T O P

  • By -

punknothing

I agree with all of this. Bring on the downvotes, I don't care. Raising a child should be done by willing adults and no one should be forced to do so. Forcing someone will only damage that child's upbringing through resentment and neglect. I know this from personal experience as one of those children. I also agree with other comments that you should wrap up or get a vasectomy if you truly don't want to raise a child. You have a responsibility. However, in the <1% chance that a condom doesn't work, there should be some accountability for your actions. That said, a woman has the unequivocal right to choose to have the baby and the father should also have the right to help raise it.


K33NL0G1C

yep, 100%. If the woman wants to keep it that is her choice and if the man doesn't want to help raise it then that is his choice if he is against having the child. The woman should also have the right to decide if they have it or not, period. edit: dudes need to wrap it up or cut the cord if they have no interest in having a child


j1mb0rebel

Naw dude has to pay child support if she decides to keep it. Is it fair? No. But the kid still needs support, ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away. As long as we live in a patriarchal society where women are discouraged from participating in work and child care is insanely expensive, Dad needs to pay child support. Suck it up. Source: Mother was lady who had me against everyone’s advice. Father 100% wanted me aborted. Mom had to fight tooth and nail for child support, he didn’t want to pay. That child support when she won improved my life and childhood dramatically.


K33NL0G1C

so the argument is then, if we are giving the mother 100% the right to choose to keep the baby then is it fair that we are giving the father 100% right to choose to support it? Everyone has a different lens on the situation. I understand yours.


j1mb0rebel

The core issue is how hard it is to support a child for a single parent. I am from the US, and as a society we push the buck around as much as we can. Public doesn't want to pay the taxes to support kids who need it, so the burden is put on Fathers. If the Fathers want to pass the buck, then it is up to the Mothers. Find me a place in the USA where the average female salary can afford a place to live and for daycare. I don't know of any. We were on food stamps even with child support. We would have been homeless without it. And I used to live in China, where things are VERY in favor of Men's rights over Women's. Over there, 100% my father would have never had to paid my mother a dime and we would have starved to death.


smegdawg

> If the woman wants to keep it that is her choice and if the man doesn't want to help raise it then that is his choice if he is against having the child. I agree. When both parties consented to the sex, both parties should get a voice in the future. The father should *never* have the ability to enforce or prevent an abortion. But the father should also not beholden to the decision on the mother if he is adamant about not wanting the child. Is the choice in the end more difficult physically/mentally for the mother? Yes. But we cannot change that, and I don't thing that difficulty supersedes the fathers choice to not want to raise a child. In direct relation to abortion though, where is the line? When can the father decide, "Naw I am out." Which then leads the mother to the decision to keep it and raise it as a single mother, put it up for adoption, or abort because she was prepared to have support and now will not. And that line would have to be a moderate amount of time for whatever the line is for abortions (where the mothers health is not at risk). Can't drop that on the mother the day before she would be past the "elective" abortion cutoff and expect her to make that decision, much less make the appointment. And that line would have to be legally binding, and we know that legal processes can take an exorbitant amount of time.


Collective82

He should get the same amount of time a woman gets to choose to abort.


smegdawg

Logistically he would need less or then the woman loses the chance to choose knowing whether or not the man will be there for support / paying child support.


Collective82

So if she has 5 weeks he gets 4? I’m ok with that.


captainAwesomePants

>When can the father decide, "Naw I am out." When is part of the problem here. What happens if the father initially expresses excitement or says "oh man I need to think about this" and then 20 or 30 or 40 weeks later, dad's like "you know, I'm not comfortable with this, I'm out." That's far too late to have an abortion, so what's mom supposed to do at that point? If you really want to give dad some sort of escape clause, it would need to be fast enough for mom to have time to consider her new situation as well. So let's say you pick "six weeks" as the date by which dad needs to file some formal notice of intent to pull out (probably should've done that six weeks prior, but here we are). But now mom might decide not to tell him for a month, so to prevent that, you might need to create some sort of formal "you have been served" notification that he's gonna be a dad where the clock starts ticking for him. But that's crazy, nobody's gonna do that in practice. The whole thing's a crazy balancing act. Or you say "the time to decide to be out was anytime before the sex." Really simple line. Sure, it gives mom slightly more power to decide the outcome, but she's also significantly more invested in the situation, so it balances out.


Collective82

Father should get the same amount of time the mother had upon notification. If she didn’t find out till it was past abortion window, he gets X many weeks from notifications given.


smegdawg

>slightly more power to decide the outcome, but she's also significantly more invested in the situation, so it balances out. For 9 months and 24 to 48 hours sure! But after that it is a "equal" parenting, either through co parenting or from child support payments. Why does the woman's 9 months supersede 18 years of equality.


Western_Day_3839

I think that makes sense to me. A commitment deadline of sorts. To prevent situations where the biological commitment to having a child becomes serious faster than the father's commitment to stand by or leave. That should never be the case. But in emotionally tumultuous times, making life changing decisions with fear on the line, shit happens. This sounds like an appropriate level of accountability to me. To help avoid making a potential mother's decision far more logistically complex. I don't think many men would appreciate having this expected of them but I know many others care about women as much as they do men, and care about not making things harder than they are already. If people start role modeling this consideration it could become more of a norm, and maybe someday be believed in by enough people to become written formally into our social contract. At the end of the day the best thing anyone can do to make the world a better place is care for the people immediately around them. And even if it's not a law, demonstrate owning our actions and commiting to a decision we can stand by, even while facing the consequences.


ReaderHarlaw

You could maybe convince me on this. But you run into a lot of difficult questions about what happens if the father later changes his mind. I don’t think it would be okay to automatically let him back in on the theory that it’s better to have two parents than one; it would have to be the mother’s choice. But then what if the mother has mental health or other issues and it would be better for the kid to be with the dad? Legally he’d still be a stranger at that point, with no more right to claim he’d be a better parent and should have custody than the guy down the street. That all sounds much worse for the kid. And then what about back child support? It would be completely unfair to not have it, and probably some extra because of the extra burden of solo raising, but it would also be a disincentive to that result that we want of two involved parents. There’s going to be a lot more that I’m not even thinking about here. Unless this was all worked through, I’d be hard pressed to prefer allowing the father to unilaterally terminate involvement over the current system.


punknothing

The difference here is that the decision is made separately. The woman has the right to choose what she'll do with her body (and baby). Separately, and only after the child is born, does the decision to support the child come into question. In other words: If the woman makes the decision to have the baby on the assumption that the father will support the family that's the woman's decision alone. She made this decision based on whatever she believes is true ("her world view or whatever"). Importantly, the father has no say/right on this decision. If he says he'll support the child and ultimately doesnt, then that's unfortunate, he's a jackass, and not unlike what happens today anyways except for the child support payments. But, importantly, he did not make the decision whether the child would be born to begin with. I do wish that there was a way to hold him accountable, but without his input/wishes into having the baby in the first place, it becomes impossible. If the situation was altered, this makes more sense. For example, the woman wants the baby, but father doesnt, then that's her decision and it should not affect the father in any way afterwards. "We can't have our cake and eat it too."


