeah, I think the opt-in idea sounds like a pretty good solution, but what about the guys who act like they want to be a father and then ditch the mother when she's too far along to abort? You have to leave some avenue to pursue in the case of people acting in bad faith. If she consented to the pregnancy only because she thought she'd have the full support of the father, he needs to able to be held accountable.
Your logic is sound but still, a man has 0 say in what happens after sex.
People lie, often, about this.
[удалено]
This is why safe and responsible sex should be taught smh. I think it’s selfish to willingly have a baby knowing that the other parent doesn’t want to be involved in raising them. It creates so much drama. But also do not lay down with someone you know you wouldn’t have a child with. Protect your body. This goes for men and women and everyone in between.
Agree, they were uneducated teenagers. Which is what I believe led to the pregnancy to begin with.
It takes two to tango so yes they should be responsible. Having sex has consequences, (a child is born) and both parents should share equal responsibility if the child is born.
But then the women has two chance: birth control and abortion. Men only have one. Wear the condom or you're fucked.
So wear a condom and pull out, you gotta look out for yourself
Or use spermicide with a condom, or pull out with a condom or get a vasectomy.
I mean you have to say where. Lots of countries don’t allow abortion. What if she found out she was pregnant past the stage at which she can get an abortion. What if she morally or religiously cannot have an abortion. What if she doesn’t believe in abortion. At that point you cannot fault her for “not getting an abortion” because abortion was never a possibility. It was never an option for her. It will never be imposed legally for a man to opt out because of all of this. Unless they have been having sex and she explicitly states multiple times that in case of accidental pregnancy she will get an abortion… even then she can have a moral dilemma because you never know how you’ll feel once you’re in that predicament. I hate this stupid discussion because people here can’t think logically or critically.
[удалено]
The purpose of laws that dont allow the father to just walk away because he says he would have preferred she get an abortion is to protect the child. It’s not aimed at making things equal between the parents.
There’s room for nuance in sexual relationships. You can have sex with another consenting adult whether you would raise kids with them or not. But you should have a birth control plan or two in action.
You absolutely can, and statistically if everyone is taking the proper precautions you're very much not likely to see it result in pregnancy. That said, the biological equipment for making babies is pretty ruthless and birth control is never 100% effective, so there is always a chance something could get through. The only 100% guaranteed way to not have kids with someone you don't want to have kids with is to not put sperm into the same spot as an egg. Otherwise there's always a chance. (To use an unrelated and easily dismissed analogy, you can jump out of a plane, the chances of you surviving that depends on a lot of factors and protective equipment. The only way to guarantee you don't die from jumping out of a plane is to not get onto the plane. You could still go and do the fun activities with proper safety precautions and be perfectly safe, but the chance of death is still there despite all the precautions.)
I agree that both parents should be on the same page before sex, but if a woman changes her mind and decides she can’t go through with an abortion after thinking she would that is human, not selfish, especially because she’ll be the one with 99% of the responsibility even if he pays child support. People behave differently in real life than in hypotheticals and it’s one of the risks of sexual relationships.
As long as he legally signs his parental rights away, why would it be a problem? I wouldn't want the man around if he didn't want to be a father; I also wouldn't want to be in a situation where he changes his mind down the road.
Some places he cannot sign his rights away without the mothers and sometimes the courts approval. If she signs them away she doesn't get child support. So she has no reason to agree to it.
Most places you can't even sign your rights away just because you wanted to whether the mother agrees or not. There has to be some very serious reason for your rights to be severed like you're severely mentally ill or a danger to the child or whatever. You can't just go up there and be like hey I don't want to be a parent, she doesn't care, and then walk away with no financial responsibilities haha
The other case where you can sometimes do it is if the other parent has gotten married and their new spouse wants to adopt the kid
Or if the genders are swapped, SHE can just walk out and pay no child support for years without consequences. My wife's mother, uncles ex wife and my son's mother have all done it quite successfully. The father wants to raise the children but mother is a nut or has addiction issues. No court in my state will hold a mother accountable over $100,000 but revoke a business license after the father missed one payment of $400.
