I said yes but only so long as she is able to abort the child. I think she should be banned from aborting unless their is a legitimate reason (like rape or health risks) and by extension he should have to take responsibility for his actions just like her. However so long as she is allowed to avoid her responsibilities he should have that right to in order for it to be fair and balanced. Any one who argues otherwise is either stating that women are not competent and cannot be held accountable for their actions (in which case they should have no autonomy just like children), OR are arguing that they as women shouldn't have to be held accountable for their actions but men should in which case they should still not be allowed autonomy because they are clearly children.
u I am opposed to women using abortion as a form of birth control, and I am opposed to guys trying to avoid the financial consequences of their decisions. If you don't want to be responsible for a baby, take responsibility for birth control!
Tanks for MHO!
most if not all single mothers I’ve been around don’t even bother to ask for a dime from their child’s deadbeat father. so i don’t get why you’re bitching like all men are trapped. If paying child support is such a burden then you should wrap your dick each time before intercourse. A women getting pregnant is just as much your responsibility as it is hers. She wouldn’t have that parasite growing inside her if it wasn’t for your magic wand.
I don't think its good you are around so many single mothers, look how its emotionally motivated your comment. If a woman decides she does not want a child, and the father does, how is that equal. If a father does not want a child after the fact, why should he be locked into paying for it, and the woman not? This doesn't make sense, women are completely free to get abortions but men cannot do the same, women have the responsibility of having sex too, are they children who can't make up their minds?
I didn’t say it’s fine to just abort without consulting your partner. The question was about financial abortion. So stop assuming. I also never said it was all the mans responsibility I said it’s just as much his fault as it is HERS if sex results in pregnancy. So if he’s so worried about paying child support then he should be less carefree not using protection
Ah yes, the standard hypocritical double standard response. Those women you know likely don't ask those men for money because likely all of those men are losers who haven't have a dime on them anyway. Young single mothers have the incredible habit of opening their legs to flat out LOSERS and then playing victim and wanting medals and prizes because they don't ask the useless piece of shit male for money. It's because the man (boy in some cases) is BROKE. So don't come bragging about how they don't ask the man for shit.
If women can abort then men should legally be able to walk away financially. In your circle your homegirls get cum in by broke degenerates but I'm a successful tech worker and have seen TONS of guys who make $150K and $250K a year paying $2000 and $3000 dollars a month in child support for kids they want nothing to do with. So I can say the same to you, if having a child and raising it alone is such a burden 1) stop letting motherfuckers run up in your raw and 2) close your fucking legs until you can fuck a dude who will give you money WILLINGLY.
Until then both men AND women should have the option to legally avoid parenthood when they choose to. In most states in the US a man goes to prison if he doesn't pay child support long term. Yeah lots of women don't ask for but they can easily weaponize the courts on you when they please. I've seen it in New York more times than I can count.
during the pregnancy sure... but if they wait the whole 9 months and baby pops out and THEN wanna dump the responsibility, then no. You either want the kid or not.
Your response doesn't make sense. In every single American state a man has zero control over abortion, as I believe we shouldn't. Carrying the pregnancy to term should be 100% the decision of the mother. However men do NOT have any legal option for escaping parental responsibility while women do. Women can abort or give a child up for adoption while a man can't do ANYTHING to get out of child support once a woman files the paperwork. You go to prison for not paying and in some states you get your home, car, bank account and passport taken away. Meanwhile if a woman doesn't want to be a mother she can dump the kid into foster care the day she gives birth OR she can just go have it hacked to bits in an abortion clinic. That's not fair by any means. Both men and women need options.
This is a debate that shows just how full of shit "Pro-Choicers" are when it's not convenient to them.
Opinion
27Opinion
Any guy that even thinks like this should put themselves forward for a vasectomy or wear a condom all the time.
it’s a cowards way out.
oh no the world just got real, I had sex and I am going to be a father, I’m out of here.
or later in life, oh life got real and when I had sex I am now responsible for my son, oh no. Not to worry I only think about myself, not the hardship my son will have trying to fit in at school, or getting to college. I get to go on an extra couple holidays a year on the money that would have secured his future.
it’s a real cowards way out, you have kids you take responsibility, that means even if the marriage fails and you become liable for your son’s future.