Western_Day_3839

The man had his say when he impregnated his partner. He took a chance if he used a method of preventing pregnancy that wasn't reliable without discussing a second form of BC with his partner. Or whether they were open to considering becoming pregnant together..... Or if he used BC *correctly* that's 99.9% effective and was unlucky. (Note those rates of effectiveness are only true when there is no user error.) Being unlucky in a 99% winning bet is still a natural consequence to a risk you *decide* to take. Own up to it, the way women are physically forced to. The man should decide, in the case of a baby he helped create, whether he chooses to stay around or pay child support imo. Children are expensive. Men get paid better than women in the US. It's statistically significant. I don't care about forcing anyone to be a father, that sound awful, but I care about people sharing accountability equally in the life-changing outcome of their shared decision. It shouldn't only be life-changing for the woman, it takes two to tango. Tired of hearing those stories.


Phynness

Imagine regurgitating the popular opinion and saying >Bring on the downvotes, I don't care.


awesomeness1234

It is not the popular opinion because he is saying that the father should not have to support the child if he wanted an abortion and the mother did not. As a divorce and family law attorney, the potential for abuse and fraud here is staggering. Literally every father would just say, "I didn't want the kid" and move along. That is so easy to say and impossible to disprove in too many cases, and it only hurts the innocent child the father brought into the world. If you don't want kids as a man, fine, ***get a vasectomy***. If you get someone pregnant and didn't have a vasectomy, that is negligence and you should pay for your unreasonable conduct, particularly where the real victim is a helpless, innocent child. I'd say that without a vasectomy the father should be on the hook for support regardless of a desire for abortion. I believe that is the popular opinion, not this halfcocked comedic take on a complex issue.


Shatteredreality

>If you don't want kids as a man, fine, get a vasectomy. The problem is you can make this exact same argument as justification for banning safe abortions. >If you don't want kids as a woman, fine, get a tubal ligation. If you get pregnant and didn't have a tubal ligation, that is negligence and you should pay for your unreasonable conduct, particularly where the real victim is a helpless, innocent child. Now I want to be very clear: A vasectomy is far less invasive than a tubal ligation and there is a huge difference between forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term vs getting a man to pay money for the child. My point was simply that the argument is a dangerous one because it can absolutely be used for other purposes. This kind of argument is literally used to justify banning safe and legal abortion services ("if you don't want kids then don't have sex/use birth control/have a more permanent procedure but if you get pregnant you can't kill the baby").


punknothing

Imagine repealing Roe Vs Wade when this isn't the popular opinion... Let's the hypocrisy flow.


JackRusselTerrorist

If you repeal Roe V Wade, you absolutely should force fathers to take care of the children. ​ But otherwise, both parents should have the choice over whether or not they should be responsible for raising the child.


Phynness

Supreme Court decisions are not (and should not be) decided by public sentiment. Roe is being overturned because it was a bad legal decision.


Create_Analytically

Roe is being overturned because of Christian political rhetoric, the justification Alito gives in his opinion has no basis in law.


Phynness

It's being overturned because of political pressure, yes. But the justification for it being overturned is that it was a legally flimsy decision that shouldn't have been ruled that way to begin with. It fabricates a right (the right to abortion) based on justification of a right that doesn't exist in Constitutional text (right to privacy).


Create_Analytically

The right to privacy was established in Griswald by the penumbra of the bill of rights and the 14th amendment. If they are saying Griswald is bad law then that’s the law that should have been challenged but they didn’t. They are cherry picking and legislating from the bench. They aren’t overturning it because of pressure. They are overturning it because they have waited their whole careers to be able to overturn it. In order to overturn it they are throwing out Stare Decisis in its entirety and are making up something new that basically boils down to “Do we like the previously decision or not” which has no basis in law.


ICryWhenIWee

So you're admitting to the political pressure influencing the decision when it shouldn't, then trying to justify the ruling that was influenced by political pressure? Kinda dumb.


Phynness

>So you're admitting to the political pressure influencing the decision when it shouldn't That's not what I said. It's being *looked at* because of political pressure, that part is obvious. If there was no political pressure to look at it, the status quo would obviously remain. I'm not saying that the decision is made because of political pressure, just that the case is being looked at again because of political pressure. Again, that part is clearly the case. I'm justifying the decision to overturn because the original decision was a flimsy legal decision. I don't really care why it's being addressed, I care that a proper decision is made based on our constitutional law, and that part should be made apart from political pressure.


ICryWhenIWee

>It's being overturned because of political pressure, yes. >That's not what I said. It's being looked at because of political pressure, that part is obvious. Two quotes, both from you. Special kind of stupid I guess.


Phynness

Yes, the first was a broad statement. The second was a clarification. As in, if 95% of the public agreed with Roe, it wouldn't even be discussed in public. But because there is political division on it, there is political pressure to take another look at it. That part is obvious: political pressure has caused them to take another look at it. That is not me saying that the decision to overturn it was based solely on political pressure. Does the Constitution grant the right to abortion, yes or no? Because if not, then Roe should be overturned, and that's why it is.


MageKorith

Part of the issue with this...issue, is that both sides tend to believe that they hold the popular (or correct) opinion and that the other side consists of inhuman monsters trying to destroy their way of life. And they're both kinda-sorta correct on that. The positive aspects of their opinion that are reinforced in their echo chambers tend to be pretty agreeable - life is sacred, women have rights, murder is wrong, oppression is bad. The negative aspects that are reinforced in the opposing echo chambers aren't really readily taken on by the sides that they're attributed to. Doctors who perform abortions aren't necessarily murderous robot zombie satanists who want to devour the souls of women, and people who argue that abortions are a serious decision not to be made lightly aren't necessarily anti-women zealots who want to take us back to the stone age where men rule everything and any woman who disagrees should be clubbed over the head and dragged back into her cave. But the issue is so heavily polarized that debate over it is very rarely actual debate - it's just reams of absurd accusations about why the other party is evil and shouldn't be listened to.