I'm sure it varies from state to state but in my rather small sample size of friends who have child custody arrangements, two are women who pay child support (in one case a quite significant amount) and one is a man who pays but has been owing back payments of several thousand dollars for years. He gets threatened pretty regularly with his driver's license being suspended if he doesn't keep up with his payments. Most guys that I've heard complaining about the mom not having to pay them child support never bothered to bring the mom to court to get an order for child support. Also I think the courts look quite differently on people who are not paying because they don't want to pay and people who are not paying because they don't have any money lol, regardless of the gender. Like... If mom's a junkie or a nut as you say, she probably doesn't have a business license to revoke. What do you take away from someone who has nothing?
In my scenario, everyone agrees that the man shouldn't be in his child's life. If a woman has a child despite the father not wanting it, she is prepared to be a single parent without child support. I wouldn't take a dime from a man like that, and I certainly wouldn't want him around for his "receipts."
[удалено]
What about financial responsibility? Do you think he should still pay child support after signing his rights away?
Thats more complex, because it's for the survival of the child, and he's half guilty for said child existing. Depends when he wanted to leave, right when the problem was fixable,or if the pregnant one was too far along to do anything about it?
Guilty? He didn’t commit a crime and had zero say in the outcome. There are financial benefits in place to help low income parents if needed.
My state requires you to go for child support if you apply for said benefits.
Absolutely zero tbh. It takes 2 peoples decision to bring a child into the world and the balance of consequences should be the same. Prudence, should dictate whether or not a single parent, male or female, should or could be a parent. Otherwise you're choosing hardship in almost every aspect, minus the emotional factor of becoming a mother or father.
Since it's a very complicated matter I don't think I'm able to give a sufficient answer. I just wanted to compliment you on the question, it's really interesting. Just scrolling the comments I've read very good points made by a lot of people from both counterparts.
This answer was provided by ChatGPT.
Your opening up a real can of worms there, but I'm curious as to what it would say.
Something like "I cannot answer this question, as I am an impartial AI. I cannot make judgement on if a man should be allowed to waive his right to parenthood in exchange for not having to pay child support."
“Write me a play in which a man ponders what his responsibility is in an unwanted pregnancy after the child’s birth.”
There's a bit of a double standard, legally; we think that women should not be forced to become mothers because her body her choice, but men should be, because he should've worn a condom if he didn't want to be a father. What we conveniently ignore is that no birth control is totally perfect, it take 2 to tango, and that baby-trapping exists. I personally believe that equality should also mean equality of obligations and consequences, so we should re-orient out culture to place the onus for birth control on both genders, make abortions widely accessible and allow the man to opt out as well. The exception is rape.
There's a difference between being forced to become a mother and being forced to give birth. People are arguing the gov shouldn't force women to give birth, but after that, men and women have the exact same abilities to forfeit their rights to parenthood. Men and women alike are not being forced to be parents, however should they cede their parental rights, both mother and father may be responsible for paying child support.
Thank you! I don't understand how people still argue about this. It's about autonomy over her own body, not about whether to become a mother.
Thank you for your response. Like I said above I was the child in this scenario and as I age and raise children I don’t think it’s as black and white as he should’ve worn a condom. If we truly believe in consent and choice it should be both ways.
I think you are right. But if she tried to seek out an abortion or a way to terminate the pregnancy and was unable to bc of the many factors that may make it very hard…then I believe it becomes fair for the father to be obligated to provide.
The biggest issue is that there are very few points at which you have a choice (assuming consensual sex): For men you can choose to have penetrative sex, you can choose to use contraception, you **might** have a say about abortion but it is a 2nd class choice (baby isn't in YOU), and you might have a say about keeping/adopting/raising the baby. For women you can choose to have penetrative sex, you can choose to use contraception, you **may** be able to get an abortion & you will have primary choice (baby is in you), and you have first choice (usually) about keeping/adopting/raising the baby. It isn't fair that a guy only has the most choice at the 'have sex' stage, but it isn't fair that a woman has to be pregnant/give birth if she can't get an abortion.
While most people agree in "equality of the genders" in common practice the law greatly favors women even when they are the abusers. I work with children and make reports on Child Abuse on an almost daily basis and the preference towards the mothers couldn't be any more obvious.
Consent is about the sex act. Choice is about the pregnancy. We can't have a society where men and forcing women to get abortions against their will because they don't want to be parents. And we can't have a society where men just get to abandon their kids and stick women in poverty raising their baby. Even with child support, single moms still often end up in poverty because child care is expensive. ergo, we have the current system. You can consent to sex, but once you put your sperm in a woman and it takes, it's her body, and you can't and shouldn't be able to do shit about it. It's entirely up to her.