As a parent, I would give every penny for my child’s future.
I guess some would rather keep the money so they can drive around in a sports car and have four holidays a year.
You don’t understand because the child support money doesn’t go to your son. It goes to the girl
Erm no it’s actually written in to legal documents.
I don’t give a toss what bollox people think, but I know what is written in a legal document.
I’ve seen this happen from personal experience. The kid is left with $50 for clothes and the mother keeps the rest for herself to go out, but a cute dress that some dude will bang her in
@maybe-your-neighbor are you married, have you ever been married, have you kids?
You are 22 years old, are you paying child support?
Have you been to court and sat down and worked out exactly what gets included, not included and how both sides want to proceed?
None of the above but so what?
Well I have so, having been through all that, I know exactly how it works,
So that changes you telling me how it works, as I’ve been there, got the T shirt and paid the legal bills
You’re missing the point entirely. It’s not a matter of not wanting to take responsibility. It’s a matter of equal playing field.
It's a simple matter of if a woman don't want the baby she has many way's to get rid. But if the guy don't he has none?
Of course the man should have some. Which an obvious one would be, if a man claimed he didn't want children and basically accidents happen he should be able to make a legal case to not having anything to do with the baby if she decides to keep it.
Because in the end he don't want it, just like how if the women didn't she could abort or put it up for adoption and other things.
Now this is not saying a guy can just lie saying oh yeah i will be there for the baby and we will have the baby together for the man just to bolt last sec.
This would need to be a written agreement that get's legally processed way before the date of birth.
What I think will never happen. However, if you don't have custody and you don't have the pleasure and satisfaction of raising the child, it is not your child. Therefore, the child should be supported by whoever has custody. There should be no child support other than to support any agreement between the parties. For example, girls could have note cards with the following:
Should I get pregnant with your child, you agree to pay (fill in the amount such as $1,000) per month until the child is 21. And, as long as the child lives if physically or mentally handicapped and unable to support him or her self. Furthermore, you agree to pay, without limit, all attorney fees, court, and any other expenses to support this agreement.
Signature and thumbprint.
Yes, it would make things fair. That fact that this is not a thing already is a problem because can make someone a father who doesn't want have the ability to be one. Bet if men weren't held financially responsible for a child, women wouldn't be so quick to keep the have/keep the kids if all the responsibility fell on them.
If women can bail out, I don't see why guys shouldn't be able to either, so it'd be fair.
Despite that, running away from your responsibility is a trashy thing to do TBH.
Some pro-choice women are hypocrites anyway, they don't have a problem circumcising their baby boy's, because who cares about a males right to choose.
A better point of view, in my opinion, is that since the government will not infringe on the rights of a woman to abort a child, then they should not infringe on the rights of a father to raise their child. Interfering with my life and telling me how much money to pay for my child is an absolute, dehumanizing outrage. Do you know they actually sent me a refund one time? Can you imagine, I accidentally gave too much to my child, I guess. Morons.
I won't raise a child if the mother is gonna demonize me the whole time. In fact, I'll just take the kid from the mother and raise it myself.
Women should be forced to pay the same amounts of child support men pay when they're the ones in the wrong.
Yes, I believe in equality. If a woman can terminate pregnancy or keep it irrespective of the wishes of the father than on intimation of the same, he should be allowed to do the same with his wallet too.
@DianaWest - As per law a fetus isn't a person, which is why legally abortion is not murder.
As long as women are legally able to avoid parenthood by aborting a pregnancy, men should also have the legal right to financially abort. It's barbaric that they don't have that right yet. It will happen eventually, once society pulls its head out of its ass.
Yes. Or go back to traditional ways where a single mom got zero from anybody, including government. The kid goes to someone who can afford to take care of it.
If the woman can abandon the child before its born,
the man should be able to abandon the child before its born too.