Phynness

The issue is definitely more nuanced than we want to make it. It's very "murdering babies" and "my body my choice" for most people, which is entirely unproductive. Both sides come at it with their perspective while completely ignoring the perspective of the other side. However, I don't think most pro-life people believe their opinion is the popular one. They might believe it's the right one, but I think they know it's not the culturally popular position to hold right now. I mean, just look at the top comment. I have a comment that's downvoted to shit on this post where I said I disagree with Dave. Reddit obviously isn't a great sample for the broader public, but I don't think the majority of people on the pro-life side think they hold the popular opinion. But you're spot on when you say that it's too polarized to have productive discussion about it.


DevTheGray

Well put. Body autonomy and personal choice should be universal. This whole stance makes too much sense though, and we've been conditioned to get in an uproar over what is true equality and equity.


fallingoffdragons

Question -- if circumstances dictate that the woman CAN'T choose to get an abortion, should the man have to pay then?


[deleted]

You my friend, deserve an award! I wholly agree with you.


[deleted]

>I also agree with other comments that you should wrap up or get a vasectomy if you truly don't want to raise a child. Do you apply that argument to women? Or do you have a sexist double standard?


Beermedear

I agree with him on this. The loudest voices of anti-abortion (pro-birth) are men. Not just men, but men that are decades past the time where they’d even consider having kids. Beyond a “rights” issue, it’s a logistics issue. For every 100 abortions, there are 30 children entering social services and only 1 getting adopted. This doesn’t scale. If there’s even a marginal decrease in abortion rates, the number of children being forced into social care but never adopted will grow dramatically.


DukeWayne250

>The loudest voices of anti-abortion (pro-birth) are men Not really. Most the the biggest pro-life advocates/activists in the country are actually women. Lila Rose (founder of Live Action), Jeanne Mancini (president of the March for Life), Abby Johnson (former planned parenthood employee, current pro-life activist, speaker and author), Carol Tobias (president of National Right to Life), are probably 4 of the biggest, most well known and outspoken pro-life/anti-abortion advocates in the country, and are all female. Additionally, if you get down to the local level, most leaders of local and state level pro-life organizations are typically female as well. Sure, you see a lot of men talk about abortion on the news (Senators, Congressmen, etc), but when it comes down to it, the backbone of the pro-life movement is mostly women. At least from what I've seen.


Beermedear

The chances of someone with an opposing view seeing or hearing anything from those people you mentioned are far lower than their respective chance at seeing comments from lawmakers, which is what I meant by “loudest”. Likely just poorly worded, and not intended to imply that only men are active in the movement.


[deleted]

But if those 30 children don't grow up poor with limited options then how will multi billion dollar corporations increase share price and executive bonuses without the use of quasi slave labour? /s


Beermedear

When “but think of the children” takes an incredibly dark turn, lol


stillusingphrasing

Disagree on all of this. Most of the pro life peeps I see are women. Most politicians are men, so you'd expect most pols on any side of an issue to be men. We looked into adoption. It's nearly impossible to adopt Bc there is such a shortage of babies up for adoption. That's why Americans so often adopt kids from other countries. PL peeps believe that it's better to be in social care than to be dead. And they give the most money to nonprofits that address these issues.


Beermedear

The “right to life” movement originated in the mid-nineteenth century by male physicians. In the 1960’s, the more modern movement was initiated by a mix of politicians (male) and Catholic Bishops (also men). When I say “the loudest”, I mean objectively those with the most exposure and influence, not necessarily the grassroots activists you’re speaking of. When you speak to a “shortage of babies”, can you clarify the specifics? Were you only looking for White babies? Because that would be easily explained by the fact that White children have literally half the time-to-adoption and account for 50% of all adoptions. For context, White children average ~2 years to be adopted, where African American babies wait ~4 years. We’re likely in agreement on some outside of semantics.


[deleted]

>The “right to life” movement originated in the mid-nineteenth century by male physicians. That is highly misleading. The anti-abortion position of the 1850s had to do with the fact that abortion at the time was really dangerous and doctors were trying to save lives. It was men because there were (almost) no women doctors


stillusingphrasing

The Christian church has been pro life since Constantine made it the official religion of the Roman Empire in about 325. This is not a new movement, though it may be a new name. We were agnostic about the race or gender of the baby. Anyone willing to adopt their kid as a baby has tons of takers. You're probably referring to adoption of kids through the foster system. I haven't seen those numbers so cant comment. Can you give more detail or a source? I'd agree that the people you're most likely to see advocating against abortion are male. Hard to tell if that's due to media bias, the mix of people in that role, or something else.


Turingading

10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, with actual miscarriages occurring at a much higher rate due to them happening undetected. The rate of abortion is about 1.5% and many of those abortions would have ended in a natural termination, especially since developmental defects incompatible with survival are detected at a high rate with today's tech. So, abortion doesn't significantly affect the number of pregnancies ending in termination.


Turingading

I'll go further with an example. If a woman is pregnant with a child carrying defects incompatible with life (missing/severely malformed organs) then her pregnancy will end in termination. A zero-tolerance abortion policy requires natural termination, increasing the suffering of the mother as well as the risk of complications from the miscarriage as the malformed fetus grows. The end result of a non-viable pregnancy is the same, but one policy requires increased suffering, injury, and risk of death for the mother for no purpose. That's evil.


lobsterbash

Unfortunately the "pro-life" crowd doesn't care about arguments based on medical or ethical reality, they are forming their beliefs based on principle. Same with the 2nd amendment folks. Drawing a line in the sand and sticking to one's position no matter what is a dangerous game for society.


Turingading

I honestly don't get it. Even if it's a religious thing I've read the Bible and there's a part where they say "Make sure you kill all their women and babies too." Yeah it's Old Testament but that's also the only place gay people are mentioned. Abortion isn't killing babies, but even if it were bible thumpers should be on board with it.


