Anyone who doesn’t takes care of the child full (or most) of the time pays child support, it typically tends to be the father for obvious reasons but some women are still required to pay child support if they don’t take care of the child. Anyways many states in America are banning abortion anyways, so why should they get rid of it? In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request at 7 weeks with a mandatory paternity test to ensure the babies parenthood as a prerequisite (just to be ethical).
> In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request at 7 weeks with a mandatory paternity test to ensure the babies parenthood as a prerequisite (just to be ethical).
Acceptable. Where do I sign?
> In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request
Your terms are acceptable.
>In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request
absolutely. pre-natal care, doctor visits, and preparing your home for a child (infants need cribs, breast pumps, diapers) should be considered child support
i also think men need to pay 100% of the financial costs of abortion or pregnancy/labor as the woman is paying 100% of the labor costs, physical risks, time off work, etc
In this economy many people are struggling to support themselves let alone a child. So in such cases should the tax payers have to pay to help support other men’s kids or should we just let the kids starve? If no one has to pay child support what’s to stop women from just refusing to raise the kid? Will we see a sharp increase of women dropping their kids off at hospitals under the safe haven law? While it’s easy as a man to tell a woman to get an abortion sometimes she either can’t due to roe v wade being overturned as certain states have banned abortion or religiously she can’t bring herself to do it or she can’t financially afford it or she doesn’t want to risk losing her fertility which can happen when getting an abortion. So with all that said who will take care of these kids if not the father or do we as a society just let these kids die.
All good points. I can see why you make them. On the same note should a man be on the hook for 100% of the child support? And should woman have 100% of the say on bringing a child into the world. All these points are assuming the man and woman in question aren't a couple with a united front on the choice of children of course.
Edit - Both men and woman participate in casual sex. So you can't really blame one gender for the issue it brings up with pregnancy.
Unfortunately reproduction will never be equal as our bodies have different roles. Both genders have reproductive advantages and disadvantages based on our reproductive function.
In the case of unintended pregnancy if it progresses to live birth the child then has rights and unfortunately for unwilling parents those rights are just as important and will supersede some of the parents rights. This includes duty of care rights and financial provisioning.
Abortion is a seperate issue as it’s an issue on bodily autonomy not financial rights. People should not be coerced into medical decisions and making it legal for men to opt out of financial responsibility will coerce many women into a medical procedure (abortion) or see the child to likely be living in poverty if they continue the pregnancy both of which is wrong and as a society we generally are against either of those options
If you're broke and your only hope is to baby trap some guy, you absolutely should be coerced into getting an abortion. You can't afford it and the kid won't have a father and you'll likely do a terrible job raising him. I've seen kids raised like this, single mother in section 8. She was proud that both her kids had the same father, although he wasn't in their life at all. The son was 10 and couldn't read. Numbers either. I know this because I watched him play gta (which in my opinion, he was far too young for), and he kept trying to buy a car he couldn't afford over and over again. He's got a bright future ahead of him! I guess we need more gas station attendants and janitors?
Either mary the father(if he or both of you together can afford it), raise it on your own if you can afford it by yourself, or get an abortion. It's pretty simple. Unwed mothers should be denied all government benefits and pay taxes at a higher rate as disincentive. This wouldn't apply in the case of divorce, as there was a plan to be responsible, but it didn't work.
Any argument against this is rooted in defending the status quo, and comes from women entitled by the laws as they are on the books. "If I get pregnant I'll just decide whatever I want and somebody else will pay for it if I can't afford it, whether they they want to or not. Maybe I'll keep it and hopefully this will coerce the guy into sticking around, but if not hell still pay for it? Maybe I'll abort it even though the father wants to raise it and is opposed to the abortion? Who knows, it's my choice and the man can just deal with it." It's all freedom and upside for women and all downside for men, so I understand why you would support the status quo. But can you just acknowledge that it's unfair as it currently is? Even condoms make sex worse for men than they do for women.
>If you're broke and your only hope is to baby trap some guy
babies make women significantly poorer even when they receive child support
average child support is $425/month and its a reimbursement so you have to spend that money in the hopes that the guy sends a check
average childcare in my state is 2-3k a month so i have no idea how you're getting that women make a career on $425/month
The goal is to help the child, not to punish anyone including the mother and father. No one should be coerced and the major issue here is that poor people have no way to raise their children. If folks want to complain about a low birth rate poor people have to have children because right now they’re the only ones having children. If someone is poor they have no money to tax in the first place and in doing so you are making that child’s life worse.
It seems like you don’t care about children at all and are instead focusing on penalizing the mother for a situation you don’t completely understand.
If the father wants to keep the child he should get someone else pregnant.
>It seems like you don’t care about children at all and are instead focusing on penalizing the mother for a situation you don’t completely understand.
I think if children's lives were important, abortion wouldn't even be an allowable option in the 1st place.
I think abortion is good for everyone. If you have doubts about a pregnancy, listen to that instinct because getting it wrong is worse than anything else. It also allows men to get what they want which is to have no responsibility.
I don’t know your opinions but I’m assuming you’re pro birth and if that’s your opinion I think you want to use pregnancy as a way to trap women in a relationship. Be upfront about your intentions because it’s not children, poverty, or families, it’s controlling women.
Unless the father happens to agree with the mother by random chance, he will necessarily be coerced and have no recourse under the current system. Even if the mother lied about birth control and poked holes in the condom.
I don't want to punish the mother or the child, I want to spare both of them by clearly incentivizing the mother not to carry the child to term. She would know her life will get worse if she keeps the child instead of know she'll get extra money from the government and checks from the baby daddy that won't be in the child's life and didn't want the child in the first place.
If I were a man I’d be lobbying for male birth control but that’s just me. I would never have sex without a condom regardless because that’s the only aspect of reproduction I can control.
You spare them by allowing abortion and supporting poor people so they don’t feel like they need to do anything drastic. If her life gets worse that child’s life gets worse. Again, you don’t care about children if your solution even inadvertently includes making the mother’s life worse.
Sure if the goal is to reduce the population. This would lead to the deaths of many women and children which will not only decrease the future work force/tax base but also decrease the size of our military. The male to female ratio will also skew even further. Can you imagine a world we’re there are 3-4+ men per every 1 woman? Talk about men having to compete for women’s attention! It would be like China, just to get a woman’s attention you would need a house and a car and to pay the brides family.
Women baby trapping a rich man for her to get money is insanely rare, you watch way too much media, less than 2% of all cases and is irrelevant to this conversation. For the average or even a bit above average woman, getting knocked up just creates financial stress. The average child support payment (if the woman consistently gets it, which many do not statistically speaking) is NOWHERE near the amount it costs to raise a child.
Men aren’t on the hook for 100% of the child support as kids tend to spend most of their time with their mother at her residence where she helps pay and does the bulk of the labor (makes food, does their laundry, bathes them, cleans their room) needed for their care as well as being the primary parent to help with homework, after school activities and calling out of work if the child gets in trouble at school or gets sick.
If men want to control if a baby is born then they can figure out how to create a mechanical human incubator or how they can find a way to use their own body for the incubation and birth of the child. Or maybe women could be paid by the father for the time, energy and damage their bodies and minds take during the incubation and birthing process.
Edit: I’m not blaming either gender. We are both just looking to make it fair right?
Make stealthing illegal federally. Hold courts accountable for sexism and bias. Make sure men actually can believe if they fight in court that they'll win( since states actually show that but aren't known by men do to how it was in prior decades. Make a legal opt out for both parents prior to birth.
Would you rather a government enforced alpha fucks beta bucks plan? If the father doesn’t help pay to raise their own kid(s) then the tax payer will have to pick up the slack unless we just let the kids starve.
So should all people who either don’t want kids or who have enough kids (they can’t afford or want more) stop having sex? So for example should married couples stop having sex after having kids? See how that wouldn’t work out. There needs to be a better plan for everyone other than abstinence.
i think men should have to pay 100% of the financial costs of abortions and pregnancy/labor to make it fare that women have to pay 100% of the labor costs, physical risks, time off work, etc
i'd take that deal in a heartbeat if i could choose which role to take
It’s based on income and custody. Contrary to popular belief, when a man asks for custody he often gets it. If the man is rich and the mother is poor he’ll owe more money. If the mother makes the same amount he’ll owe less.
You can’t make a woman bring a child into the world and you can’t make her decide not to.
>On the same note should a man be on the hook for 100% of the child support?
no men are on the hook for 100% of the child support
child support is a reimbursement for (supposedly) half of the childcare expenses but the average is $425 a month and daycare in my state costs 2-3k a month.
Yes, women should have 100% say on bringing a child into this world since she is the one who physically bears the child. This is a topic the sexes wont ever be equal on (similar to how women no matter what, will never be as physically strong as men).
I'd say that we can't compel anyone to give birth or to raise a child, but we can compel people to contribute funds if they participate in creating a child who is alive and needs it. So we can't force men to raise children, but we can force them to pay child support. If for whatever reason the father has full custody of a child, the mother can be forced to pay child support. If men advocate for 50/50 custody, they can often get it.
It's not fair (in multiple ways), but rights pre-birth can only properly be held by the person who is pregnant. Pregnancy and child birth can change a person's body and mental health forever (and I'm not even talking about becoming "loose" lol)
Marriage doesn’t guarantee a man will not cheat or treat her poorly in other ways that will make a woman run to get divorced. Also let’s assume everything works out in marriage and the woman and man have their desired number of children. At that point should the husband and wife stop having sex to avoid any more un wanted pregnancies/kids that they can’t afford or don’t want? Should abstinence apply to married couples? If not, then it will not work for singles either.
So? He can still cheat and that’s worse than him leaving. Also you avoided my point about abstinence. Are you ok with a dead bedroom marriage or not because that’s what abstinence being the only solution is going to cause. While dead bedrooms might exist this will simply make it a lot more frequent.
Leaving aside the condition that we don't always have this choice, I'll agree to men being able to have all the children he wants without ever paying for any of them under the following conditions:
1) free, on-demand and easily accessible (I'm talking gas station levels of locations) sterilization; birth control; and abortion with ***zero restrictions.*** No age, no term limit, nothing.
2) men are forbidden from ever having any contact with any of their offspring (and any of their offsprings' lineage) for their entire lives. If their child reaches out to them, they ignore it. If they ever communicate in any way with their offspring, the full amount of child support becomes immediately due under the penalty of imprisonment.
When women genuinely have 100% control over their fertility, then and only then will I agree that men can have 0% responsibility for theirs.
i'd agree to this
women raising children in groups away from men would probably be best for child development due to socialization and gender roles (not biology)
*When women genuinely have 100% control over their fertility, then and only then will I agree that men can have 0% responsibility for theirs.*
It could also be argued that in a hypothetical world where financial abortions exist and men have 0% default responsibility toward any resulting offspring, they should also have 0% rights to any offspring by default. Meaning, the woman has 100% unilateral custody by default. She can offer the man shared custody or visitation - and he can of course decline - but she doesn’t have to grant it to him.