That's the only fair position
Of course. If women are free to kill it, men don't have to pay for it. If that's a problem, just kill it women and you don't have to worry about men not paying.
Wait, I'm confused and very concerned...
Do men still have to pay child support if the woman terminates the pregnancy or something?
There's... No child to support?
The question is if the man should be allowed to say he no longer wants to be the father of a child
Oh, gotcha.
Well, I'd say ideally yeah, but I'd hope there's conditions - though it is a bit of an imbalance since the guy doesn't have a physical ability to abort like a woman does.
But yeah. I mean, I'd be worried about the few times a dude knowingly knocking up a woman and then bounces, but that happens now anyways.
I definitely support a man's right to financially abort if the woman tried to kid trap him. If she pokes holes in condoms or skips BC to get pregnant in hopes of trapping him, for example (both things I know have happened to acquaintances irl).
Voted yes. Im glad those of us with a brain voted the same. If women can abort a child with no questions asked at any point during the pregnancy, Men should be able to do the same financially.
A man should be allowed to impregnate who ever he wants without the treat of any financial obligation.
They taxpayers can pick up the bill.
Plus, children have no entitlement to
know their entire family.
We need more fatherless children.
The threat…. the threat of any financial obligation.
It’s no treat. I’m sure we can agree on that.
I disagree on the fatherless children part. History has proven that fatherless homes produce all types of fucked up children. Boys and girls are more likely to be sexually irresponsible and do drugs as teens if they don't have a father. Most male felons come from single parent homes led by a single mother. Most men in the US with emotional issues and/or behavioral instability grew up with out a father in the home. Two-parent homes also produce higher rates of college graduation and something like 20% less likely to drop out of high school.
ALSO boys with raised with single mothers, due to the lack of emotional control caused by growing up around 100% female energy, are much more likely to be wife beaters and rapists as adults. Especially in the black and latino communities.
Girls who don't grow up with fathers have an almost universal tendency to search for acceptance in groups of friends (they become followers) and their relationship with sex becomes one where sex is seen as a tool to makes males love her. Something that never works and they don't stop doing until their lives are ruined after giving sex to one too many low quality men in exchange for love that never arrives.
@ronaldo75
The entire post was sarcasm. You might want to take your upvote back if the only line you disagreed with was the last one.
Obviously.
There should be a cut off tho. Like you can decide within the first year. But after that you're locked in. Can't dip out when the kid is 2.
I don't mean to trigger the feminazis and simps in the thread but I voted yes because I see how women are never held accountable in pregnancies and I want the same treatment for men. It's not fair when men have to face the consequences for decisions that women make.
It's scary how many men openly admit they don't want to financially support their children...
@msc545 I don't know your laws in the US, I heard they're pretty discriminatory for men... but to me it's obvious that if you pay for the child then you have the right to be in their life. I'd never deny that right unless he was a really bad influence. And if you have serious doubts if they're yours then that's an easy thing to determine too. In any case, shitty laws should never prevent a father from taking responsibility for his children. And with all your complains about women - we cannot walk away (not that anyone ever should). This is a typical male problem.
Think about this girlie... A woman can date rape a man and he is legally obligated to pay for his rape baby even if he had no choice in the matter. Statutory rape victims have been forced to pay child support.
Meanwhile, a woman can get pregnant on purpose and abort it if she feels like it, whether it's a one night stand, or if it was her husband and they wanted to get pregnant initially.
Men have an absolute legal obligation to pay for a child.
Women have absolute power over if that child exists.
And the US is less discriminatory than most European nations. In some places, men are forced to pay for children who are not related to them. Paternity tests are illegal without the mother's approval.
If killing a fetus is totally morally acceptable in society, there is no reason why refusing to pay for that fetus is somehow less moral.
Its scary how many women openly admit they want to murder their own children rather then be burdened with caring for them. So I imagine that like myself, you believe that both men and women should be held equally accountable for their actions and as such men should not be able to avoid financially supporting their children and women should not be allowed to murder the unborn child they helped create in order to avoid responsibility?