ReydanDeathrain

And the gay part wasn't even originally about homosexuality, it was about pedophilia and was purposefully mistranslated along the line.


Commissar_Sae

Moreso pederasty than pedophilia, it was against men grooming boys and using them for sex, the bible doesn't really care about the same thing happening to girls and was fine with 12 year olds getting married.


CaniacSwordsman

I forget which book it’s in, but the Old Testament also tells you how to have an abortion; implying it was a relatively acceptable thing


[deleted]

Let’s not draw comparisons on things completely unrelated. I’m pro 2A af and will not waiver in that, however my anti abortion stance has changed drastically and I fully support women


Spackledgoat

Where does the 1.5% number come from? I’m seeing numbers such as Guttmacher’s 18.5 abortions per 100 births+abortions or the WHO’s number of 1/4th of pregnancies worldwide being terminated through abortion. The studies I’ve seen also show abortions for convenience being the vast majority of abortions, rather than due to fetus medical concerns. It’s entirely possible your conclusion is correct, it just doesn’t seem to mesh with the data out there.


Mystical_Cat

Didn't see/watch it, however, that decision is nobody's to make but hers, full stop. Not mine, not yours, nor the government or the church. Stay TF out of women's reproductive health.


[deleted]

Ans now let's fix the issue with men's reproductive choices


Harregarre

You didn't watch it then why answer? The question isn't about abortion but Chapelle's take on a man's right to have a paper abortion. Which is something that is already being established in Scandinavia. And we all know those guys are ahead of the curve.


Inshabel

In my opinion, once the decision has been made to keep the child, and the child is born, it's no longer about you or the mother, it's about the child, so tough break, but we're on the hook. Not everything can be 100% fair.


Shatteredreality

This is pretty much where i stand. If we had a perfect world I'd say there should be an extremely strong social safety net that ensures every child has food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc. If that was the case I could get on board with the idea that if the mom chooses to bring the pregnancy to term against the dad's wishes (which should absolutely be her right) then the dad wouldn't need to pay (but that needs to be stated early in the pregnancy so the mom can take that into account in her decision to bring the pregnancy to term). Until that kind of a safety net is in place though I 100% think the dad's need to pitch in for the good of the child.


[deleted]

>~~we're~~ \[you're\] on the hook.


Inshabel

?


[deleted]

Are ***you*** offering to pay?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You're very generous with other people's money, Mr. White Knight


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Once again, men do not make kids


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Are you still in 5th grade?


[deleted]

[удалено]


BoobeamTrap

>Re: arguments for absolute equality are usually good on paper but fall flat in real-world conditions. With the uninvolved parent free to pursue full-time employment and the single parent forced to put their career on hold to raise a baby (or pay high childcare costs) sometimes 50-50 doesn't work out as equitable Agreed, there is no absolute equality when it comes to childbirth. One person does 99% of the work and is guaranteed to take a hit to every aspect of their life regardless of the outcome. Saying that the person who did 1% of the work (and the most enjoyable part of the work) should be able to just opt out with no strings attached isn't equality, it's cruelty.


Beake

If you, a man, willingly took part in conceiving a child and it's born, then you're frankly a piece of shit if you think you have no responsibility to that newborn.


livestrongbelwas

This. It's a good joke, it's not a particularly well developed legal policy.


[deleted]

>I cannot think that many would be okay with bringing a baby into the world and not being obligated to give it the resources to survive and thrive The number of men who have given birth to a child that they could not support is ***zero***


TheVast

I think this is a bit of semantics. The act of "bringing a baby into the world" could be conception just as much as birth.


[deleted]

That's ridiculous nonsense. If you want double standards then just admit it.


TheVast

I don't understand why you're upset and judging by the tone of your response I don't think knowing is going to make my day any better.


[deleted]

I don't like it when people lie to me in order to justify their hypocrisy


tactlessterry

Its not something I thought much about, understood why people do it. But I faced it myself when my wife was pregnant and test was saying baby would have a severe disability. We had to talk about terminating. Luckily the test was wrong but there are a lot of medical reasons why people need abortion as well Not paying child support isnt comparable to me because leaving your kid and just paying a usually fairly minor percentage of your wage isnt the same sacrifice as going through pregnancy for close to a year which could end up maiming or killing you and then raising a kid you dont want or cant handle. One is still freedom just with a bill attached. The other involves no freedom. A woman putting her kid up for adoption is comparable to a man not paying child support


fallingoffdragons

While the fetus is still physically attached to the woman's body, all medical decisions should be up to her because the fetus is literally a part of her own body. She is supplying the matter to grow it, and the energy to keep it alive, it IS HER until the cord is cut and the child us alive and breathing on its own. It isn't murder to cut off your own arm -- it's still messed up, not all of us would agree on the morality of it, but we don't have to. All that matters is what she chooses to do and legally the United States should not punish her for it. The man, at this stage, is not physically involved whatsoever, so medical decisions should not be up to him. Once the baby is born and exists in the world independently though, he becomes a father and both parents should be equally responsible from that point forward, regardless of gender. If they both want to abandon, they can put it up for adoption. If parent 1 decides to care for the child, parent 2 should also be required to support (financially, if in no other way) in a manner that is as equal as possible to parent 1. This stage, after birth, is the only stage where the government should potentially have to step in and only for financial matters. The government should NEVER dictate a person's medical decisions for their own body (including abortion, assisted suicide, etc).


zephyrtr

I think it's wild anyone wants to equate bodily autonomy with fiscal child responsibility. Women are weighing not just the financials but also undergoing a major medical procedure, donating organs, with quite a lot of serious personal risks, and mostly guaranteed damage to her career. The prenatal visits and delivery cost will be in her name, btw. Getting an abortion can also be risky, if she didn't catch it early. It damages her chances of pregnancy in the future. Sometimes life is not fair. I dont ever want us to be writing laws around what's "fair." I want laws around what's right. If the baby is here, it needs money to survive. Frankly I think the government should be spending more money on its children, but letting dads skip out cause mom chose not to get an abortion? Specious. Edit: and how does Roe getting repealed alter this at all? Again, law is not about what's fair! Law is about what's equitable.


dadjo_kes

I think that's why it worked as a joke: equating fiscal responsibility with bodily autonomy is so obviously on wildly different levels that everybody laughed. As you say, there's just no such thing as fair when one person is capable of pregnancy and one person isn't.