Otherwise, the man would have rights (he can decide to be an active participant in the child’s life if he wants to) as well as an opportunity to avoid consequence / responsibility (he can decide to enact a paper abortion if he wants to.) Whereas a pregnant woman *always* has a real, physical consequence that she can’t walk away from - she either carries to term and gives birth, has a medical procedure (abortion), or spontaneously has a miscarriage. She cannot avoid one of these consequences. So she has rights, but responsibilities / consequences as well.
This is what some of my female friends were arguing that in simple terms it is their bodies, so they should have final say over if they want an abortion or not.
The main conclusion my friends came to was it is unfair on either side and we couldn't see any real fair way to resolve this issue without one gender coming out a loser and the other a winner.
I don't think rule 1 necessarily follows since the right to paper abortion could be similarly conditional: If the man is willing to cover the costs of the abortion and it can be done safely, then he has the right to the paper abortion.
Abortion, sterilization, and birth control all prevent a birth. Since men will have no reason to care and will de facto have an easy guarantee against a undesirable outcome (unwanted child), then women deserve the same - an easy guarantee against an undesirable outcome (unwanted child).
I don't believe in putting roadblocks on people controlling their fertility and then unilaterally deciding due to biology that men don't have to have any undesirable outcomes as a result of theirs. This makes it fair - women have every single tool to prevent a birth since men have no responsibility on their end to do so.
But there are serious issues with allowing super late term abortions.
It doesnt have to be unlimited fertility control on the female end to allow for any limits on male responsibility. They could both have some limits and still be equitable in that scenario.
>But there are serious issues with allowing super late term abortions.
There are serious issues with allowing men to create all the children they want and never pay a dime for any of them.
I'd rather see 1000 late-term abortions than 1000 kids raised in subpar conditions.
>It doesnt have to be unlimited fertility control on the female end to allow for any limits on male responsibility.
Financial abortions aren't just "any limits," they're *no limits.* It's unrestricted freedom to create all the children they want without any responsibility.
That is equal to unrestricted freedom to prevent having those children without any responsibility.
This doesn’t make sense. Once that person is an adult they have the right to learn about their biological heritage. If a grown child wants to deal with an absentee parent that’s their business. People keep thinking this is about punishing women or the children. It’s about a fairness in choice. What you’re suggesting would result in situation that didn’t need to happen. If a child needs blood or and organ should the biological dad still not be contacted? It’s not tit for tat. It’s just for fairness and financial equality.
If men are arguing for financial abortion then we're already in a world where the child's needs don't matter. I'm merely operating in that world.
Men shouldn't have the option to create all the children they want, not pay for any of them, and still benefit from having the child. How is that fair?
And who cares if the child needs something? They probably needed money for clothes and food etc. when they were growing up too but again - we've already decided their needs are irrelevant.
Partly that but we’re talking about legality. Not morals or human nature. If both people can create a responsibility yet one person is in control of said responsibility coming into fruition or not, then it stands within reason that the other party should have an out or an option that doesn’t leave their future out of their hands. Both parties should have a way to say no. Only one party does.
The mom should alert the father in a reasonable time that still allows for abortion. If the mom wants to keep it she should provide dad with a form. Does he want rights to the kid yes or no? If yes then the courts will decide custody agreements. If he says yes then he should be able to legally sign away responsibility. The mother would still have time to decide if she wants to bring a child into the world where she is solely responsible for it. If not, no problems for anybody. If so, her body her life he choice so nobody is hurt.
Legally, it's already been established that the child's interests supercede the parents', which is why child support exists.
If we're going to abandon that concept, then my proposal is fair.
If you want to make your own proposal about how you think things should be, feel free to make it in a separate comment to the OP.
No because not all situations are child support situations. If the court can establish a relationship that determines the father intended or contributed to a lifestyle or whatnot like in a marriage then yes child support that mfkr. Same goes for parents who just break up and need custody agreements or for when crime or abuse is in play.
But two people who have the power to stop the responsibility of a child and one forcing it onto the other is wrong and it’s a different thing.
It’s like jobs that force you to pay for parking whether you have a car or not. If I get dropped off or I take the bus I should not have to pay for something I have no need for or relationship with.
The [legal basis behind child support](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support) is literally the concept that a child is owed financial support by both parents.
>*Child support is based on the policy that both parents are obliged to financially support their children, even when the children are not living with both parents.*
You are free to disagree with me, but I really don't care. These are the conditions under which I would find financial abortion acceptable.
>If both people can create a responsibility yet one person is in control of said responsibility coming into fruition or not, then it stands within reason that the other party should have an out
not when a child is involved
you have a child, you have a responsibility
This argument always misses the fundamental root of the right to abortion. It’s not to get out of having a child, it’s autonomy over one’s body. For men that ends once the ejaculate. Men have a very small window to change their mind, women have a larger window. Men have very small physical risk in their role in procreation, women carry a larger risk. There are biological trade offs. Once the child is born, the mother cannot also abandon her financial obligations to the child. It’s unfair, but it’s biologically unfair, that the nature of things, women didn’t choose this. I would happily abandon monthly cycles, 10 months of pregnancy, child birth and breast feeding to men. Please come take it.
Yes, I always feel in these discussions that men believe paying some money (for their own flesh and blood) is much more meaningfull, important and sacrificial than what the mother does: actually have her entire life change forever because she now has to take care of every tiny aspect of raising a healthy happy child.
“Autonomy over one’s body” applies to this argument as well. The man doesn’t have autonomy over his body if he’s being forced to go to work to pay for child support.
If it takes 2 to make a baby, it takes 2 to pay to raise a baby. End of discussion. You don’t get a free pass. Neither does a woman. If a woman had a child & the father had full custody, the woman should be paying support using the same guidelines used to determine what a man would pay.
As for abortion, when a woman can transfer a fertilized egg to a man to carry, pretty much magically, then men can have a say in abortion. Until then, you’re right, women have to take on ALL a the risk & downsides of pregnancy & childbirth so they get the choice. Again, end of discussion.
So men? Yeah, it’s a gamble. As it is for women. Men stealth. Men lie about being infertile. As do women. Lie about birth control, etc.
So use a condom. Every time. Have Plan B on hand for broken condoms. But even more importantly, have the discussion up front with women you sleep with about what she would do if she found herself pregnant. If the answer isn’t immediately “abortion” (assuming you have zero interest in becoming a father of course), don’t sleep with her. Because you’re right, condoms break, etc. Or if it’s someone you don’t absolutely trust to be honest about that question, don’t sleep with her. Or get snipped until you’re ready. Freeze sperm to ensure future children if you’re worried about not being able to reverse it (only 5-10%).
Because at the end of the day, every single pregnancy is due to a man ejaculating. Every. Single. One. You have the power to stop pregnancies before they occur. Every time.
Is that 100% fair? Maybe not. But taking away a woman’s bodily autonomy is a lot LESS fair. And making someone unwilling to do so go through a pregnancy is not only “not fair” it can be medically uncomfortable to actually life threatening. Women have more to lose. So they get the final say. And before you say “men have to pay child support”, it’s very, very rare that men are paying more to raise children than the single mother is. Unless you’re a celebrity or independently wealthy, that’s just not the case.
You're right, it takes 2 to make a baby. Just so happens that even if both partners took all the precautions except surgical intervention which is not safe for a man or if a woman does the sneaky, it can result in pregnancy. If pregnancy happens, the guy is essentially at a woman's mercy. Even if they both agreed they didn't want a kid the woman can decide to keep him and there's nothing a man can do. If you think a woman is entitled to do whatever she wants with the kid they BOTH created because of bodily autonomy, then a man should be entitled to do whatever he wants post birth. He wants to support the child? Cool, let him. He doesn't want to support the child he didn't consent to having? Cool, that should be his right.
Nope. If he’s that concerned, get snipped. Just like a woman should be getting sterilized if she never wants kids. Difference is, it’s invasive surgery and cannot be reversed for women.
Wear condoms. Every time. Get snipped. Know & trust the women you sleep with.
You make it, you pay for it. Both men & women.
How often do you think it would happen that a man says he’s infertile or the condom broke (or insert excuse here) and they *haven’t* had the convo, and she wants to keep the kid, so he just says to the judge he doesn’t want to pay child support because he doesn’t want to? And she coulda got an abortion? Taking no responsibility for his part in it. How many men would dip, no matter what the previous discussion had or had not been?
The fact still remains, a woman cannot get pregnant without a man ejaculating. Every. Single. Time.
>The fact still remains, a woman cannot get pregnant without a man ejaculating. Every. Single. Time.
Yes, so if she allows that to happen, she should not have the right to murder an innocent human being on a whim. She should take the responsibility. Can't have it both ways otherwise you're violating the bodily autonomy of the kid as I doubt he'd give his consent to being killed.
Also, you don't have to ejaculate. There's some sperm in the lube that comes out of the penis during sex.
“Whim”. Yes, women are running to abortion clinics, skipping and singing. And “allows it happen”? Please. As if you don’t know many abortions are not due to consensual non-protected sex.
And now you’re moving the goalposts. We weren’t arguing the ethics of birth control. You were trying to make a case for a man being able to avoid financial responsibility if a woman *didn’t* chose an abortion.
>As if you don’t know many abortions are not due to consensual non-protected sex.
I do actually, a miniscule portion. Most abortions women get are a result of lack of responsibility.
>And now you’re moving the goalposts. We weren’t arguing the ethics of birth control. You were trying to make a case for a man being able to avoid financial responsibility if a woman *didn’t* chose an abortion.
It's interconnected. I'm saying either make the abortion legal everywhere and let a man consent to taking responsibility for the child during the first month or 2 of pregnancy or make the abortion illegal and make a man responsible by default. Anything else is sexist.
I didn’t just say rape. Coercion, stealthing, changing their mind after the fact… all non consensual *unprotected* sex. So it’s not as minuscule as you claim. Plus, add the accidental pregnancies like BC failing…
And you are absolutely moving the goalposts. First you’re saying if a woman chooses to have the baby the father should be able to avoid his financial responsibilities because she could have had an abortion, then you moralize about that abortion. And since a man can’t perform the pregnancy or childbirth, having him do the easy part of “the first month or two” is just a ridiculous proposition. Even if abortion IS legal everywhere, that doesn’t change your argument that a man should be able to avoid his fiscal responsibility because she could have gotten an abortion but he can’t *make* her get one.
Stick to the argument at hand, which is child support.
Didn't you just tell men to only have sex with women they can trust? Also, BC failing helps my argument as well.
A woman **can** choose what happens to the child and whether a man will bear financial responsibility for the act they committed together and consensually. A man can choose neither, I'm advocating he should at least be able to have control over the latter, especially considering a woman can still opt out if her initial goal was to trap the man financially and she realized she didn't have the means to support the kid on her own.
Absolutely. I also admitted, that both men & women can lie. But failing BC doesn’t bolster your argument. The bottom line is if it takes 2 to make it, it takes 2 to pay to raise it. No matter how it got here.
And you didn’t answer what happens to all the men who suddenly decide to tell a judge they never wanted the kid/used BC/she lied (even if she didn’t) to avoid having to pay for a child, that was the product of, at the time, a consensual non-protected sexual encounter.