Again, put it in context of abortion. My myself personally would never abandon a child but many men have sex with women who are nothing and know that raising a child with her is going to be difficult. When these men disappear in order to "work on their own lives" why don't we hail them as heros and empowered the way we do nowadays when a 19 year old college girl has an abortion after she fucks some loser at a party and doesn't want to ruin her life so early in life? Then there's also the issue of men who pay child support for children they don't get to raise or interact with because the mother keeps them apart. In my state even if a man pays child support the law allows the mother to 100% have total control over visitation and can deny at any time for any reason.
Like why don't we keep the same energy in both situation?
Financially abort? What the hell does that even mean? Lol.
Nope and not comparable. If woman aborts, there is no kid. If man does “financial abortion”, kid has a fucked up life.
Disingenuous point.
If the father does financial abortion the kid is worse off unless others step in. So bad start point but no guarantees.
If the mother aborts the kid has no life. That's a guarantee.
No life is better than a chance to make something of yourself?
That's like saying if you have a choice between getting drowned to death or getting shot in the stomach with a chance of survival that being guaranteed to drown to death is better and therefore incomparable.
The comparison is pretty shitty since if there is an abortion, there barely is any sentient life, and certainly not on the level of an actual human drowning or being shot.
You can easily argue that abortion prevents a lot of harm, whereas a “financial abortion” will not do so.
More importantly, arguing that an abortion and “financial abortion” are somehow a similar manifestation of people ditching responsibilities is disingenuous since the implications are completely different.
In a normal abortion, basically always non-sentient life does not develop to anything further. In a financial abortion, sentient life is fucked up
You're conflating points.
Is it about absolving responsibility?
Is it about the life of the child?
Is it about the child's experience?
When you're ready to decide the primary importance then you have a point to discuss. Until that happens you're just grabbing every straw that can be somewhat related
If it's about the kids life, then you have to throw out the whole sentience point, because it's irrelevant as to the mother making a unilateral decision that effects her, the father and the child.
If it's not about the kids life. Then you can't make the point that the kid will be fucked without the fathers financial help. Because it's not about that.
You can't play all sides
I clearly am not.
It should be extremely obvious that a single argument can relate to multiple things. The idea that I’m conflating things stems from my recognition that equating this “financial abortion” to an actual abortion is inherently methodologically not sound since critical aspects simply do not align.
The idea that they are comparable is simply ridiculous. And with respect to my position, am I in favour of a father fucking over a kid’s life? Nope. And an actual abortion barely has a life to begin with so completely different implications.
"equating this “financial abortion” to an actual abortion is inherently methodologically not sound since critical aspects simply do not align.
"
The only critical aspect that is being addressed is having a unilateral decision in regards to an action that effects the other two parties involved.
That is very comparably. Tho the actions them are not the same. Having the unilateral choice is entirely comparable and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise, or to justify why unilateral choice is okay for one party and not for the other.
To avoid getting misconstrued as someone supporting deadbeat dads. Not at all. I'm merely in support of fair treatment in the eyes of the law. If a woman has the right to unilaterally decide, the man has the right to unilaterally decide. That's it.
And using the life of the child as justification for one but disregarding it in respect to the other is primarily why I said it's disingenuous. Does the life matter or not? If so they it matters in both, not one exclusively
Hmm i am trying to be rational but kids should not be affected? but some child support can be too expensive and maybe mother is using it for shopping court's should think about it
I mean your really only a deadbeat if you can’t afford to take care of it but if you can and choose not to by buying your way out your just a free agent dad at that point
Lol, you people and your made up words and definitions
no. if men don't want to support their own kids, they should never have sex. simple.
Illogical, the same should go for women then, no?, usually its a bigger responsibility for a woman to make sure she doesn't get pregnant than the man, and then evenso after the fact she can manipulate him into paying child support for a child she doesn't care about?, while men have no decision at all in whether she keeps it or loses it, pays for it or doesn't.