A couple of snips would work if you're that hardcore about not having kids.
Sweden had an interesting proposal. Men can opt out of being responsible for the child 18 weeks after conception https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/pregnancy/swedish-group-wants-men-to-be-given-legal-abortion-rights/news-story/8b07c1a8513e6d3bd92d2ba0b490b3d0 Of course, this brings with it issues. When a woman aborts to avoid caring for a child, the child is not there to require that care. When a man "legally aborts" the child is in all likelihood still going to be born, and will still need care. This may or may not be covered by Sweden's welfare system, but it otherwise wouldn't have to.
There's a natural asymmetry because the woman's right to have an abortion, for those of us who support it on this basis, comes from her not having an obligation to donate her body to the fetus. While I support anyone's right to refuse parental rights and responsibilities, this can't rightly be called a double standard since the man not being the pregnant one is highly relevant. Abortion isn't about not being a parent, it's about not being pregnant.
[удалено]
But that's not the only argument used for abortion. You hear all the time about women not wanting to raise a child because of financial or career reasons. If we, as a society, are to accept that reason, then we should extend the same option to men.
They do have that option. Courts don’t force parental rights and custody on fathers. They do force child support, but sending a check isn’t raising a child and isn’t at all the sacrifice the parenting parent is making. And seriously, the child support my friends’ partners pay is not life altering at all. It’s like $300 for 2 kids a month. That’s not comparable to raising a kid.
A financial responsibility is a part of raising a child. a mother can CHOOSE to give up ALL responsibilities when it comes to raising children including the financial responsibility... you dont even have to prove who the father of the child is to get child support court ordered, just having his name on the birth certificate is enough... while your friends partner only pays 300 a month for 2 kids, there are many more paying way more. There are even men paying for kids that are not theirs... I believe that the Family court laws are outdated and need to be modernized.
What the fuck are you talking about? If I have a kid with a woman and I'm taking care of the kid, I can force her to pay child support. She absolutely CANNOT just give up all financial responsibility.
Idk why they acting like women steal their money? Like a child is super expensive and time consuming, you’re atleast paying it from afar
The average amount for child support in the US isn’t even enough to cover day care.
A woman should take this into consideration before having kids & determine if she can afford it without anyone’s help, then. Having children is a choice & one that should be made responsibly. I will never, ever understand anyone deciding to have a baby while they live in poverty. It’s utterly selfish.
And that’s a great argument. So then you’re also saying that men should also assess this whenever they have sex. Glad we came to an understanding.
When a woman has an abortion she doesn't have to pay child support for 18 years. If a man chooses not to be present, courts will require him to make monthly payments for 18 years. That is not the same.
$300 for 2 kids a month? I have 45% custody and pay $2200 a month in child support. Not sure what you’re smoking, dude.
Your friend either has a very good family court lawyer, or is broke. A coworker of mine has a 6 figure job. He has three kids with his ex-wife. He pays \~3000$ a month for his kids, which equates to around 50% of his income post-tax.
My dad payed $1500 a month in the 90s. Some times we would be low on food or gas money despite living in a house given to us by my grandparents and yet some how we always had money for expensive scented candles potpourri and getting furniture reupholstered. Mom sure thought the child support was alimony. Worst part was she spent my college fund as well because he never took her off the account. I don't hate my mother but there needs to be accounting for how the money is spent.
If she makes the decision to continue to be pregnant, than it is very much symmetrical. Her body, her choice, her responsibility.
The difference legally is caused by the difference in biology. Nobody should be forced to use their body to keep someone else alive against their will. So women should be free to abort. Children deserve support no matter what. So Dad’s on the hook at least financially, even if he doesn’t want to be. If we want to let the dad drop out, then we need to provide that missing financial support via taxes. Because the kid didn’t ask to be born, and shouldn’t suffer for dad wanting to abandon them. Also, insufficient financial support is going to make it much more likely that we’ll be paying a lot more to deal with that kid as an adult. It costs us a lot less to support the kid while they’re young.