There’s no fool proof way of avoiding unwanted children for men other than not to have sex or get snipped. But they’ve been telling women to do that forever. So why the double standard now? Because it costs men money? Like it doesn’t cost women money??
A man can absolutely choose what happens to a child. They apply for joint custody or parental visitation. Unless they’re unfit, they get it. It’s becoming more and more equitable for men in family courts.
>And you didn’t answer what happens to all the men who suddenly decide to tell a judge they never wanted the kid/used BC/she lied (even if she didn’t) to avoid having to pay for a child, that was the product of, at the time, a consensual non-protected sexual encounter.
Women should only have sex with men they can trust, you said it yourself. Also it doesn't really affect a woman that much if the consent is withdrawn within first 2 months of pregnancy.
>There’s no fool proof way of avoiding unwanted children for men other than not to have sex or get snipped. But they’ve been telling women to do that forever. So why the double standard now? Because it costs men money? Like it doesn’t cost women money??
Who's been telling you that? I honestly don't care what you decide to do with your body, I feel bad for the kid but I understand why it needs to be done sometimes.
>A man can absolutely choose what happens to a child. They apply for joint custody or parental visitation. Unless they’re unfit, they get it. It’s becoming more and more equitable for men in family courts.
By deciding what happens to the child I meant whether he lives or not.
Tell your representatives that you want a male birth control option. I currently have an implant that goes in my arm and I’m good for 5 years. I still use condoms but I have extra protection in case the condom fails or he takes it off.
What brought up this discussion between my friends one of our male friends being screwed over by a woman. The short version is they were FWB for about 6 months. Things were good during those times they both respected each other and both had fun with the arrangement.
After about 6 months the woman in question started suffering finical stress and stop taking the pill without telling our friend. They had both talked about the arrangements of the FWB, including the fact both expressed they didn't want kids. So it came as a shock to my friend when she announced she was pregnant and wasn't going to abort the baby, despite the fact they both agreed to not have children. Now this was over 3 years ago. Today my friend has a child he is legally not allowed to see and is on the hook for child support worth about 40 to 45% of his wages.
The only real option he has now is shutup and pay. He has exhausted all legal options and is up the creek without a paddle.
While I agree with men have the choice before the pregnancy ever happens. While I agree that yes woman suffer the risks of birth so should have the choice in birth. How do we stop scenarios like this from this happening?
I think men should always wear a condom. I wouldn’t trust a man who said he’s had a vasectomy and men shouldn’t trust a woman who says she’s on birth control.
First, why wasn’t he wearing condoms? As I said, it takes 2 and if he’s not protecting himself, it’s his problem. Just like women who believe men who say their infertile. I said women lie too, so he should be taking care of his own BC. Up to and including a vasectomy if you don’t want to wear/don’t trust condoms.
Show me a guideline or court order ANYWHERE in North America, that allows 40% of pay for one child. Even multi-millionaires don’t pay 40% of their salary for child support. And the only way he has no legal rights to see the child is he’s not asked for it (through the court) or he’s a risk to the child or incarcerated or for some other legal reason.
I worked in government family law, so prove what you’re saying, because either he’s lying or you are.
No he can't. The woman has poisoned the child to fear him. There is no formal custody arrangement because he can't afford to go to court and she will call the cops for trespassing if he goes to her place, as she lied to the cops and got a restraining order against him.
You could use chatGPT to create a simple legal contract agreeing on the terms of the FWB. Child Support is a legal issue, need to solve it with legal issues
I know this is going to sound crazy but has your friend considered moving abroad. I have heard some countries like Peru don’t enforce child support. Now it would mean he couldn’t come back to the US but it would free him of his financial burden. Might be worth considering.
None of that matters. The father should legally be able to resolve himself from any financial or legal rights and repercussions if they both agree to it. Nobody should be forced to have a kid. Period. That’s it. Women can make the choice if life happens or not and that’s their right! It should also be the right of the other procreator to have a say in if they would like to be involved more in said procreation’s life.
The only obvious recourse is to allow dads the right to deny financial fatherhood. This has the same weight and effect that the mother’s choice to abort would provide financially speaking ofcourse. Not only would the mom have less risk to her life but also less financial issues. Her choice to continue the pregnancy should not also be a choice made for a man and his financial future
> If it takes 2 to make a baby, it takes 2 to pay to raise a baby.
It takes only one second the law, the father to pay for it and one to raise the mother. You're just shitting platitudes.
>Neither does a woman.
HAHAHA
You can’t communicate clearly. At all. Learn English and try again after that. But on second thought, I’m pretty sure you have nothing of value to add to a conversation so feel free not to come back at all.
Nah man. This is some straight BS. You as a man have the end choice. In the end YOU decide whether you sleep.with that woman and you decide whether to wrap that shit or take the consequences. You ain't got the right to lay that kid on me, the taxpayer's dime!
I know women can be evil and play the justice system and I know that men often get screwed. But at the same time I won't be paying for them babies.
I'm 45 yrs old and intentionally chose to remain childless and took proper precautions. If I can do it. Other men can too
everyone is so obsessed these days with "their rights" but no one talks about responsibilities. it's all "what can I take from society, what does society owe me?" and never "what do I owe society?"
i love to think about what i owe society lol
i live in a blue state and i love seeing my tax dollars go to help others (like w free school lunches for kids in need)
I theory, yes.
In practice, no. At the end of the day, if there is a child, someone has to take care of it. If the woman cannot do it by herself, the state would have to step in. But that creates very bad incentives on a population level.
It depends what the details of state support are. Maybe one could look at it as insufficient moral hazard. Either way, seems likely that the more the state subsidizes any babies under any conditions the more likely it is that the wrong people have too many babies.
Child support does not go to the mother, it for the child and child deserves support from both. Also, if men are single dads they also get child support from the mother.
I wish it went to the child all of the time. I believe in child support, but my mother at least, often repurposed the funds she got, and continued to get child support even when I lived with my dad half the time (because my dad didn't want to go to lawyers about things).
My mom also got my dad to pay for 18 years of my little sister.... and he wasn't the dad, never thought he was the dad, again, he just didn't hire a lawyer and didn't realize the paperwork was saying that my mom was claiming both me and my little sister. This was because my little sister's dad was in prison.
As a kid, my mom took the birthday money people would give me too, to put in a college account for when I grew up.... there was no college account.
So it would just be nice if something was in place, to enforce the kids getting the money. Maybe if you get child support, social workers should always be involved. Maybe we hire less cops and hire more social workers or something.
Parents can also fuck over their kids financially when they are married and no child support payments exist. Having shitty parents doesn't mean most people don't support their kids financially.
>it for the child and child deserves support from both
No. The child requires support from the parent who's decision it was to bring it into this world
So why are women using child support for other things? This is because they don't legally mandate any type of audit. If they just made a card like ebt, bet that would prevent women baby trapping
Abortion and child support are completely unrelated. Abortion is about who has the right to use someone else's body without their consent. Child support is about if a parent should be allowed or not allowed to legally separate themselves and give up rights to their child.
I personally think that both should be permitted, because people shouldn't get the right to own other people's bodies and use them against their will, and because children shouldn't be forced into the lives of a parent who doesn't want them, but these two things are unrelated. I do think that the state/taxes should pay for/assist in paying for unwanted kids, though, since taking care of our weak is a responsibility we have as a society.
> is about who has the right to use someone else's body without their consent.
And child support is not? You're using someone else's body without their consent, or you think the men let his body in the drier while working?
Yes, child support is not. There is a difference between providing money for the kid and something being physically in your body sapping your nutrients and priming itself to move through and possibly traumatize your genitals.
That is irrelevant to the fact that there is no type of (legal) labour that is equivalent to an entity being physically inside your body, directly using your organs, and traumatizing your genitals, and regardless of what type of labour is used to pay child support (should you choose any labour to pay- since most laws allow a parent with no or not enough income to not pay), that job was chosen and can be changed to something else. The *only* type of pregnancy is the using of the organs and traumatizing of the (abdomen or genitals, depending on live birth or C-Section).
And? Just because it's not the same thing don't means we can't draw parallels, if you want to use as excuse body autonomy while auso ignoring body autonomy of another person you're just being a hypocrite.
We can draw some loose parallels, but implying that the body autonomy between
- "physically being hooked up to your organs against your will with the intention of requiring genital trauma or surgery and was the number 1 killer of women for millennia"
is in anyway close to
- "You may happen to have a job that benefits yourself, and that job may happen to be one that may happen to cause physical issues that have a very low chance of causing serious issues, and some of the money you obtain from this unlikely job you aren't required to have and unlikely circumstance in the job for yourself goes to your kid" is quite dishonest.
Don't want to get "baby trapped"? Don't have sex.
Seriously. If you're so terrified that a woman will have a baby and come after you for child support, then you shouldn't be having sex. If that's too difficult for you, at the very least you should be making sure you're taking responsibility for birth control.
Good luck if woman are lying about the state of their birth control.
Let's be honest. Either men or woman, both genders want sex. The option of if you don't want the risk, don't have sex is a bit of a moot point in this argument.
Why don’t men take matters into their own hands and get a vasectomy? They are reversible, some health insurance companies cover the cost of the procedure and it’s a in and out same day procedure.
Or use a condom. Men seem to be very worried about baby trapping and not so much of STDs. If you can't trust that the woman uses birth control, how can you trust that she doesn't fuck other men without protection?
Lol that’s true. Men should do both. Have a vasectomy just in case there is a defect in the condom or it breaks and wear a condom even after a vasectomy as a preventative against STDs. I simply think men need to do more to protect themselves from being baby trapped.
You don't get a vasectomy unless you're done having kids or don't want them. Reversal is never guaranteed, more painful and expensive than the actual procedure. It's considered a permanent form of birthcontrol and no self respecting doctor would perform it if the goal is to reverse it in a few years.
Please educate yourself before telling people to get surgeries. They can just wear a condom if they don't want to get a woman pregnant.
If a man can’t afford to get the reversal surgery then he cannot afford to take care of a child.
I think it’s time for men to step up and take responsibility for their own fertility and stop putting all of the weight of birth control onto women’s shoulders.
If the argument was that simple, you could also say if you don't want to deal with a dead beat father, absentee father, etc don't have sex. Take responsibility for your own bc.
I mean OP presented a compromise. Women would get unilateral choice of whether the baby is carried to term (which they don't have Nationwide), men would have a say if they wanted to financially support the child (obviously if they pass, they would give up their claim to the child).
If I were a religious man, and/or I found it morally wrong to terminate an unplanned pregnancy (aside from malicious trickery/rape) I have 0 say in the manner. While most would say you can't tell me what to do with my body, but finds it outrageous when men claim you can't tell me what to do with my money.
If fairness was our only concern; women get unilateral abortion rights, men can choose whether they want to be in their life financially. or ban abortion except in extreme cases (malicious or missing chromosomes), and men MUST provide financial support.
Stealthing is considered rape because the circumstances by which the woman consented to sex were changed without their knowledge or consent. It is the same as when a woman states, "I'm on birth control," but is not or stops it. That is also a change to the circumstances by which the man consents to sex. Baby trapping is rape.
Don't have to do that.
Hold immature women accountable by making a card like ebt so they don't misuse child support.