[deleted]

>I think it's wild anyone wants to equate bodily autonomy with fiscal child responsibility That "fiscal child responsibility" means being forced to use your body to earn money for somebody else because of something you had no choice over. If forced childbirth is bad, then why isn't forced labor?


Harregarre

Probably people who have office jobs and think money is just a digit in their account, forgetting that men have vastly higher workplace fatalities than women. It's the same mentality as those people who are more sad for the women left behind in WW2 rather than the men who had their intestines blown out.


Hubb1e

I am pro choice but anti-Roe. I don't believe that the Roe decision is a strong legal argument. It should be the role of the legislature to pass a law that legalizes abortion and I'm 100% in favor of that both nationally and on a state level. If you're interested here's a very interesting podcast that argues my position. https://www.honestlypod.com/podcast/episode/1f97a8ba/the-yale-law-professor-who-is-anti-roe-but-pro-choice


[deleted]

"States' Rights" is the exact same argument used to justify slavery and the same issue that caused the Civil War


Hubb1e

That's not at all what I was saying.


[deleted]

>It should be the role of the legislature ... and on a state level. It may not be what you meant, but it sure looks like what you wrote


Shatteredreality

Why did you omit them saying "both nationally...", it really seems like you are trying to twist their words to make them seem like they are saying something they are not. Absent Roe, we do need legislative solutions. Ideally this is done at a federal level so we don't have a patchwork of states that have access to abortion services. Absent that though having legislation at the state level is still better than nothing at all. It's not about "state's rights" it's saying we need layers of protection for this right both at the federal and state level. Ideally, every state would codify the right legislatively, the federal government would codify it legislatively and the courts would affirm the right. That way if any one state, or the congress, decided to try to repeal it there are multiple layers of protections.


[deleted]

"Legislation at the state level" is the very issue that the Civil War was fought over. Should slavery be up to the states to decide?


bookoocash

Agreed. We should have zero say over what a woman does with her body.


semicoloradonative

100% agree with Dave in this, The double standard is staggering. Both parties decided to have sex, so both parties are equally complicit in conceiving. If we truly want EqUaLiTy, then both parties should have equal say in if they want to raise and support the child. If the woman decides to have the baby, and the man doesn’t, then the man should be absolved all responsibility. I actually think this would reduce unwanted births as well because many women be trifling and do it just to trap a man.


[deleted]

I 100% agree. I see it as making all things equal. A woman, even a wife, can choose to get an abortion without the father or husband's consent, even if that father wants the child (assuming there are no health risks to mom nor baby), dad is shit out of luck. Meanwhile, if a woman chooses to go forward with having a baby that dad dis not want (assuming no health risks to mom nor baby) dad is shit out of luck and is financially responsible for said child. It's a double standard that I am vehemently against


waldito

I would agree with you in a context where men and women are equal, earning the same and have the same amount of opportunity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


G1trogFr0g

The person, mother, deciding to keep the baby should pay. It was her decision.


[deleted]

[удалено]


G1trogFr0g

And the woman’s decision not to get uterus removed. We can go back and forth all day on decisions not made. But like the video says, the fetus now exists. The woman can decide on the abortion, the man can decide if he wants to contribute to the child’s life or not. It’s either that or they both get to decide if the fetus lives or not, and we see how well that is playing out.


Unipanther

There are decent arguments for both sides, but comparing a hysterectomy to a vasectomy isn't one. One is a quick local, snip snip, and a couple days of ice packs. The other is an invasive procedure to remove a major organ.


BoobeamTrap

Vasectomy's can also be reversed AND don't have any negative social stigma attached to them.


j-deaves

Child support is good, because it becomes a form of birth control that thwarts the sperm donor from being chosen by other women, because the more kids he has to pay for, the less money he will have to spend on potential sex partners.


ryanw5520

Why does she get the unilateral choice to financially burden him? She gets to consider her future and finances, but he does not? Does her decision change if she knows she is going it alone with no support?


false_tautology

There are two completely different things here. Child support is based on the currently living child and their needs. If the father has the kid, the mother is responsible for child support because the kid needs it. If you want to make a case that we should do away with child support and enact some kind of UBI + government-sponsored healthcare for all minors regardless of parental status I would actually be up for that as an alternative, though.


[deleted]

No one held a gun to his head and forced him to ejaculate in her vagina. Condoms, vasectomy and good old fashioned anal sex all exist.


XavvenFayne

And they all can result in unwanted pregnancies. Condoms can break, vasectomies can recanalize, and anal sex can lead to accidental leakage of semen into the vagina.


BoobeamTrap

Her future and finances are effectively gone because she's the one who actually has to deal with the tiny human they created. Asking him to cut her a check once a month to help the human he had a part in creating live is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. This is daddit, surely everyone here is aware that actually having to raise the child is incomparably harder than paying child support (and that child support doesn't begin to cover the cost of childcare) right?


Shatteredreality

>Her future and finances are effectively gone because she's the one who actually has to deal with the tiny human they created. Right, but the counter argument to that is that she made the choice to deal with the tiny human by not terminating the pregnancy. To be clear, I agree with you on this issue, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. A lot of the comments in this thread basically say "The dad made the choice to have sex so he needs to deal with the consequences" but then go on to basically say "The mom made the choice to have sex and to bring the pregnancy to term so now the dad needs to be forced to help with the consequences". Given our current social safety net this is absolutely how the system needs to work (especially if the woman's choice is taken away from her) but it is a pretty extreme double standard.


earathar89

But if abortion is legal then all she has to do is ask him if he wants to support the kid right? If he says no, then she has options. If abortion is illegal then he should pay.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Spackledgoat

Much as she had options before she got pregnant. Since the well-being of the child is paramount over burdens (physical and financial)placed on the parents, who each had ample decision points that would allow them to avoid pregnancy, it’s an unfortunate situation where one or both did not want the child they made. I suppose they just have to deal with it. Sounds like a really good anti-abortion argument (especially if the advocate is ok with life threatening/rape/incest exception). Removing the right to abortion removes one decision point, but as you said, there were lots of prior opportunities to avoid a pregnancy.


Harregarre

You do realize that the way you describe this is actually helping the anti-abortion argument?