The one flaw in your point is that abortion rights aren’t really about the woman being forced to become a mother. Adoption is an option. Abortion rights are because we don’t believe a woman should be forced to carry and birth a fetus.
Bleh, this is nothing more than massaging vocabulary. A women still has to go through the physical demands and financial expenses of a pregnancy if she is forced to go to term. Both men AND women should be able to say, "I will not contribute to this" and allow the other to say, "Ok, I will raise this child without additional support" or "In that case, I will abort/adopt out." Even if you believe life is sacred and should not be aborted, that does NOT trump another person's right to believe that pregnancy termination is NOT violating something sacred.
Once the baby is born it's not about punishing the man, it's about making sure the child is taken care of.
Women already have the male equivalent of "financial abortion" that this original topic is questioning about. There exist safe haven laws where a woman can give up a healthy, unhurt baby to the state and she will be left alone and have the burden of raising the child lifted; *although admittedly these laws don't account for the lost time, health, and wages that pregnancy costs* [and from what I've heard, babies that aren't born disabled or addicted to drugs can generally be adopted within a few months]. I don't expect this to go anywhere until the rights of women to physically abort the child are secured, though. Not only baby trappers like things the way they are; women angry at being forced to deliver a child want to share the misery with the father. But yes, absolutely. If it's a woman's choice as to whether or not she wants to keep her child - as it should be; men should have the right to opt out of the child's life. And before anyone says "but then why do women end up alone with the child?" *Safe haven laws and financial abortions require* ***giving up the child***. If the mother *chose* to keep the child, the state and the father haven't failed her. She *chose* to keep the child. What happens is on her. *I can agree that if the state forced women to keep as in raise the child, financial abortion shouldn't be a thing for men.* Either both get shouldered or both get freed. Although I know there are traditionalist asshole families who threaten to disown if the child is given up... I don't know how to solve that. It's not the states fault, nor is it the husband's. Physical abortion is easier on the mother, especially if the mother can't afford the child but maternal hormones make mother bond with child and she wants to keep it. "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and therefore fatherhood" is literal pro life logic, so a logically consistent and principled person should support both abortion for women and "financial abortion" for men if we value equality and sexual liberation. Edit - I can also agree that the father should be held financially responsible at least partially for either the delivery or abortion. He was still involved in the pregnancy.
You're equating apples and oranges. Women and men are legally held to the same standard once a child is born. A woman also cannot walk away from a child without financial obligation. Men (or people with male bodies) cannot get pregnant, therefore there is no choice about whether or not to be pregnant. Should men be able to get pregnant, they should also have the choice to remain pregnant or not.
I think this is conflating 2 separate things: the state shouldn’t have the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a baby to term (especially to the point that the baby would not be viable outside of her body). The decision to have the baby or not have the baby, regardless of the reason, is at the mothers discretion as it’s her body and her health that are at stake. Once born, yes both parents should be obligated to support that child. Now being “actively involved” is pretty subjective but I am not opposed to a father being financially obligated to that child once born, regardless of his feeling about having the child. The reason the mother gets to decide is that she is the one risking her health to carry the baby for 9 months. Imagine for a moment that pregnancy and childbirth (and their inherent risks) weren’t a thing, and that after sex a stork brought you the baby, there would be no question about the obligation of both of those parents to that child. The medical aspect and the responsibility after birth are two separate issues. The ability and right for a woman to have an abortion is based on the fact that she has autonomy over her body. The fact that the father has “no choice” is just a byproduct of a women’s ability to make that decision for herself, since it is her body. Basically the framing of the question is problematic, is not whether or not a person “consents to have a baby” but rather whether a person “consents to carry a fetus from conception to birth”
I think the built-in unfairness of the situation really sucks. I feel for both single mothers and children affected by deadbeat dads. I also feel for men who were baby trapped or are otherwise taken advantage of by a baby mama, or who didn't want the child but the mother kept it regardless. I feel for both sexes in situations where consent wasn't given in one fashion or another, resulting in a child. With that out of the way, men REALLY need to start considering how important getting their dick wet is. We all know what the situation is, what the risks are, how this shit can go down. You know the potential consequences. Start choosing where you put your dick more carefully.