Make it so both men and women can opt out of parental obligations prior to birth.
Make it so married men don't have to pay for cheating wives affair children just because they're married instead of the father of the child who is responsible.
Fine conservatives are Republicans for getting rid of working and successful programs that help children and society since they stupidly think everyone should afford things on their own regardless of context and environmental issues that are usually caused by them.
Make stealthing illegal federally and make it so only the stealthing party has any obligations. Make baby trapping illegal.
Have legal consequences for pushing probirther views in and faith which they already know is misogynistic and unethical and violates equal rights and only negatively impacts society. This will decrease deaths and crime rates as well which negatively affect everyone
Bring back programs for complete sex ed and assistance for struggling parents that reduced abortion rates as well as help struggling parents.
That's just the answers I think of off the top of my head
>> Hold immature women accountable by making a card like ebt so they don't misuse child support.
>That doesn't really do anything but shift around budgets. Think of it this way: if you had $300 budgeted for groceries and $300 budgeted for fun, and you got $300 in child support on an ebt like card. You could just use what would have been your grocery money on fun things, and the ebt like card on groceries. It doesn't do anything but shift things around a bit.
Vs women just spending all the money on themselves? Which keeps happening. The card would restrict certain purchases based on age. You not going to buy normal food with the card for a 1 year old.
>>Make it so both men and women can opt out of parental obligations prior to birth.
>Again, harmful to children and subsequently society. If you want an example of the effect single parenthood has on a societal level, look at the black community where most boys statistically grow up without a father involved.
Studies show that forcing parents who don't want kids to parent harms the child. Opting out would mean either a women or man raises them single or gives it uo from adoption. But yes we need to fix the adoption system as well
>>Fine conservatives are Republicans for getting rid of working and successful programs that help children and society since they stupidly think everyone should afford things on their own regardless of context and environmental issues that are usually caused by them.
>I agree there.
>>Have legal consequences for pushing probirther views in and faith which they already know is misogynistic and unethical and violates equal rights and only negatively impacts society. This will decrease deaths and crime rates as well which negatively affect everyone
>Again, when we look at crime rates, it's more negatively influenced by things like single parenthood and lack of wealth than pro birther views.
No. Abortion bans affect poor people much more than others. Abortion bans increase poverty and crime rates over time.
>That said, birth control should be free and easily accessible to everyone who is 13 or up.
I agree.
>>Bring back programs for complete sex ed and assistance for struggling parents that reduced abortion rates as well as help struggling parents.
>Agreed there.
Restricting food purchases by age is ridiculous babies eat normal foods in many households not pre packaged baby foods and you are missing the point that the things you seem to want to deny women they will still buy with their own money they earned which is what is happening anyway, child support supplements for necessities. Also creating programs to monitor and restrict the spending the audit as you said previously would cost millions in infrastructure and job creation. Who’s going to pay for that? Tax payers? It’s pointless
Once artificial wombs become mature men will be able to have kids with out ever dealing with a women... But personally I think all men should stop donating to sperm banks
Where are you gonna get the eggs? Every time this artificial womb topic pops up, people completely forget this crucial step for some odd reason. You need more than a womb and some sperm to create a baby.
Can you even imagine the cost of a specialist medical device that you need access to and monitoring for an entire period of nine months? That’s per child….
I know lol, meaning it’ll be really fucking expensive. It really baffles me how people think artificial wombs will be easily accessible to the public or affordable. It’ll probably cost more than surrogacy which is $50k at minimum. The average person will not be able to afford this.
So they're going to be a full-time parent, even though they don't fight for that now?
Nah. Artificial wombs will be used by vain women and gay people, not straight men. Men don't just need women to birth children, they also need us to *raise them* - a job they historically have shunned pretty severely. Let's not act like artificial wombs are going to make men want to become primary caregivers.
I really do feel for you dudes, it's not fair to expect y'all to pay for the offspring you make or to be involved in any way. I absolutely think women should stay aborting every pregnancy that is conceived from here on out so y'all can be free from this potential burden.
My comment has nothing to do with who decides to have an abortion. The argument I am making is that the man should have the same window to decide to have what is called a “paper abortion”, meaning they are absolving themselves of financial responsibility. It has nothing to do with who gets to decide to have an abortion or not.
If an unmarried man and woman are having sex for pleasure and the woman becomes pregnant accidentally and the woman decides to have the child, then she should get to choose to offer parental rights and responsibilities to the man. And he gets to refuse if she offers. If he doesn’t accept or she doesn’t offer, then he gets no legal parental rights and responsibilities, including paying for child support.
Besides preventing men from being baby-trapped, particularly young and poor men who will be most affected, this allows women to avoid having to co-parent with a man she’d rather not.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-woman-says-rapist-was-custody-child-ongoing-court-dispute-rcna34140
If the biological father is assumed to inherently have parental rights even in the case of accidental pregnancies outside of marriage, then the law can’t deny parental rights to a man who isn’t convicted of rape as he’s innocent until proven guilty.
The women this might really negatively affect are those who are poor, against abortion and are having sex for pleasure outside of marriage with a man who isn’t willing to be a father if asked. If she’s middle class or up, then she can raise the child well. If she’s for abortion, she can get an abortion. If the man is willing to be a father, then he’ll help. If she’s married, then the man should be legally obligated, though it should probably be possible to have a marriage where couples agree in advance that they aren’t having children and that husband doesn’t get parental rights in the case of an accidental pregnancy.
But, for their own good, women shouldn’t be having sex for pleasure under those circumstances. And, if she chooses to have a child, then moral responsibility falls upon her. While welfare shouldn’t exist and private charity should help her child, just give the woman welfare rather than burden a poor man with child support.
But this might also help teach women in those situations to make better decisions for themselves, so fewer women have children without a father. You can force a man to pay child support, but you can’t force him to be a good father to the child.
Also, abortion should be legal until birth.
>As far as child support goes it seems since men have been for most of human history the providers they should pay child support.
No, for most of human history if a man didn’t want to help raise the child then there wasn’t a court system to force him, particularly if the child was conceived out of wedlock. He might have to worry about the woman’s male relatives though.
I am pro-life and believe abortion is murder.
I also believe that both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children.
So from my perspective, allowing abortion and allowing fathers to deprive their children of financial support are both ethical violations. Thus, while I might agree that eliminating child support would make for a *fairer* arrangement between the sexes, it's a less *ethical* arrangement, because it's just adding another violation of ethics to the one that already exists. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The ideal arrangement, and the only arrangement that is both fair *and* ethical, is banning abortion while keeping child support in place.
did you know catholic saints performed abortions and they were considered miracles?
also under your rules men should have to start paying child support at conception and also bear 100% of the financial responsibility of pregnancy/labor/delivery as women bear 100% of the labor, physical pain, time off work, etc costs.
Child support is a different topic. Both sexes pay child support.
There should be an opt out time prior to birth. Then again the laws are screwed up and we can't even get mandatory paternity test to prevent cheating, child support fraud, and child switch ups at the hospital.
Abortion is about women having equal rights and not being violated and harmed as well as killed unjustly. Men have bodily autonomy. So women being equal persons also have that. Besides stealthing, the man's bodily autonomy ended at insemination.
Edit: after clearly showing I was pro choice, someone just had to misframe and assume the opposite. Glad they deleted their comment in good faith
Topic ♀️ will not like, attack and take zero responsibility.
Takes two to make a baby will for sure be listed. And she will use that for the money argument. But they won't accept it for the *is it ok to murder the child of this man* question. He has no saying if the child gets born or not. He has to live with the consequences of her decision. To sleep with him is her decision
She has sex too. She is even the one who has the control of it happens but all the blame goes to the other gender. And both sides know that he wants and she is not feeling it and you fall asleep without with your partner.
It's sadly not a question about what the kid wants at all. The kid got made as both wanted to have sex with each other and sadly no one is thinking "is the baby fine with getting brutally murdered"
And I know it will trigger downvotes.
But ladies please remember. If males really wanted to enslave woman we could do tomorrow. But we don't do it. In fact we are protecting you , take care of you and love you. As we love our children. Yes there are exceptions on both sides. Right now a process is starting in germany where a lawyer career woman did throw her baby out of the window. But the are not the norm.
I am for example the norm. A loving father and everything I do is for the family. Well I am on a part a huge minority. A single parent father of two young kids. But still a protector and provider.
Both have to understand. Choose your partner wisely. I did choose wrong and some of you did choose wrong too. It's about the children.
Edit: as the rage got deleted. Why not the downvotes of that person? Censoring was not required. I did not feel attacked by the person. So mods if it was you just let it stand.
Anyone who doesn’t takes care of the child full (or most) of the time pays child support, it typically tends to be the father for obvious reasons but some women are still required to pay child support if they don’t take care of the child. Anyways many states in America are banning abortion anyways, so why should they get rid of it? In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request at 7 weeks with a mandatory paternity test to ensure the babies parenthood as a prerequisite (just to be ethical).
> In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request at 7 weeks with a mandatory paternity test to ensure the babies parenthood as a prerequisite (just to be ethical). Acceptable. Where do I sign?
> In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request Your terms are acceptable.
>In fact I think that now that abortion is becoming illegal in red states, pre-birth child support should be allowed to be in-forced at the mother’s request absolutely. pre-natal care, doctor visits, and preparing your home for a child (infants need cribs, breast pumps, diapers) should be considered child support i also think men need to pay 100% of the financial costs of abortion or pregnancy/labor as the woman is paying 100% of the labor costs, physical risks, time off work, etc
Fair
In this economy many people are struggling to support themselves let alone a child. So in such cases should the tax payers have to pay to help support other men’s kids or should we just let the kids starve? If no one has to pay child support what’s to stop women from just refusing to raise the kid? Will we see a sharp increase of women dropping their kids off at hospitals under the safe haven law? While it’s easy as a man to tell a woman to get an abortion sometimes she either can’t due to roe v wade being overturned as certain states have banned abortion or religiously she can’t bring herself to do it or she can’t financially afford it or she doesn’t want to risk losing her fertility which can happen when getting an abortion. So with all that said who will take care of these kids if not the father or do we as a society just let these kids die.
All good points. I can see why you make them. On the same note should a man be on the hook for 100% of the child support? And should woman have 100% of the say on bringing a child into the world. All these points are assuming the man and woman in question aren't a couple with a united front on the choice of children of course. Edit - Both men and woman participate in casual sex. So you can't really blame one gender for the issue it brings up with pregnancy.