@TheOracle10 sweetie. a human being is slightly more important than your money. it may be hard to believe. but having to pay a few bucks to support a child versus forcing a woman to abort her own child against her own will is a lot more severe. and abortions can cause infertility. it is not likely, but there is still a risk. why should a woman listen to you. you can always make money, but if you destroy your body and become infertile, you can't always bring back your chance to have a child. i don't care what other women do with their bodies. i wouldn't have an abortion but again, what other women do does not matter to me. men should not have a decision. women can't force you to get circumcised or get a vasectomy, and thereby, you should have no say in what she does with her own body. but if you don't want to pay child support, just don't have sex. simple. there is always a risk of getting pregnant, regardless of how many condoms you wear or if you are on birth control.
@Chthou95 i never said the woman has no responsibility, now did i? and nowhere did i say anything about unprotected sex. that is pure idiocy. women can still get pregnant on birth control and while using condoms. it has happened. it may be a 1% chance, but it is still a chance. and like i said to someone else on here, a baby is more important than your money. a woman can't coerce you into getting a vasectomy, and neither should you coerce her into getting an abortion. and if you love your money so much, just keep your legs closed. simple.
@DianaWest hi Um what you said about paying a few dollars on child support is bs men have literally lost their 401ks paying child support that’s a whole lot more than that little 750 and we can go to jail for not paying but women literally commit murder and get to keep it moving that sht gives women too much power we should be able to buy our way out 100% and stop with that then you shouldn’t have sex stuff because unless a man is a rapist we mean only have sex when a woman wants to
And if women don't want to get raped they shouldn't wear tight clothes. You see how dumb your comment is?
@apimpnamedslickback you responding to me? because if you are, comparing a forced, violent and traumatizing assault with consensual sex that both adults agree to prior to having is appalling.
@Hanmakev if you bring a child into this world, you are responsible for ensuring its survival. is that very hard for some men to comprehend? think of it this way: if men had 0 responsibility whatsoever and could get 200 different women pregnant without any responsibility or consequences, where would our society end up? those women could very well end up homeless because taking care of 1 person on minimum wage is doable, but taking care of 2 or even 3 is a bit harder. and if that happens, what would happen to the kids? would they grow up to be functional adults? how would it impact their lives knowing that daddy banged 200 women, got them pregnant, and ran off with 0 care in the world and 0 responsibility? really, if men have no responsibility for the kids they bring into the world, what incentive does a man then have to commit to a woman and be loyal to her? those kids could turn out into homeless adults, or drug addicts, or worse. the single mother needs financial assistance, and she cannot do it alone while the father runs off. if the woman is malicious and she makes a hole in your condom or something and tries to trap you into a pregnancy, it is an
entirely different story.
on another note, a human life is worth much more than money. you cannot play around with a life. money is replaceable. a human is not. i also do not personally agree with abortion. i would personally never have an abortion. but i would not interfere with what other women do with their bodies. and don't give me the bs about men losing their retirement savings over child support. you barely have to pay a few hundred bucks per month to support your own child. men have no issue buying expensive video games, pcs, and playstations, but child support is suddenly too expensive. trust me, women ain't getting rich off child support. it barely covers the cost of diapers.
@DianaWest you missed the whole point all of that can be avoided if the woman just gets the abortion men should be able to give you the money for the abortion and have no responsibility afterwards whatever happens is what the woman chose why she wouldn’t just pick the abortion is beyond me because single parenting is impossible
They already can, if you give a fake name and use her for sex only, its not that hard at all. Its only that men who aren't deadbeats get caught up in something unexpected like this and it ruins their lives. Sometimes the woman does not even want him to be the father and will force him to pay for child support when she actually doesn't care about the child, its too easy for women to exploit too. Don't talk about men exploiting when women can too.
"men have no issue buying expensive video games, pcs, and playstations, but child support is suddenly too expensive."
lol can already tell your a misandrist by that statement, you just generalized all men, I can say the exact same about women spending hundreds on cosmetics and miscellaneous items, but guess what, that would be a massive generalization.