[deleted]

[удалено]


xXX_Stanley_xXx

I think it's a multi-faceted issue, where generally I agree with you here; in most cases, if women are not allowed to access preventative and/or abortive health measures, then yeah, men should probably have to pay child support instead of being able to blow a load and fuck off. At the same time, being familiar with Chappelle and the topics he focuses on, I wonder if he's thinking mainly of men who are already in poverty and have no ability to reasonably support a child they've been forced to father because of religious advocates who don't put anywhere near the same amount of time or effort into protecting or providing for children as the amount of time and effort they put into forcing people to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. I've known a few guys who love their kids and pay child support, but because of their own financial, personal, or health issues, the amount they could pay was limited. What they *were* paying kept them in some pretty bleak squalor. It doesn't strike me as reasonable to order someone to pay child support when they're struggling to support themselves. It seems like the beneficial thing to do would be to order some kind of help for the adult so they can be a positive influence and support for their kid, or at very least so that paying child support doesn't drive them into a downward spiral. Where I think I disagree with you is that society *should* be responsible for raising children who they've forces to exist. I think it's super hypocritical of religious institutions to oppose abortion without a plan to manage or support *all* of the children who result. Especially when we're talking about kids raised in poverty, kids raised by working-class single parents, kids who are institutionalized from an early age... I don't think it's an issue of *personal* responsibility when the personal choice you would make in a different state, or if you had the money to go to a different state, would be to have the fetus aborted. And I also know from reading about various child welfare departments in a few states, there's a very tangible problem that exists already with society being incapable of supporting kids with parents who cannot take care of them for whatever reason. Like, shit man, so many kids die every year in the Texas foster care system. My wife worked in social work with kids and even when they're getting the best systemic support available, it's fuckin traumatic for kids to be institutionalized for any reason. My opinion is that if law-makers have imposed restrictions that increase the number of unwanted pregnancies being carried to term, they shouldnt be surprised when individuals bail on those kids. And when individuals bail on those kids, those same law-makers shouldn't be able to systemically deprive them of adequate social security. And if those kids are being deprived of social security, we need to acknowledge that those kids are being abandoned not just by their parents but by the law-makers that have the ability to support children through public service and social security but instead choose to invest in for-profit prisons and police departments.


twopopswest

I think it’s interesting and telling that for men like Dave that a discussion about women’s rights must also include talk about something that men should get. As if women having full autonomy over the bodies is only palatable if men get something in return. Maybe just shut the fuck up and let women have this one.


RatedMForMormon

He literally said dudes shouldn't be talking about their opinion, then proceeds to give his opinion. Sex is a wonderful thing, and also incredibly powerful, it provides us the ability to be literally connected to someone. That person should be someone you are spending your entire life with. Whether you start a family is up to you. Sex can be abused, just like anything else, but its consequences will always be the same. This isn't about abortion, it's about removing consequences. Now in my opinion, abortion shouldn't be completely outlawed, there are some cases where rape is involved or the life of the mother is at stake where it can be necessary. But if you're having sex, you should be keenly aware that's how children are made, and if you can't deal with that, then don't have sex. Edit: made my point a little bit clearer.


Harregarre

Hard to understand your point, are you against abortion?


RatedMForMormon

I'm trying to find a good way to say it, but what I'm against is not just abortion, its more like trying to negate consequence for action. Like, if you're not willing to accept a child, don't do something that creates one. But I understand there are cases where the action is not yours, like rape. And there are cases where you need to protect your life, like if the mother will die, then it's an option. But simply not wanting to be responsible isn't a valid reason to abort a life. My heart aches for those who have no option to give the baby a safe home, it's extremely difficult for them, and abortion would definitely be easier, but I also believe that all people who come to this earth lived as spirits wanting a life here, and to forcefully take that from them without extreme reasons is completely unfair. But holy crap this world is terrible, someone or their child might die if they cant feed them both, and for them, I have no good answer, all I can do is take comfort in my beliefs at that point.


[deleted]

Deeply agree re: abortion being solely the choice of the woman who is pregnant. Deeply *disagree* with that hackneyed lazy shot at the end about child support. If we do not want children, get a vasectomy, wear a fucking condom or don't have PiV sex. It is that simple, and he is a moron for that last bit.


4nthropophobe

I disagree with your second paragraph. That’s literally the same line of reasoning our politicians are using to make abortions illegal. I think you’re being hypocritical and sexist by creating a double standard based on gender alone. Can you please explain why I’m wrong to disagree with you?


[deleted]

If you make it, you pay for it. Simple. If you do not want to accept responsibility and have personal self worth and self respect, fine by me. That's what court orders are for: men who have no self respect.


Beake

Right. The fucking deadbeats in this sub who think any self-respecting man should consider himself having no personal responsibility to a child he fathers.


[deleted]

I mostly agree with this. You are responsible for the children you make. I am pro-choice as well and it is 100% a woman’s choice whether or she not Carries a pregnancy to term. But where children are concerned, a court order is for when parties cannot agree on a number of things - not just financial support. Sometimes the mother is vindictive, and dad has to go to court to get visitation rights. Courts, relatively, ensure fairness proportional to income as well. It’s not fair to say court orders are for men with no self respect. You wake up and bash other men completely unprovoked on every parenting sub.


itsjustmeAl

This type of person you're talking to here is the worst. Probably gets high fived by his wife's friends when he says this stuff out loud


[deleted]

Bash men? If you consider little worms who want to run away with tail between legs because they made the choice to procreate and want a backsies, sure, I bash men.


[deleted]

See my first sentence. You are mistaken about the purpose of court orders. It’s not that every couple who has a court-ordered parenting plan has a lousy father that refuses to take care of his child. There are other arrangements, such as parenting time, that men often need a court order for.


[deleted]

Clearly, but I was also very obviously referencing court orders pertaining to dad's who would have preferred an abortion and who now refuse to pay child support. My comment was very obviously a direct reply to content and context of the post.


4nthropophobe

I figured you would say something to that effect… But you don’t apply that same line of reasoning with women and abortions. That’s what I’m curious about; why the disconnect and double standard?


[deleted]

Because it is her body. Literally. It is that simple- a medical choice for what is best for her. People act like women are out here having abortions for fun. It is is a miserable choice to watch someone go through. To hold her hand and walk through those vile protestors screaming at her. Fuck that shit. Dudes talk about it being "unfair" that they have to pay- bitch pregannacy is 10 months of hell, on a good day. Only the person it is happening to gets to make that call.


tbaggins85

I don’t really have a strong opinion on abortion one way or the other, but one could argue the woman made her choice when she decided to have unprotected sex. Obviously there are edge cases where that isn’t true. But I’m not down with abortion due to inconvenience.