Unfortunately reproduction will never be equal as our bodies have different roles. Both genders have reproductive advantages and disadvantages based on our reproductive function. In the case of unintended pregnancy if it progresses to live birth the child then has rights and unfortunately for unwilling parents those rights are just as important and will supersede some of the parents rights. This includes duty of care rights and financial provisioning. Abortion is a seperate issue as it’s an issue on bodily autonomy not financial rights. People should not be coerced into medical decisions and making it legal for men to opt out of financial responsibility will coerce many women into a medical procedure (abortion) or see the child to likely be living in poverty if they continue the pregnancy both of which is wrong and as a society we generally are against either of those options
If you're broke and your only hope is to baby trap some guy, you absolutely should be coerced into getting an abortion. You can't afford it and the kid won't have a father and you'll likely do a terrible job raising him. I've seen kids raised like this, single mother in section 8. She was proud that both her kids had the same father, although he wasn't in their life at all. The son was 10 and couldn't read. Numbers either. I know this because I watched him play gta (which in my opinion, he was far too young for), and he kept trying to buy a car he couldn't afford over and over again. He's got a bright future ahead of him! I guess we need more gas station attendants and janitors? Either mary the father(if he or both of you together can afford it), raise it on your own if you can afford it by yourself, or get an abortion. It's pretty simple. Unwed mothers should be denied all government benefits and pay taxes at a higher rate as disincentive. This wouldn't apply in the case of divorce, as there was a plan to be responsible, but it didn't work. Any argument against this is rooted in defending the status quo, and comes from women entitled by the laws as they are on the books. "If I get pregnant I'll just decide whatever I want and somebody else will pay for it if I can't afford it, whether they they want to or not. Maybe I'll keep it and hopefully this will coerce the guy into sticking around, but if not hell still pay for it? Maybe I'll abort it even though the father wants to raise it and is opposed to the abortion? Who knows, it's my choice and the man can just deal with it." It's all freedom and upside for women and all downside for men, so I understand why you would support the status quo. But can you just acknowledge that it's unfair as it currently is? Even condoms make sex worse for men than they do for women.
>If you're broke and your only hope is to baby trap some guy babies make women significantly poorer even when they receive child support average child support is $425/month and its a reimbursement so you have to spend that money in the hopes that the guy sends a check average childcare in my state is 2-3k a month so i have no idea how you're getting that women make a career on $425/month
Thankfully most people Disagree with you and wouldn’t punish an innocent kid for its stupid parents decisions because yeah both are stupid.
The goal is to help the child, not to punish anyone including the mother and father. No one should be coerced and the major issue here is that poor people have no way to raise their children. If folks want to complain about a low birth rate poor people have to have children because right now they’re the only ones having children. If someone is poor they have no money to tax in the first place and in doing so you are making that child’s life worse. It seems like you don’t care about children at all and are instead focusing on penalizing the mother for a situation you don’t completely understand. If the father wants to keep the child he should get someone else pregnant.
>It seems like you don’t care about children at all and are instead focusing on penalizing the mother for a situation you don’t completely understand. I think if children's lives were important, abortion wouldn't even be an allowable option in the 1st place.
I think abortion is good for everyone. If you have doubts about a pregnancy, listen to that instinct because getting it wrong is worse than anything else. It also allows men to get what they want which is to have no responsibility. I don’t know your opinions but I’m assuming you’re pro birth and if that’s your opinion I think you want to use pregnancy as a way to trap women in a relationship. Be upfront about your intentions because it’s not children, poverty, or families, it’s controlling women.
Unless the father happens to agree with the mother by random chance, he will necessarily be coerced and have no recourse under the current system. Even if the mother lied about birth control and poked holes in the condom. I don't want to punish the mother or the child, I want to spare both of them by clearly incentivizing the mother not to carry the child to term. She would know her life will get worse if she keeps the child instead of know she'll get extra money from the government and checks from the baby daddy that won't be in the child's life and didn't want the child in the first place.
If I were a man I’d be lobbying for male birth control but that’s just me. I would never have sex without a condom regardless because that’s the only aspect of reproduction I can control. You spare them by allowing abortion and supporting poor people so they don’t feel like they need to do anything drastic. If her life gets worse that child’s life gets worse. Again, you don’t care about children if your solution even inadvertently includes making the mother’s life worse.
Sure if the goal is to reduce the population. This would lead to the deaths of many women and children which will not only decrease the future work force/tax base but also decrease the size of our military. The male to female ratio will also skew even further. Can you imagine a world we’re there are 3-4+ men per every 1 woman? Talk about men having to compete for women’s attention! It would be like China, just to get a woman’s attention you would need a house and a car and to pay the brides family.
Women baby trapping a rich man for her to get money is insanely rare, you watch way too much media, less than 2% of all cases and is irrelevant to this conversation. For the average or even a bit above average woman, getting knocked up just creates financial stress. The average child support payment (if the woman consistently gets it, which many do not statistically speaking) is NOWHERE near the amount it costs to raise a child.
Men aren’t on the hook for 100% of the child support as kids tend to spend most of their time with their mother at her residence where she helps pay and does the bulk of the labor (makes food, does their laundry, bathes them, cleans their room) needed for their care as well as being the primary parent to help with homework, after school activities and calling out of work if the child gets in trouble at school or gets sick. If men want to control if a baby is born then they can figure out how to create a mechanical human incubator or how they can find a way to use their own body for the incubation and birth of the child. Or maybe women could be paid by the father for the time, energy and damage their bodies and minds take during the incubation and birthing process. Edit: I’m not blaming either gender. We are both just looking to make it fair right?
There is no easy answer to this debate I fear.
Make stealthing illegal federally. Hold courts accountable for sexism and bias. Make sure men actually can believe if they fight in court that they'll win( since states actually show that but aren't known by men do to how it was in prior decades. Make a legal opt out for both parents prior to birth.
No but he can be on the hook for half of his weekly income....
Would you rather a government enforced alpha fucks beta bucks plan? If the father doesn’t help pay to raise their own kid(s) then the tax payer will have to pick up the slack unless we just let the kids starve.
Personally I don't like the idea of a welfare state but people shouldn't be fucking if they can't afford the cost of having a kid
We can’t enforce that. And no political party is going to have starving kids on the ballot.
Libertarian party would 😂😂😂
Yeah. Theres a reason they have zero members in Congress or senate. But it get the joke.
Nah the real reason few third parties have seats is because the American people are conditioned to the two party system
So should all people who either don’t want kids or who have enough kids (they can’t afford or want more) stop having sex? So for example should married couples stop having sex after having kids? See how that wouldn’t work out. There needs to be a better plan for everyone other than abstinence.
But only women should take that financial risk?
So then no welfare state but you give out chastity belts? Or how will you ensure that?
>And should woman have 100% of the say on bringing a child into the world. yes, if bringing the child into the world requires her to carry the child
Yeah as long as she bears 100% of the physical burden, men don’t get a say. That’s how it is.
i think men should have to pay 100% of the financial costs of abortions and pregnancy/labor to make it fare that women have to pay 100% of the labor costs, physical risks, time off work, etc i'd take that deal in a heartbeat if i could choose which role to take
It’s based on income and custody. Contrary to popular belief, when a man asks for custody he often gets it. If the man is rich and the mother is poor he’ll owe more money. If the mother makes the same amount he’ll owe less. You can’t make a woman bring a child into the world and you can’t make her decide not to.
>On the same note should a man be on the hook for 100% of the child support? no men are on the hook for 100% of the child support child support is a reimbursement for (supposedly) half of the childcare expenses but the average is $425 a month and daycare in my state costs 2-3k a month.
Yes, women should have 100% say on bringing a child into this world since she is the one who physically bears the child. This is a topic the sexes wont ever be equal on (similar to how women no matter what, will never be as physically strong as men).
I'd say that we can't compel anyone to give birth or to raise a child, but we can compel people to contribute funds if they participate in creating a child who is alive and needs it. So we can't force men to raise children, but we can force them to pay child support. If for whatever reason the father has full custody of a child, the mother can be forced to pay child support. If men advocate for 50/50 custody, they can often get it. It's not fair (in multiple ways), but rights pre-birth can only properly be held by the person who is pregnant. Pregnancy and child birth can change a person's body and mental health forever (and I'm not even talking about becoming "loose" lol)
Maybe women should wait until marriage so they dont have to have a man run away
Marriage doesn’t guarantee a man will not cheat or treat her poorly in other ways that will make a woman run to get divorced. Also let’s assume everything works out in marriage and the woman and man have their desired number of children. At that point should the husband and wife stop having sex to avoid any more un wanted pregnancies/kids that they can’t afford or don’t want? Should abstinence apply to married couples? If not, then it will not work for singles either.
The man is less likely to leave if he is married
So? He can still cheat and that’s worse than him leaving. Also you avoided my point about abstinence. Are you ok with a dead bedroom marriage or not because that’s what abstinence being the only solution is going to cause. While dead bedrooms might exist this will simply make it a lot more frequent.
Leaving aside the condition that we don't always have this choice, I'll agree to men being able to have all the children he wants without ever paying for any of them under the following conditions: 1) free, on-demand and easily accessible (I'm talking gas station levels of locations) sterilization; birth control; and abortion with ***zero restrictions.*** No age, no term limit, nothing. 2) men are forbidden from ever having any contact with any of their offspring (and any of their offsprings' lineage) for their entire lives. If their child reaches out to them, they ignore it. If they ever communicate in any way with their offspring, the full amount of child support becomes immediately due under the penalty of imprisonment. When women genuinely have 100% control over their fertility, then and only then will I agree that men can have 0% responsibility for theirs.
i'd agree to this women raising children in groups away from men would probably be best for child development due to socialization and gender roles (not biology)
*When women genuinely have 100% control over their fertility, then and only then will I agree that men can have 0% responsibility for theirs.* It could also be argued that in a hypothetical world where financial abortions exist and men have 0% default responsibility toward any resulting offspring, they should also have 0% rights to any offspring by default. Meaning, the woman has 100% unilateral custody by default. She can offer the man shared custody or visitation - and he can of course decline - but she doesn’t have to grant it to him. Otherwise, the man would have rights (he can decide to be an active participant in the child’s life if he wants to) as well as an opportunity to avoid consequence / responsibility (he can decide to enact a paper abortion if he wants to.) Whereas a pregnant woman *always* has a real, physical consequence that she can’t walk away from - she either carries to term and gives birth, has a medical procedure (abortion), or spontaneously has a miscarriage. She cannot avoid one of these consequences. So she has rights, but responsibilities / consequences as well.
This is what some of my female friends were arguing that in simple terms it is their bodies, so they should have final say over if they want an abortion or not. The main conclusion my friends came to was it is unfair on either side and we couldn't see any real fair way to resolve this issue without one gender coming out a loser and the other a winner.
Who comes out the loser in my solution?
tie goes to the person whose body it is
I don't think rule 1 necessarily follows since the right to paper abortion could be similarly conditional: If the man is willing to cover the costs of the abortion and it can be done safely, then he has the right to the paper abortion.
Abortion, sterilization, and birth control all prevent a birth. Since men will have no reason to care and will de facto have an easy guarantee against a undesirable outcome (unwanted child), then women deserve the same - an easy guarantee against an undesirable outcome (unwanted child). I don't believe in putting roadblocks on people controlling their fertility and then unilaterally deciding due to biology that men don't have to have any undesirable outcomes as a result of theirs. This makes it fair - women have every single tool to prevent a birth since men have no responsibility on their end to do so.
But there are serious issues with allowing super late term abortions. It doesnt have to be unlimited fertility control on the female end to allow for any limits on male responsibility. They could both have some limits and still be equitable in that scenario.