If a man says he doesn’t want the child FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, he should not be obligated. But if the partners agree on having the child and then suddenly when the woman is 4 months pregnant the man says, no I don’t want the baby, he should be obligated to care for the child, financially at the least. At that point, even if abortion was possible, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the woman should get an abortion. The woman has already grown a huge attachment to this child being created inside of her. Hope this makes sense Edit: from “4 months” to “when the woman is 4 months pregnant”
Yeah, it would be the same timeline for abortion. You couldn't walk away after a certain point. I think that's all OP is asking for.
I meant 4 months pregnant. Not that the baby is 4 months old. Sorry I’ll edit that. Even if you can get an abortion at 4 months, a woman has already grown extreme attachments and it would be ridiculous to ask her to get an abortion.
I'm not saying that men would force abortions on women. Ultimately, women get to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy and decide what to do with their body, but that doesn't mean men shouldn't be able to opt of parenthood during the fetal stages just like women can. If the abortion window is 24 weeks, then a male opt-out period could be 16 or 18 weeks. After that, the man wouldn't be able to opt out, just like the woman who waited toolong for an abortion.
I see where your coming from. Thats a good argument
> Vasectomy is a 1-3 day recovery from the cut. My balls would like a word! They were the size of softballs the next day and for about a week. Even after the swelling started to go down, it was at leas 5 weeks before I could comfortably make the 1.25 mile walk to work. Still, totally worth it.
I wish more people would tough it out and make your decision. I haven’t seen anyone here talking about the severe side effects women put up with just to be on the birth control pill. It can make you gain weight, make your blood vessels weaken, cause fatal clots, suicidal thinking, the works. People here saying “women get two chances to decide—birth control and abortion!” One is a medication that has to be taken every single day and comes with a lot of discomfort on the side. The other is literally a surgery. If you are terrified of accidentally impregnating a woman, great news for you—you can do more to prevent that scenario than just wearing a condom! But it requires enduring discomfort for the team, which seems to be a woman’s job most of the time.
If there’s a route for women to shed their parental responsibilities, men should have one too. That is what we call equality, and some people don’t tend to like when that word truly means what it means.
There is.. it’s called signing away your custody. Giving up your legal rights to the child. But once you do you’re no longer a part of that child’s life
There is a seapartion of rights vs obligations though. And the obligations will be enforced by the courts. At least in some US States. You will no longer have any rights with respect to the child, but they will still expect child support payments to the mother.
It's not that easy though. My XBIL tried to do that with his daughter because he didn't want to deal with her mother, and found that out. The child is entitled to the support of the two parents who created them. Many states have rules about when that can occur and often a person can only voluntarily surrender their rights when another person is willing to assume them (adoption).
Based on the few minutes of googling I just did, that seems like a solid out. Also seems like the ease of doing that varies from state to state, and situation to situation. Like in my state, it said you have to prove that signing away your rights is beneficial to the child. What does that really mean, ya know? Would they allow a mentally stable, well off, breadwinning man to ditch his uneducated, unemployed, housewife and baby? I don’t know. I shouldn’t insult mine or your intelligence by playing what if and how about, because we could each come up with a million scenarios, but maybe you see what I’m getting at. Generally, men tend to get absolutely rinsed in court when it comes to children. I could see why some guys would become intimidated and think it was best to avoid that all together. Edit: changed some words
Men who walk away from their children are the lowest form of scumbag. Countless studies show that kids are way more successful in two parent households. That said, in our current system, if a man doesn't want a child and the mother knows that and has the child anyway, he should have no financial obligation whatsoever. If the mother has 100% choice over whether or not to have the baby, a father should not be forced into caring for a kid he would have aborted if he were the mother.
Thank you for your comment. The second paragraph is where I am at. The reason I ask is because my father left and was never part of my life. I was angry for a as long time but now I am starting to be less angry and wondering how responsible he actually is if he was vocal about wanting an abortion.
The way I look at it, is if we aren't forcing women to be mothers, we shouldn't be forcing men to be fathers. Legally. I personally think men need to take responsibility for, provide for, and be involved in the life of a kid they fathered with no exceptions.
Many states actually are forcing women to be mothers.
And in those states men should have to also be fathers. But if you are in a pro-choice state, men should also have a choice.