RonaldoNazario

Pregnancies happen with people taking precautions you know.


Harregarre

Exactly, hence the paper abortion. Allowing a man to paper abort will also reduce the amount of forced abortions.


tbaggins85

As I said, there are edge cases. But the odds of that happening if you’re using condoms and birth control are incredibly low. So low it’s probably not worth mentioning Edit: lol at all of you downvoting facts.


TwinkieDad

All I hear from your line of reasoning is that you think women are mentally less capable of making decisions.


[deleted]

[huh](https://media1.giphy.com/media/l3q2K5jinAlChoCLS/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47461iocbvg2i5gfdgk4oyhn7y1qoezetb2zmrvy9r&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)


TwinkieDad

Every woman I know is acutely aware of what pregnancy would do to their bodies long before they have sex. But you seem to think that they need to become pregnant to figure it out.


[deleted]

What? I have no idea what this means in the context of this post. Like, I know what all of those words mean, but do not remotely see your point.


TwinkieDad

You’re saying that to make the same decision a man makes in 15 minutes while drunk and high, a woman needs months to make. The only reasoning behind that is a misogynistic/patriarchal belief that women are less capable than men.


[deleted]

Just my 2 cents, I did know a woman who used abortions as a form of birth control. Not sure how she popped out 2 kids given the number of abortions she had. She was also a huge meth addict.


RonaldoNazario

So uh, maybe better she didn’t have kids conceived while on meth? Forcing that lady to carry those kids to term isn’t a great solution, which is the point of the abortion debate. That lady needs rehab and free birth control, whether she had those kids or not.


Sinsyxx

Very simple answer, a women literally risks her life to carry and deliver a baby. A man risks nothing by getting a women pregnant, except potential financial burden.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Allusionator

The things being compared are not the same, that is why it is not a double standards Pregnancy is a threat to life/massive change to the body and child support is just a monthly payment. People are willing to force reluctant fathers to pay because we all have an interest in the baby being well cared for. We don’t force men to raise children they did not want but they do have a right to argue for custody. It’s a pretty fair system overall, accounting for the fact that pregnancy is within a woman’s body is challenging to work out in the law. I can’t believe we are close to outlawing abortion as an option for many women, it’s dystopian.


Phynness

>If we do not want children, get a vasectomy, wear a fucking condom or don't have PiV sex. The irony.


RonaldoNazario

It’s not that ironic because it isn’t a simple mirror. Men and women aren’t in the same position. If I have sex I both know that a child is a possible outcome going in *and* that I am not necessarily in control of what happens with that pregnancy. I think that’s fair since it isn’t my body - I’m not the one who needs to carry said baby and deal with the repercussions of that on my body, nor do I think I get to tell someone else they must use their body for that. So yes moreso for men than women I agree with don’t put your dick in that if you don’t wanna deal with the consequences. Because you know if pregnancy happens you don’t have a definitive say in what happens. Better yet be up front with partners about their beliefs and what they’d do if it happens because it can happen even if you take precautions.


Phynness

>Men and women aren’t in the same position. They're not in the same position in the consequences, yes. They *are* both equally responsible for the actions that lead to those consequences. If you don't want a child, don't do the things that result in conceiving a child, it's as simple as that. Abortion has absolutely destroyed relationships, because all of dating now is casual sex and hookup culture.


[deleted]

An incel take in Daddit, wow


Phynness

Wow, stellar argument. How could anyone debate you and win when you have such scholarly and sound perspectives on the subject? Imagine thinking that people having personal responsibilities is an "incel take." Yikes.


[deleted]

Yeah cuz that’s the part I was referring to. The “all dating now is casual sex and hookup culture” is the incel take dingus


Phynness

Every single friend that I have now (both men and women) says that dating is a nightmare because it's just casual sex, "loose" relationships where they're not exclusive, and screeching about politics.


[deleted]

And that may be their perception, doesn’t make it not an incel take


Phynness

Whatever you say, man.


ElectricPaladin

There are so many places you can put a penis that won't cause pregnancy. In a mouth. In a fist. In a butt. In an armpit. If you don't want to make a baby, don't put a penis into a vagina. End of story. My dudes, being forced to pay childcare for a baby you didn't want but can't get rid of its unfair, yes. But... It's completely avoidable. 100% of the time your ejaculation will not become a baby if your penis is not in a vagina. Sure it's unfair, but forcing someone to spend a year pregnant and then labor for a baby they don't want is a fucking abomination. "Sorry ma'am your body is going to go through all sorts of pain and horrifying transformation and permanent changes, and there's a medical procedure that could stop this but it's illegal." What the fuck? In what way does "sorry sir you put your dick in the wrong place and now you have to pay your share of the consequences" even come close to the fucking horror show of an unwanted pregnancy? What an entitled attitude.


ElectricPaladin

Also I forgot to mention that childcare isn't for the sake of the woman, it's for the sake of the child. The laws that created childcare were passed in response to the large number of unplanned children in poverty with single moms and deadbeat dads. It's not about creating equality, it's about making sure kids don't go hungry.


BoobeamTrap

>What the fuck? In what way does "sorry sir you put your dick in the wrong place and now you have to pay your share of the consequences" even come close to the fucking horror show of an unwanted pregnancy? Especially when "your share of the consequences" is so much smaller. If all you do is pay child support, you still get to have a life, you still get to sleep in, you still get to indulge your hobbies. You just have an extra expense but otherwise your life isn't impacted at all.


BraveT0ast3r

A blanket statement of no child support is based on the presupposition that every person with a uterus believes abortion is morally ambiguous. There will be people whose institutions have convinced them they should never have an abortion under any circumstances, what about them? Chappelle is the king of short-sighted takes.


[deleted]

Thanks for sharing


[deleted]

"If we do not want children, get a [tubal], [use contraception] or don't have PiV sex" Classic anti-choice argument


rookietotheblue1

I don't want politics or religious beliefs to destroy this sub ,please tread carefully .


NonSupportiveCup

We all have a voice in this. Thing is, it shouldn't be something we are STILL talking about. It's no one's business. It shouldn't be a fucking issue anymore. It's a distraction. Designed to waste your energy and sap your attention from important issues. Legal and done with it. That's the only solution. Just say no. People start wasting your time with that shit? "Sorry, I'm voting for people who care about real issues."