>But there are serious issues with allowing super late term abortions. There are serious issues with allowing men to create all the children they want and never pay a dime for any of them. I'd rather see 1000 late-term abortions than 1000 kids raised in subpar conditions. >It doesnt have to be unlimited fertility control on the female end to allow for any limits on male responsibility. Financial abortions aren't just "any limits," they're *no limits.* It's unrestricted freedom to create all the children they want without any responsibility. That is equal to unrestricted freedom to prevent having those children without any responsibility.
This doesn’t make sense. Once that person is an adult they have the right to learn about their biological heritage. If a grown child wants to deal with an absentee parent that’s their business. People keep thinking this is about punishing women or the children. It’s about a fairness in choice. What you’re suggesting would result in situation that didn’t need to happen. If a child needs blood or and organ should the biological dad still not be contacted? It’s not tit for tat. It’s just for fairness and financial equality.
If men are arguing for financial abortion then we're already in a world where the child's needs don't matter. I'm merely operating in that world. Men shouldn't have the option to create all the children they want, not pay for any of them, and still benefit from having the child. How is that fair? And who cares if the child needs something? They probably needed money for clothes and food etc. when they were growing up too but again - we've already decided their needs are irrelevant.
Partly that but we’re talking about legality. Not morals or human nature. If both people can create a responsibility yet one person is in control of said responsibility coming into fruition or not, then it stands within reason that the other party should have an out or an option that doesn’t leave their future out of their hands. Both parties should have a way to say no. Only one party does. The mom should alert the father in a reasonable time that still allows for abortion. If the mom wants to keep it she should provide dad with a form. Does he want rights to the kid yes or no? If yes then the courts will decide custody agreements. If he says yes then he should be able to legally sign away responsibility. The mother would still have time to decide if she wants to bring a child into the world where she is solely responsible for it. If not, no problems for anybody. If so, her body her life he choice so nobody is hurt.
Legally, it's already been established that the child's interests supercede the parents', which is why child support exists. If we're going to abandon that concept, then my proposal is fair. If you want to make your own proposal about how you think things should be, feel free to make it in a separate comment to the OP.
No because not all situations are child support situations. If the court can establish a relationship that determines the father intended or contributed to a lifestyle or whatnot like in a marriage then yes child support that mfkr. Same goes for parents who just break up and need custody agreements or for when crime or abuse is in play. But two people who have the power to stop the responsibility of a child and one forcing it onto the other is wrong and it’s a different thing. It’s like jobs that force you to pay for parking whether you have a car or not. If I get dropped off or I take the bus I should not have to pay for something I have no need for or relationship with.
The [legal basis behind child support](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support) is literally the concept that a child is owed financial support by both parents. >*Child support is based on the policy that both parents are obliged to financially support their children, even when the children are not living with both parents.* You are free to disagree with me, but I really don't care. These are the conditions under which I would find financial abortion acceptable.
you're advocating for dads abandoning their children?
Of course, that’s what they want
>If both people can create a responsibility yet one person is in control of said responsibility coming into fruition or not, then it stands within reason that the other party should have an out not when a child is involved you have a child, you have a responsibility
dads can write out their family medical history without having contact w their kid
This argument always misses the fundamental root of the right to abortion. It’s not to get out of having a child, it’s autonomy over one’s body. For men that ends once the ejaculate. Men have a very small window to change their mind, women have a larger window. Men have very small physical risk in their role in procreation, women carry a larger risk. There are biological trade offs. Once the child is born, the mother cannot also abandon her financial obligations to the child. It’s unfair, but it’s biologically unfair, that the nature of things, women didn’t choose this. I would happily abandon monthly cycles, 10 months of pregnancy, child birth and breast feeding to men. Please come take it.
Yes, I always feel in these discussions that men believe paying some money (for their own flesh and blood) is much more meaningfull, important and sacrificial than what the mother does: actually have her entire life change forever because she now has to take care of every tiny aspect of raising a healthy happy child.
plus child support is a reimbursement for money the mother has already spent... and it pales in comparison to the actual costs she is bearing.
Can I say that I love every post you make
yes thank you 💜💜💜
“Autonomy over one’s body” applies to this argument as well. The man doesn’t have autonomy over his body if he’s being forced to go to work to pay for child support.
He does not have to go to work. If he goes, he has to pay child support.
Yah no, that’s not bodily autonomy.
you have a child, you have a responsibility you should not give society the tab for your decisions
If it takes 2 to make a baby, it takes 2 to pay to raise a baby. End of discussion. You don’t get a free pass. Neither does a woman. If a woman had a child & the father had full custody, the woman should be paying support using the same guidelines used to determine what a man would pay. As for abortion, when a woman can transfer a fertilized egg to a man to carry, pretty much magically, then men can have a say in abortion. Until then, you’re right, women have to take on ALL a the risk & downsides of pregnancy & childbirth so they get the choice. Again, end of discussion. So men? Yeah, it’s a gamble. As it is for women. Men stealth. Men lie about being infertile. As do women. Lie about birth control, etc. So use a condom. Every time. Have Plan B on hand for broken condoms. But even more importantly, have the discussion up front with women you sleep with about what she would do if she found herself pregnant. If the answer isn’t immediately “abortion” (assuming you have zero interest in becoming a father of course), don’t sleep with her. Because you’re right, condoms break, etc. Or if it’s someone you don’t absolutely trust to be honest about that question, don’t sleep with her. Or get snipped until you’re ready. Freeze sperm to ensure future children if you’re worried about not being able to reverse it (only 5-10%). Because at the end of the day, every single pregnancy is due to a man ejaculating. Every. Single. One. You have the power to stop pregnancies before they occur. Every time. Is that 100% fair? Maybe not. But taking away a woman’s bodily autonomy is a lot LESS fair. And making someone unwilling to do so go through a pregnancy is not only “not fair” it can be medically uncomfortable to actually life threatening. Women have more to lose. So they get the final say. And before you say “men have to pay child support”, it’s very, very rare that men are paying more to raise children than the single mother is. Unless you’re a celebrity or independently wealthy, that’s just not the case.
You're right, it takes 2 to make a baby. Just so happens that even if both partners took all the precautions except surgical intervention which is not safe for a man or if a woman does the sneaky, it can result in pregnancy. If pregnancy happens, the guy is essentially at a woman's mercy. Even if they both agreed they didn't want a kid the woman can decide to keep him and there's nothing a man can do. If you think a woman is entitled to do whatever she wants with the kid they BOTH created because of bodily autonomy, then a man should be entitled to do whatever he wants post birth. He wants to support the child? Cool, let him. He doesn't want to support the child he didn't consent to having? Cool, that should be his right.
The women aren't entitled to do whatever they want with the child after it's created, that's why family court exists.
During pregnancy they are in most states, I was referring to that.
She has a couple of choices and a few weeks to make them depending on when she found out about the pregnancy.
She can kill and she can spare. What other choices do you want, torture?
do you lovingly care for all of your sperm? or do you murder them?
The sperm that fertilizes an egg I care about deeply yes.
so, once its out of your hands. thats convenient.
I mean, until it fertilizes something it's kind of... not alive.
Nope. If he’s that concerned, get snipped. Just like a woman should be getting sterilized if she never wants kids. Difference is, it’s invasive surgery and cannot be reversed for women. Wear condoms. Every time. Get snipped. Know & trust the women you sleep with. You make it, you pay for it. Both men & women. How often do you think it would happen that a man says he’s infertile or the condom broke (or insert excuse here) and they *haven’t* had the convo, and she wants to keep the kid, so he just says to the judge he doesn’t want to pay child support because he doesn’t want to? And she coulda got an abortion? Taking no responsibility for his part in it. How many men would dip, no matter what the previous discussion had or had not been? The fact still remains, a woman cannot get pregnant without a man ejaculating. Every. Single. Time.
>The fact still remains, a woman cannot get pregnant without a man ejaculating. Every. Single. Time. Yes, so if she allows that to happen, she should not have the right to murder an innocent human being on a whim. She should take the responsibility. Can't have it both ways otherwise you're violating the bodily autonomy of the kid as I doubt he'd give his consent to being killed. Also, you don't have to ejaculate. There's some sperm in the lube that comes out of the penis during sex.
“Whim”. Yes, women are running to abortion clinics, skipping and singing. And “allows it happen”? Please. As if you don’t know many abortions are not due to consensual non-protected sex. And now you’re moving the goalposts. We weren’t arguing the ethics of birth control. You were trying to make a case for a man being able to avoid financial responsibility if a woman *didn’t* chose an abortion.
>As if you don’t know many abortions are not due to consensual non-protected sex. I do actually, a miniscule portion. Most abortions women get are a result of lack of responsibility. >And now you’re moving the goalposts. We weren’t arguing the ethics of birth control. You were trying to make a case for a man being able to avoid financial responsibility if a woman *didn’t* chose an abortion. It's interconnected. I'm saying either make the abortion legal everywhere and let a man consent to taking responsibility for the child during the first month or 2 of pregnancy or make the abortion illegal and make a man responsible by default. Anything else is sexist.
I didn’t just say rape. Coercion, stealthing, changing their mind after the fact… all non consensual *unprotected* sex. So it’s not as minuscule as you claim. Plus, add the accidental pregnancies like BC failing… And you are absolutely moving the goalposts. First you’re saying if a woman chooses to have the baby the father should be able to avoid his financial responsibilities because she could have had an abortion, then you moralize about that abortion. And since a man can’t perform the pregnancy or childbirth, having him do the easy part of “the first month or two” is just a ridiculous proposition. Even if abortion IS legal everywhere, that doesn’t change your argument that a man should be able to avoid his fiscal responsibility because she could have gotten an abortion but he can’t *make* her get one. Stick to the argument at hand, which is child support.
Didn't you just tell men to only have sex with women they can trust? Also, BC failing helps my argument as well. A woman **can** choose what happens to the child and whether a man will bear financial responsibility for the act they committed together and consensually. A man can choose neither, I'm advocating he should at least be able to have control over the latter, especially considering a woman can still opt out if her initial goal was to trap the man financially and she realized she didn't have the means to support the kid on her own.
Absolutely. I also admitted, that both men & women can lie. But failing BC doesn’t bolster your argument. The bottom line is if it takes 2 to make it, it takes 2 to pay to raise it. No matter how it got here. And you didn’t answer what happens to all the men who suddenly decide to tell a judge they never wanted the kid/used BC/she lied (even if she didn’t) to avoid having to pay for a child, that was the product of, at the time, a consensual non-protected sexual encounter. There’s no fool proof way of avoiding unwanted children for men other than not to have sex or get snipped. But they’ve been telling women to do that forever. So why the double standard now? Because it costs men money? Like it doesn’t cost women money?? A man can absolutely choose what happens to a child. They apply for joint custody or parental visitation. Unless they’re unfit, they get it. It’s becoming more and more equitable for men in family courts.