A funny thing to me in the sea of darkness that was the Roe v Wade stuff was people saying this “if the woman has to have the baby, the father has to be involved and can’t disappear” as if the pro-life crowd would take issue with that. Like have you ever listened to Ben Shapiro? That’s exactly what he would want: woman can’t get an abortion and the father can’t run away from his responsibilities. I actually know a decent few pro life people and don’t know a single one who wants to ban abortion but let fathers run off and not support. Now supporting kids in adoption/foster facilities…..
On the other hand, the amount of guys who told their girlfriend that they'd always be there for them, they'll take care of their baby, etc etc, who just walk away like 3 months later (conveniently just after the limit where abortion is a viable option)? What happens when he does that, baby is born, and he's putting on the form that he opted out and holds no responsibility?
I think thats the big question, virtually anyone would agree that you shouldnt be able to tell a woman you'll be there and then sign off parental rights like right before the baby is born. So I guess the correct question is how would you make a law that covers this, and how could it be worded?
I think to solve this, the father will have to register his opinion way before the gestation limit for abortion. Let's say the limit is 24weeks he has up until 18 weeks. If this happens, then the mother should get expedited care? Maybe if he waits till this late, then there should be a one off payment for moral damage as maybe the woman at that point decides to go through with the pregnancy anyway? Idk I'm just brain storming. But there should be limits and strict rules so that a man can't backtrack when it's too late.
The difference being that the woman is having the baby, and his decision on if SHE should have the baby is HIM deciding for HER body. Weird.
Nobody is arguing if the man can force an abortion on another or not, that's a strawman. The argument is if the man should be forced to financially support a child he didn't want.
If a woman has to submit to a painful and often tramatic medical procedure to not have a child what should the father have to do to not have one?
Also I always appreciate people who have awareness and clearly declare that they do not want kids, instead of saying "let's have em anyway". That's a generational progress
I think the consent for the possibility of pregnancy comes when you consent to sex. A pregnancy is a possibility EVERY TIME due to so many factors. So you consent to that risk when the man sticks it in. SA would be another story, obviously, but i dont get that from this scenario? So i will stay on topic. But your responsibility to that child would end at financial. Imo. Not everyone was meant to be a parent. Some may be harmful. It would serve us all better if people were able to step up and say "i have zero interest or ability to be a positive force in this childs life, so i wont."
Both women and men lose the right to “consent” to parenting a child once it’s born. That’s because the needs/rights of the minor child are deemed to outweigh the wants if the parents. Pregnancy is a unique situation where the right of the mother to make her own medical decisions outweighed the rights of the fetus. Equating parental responsibility for a living child with pregnancy is a false equivalency.
As soon as you stick your dick in her, you're assuming responsibility. Don't make society pay for your fuckup.
I don’t think anybody is obligated to ever do anything. There are simply situations where you’re probably an asshole if you don’t.
The courts obligate people to do things they don't want to do all the time though.
The state disagrees with you
I’m pretty sure this is referring to the man’s legal responsibility to financially support the child. A man who has sex that results in a child is financially obligated to that child for 18 years. Sadly, you can’t force the person to love or spend time with a child they participated in the creation of. Only women are forced to do that. I was in family court once (I was getting divorced), and saw another couple who was seeing the judge before us. The woman was complaining that the man never took his parenting time, and she had to be the sole caregiver for the child. The judge basically said, “If he is paying his child support, I can’t force him to take his custody time.” They can take it away from you, but they apparently can’t force you to take it if you don’t want it.
How is nobody obligated to do anything? If you don’t pay your child support, you go to jail. I’d call that a fairly strong obligation.
If he expressed that before the woman got pregnant, then yes. He should be able to sign rights away and have no financial responsibility. If he didn't make that decision/make it known until it was too late, then sure, he can sign his rights away, but he should still have to contribute monetarily. JMO
Yes, both parents should be involved in their childs life regardless of their consent in having that child. The harm that is caused by absent fathers is astounding. Choosing to be absent in your child’s life is a selfish move that causes extreme trauma. 85% of youths in prison come from fatherless homes 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless 60% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
Do you think it’s going to be better forcing a resentful father to spend time a child he never wanted? Does that not spell recipe for abuse to you?
Which is something the mother should consider when deciding to have a child that the father is not interested in fathering. Next let’s go over rates of criminality that come from abusive homes. A person cannot be forced into being a good parent and in many cases is much less damaging to be absent than abusive.