Also you only described what a teenager who just got a job does with their income, not a responsible adult.
@TheOracle10 you sir are a champ😂
Oh, I agree. So do you agree that we shouldn't allow for abortions because if a woman didn't want kids, she shouldn't have sex?
@hellionthesagereborn women can get their abortions if they want. But again men should have the right to opt out of child support and fatherhood. That's equality
@Chthou95 I disagree. I think both should be equally responsible for their actions, but I think the idea of her being allowed to kill her own offspring if she find it inconvient when it only exists because he and she actively created it to be pretty messed up. I mean at this point, when you have 12 different birth control options, their really isn't much of an excuse to get pregnant in my opinion (barring rape of course).
@hellionthesagereborn Then what do you think should be done about that?
@Chthou95 That said, if she is going to be legally allowed to abort then logically it follows that he should also have the right to walk out of his responsibilities because again that is equality. However most if not all women do not want that because it means that she is going to have to be responsible for her actions by default (if she gets pregnant and cannot bring herself to abort, then that means she has to now take care of a child. This will cause women to be a lot more cautious with sex, especially casual sex, and in turn probably cause a reduction (eventually) in the frequency of casual sex).
@hellionthesagereborn Ah so women don't like responsibility
@hellionthesagereborn that would actually be for the best if women were more reserved that more incentive to marry
@TheOracle10 you talking about generalizations, Mr. Oracle? Pretty rich coming from you. And you are accusing me of being a misandrist because i said men like to buy expensive video games? not the men on here who want to force women to abort their own babies because money is more important to them?
@Hanmakev True, this is why women are the ones who do the most "slut shaming" statistically speaking. Its because biologically a woman who is giving sex away for free (or close enough) lowers the value of all women's sexuality (which is their greatest asset and can be leveraged for quite a lot (house, food, economic security and physical security all for the price of monogamous sex. A pretty good deal in general.).
@DianaWest why won't you answer my question? It seems the moment you apply your logic to women, you and every other woman suddenly gets real quite. If I didn't know any better I would say you are arguing that only men should be held responsible for their actions. But then that would be not only a double standard but evidence that this is an argument to avoid responsibility rather then a moral one, so that couldn't possibly be the case. Could it?
@hellionthesagereborn i didn't answer your question because it wasn't that interesting. but hey, if you want equality, women and men should both stop having sex. that way you are guaranteed to safeguard your precious money.
just answer my question (that i've asked before), which none of you really seem to want to answer: if men are not legally required to support their own children, then what prevents men from impregnating 300 women, running off into the sunset with 300 more, and leaving them homeless or impoverished to fend for themselves and potentially raise an at-risk child who can become an unstable adult? i am just saying that your logic is idiotic. what incentive do men have to take responsibility for their actions if they are not legally required to support their family? hell, what incentive would men then have to even get married or be in serious relationships? sure, there are some great men out there who would take care of a woman and take on his responsibilities as a father, but you cannot say that there aren't also men out there who can't wait to take advantage. imagine if men were not legally bound to support their offspring in any way. we would turn into a society of shit. and then women would become VERY wary and suspicious of men and probably have sex with you once a year. so way to go on the logic gentlemen.
You didn't answer my question. So here is my question again since you missed it the first time, "So do you agree that we shouldn't allow for abortions because if a woman didn't want kids, she shouldn't have sex?"? That is the question and you keep avoiding it and I think I have a pretty good idea as to why. The reason I think your avoiding answering it is because if you answer it either you would have to agree with that reasoning (in which case great, I agree as well, we shouldn't have abortion nor should we have financial abortions both parties should be responsible for their own actions), in which case you would have to admit that financial abortion is reasonable if we have abortion legal, OR you would have to admit you agree with abortion, but then by that rational would have to admit that its perfectly reasonable to then conclude that men should have financial abortion as well you just don't like it because it creates equality which you do not want.
So is that about right, or is their a third option I don't know about?