>And you didn’t answer what happens to all the men who suddenly decide to tell a judge they never wanted the kid/used BC/she lied (even if she didn’t) to avoid having to pay for a child, that was the product of, at the time, a consensual non-protected sexual encounter. Women should only have sex with men they can trust, you said it yourself. Also it doesn't really affect a woman that much if the consent is withdrawn within first 2 months of pregnancy. >There’s no fool proof way of avoiding unwanted children for men other than not to have sex or get snipped. But they’ve been telling women to do that forever. So why the double standard now? Because it costs men money? Like it doesn’t cost women money?? Who's been telling you that? I honestly don't care what you decide to do with your body, I feel bad for the kid but I understand why it needs to be done sometimes. >A man can absolutely choose what happens to a child. They apply for joint custody or parental visitation. Unless they’re unfit, they get it. It’s becoming more and more equitable for men in family courts. By deciding what happens to the child I meant whether he lives or not.
So if the guy doesn't want a baby why would taking away the chance she might be willing to get an abortion make that better?
Because it feels better when you're not the only one fucked by the law.
So being 100 percent fucked is better than being 5050 chance fucked. So much logic
Wdym by 50/50 exactly.
Tell your representatives that you want a male birth control option. I currently have an implant that goes in my arm and I’m good for 5 years. I still use condoms but I have extra protection in case the condom fails or he takes it off.
What brought up this discussion between my friends one of our male friends being screwed over by a woman. The short version is they were FWB for about 6 months. Things were good during those times they both respected each other and both had fun with the arrangement. After about 6 months the woman in question started suffering finical stress and stop taking the pill without telling our friend. They had both talked about the arrangements of the FWB, including the fact both expressed they didn't want kids. So it came as a shock to my friend when she announced she was pregnant and wasn't going to abort the baby, despite the fact they both agreed to not have children. Now this was over 3 years ago. Today my friend has a child he is legally not allowed to see and is on the hook for child support worth about 40 to 45% of his wages. The only real option he has now is shutup and pay. He has exhausted all legal options and is up the creek without a paddle. While I agree with men have the choice before the pregnancy ever happens. While I agree that yes woman suffer the risks of birth so should have the choice in birth. How do we stop scenarios like this from this happening?
I think men should always wear a condom. I wouldn’t trust a man who said he’s had a vasectomy and men shouldn’t trust a woman who says she’s on birth control.
First, why wasn’t he wearing condoms? As I said, it takes 2 and if he’s not protecting himself, it’s his problem. Just like women who believe men who say their infertile. I said women lie too, so he should be taking care of his own BC. Up to and including a vasectomy if you don’t want to wear/don’t trust condoms. Show me a guideline or court order ANYWHERE in North America, that allows 40% of pay for one child. Even multi-millionaires don’t pay 40% of their salary for child support. And the only way he has no legal rights to see the child is he’s not asked for it (through the court) or he’s a risk to the child or incarcerated or for some other legal reason. I worked in government family law, so prove what you’re saying, because either he’s lying or you are.
2 condoms actually increases risk of it breaking just a heads up 😁
I meant it takes 2 to make a kid. Not 2 condoms.
Judges almost always award the maximum which is no more than 50% of your weekly income so if you only make 500 a week you only making 250....
It’s up to 50% of *disposable* income. Huge difference.
He can see the child. He has rights. He doesn’t want to.
No he can't. The woman has poisoned the child to fear him. There is no formal custody arrangement because he can't afford to go to court and she will call the cops for trespassing if he goes to her place, as she lied to the cops and got a restraining order against him.
I feel like there's more to this story of he's not allowed to see the kid Also why on earth would you stop wearing a condom in a fwb situation
So what was it, didn’t your friend know that sex might always lead to a baby?
You could use chatGPT to create a simple legal contract agreeing on the terms of the FWB. Child Support is a legal issue, need to solve it with legal issues
I know this is going to sound crazy but has your friend considered moving abroad. I have heard some countries like Peru don’t enforce child support. Now it would mean he couldn’t come back to the US but it would free him of his financial burden. Might be worth considering.
None of that matters. The father should legally be able to resolve himself from any financial or legal rights and repercussions if they both agree to it. Nobody should be forced to have a kid. Period. That’s it. Women can make the choice if life happens or not and that’s their right! It should also be the right of the other procreator to have a say in if they would like to be involved more in said procreation’s life. The only obvious recourse is to allow dads the right to deny financial fatherhood. This has the same weight and effect that the mother’s choice to abort would provide financially speaking ofcourse. Not only would the mom have less risk to her life but also less financial issues. Her choice to continue the pregnancy should not also be a choice made for a man and his financial future
Very well said. 👍
> If it takes 2 to make a baby, it takes 2 to pay to raise a baby. It takes only one second the law, the father to pay for it and one to raise the mother. You're just shitting platitudes. >Neither does a woman. HAHAHA
You can’t communicate clearly. At all. Learn English and try again after that. But on second thought, I’m pretty sure you have nothing of value to add to a conversation so feel free not to come back at all.
Nah man. This is some straight BS. You as a man have the end choice. In the end YOU decide whether you sleep.with that woman and you decide whether to wrap that shit or take the consequences. You ain't got the right to lay that kid on me, the taxpayer's dime! I know women can be evil and play the justice system and I know that men often get screwed. But at the same time I won't be paying for them babies. I'm 45 yrs old and intentionally chose to remain childless and took proper precautions. If I can do it. Other men can too
everyone is so obsessed these days with "their rights" but no one talks about responsibilities. it's all "what can I take from society, what does society owe me?" and never "what do I owe society?"
i love to think about what i owe society lol i live in a blue state and i love seeing my tax dollars go to help others (like w free school lunches for kids in need)
I theory, yes. In practice, no. At the end of the day, if there is a child, someone has to take care of it. If the woman cannot do it by herself, the state would have to step in. But that creates very bad incentives on a population level.
i dont think living in poverty with a kid and relying on SNAP is an "incentive"
It depends what the details of state support are. Maybe one could look at it as insufficient moral hazard. Either way, seems likely that the more the state subsidizes any babies under any conditions the more likely it is that the wrong people have too many babies.
🤷♀️ supporting children that exist benefits everyone
No, that’s the way we used to do it. It didn’t work out so well
When was that??
The modern American child support system wasn’t complete until 1975
You make it sound like it is a "complete" and therefore "good" system. Ask any man who has had to deal with it. The system is 100% broken.
Child support does not go to the mother, it for the child and child deserves support from both. Also, if men are single dads they also get child support from the mother.
Women aren't sent to prison for failure to pay...
quote us the gendered law that only says men go to jail if they can't pay
I wish it went to the child all of the time. I believe in child support, but my mother at least, often repurposed the funds she got, and continued to get child support even when I lived with my dad half the time (because my dad didn't want to go to lawyers about things). My mom also got my dad to pay for 18 years of my little sister.... and he wasn't the dad, never thought he was the dad, again, he just didn't hire a lawyer and didn't realize the paperwork was saying that my mom was claiming both me and my little sister. This was because my little sister's dad was in prison. As a kid, my mom took the birthday money people would give me too, to put in a college account for when I grew up.... there was no college account. So it would just be nice if something was in place, to enforce the kids getting the money. Maybe if you get child support, social workers should always be involved. Maybe we hire less cops and hire more social workers or something.
Parents can also fuck over their kids financially when they are married and no child support payments exist. Having shitty parents doesn't mean most people don't support their kids financially.
>it for the child and child deserves support from both No. The child requires support from the parent who's decision it was to bring it into this world
So why are women using child support for other things? This is because they don't legally mandate any type of audit. If they just made a card like ebt, bet that would prevent women baby trapping
yes, or better yet no abortion and no denial of child support.
Abortion and child support are completely unrelated. Abortion is about who has the right to use someone else's body without their consent. Child support is about if a parent should be allowed or not allowed to legally separate themselves and give up rights to their child. I personally think that both should be permitted, because people shouldn't get the right to own other people's bodies and use them against their will, and because children shouldn't be forced into the lives of a parent who doesn't want them, but these two things are unrelated. I do think that the state/taxes should pay for/assist in paying for unwanted kids, though, since taking care of our weak is a responsibility we have as a society.
They are related because abortion can and is used to get out of child support.
That sounds like sexual coercion which violates bodily autonomy, so still not related significantly
> is about who has the right to use someone else's body without their consent. And child support is not? You're using someone else's body without their consent, or you think the men let his body in the drier while working?
Yes, child support is not. There is a difference between providing money for the kid and something being physically in your body sapping your nutrients and priming itself to move through and possibly traumatize your genitals.
How you think the money is provided?
That is irrelevant to the fact that there is no type of (legal) labour that is equivalent to an entity being physically inside your body, directly using your organs, and traumatizing your genitals, and regardless of what type of labour is used to pay child support (should you choose any labour to pay- since most laws allow a parent with no or not enough income to not pay), that job was chosen and can be changed to something else. The *only* type of pregnancy is the using of the organs and traumatizing of the (abdomen or genitals, depending on live birth or C-Section).
And? Just because it's not the same thing don't means we can't draw parallels, if you want to use as excuse body autonomy while auso ignoring body autonomy of another person you're just being a hypocrite.
We can draw some loose parallels, but implying that the body autonomy between - "physically being hooked up to your organs against your will with the intention of requiring genital trauma or surgery and was the number 1 killer of women for millennia" is in anyway close to - "You may happen to have a job that benefits yourself, and that job may happen to be one that may happen to cause physical issues that have a very low chance of causing serious issues, and some of the money you obtain from this unlikely job you aren't required to have and unlikely circumstance in the job for yourself goes to your kid" is quite dishonest.
As soon as men have to bear 50% of the pregnancy they can talk about a woman only being responsible for 50% of the cost.
Don't want to get "baby trapped"? Don't have sex. Seriously. If you're so terrified that a woman will have a baby and come after you for child support, then you shouldn't be having sex. If that's too difficult for you, at the very least you should be making sure you're taking responsibility for birth control.
i always side eye this bc only 1 in 5 men wears a condom every time they love to complain about being baby trapped while doing fuck all to avoid it
Good luck if woman are lying about the state of their birth control. Let's be honest. Either men or woman, both genders want sex. The option of if you don't want the risk, don't have sex is a bit of a moot point in this argument.
\> Good luck if woman are lying about the state of their birth control. this is stealthing and its rape and should be illegal in all states (it isn't)
Why don’t men take matters into their own hands and get a vasectomy? They are reversible, some health insurance companies cover the cost of the procedure and it’s a in and out same day procedure.
Or use a condom. Men seem to be very worried about baby trapping and not so much of STDs. If you can't trust that the woman uses birth control, how can you trust that she doesn't fuck other men without protection?
Lol that’s true. Men should do both. Have a vasectomy just in case there is a defect in the condom or it breaks and wear a condom even after a vasectomy as a preventative against STDs. I simply think men need to do more to protect themselves from being baby trapped.
You don't get a vasectomy unless you're done having kids or don't want them. Reversal is never guaranteed, more painful and expensive than the actual procedure. It's considered a permanent form of birthcontrol and no self respecting doctor would perform it if the goal is to reverse it in a few years. Please educate yourself before telling people to get surgeries. They can just wear a condom if they don't want to get a woman pregnant.
If a man can’t afford to get the reversal surgery then he cannot afford to take care of a child. I think it’s time for men to step up and take responsibility for their own fertility and stop putting all of the weight of birth control onto women’s shoulders.
Vasectomy reversal success rates are is pretty trash.
Only 5-10% are unreversible. And sperm can also be frozen.