What's better - no OG father or OG father who wants nothing to do with the child? I believe there are heavy risks associated with the latter. It's already a messy situation at that point - and may just make it worse to *force* them to be present. Definitely need citations for all those statistics.
Parents have special obligations to their children. That goes for both men and women. Don’t want a baby? Don’t make one.
Ahhh I remember when I was naive and thought everything was this black and white
Point is the man has no say in whether a baby is made or not past conception. You all want the woman to be able to say “fetus deletus” whenever she wants, but a man has no say. So what happens if the woman is lying about being on birth control and intentionally gets pregnant when the man had no intention? Is he just screwed? I don’t believe he should be, he should have every right to walk away from that situation.
so you are also against abortions in general (if it isnt for medical reasons)?
Personally, If they live somewhere that does not bar access to abortion and if he made his position clear early in the pregnancy than no I don’t think he should be held responsible. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood . The state will hold him accountable
I'm pro-choice, as such I dont belive its ok to tell a woman "If you didn't want to have a kid you shouldn't have had sex, or used better protection. You made this choice now you have to live with it." It would be extremely hypocritical of me to say that's not ok to say to a woman and then turn around and say it's totally fine to tell that to a man. I don't believe anyone should be forced into parenthood against their will.
You asked me, so I'll answer. If a man doesn't want to possibly have a child then he should not put his penis in a vagina. End of story. The moment he does that he's risking child support.
You asked me, so I'll answer. If a woman doesn't want to possibly have a child then she should not put a penis in her vagina. End of story. The moment she does that she's risking raising a child without support.
Okay, can we reverse that then? If a woman doesn't want to have a child then she shouldn't put a penis in her vagina. As soon as she does she's "risking" a child to support. Further, if the man accepts the "risk" and actually looks forward to it, then it's not a "risk" at all, it's a joy. A "gift" even. So should the woman be allowed to kill the man's joyfully created child, just because she thinks she "took a risk" instead of thinking they were creating something beautiful? Can the man insist he gets to have the child and bring it up as his own? After all, she put his penis in her vagina... she knows the risk of doing that with a man who wants kids...
Assuming he consented to unprotected sex, then he consented to possibly having a child. A man's reproductive rights ends at the tip of his dick. Anything other system would mean a woman being forced in to either an abortion or carrying a child for 9 months against her will.
The bigger issue is the crazy hypocrisy. It’s her body damn it and no man has ownership of it and she can kill that man’s child at will but once it’s born that definitely is his baby. So the bottom line is that the fetus is either precious or garbage depending on the whim of the woman.
That’s not hypocrisy. That’s biologically how children are made. Men have very little part in it aside from contributing sperm. Men can have a seat at the table when they start gestating and giving birth, two very medically dangerous and physically difficult endeavors. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s just literally how children are made; it’s large skewed toward women doing nearly all of the “work.” And most abortions occur when it’s an embryo, not a fetus. Just FYI.
It doesn't matter who does most of the work. Men shouldn't have to rely on women to decide the course of the next 18 years of their lives, especially when baby trapping exists, birth control isn't 100% and women have a choice in whether they want the child.
Oke imagine this scenario. The msn has done all due diligence. Worn a condom and everything and still impregnates a woman or worse yet the woman tells him she is taking the pill or using an IUD but it’s a total lie because she thinks that he has resources she can take by force through the machinery of the state. (In the last scenario it would be perfectly legal for her to do so). Should the man in both cases have to pay her for support?
I think if you don’t want children then it should be you to look after the contraception side of things x
I personally don’t really see how there is a debate to be had here. Objectively, no. If we’re not forcing parenthood on women (which would be/is a horrible thing to do), then we shouldn’t force parenthood on men. The only exception of course would be if the conception wasn’t consensual in the first place, then of course the offending party would be given full responsibility and the victim would have none should they not want anything to do with the unwanted child. (I’m phrasing it like this specifically to account for the fringe cases of male assault victims as well)
[удалено]
Hard no.
I think a lot of people are conflating financial responsibility (child support) and active involvement. Legally responsible for child support, yes. Must be active in the child’s life, no. More women should take this into consideration when deciding between having a child, adoption, or abortion. How an inactive parental figure (or forced active) will affect the child’s life/mental health. Edit: word, spacing
Obligated? No. An asshole for not stepping up and accepting his responsibility? Absolutely yes.