Now to answer your question, what would stop a man from impregnating 300 women? Women. Your not an object and I will never understand why women fight so hard to be seen as one. You have free will, you have a choice. A man does not simply walk up and decide he is going to fuck you, quite the opposite, he has to coerce you with charm, with good looks or with the promise of devotion and security and then YOU decide whether or not you are going to have sex with him.
That is the problem, you remove yourself and all women from the equation as if you are inanimate objects, as if you are children that simply cannot decide for yourselves what you should or should not do. IF that is how you see women, then you are rabidly sexist towards them. I don't see women as objects, I don't see women as children so I believe that a woman, just like a man, should be held accountable for her actions.
As for the rest of your argument, their are several issues with it. One, you are arguing that women be allowed to abort their children but men not have the right to walk away. That is giving two different set of rules. Your argument only makes sense if we banned abortion but allowed financial abortion (the opposite of what we have today). Now under that circumstance, sure we would have disfuntion exactly as we do right now with women having the right to abandon all responsiblity while men are the only ones who have to be responsible.
This is why almost all divorces are filed by women, the most cited reason being no fault. Its because she has no legal obligations to her husband and children but he has all of them. So she can divorce him for no reason and take his money and take his children and he has no recourse. The irony is when no fault divorce was first made into law, it was argued that it would be men who would use this to abandon their families and their responsibilities. Yet 70% of all divorces are filed by women, so in fact the exact opposite happen, because women where never held accountable for their actions they destroyed the lives of their husbands, they destroyed the lives of their children and they destroyed their families. So disfunction has occured because men are responsible and women are not. By removing male responsibility balance would be restored, and women would have to put in the efforts men do to keep their families together, and women would have to not sleep around because they would be liable for their actions just like men.
The other issue with your argument is the claim that men would have no incentive to marry. Currently men are less likely to marry then they have ever been before so clearly your reasoning is flawed. The reason is again, women have fought, successfully, to have all the privilege and none of the responsibilities. So the issue isn't that men would have no incentive to marry without legal obligations, its that because they have nothing but legal obligations with no benefits of their own and a system that openly supports women exploiting men's legal obligations, men are now more hesitant then ever to marry (statistically speaking). Its the opposite of what you suggest.
This is the crux of the argument you talk about men's responsibilities, and I have no issue with that, men should be responsible, in fact I openly stated a man should not be legally allowed to have a financial abortion IF women where not legally allowed to have an abortion, however you have at no point mentioned even once women's responsibilities. This is your argument in a nut shell, you want men to be responsible and women to be irresponsible, you want the burden to be placed upon men and for women to have all the power and none of the responsibility. I'm arguing both parties should be responsible for their actions, your arguing that only men should ever be responsible for their actions. This is the problem and this is why our society has become disfunctional, because only men are seen as having to be responsible adults. You've infantilized yourself and women and as a result many men don't want a part of that (because its just more responsibility with no benefits to them).
@hellionthesagereborn i answered your question. and disregard the last comment as i thought my previous one was deleted. anyways, i answered your question. you want equality. "So do you agree that we shouldn't allow for abortions because if a woman didn't want kids, she shouldn't have sex?"? if you want equality, i stated that both men and women should stop having sex. no need to force a woman to have an abortion against her will. the simple solution for the equality you seek is that if you are in a relationship with a woman, and you do not plan on marrying her or financially supporting any potential children, you tell her straight up and you both agree to remain abstinent for the duration of the entire relationship until you find a woman you think you want to marry and support with your precious money.