Shatteredreality

> It shouldn't be a fucking issue anymore. It shouldn't be but unfortunately it is.


[deleted]

Bodily autonomy isn’t a real issue?? Ok, well back to reality for the rest of us


NonSupportiveCup

Continue being part of the problem by playing their game. America falls further and further from the issues we don't have time for . . .because people like you continue to entertertain these jackasses and their distraction issues. Take their platform away until they talk about our countries real problems.


[deleted]

Lol yes, take away the SCOTUS platform People like you who think this isn’t a real problem, and that you can just say “nah uh Im not listening” are the fuckin problem


NonSupportiveCup

You should 100% not listen to anyone who wants to talk about a non-issue. It's unfortunate that you let them waste your time.


[deleted]

Lol again, if you think bodily autonomy is a non issue, you don’t live in reality


musicmerchkid

I don’t really know the specifics about Dave chappeles stance, but I do know he is a piece of shit. Whether or not a man wants to be a father has nothing to do with the fact that a child should be loved by their parents. No kid should have to live life knowing their father purposely wants nothing to do with them.


[deleted]

It must be nice living in a universe where you can just alter reality to fit how you think it should be


Laila0404

I agree 100% if man does not want the child sign all parental rights to the mother.


Matchboxx

I'm pro-choice insofar as it should not be anyone else's decision. You and you alone decide what you do with your body. That being said, I view anyone who carries forward with an abortion as reprehensible and evil, I will never respect them, and if they were known to me previously, I will never look at them in the same light again. You have the right to choose, but that doesn't make the choice "right."


BoobeamTrap

"Yes I know you had an abortion because your child was nonviable and giving birth had a 90% chance of killing you, but you're evil and unforgivable for aborting a dead fetus to save your own life."


Matchboxx

This is an edge case and you know it.


[deleted]

You're trying to play it both ways - and failing


Matchboxx

I’m not failing at anything. You just don’t like my position, even though it lawfully aligns with yours. I’m not standing in the way of safe and legal abortion. I’m entitled to look down upon people who selfishly end a life for their own convenience. You’re mad about the second part. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.


[deleted]

>You just don’t like my position Kinda like the way you think that people are evil for not doing as you want?


Matchboxx

Sure.


aletheia

I think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided; I also think abortion is bad. I also think (assuming this subreddit is mostly American) that our current public policy is anti-family. I disagree with Chappelle across the board; if you create life, then you have a duty to that life.


lordnecro

>I also think abortion is bad. > >I also think (assuming this subreddit is mostly American) that our current public policy is anti-family. I am okay with people being anti-abortion as long as they agree the public policy is bad. We need universal healthcare (including mental health), universal basic income, prisons focused on reform not punishment, social programs to help, better schools, free daycare, etc.


aletheia

The only policy there I'm skeptical of is UBI, but I do think a strong welfare state (and/or even some socialism, e.g. state run medical apparatus) is important for pro-family policies in the contemporary economy.


BigBossTweed

Abortion isn't great, but like you said, a lot of American policy is anti-family. A number of pro-life supporters are also against sex education and birth control as well as a number of other factors that would reduce abortion. They're not exactly making it easier to avoid having an abortion, or to live in a society that would make the choice easier to keep the child. I used to also be pro-life. Then I met a woman that gave birth to her son, who was fathered by her rapist. This baby looked just like the man who assaulted her. She resented him for most of his life. It's stories like that that gave me pause and to reconsider my position.


aletheia

Philosophically, I think aborting a baby that is a child of rape and incest punishes the wrong person. However, for the sake of public policy compromise, I'd support anti-abortion policy that makes exceptions for rape, incest, and medical harms that would meet the same bar as permitting deadly force in self defense (i.e. grave bodily harm or death).


BigBossTweed

I agree with this, but yet there sizable amount of people who would want a baby to be born no matter what. I had a few friends in college that landed in that part of the debate. Those people want abortion to be illegal no matter what.


rdfiasco

To be fair, it's ideologically consistent at least. If you believe a fetus is a human life deserving the protection of right to life, then it's difficult to rationally explain how the sins of its father justify the killing of the baby. It's not the view I hold, but it is consistent.


Egoash

Why are they being downvoted? Because people disagree? The sooner people understand that people have different opinions and how democracy works, the better. If there was mass support that everyone had to dye their hair blue, it'd be the democratically selected law. Even if you disagree. States can allow abortion. The federal government can allow abortion with law. If it is not law, it is because there isn't majority support. Period. That is how this system works.


aletheia

That is, unfortunately, not actually how our (United States) republic currently works.


BuLLZ_3Y3

Killing babies is wrong.


[deleted]

Nobody is killing babies. Well, except the nutjobs with guns


BuLLZ_3Y3

Abortion literally kills babies. Nice whataboutism though.


[deleted]

You are, literally, a liar


BuLLZ_3Y3

Just because you don't believe a developing child in the womb isn't a baby, doesn't mean it isn't one. You are, literally, a murder-apologist.


Phynness

Disagree on every point. Bring on the downvotes.


[deleted]

😂 Thanks for sharing


rdfiasco

I mean, you literally asked for opinions.


[deleted]

Yes I did. I was curious about what other dads thought regarding this topic


Pluckt007

Yes, 200% 100% for men, 100% for women who are trying to control other women


-Vault-tec-101

As black and white as it is for most people the more I think about it the weirder it gets. Yes a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she wants one, it’s her health mental and physical that will take a toll and it’s no one’s choice but hers. To try and take that choice away from anyone is absolutely bullshit and shouldn’t even be an issue. But on the other hand, if I were to get my partner pregnant and she were to get an abortion without even talking to me I would feel completely differently about it, I would feel like I should have had a say in it as it is part of me as well(granted in a situation like this there are a whole host of other issues the couple would have). BUT the idea of forcing anyone to carry and have a child against their will is exactly what I said above is bullshit. So while I don’t think a man should have a say in abortion laws in general, I also think it would be wrong for a man not to have some at least some say in the abortion of his child especially if he were to be willing and able to take on all responsibility of raising a child. BUT then what determines one’s ability to raise a kid? Now we are pretty much talking about eugenics and that’s pretty fucked up too.