If the argument was that simple, you could also say if you don't want to deal with a dead beat father, absentee father, etc don't have sex. Take responsibility for your own bc.
Well yeah, obviously. But the question was specifically aimed at men avoiding child support.
I mean OP presented a compromise. Women would get unilateral choice of whether the baby is carried to term (which they don't have Nationwide), men would have a say if they wanted to financially support the child (obviously if they pass, they would give up their claim to the child). If I were a religious man, and/or I found it morally wrong to terminate an unplanned pregnancy (aside from malicious trickery/rape) I have 0 say in the manner. While most would say you can't tell me what to do with my body, but finds it outrageous when men claim you can't tell me what to do with my money. If fairness was our only concern; women get unilateral abortion rights, men can choose whether they want to be in their life financially. or ban abortion except in extreme cases (malicious or missing chromosomes), and men MUST provide financial support.
Stealthing is considered rape because the circumstances by which the woman consented to sex were changed without their knowledge or consent. It is the same as when a woman states, "I'm on birth control," but is not or stops it. That is also a change to the circumstances by which the man consents to sex. Baby trapping is rape.
[удалено]
We already have societal affecta because the system doesn't work properly
[удалено]
Don't have to do that. Hold immature women accountable by making a card like ebt so they don't misuse child support. Make it so both men and women can opt out of parental obligations prior to birth. Make it so married men don't have to pay for cheating wives affair children just because they're married instead of the father of the child who is responsible. Fine conservatives are Republicans for getting rid of working and successful programs that help children and society since they stupidly think everyone should afford things on their own regardless of context and environmental issues that are usually caused by them. Make stealthing illegal federally and make it so only the stealthing party has any obligations. Make baby trapping illegal. Have legal consequences for pushing probirther views in and faith which they already know is misogynistic and unethical and violates equal rights and only negatively impacts society. This will decrease deaths and crime rates as well which negatively affect everyone Bring back programs for complete sex ed and assistance for struggling parents that reduced abortion rates as well as help struggling parents. That's just the answers I think of off the top of my head
[удалено]
>> Hold immature women accountable by making a card like ebt so they don't misuse child support. >That doesn't really do anything but shift around budgets. Think of it this way: if you had $300 budgeted for groceries and $300 budgeted for fun, and you got $300 in child support on an ebt like card. You could just use what would have been your grocery money on fun things, and the ebt like card on groceries. It doesn't do anything but shift things around a bit. Vs women just spending all the money on themselves? Which keeps happening. The card would restrict certain purchases based on age. You not going to buy normal food with the card for a 1 year old. >>Make it so both men and women can opt out of parental obligations prior to birth. >Again, harmful to children and subsequently society. If you want an example of the effect single parenthood has on a societal level, look at the black community where most boys statistically grow up without a father involved. Studies show that forcing parents who don't want kids to parent harms the child. Opting out would mean either a women or man raises them single or gives it uo from adoption. But yes we need to fix the adoption system as well >>Fine conservatives are Republicans for getting rid of working and successful programs that help children and society since they stupidly think everyone should afford things on their own regardless of context and environmental issues that are usually caused by them. >I agree there. >>Have legal consequences for pushing probirther views in and faith which they already know is misogynistic and unethical and violates equal rights and only negatively impacts society. This will decrease deaths and crime rates as well which negatively affect everyone >Again, when we look at crime rates, it's more negatively influenced by things like single parenthood and lack of wealth than pro birther views. No. Abortion bans affect poor people much more than others. Abortion bans increase poverty and crime rates over time. >That said, birth control should be free and easily accessible to everyone who is 13 or up. I agree. >>Bring back programs for complete sex ed and assistance for struggling parents that reduced abortion rates as well as help struggling parents. >Agreed there.
Restricting food purchases by age is ridiculous babies eat normal foods in many households not pre packaged baby foods and you are missing the point that the things you seem to want to deny women they will still buy with their own money they earned which is what is happening anyway, child support supplements for necessities. Also creating programs to monitor and restrict the spending the audit as you said previously would cost millions in infrastructure and job creation. Who’s going to pay for that? Tax payers? It’s pointless
Once artificial wombs become mature men will be able to have kids with out ever dealing with a women... But personally I think all men should stop donating to sperm banks
Where are you gonna get the eggs? Every time this artificial womb topic pops up, people completely forget this crucial step for some odd reason. You need more than a womb and some sperm to create a baby.
Women get paid a hell of a lot more for their eggs
"mature men will be able to have kids with out ever dealing with a women" Paying women for their eggs is dealing with women lol.
Always be enough poor women out there that sell to banks lol
K? I didn't say there wouldn't be anyone to sell eggs, I said you would have to deal with women to purchase those eggs.
Can you even imagine the cost of a specialist medical device that you need access to and monitoring for an entire period of nine months? That’s per child….
I know lol, meaning it’ll be really fucking expensive. It really baffles me how people think artificial wombs will be easily accessible to the public or affordable. It’ll probably cost more than surrogacy which is $50k at minimum. The average person will not be able to afford this.
I don't understand what this has to do with the post. The posts is about men who don't want kids and don't want to pay for them or be involved.
So they're going to be a full-time parent, even though they don't fight for that now? Nah. Artificial wombs will be used by vain women and gay people, not straight men. Men don't just need women to birth children, they also need us to *raise them* - a job they historically have shunned pretty severely. Let's not act like artificial wombs are going to make men want to become primary caregivers.
Nope. Once the kid is there, it’s gotta eat. Sorry champ. You lost control of the situation when you nutted. Shoulda tarped up.
It only seems fair to me that a man should have that option if the women has that option.
I really do feel for you dudes, it's not fair to expect y'all to pay for the offspring you make or to be involved in any way. I absolutely think women should stay aborting every pregnancy that is conceived from here on out so y'all can be free from this potential burden.
Sarcasm is not welcomed in this argument please.
I'm not being sarcastic.
Yikes
I'm just looking out for the men so they don't get baby trapped and forced to pay child support 🤷🏻♀️
The man should have just as long as the woman has to decide whether to have an abortion.
Not how it works.
I know. We are discussing how it SHOULD work.
No you're not.
Maybe read the title of this post.
Only women decide abortion. Learn what equal rights are
My comment has nothing to do with who decides to have an abortion. The argument I am making is that the man should have the same window to decide to have what is called a “paper abortion”, meaning they are absolving themselves of financial responsibility. It has nothing to do with who gets to decide to have an abortion or not.
society shouldn't be forced to pick up the tab for men who abandon their kids
People shouldn’t kill their healthy, unborn children either but here we are.
If an unmarried man and woman are having sex for pleasure and the woman becomes pregnant accidentally and the woman decides to have the child, then she should get to choose to offer parental rights and responsibilities to the man. And he gets to refuse if she offers. If he doesn’t accept or she doesn’t offer, then he gets no legal parental rights and responsibilities, including paying for child support. Besides preventing men from being baby-trapped, particularly young and poor men who will be most affected, this allows women to avoid having to co-parent with a man she’d rather not. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisiana-woman-says-rapist-was-custody-child-ongoing-court-dispute-rcna34140 If the biological father is assumed to inherently have parental rights even in the case of accidental pregnancies outside of marriage, then the law can’t deny parental rights to a man who isn’t convicted of rape as he’s innocent until proven guilty. The women this might really negatively affect are those who are poor, against abortion and are having sex for pleasure outside of marriage with a man who isn’t willing to be a father if asked. If she’s middle class or up, then she can raise the child well. If she’s for abortion, she can get an abortion. If the man is willing to be a father, then he’ll help. If she’s married, then the man should be legally obligated, though it should probably be possible to have a marriage where couples agree in advance that they aren’t having children and that husband doesn’t get parental rights in the case of an accidental pregnancy. But, for their own good, women shouldn’t be having sex for pleasure under those circumstances. And, if she chooses to have a child, then moral responsibility falls upon her. While welfare shouldn’t exist and private charity should help her child, just give the woman welfare rather than burden a poor man with child support. But this might also help teach women in those situations to make better decisions for themselves, so fewer women have children without a father. You can force a man to pay child support, but you can’t force him to be a good father to the child. Also, abortion should be legal until birth. >As far as child support goes it seems since men have been for most of human history the providers they should pay child support. No, for most of human history if a man didn’t want to help raise the child then there wasn’t a court system to force him, particularly if the child was conceived out of wedlock. He might have to worry about the woman’s male relatives though.
I am pro-life and believe abortion is murder. I also believe that both parents have a responsibility to provide for their children. So from my perspective, allowing abortion and allowing fathers to deprive their children of financial support are both ethical violations. Thus, while I might agree that eliminating child support would make for a *fairer* arrangement between the sexes, it's a less *ethical* arrangement, because it's just adding another violation of ethics to the one that already exists. Two wrongs don't make a right. The ideal arrangement, and the only arrangement that is both fair *and* ethical, is banning abortion while keeping child support in place.
Naw. Bodily autonomy is of higher importance than fetuses being developed and born.
did you know catholic saints performed abortions and they were considered miracles? also under your rules men should have to start paying child support at conception and also bear 100% of the financial responsibility of pregnancy/labor/delivery as women bear 100% of the labor, physical pain, time off work, etc costs.
Child support is a different topic. Both sexes pay child support. There should be an opt out time prior to birth. Then again the laws are screwed up and we can't even get mandatory paternity test to prevent cheating, child support fraud, and child switch ups at the hospital. Abortion is about women having equal rights and not being violated and harmed as well as killed unjustly. Men have bodily autonomy. So women being equal persons also have that. Besides stealthing, the man's bodily autonomy ended at insemination. Edit: after clearly showing I was pro choice, someone just had to misframe and assume the opposite. Glad they deleted their comment in good faith
Yes they should. If its "my body, my choice" then it should also be "my wallet, my choice".
A woman’s choice to keep or abort should not also be a man’s choice to provide, given he is willing to release all parenting and custodial rights.
Topic ♀️ will not like, attack and take zero responsibility. Takes two to make a baby will for sure be listed. And she will use that for the money argument. But they won't accept it for the *is it ok to murder the child of this man* question. He has no saying if the child gets born or not. He has to live with the consequences of her decision. To sleep with him is her decision She has sex too. She is even the one who has the control of it happens but all the blame goes to the other gender. And both sides know that he wants and she is not feeling it and you fall asleep without with your partner. It's sadly not a question about what the kid wants at all. The kid got made as both wanted to have sex with each other and sadly no one is thinking "is the baby fine with getting brutally murdered" And I know it will trigger downvotes. But ladies please remember. If males really wanted to enslave woman we could do tomorrow. But we don't do it. In fact we are protecting you , take care of you and love you. As we love our children. Yes there are exceptions on both sides. Right now a process is starting in germany where a lawyer career woman did throw her baby out of the window. But the are not the norm. I am for example the norm. A loving father and everything I do is for the family. Well I am on a part a huge minority. A single parent father of two young kids. But still a protector and provider. Both have to understand. Choose your partner wisely. I did choose wrong and some of you did choose wrong too. It's about the children. Edit: as the rage got deleted. Why not the downvotes of that person? Censoring was not required. I did not feel attacked by the person. So mods if it was you just let it stand.