@hellionthesagereborn as for the money thing, i keep telling you idiots that a human is worth more than any damn money. i don't personally agree with abortions, but that is a very controversial moral argument that i am not going to get into details now. i would personally not have an abortion because i love babies and would have one with or without a man's money, but i cannot tell a woman what to do with her body. you are talking about money. pieces of paper that you can make again by working. having to pay a few hundred a month does not seem to bee too demanding, now is it? and i am talking about human beings here. if you make abortions illegal, you really think women will stop having them? that would put their life at risk. for this reason, i cannot tell other women what to do with their bodies. i can only have a say over what i do with my own body. i am talking here about a woman's life and wellbeing, and most of you are talking about money. inanimate objects that can be made again, but a life cannot be brought back once it is gone. as i have said before, and men never seem to answer MY question, if you think you have the right to force a woman to have an abortion, she should have the right to tell you to have a vasectomy or get circumcised
No, you haven't answered my question, you have danced around it. As stated you have created a scenario where responsibility is always thrust upon the man and never the woman. DO YOU BELIEVE IN ABORTION AS A RIGHT THAT WOMEN HAVE? You keep answering questions not asked because you know you are cornered, logically speaking. You cannot claim that abortion is fair and resonable while simultaneously claiming that financial abortion is not. You cannot claim that a man must be responsible while simultaneously stating a woman should not be responsible without showing the hypocrisy of your reasoning. I think this is why you have avoided a direct answer. So either your saying that abortion is wrong and financial abortion is wrong and we should all wait until we want kids to have sex (which is fine if that is your view) OR your trying to sidestep the inevitable conclusion that comes with supporting abortion i. e. you must either admit you just want women to not be responsible for their actions but do want men to have to be responsible so you can live an easier consequence free life OR that you do support financial abortions. Right now you have again, thrust responsibility squarely onto the mans shoulders (which is also fine if you are willing to admit you don't believe women can be equal to men and thus should not be responsible for their actions and thus have no autonomy of their own which is the only logical conclusion one could draw from such a claim. I don't agree with it but at least the logic would be consistent).
So again do you believe women should have the legal right to an abortion or not?
Do you believe that women can and should be held accountable for their actions or is personal accountability only the domain of men?
As for the money argument, no, we are not talking about pieces of paper. We are talking about a childs life which you say is not important enough to state its wrong for a woman to take. We are talking about whether or not a man should be enslaved against his will and have to sacrifice his life for some one else while a woman never has to sacrifice anything. Its not paper, its Time, its effort, its LIFE. Men are put in prison when they cannot afford their absurd child support payments. This is not paper, its not something that can be readily collected, he has to slave away for it and have it all taken away against his will while a woman can actively MURDER her own child without consequence. this is not about money this is about accountability and responsibility and why it is only women who never have to be accountable for their actions and why only MEN have to be responsible for their actions as women never suffer for any of their life choices but every one else does.
So can you answer the question directly this time, why is it that you think its okay for women to never be responsible for hteir actions and men to always be responsible for there's? Shouldn't it be that both are forced to be responsible for their actions? Why is him sacrificing his life for 18 years less of an inconvience then the active KILLING of a child? Why is it that she has the right to murder his child against his will but he doesn't have the right to say he wants no part in raising a kid?
I've made my stance very clear, women are not objects ergo they have to be held accountable for their actions just like men, both parties chose to have sex, both parties chose to have unprotected sex ergo both parties are forced to raise the child that resulted from it. Note that their is NO inconsistency with that reasoning, no one gets to avoid responsibility. Now look at your argument, where is the consistency in that? Well their isn't any and you know it which is why you keep trying to rationalize it away by consistently side stepping the issue and thrusting the responsibility onto the man instead of recognizing that the woman is also an active participant in this.
@hellionthesagereborn i keep telling you, and you don't want to understand or refuse to, that a human being is more important than money. i say i would personally not have an abortion, but i cannot tell other women what to do. if you make abortions illegal, women will not stop having them. they will try unsafe means and methods which could endanger a life. you keep talking about logic. well then, Mr. Logic, if you forbid women from getting abortions, do you really think they will stop getting them? Really? It will only make the issue worse and more hazardous. as i said, i am against abortion personally and for moral reasons. i myself would not have one, but i can't tell another woman she cannot do so for the reasons i have stated 20 times already that you cannot seem to comprehend.
why don't you get a vasectomy if you are worried about getting a woman pregnant? don't tell a woman to abort her child. just get a vasectomy if you don't want to pay child support. asking you to pay a few hundred a month is not comparable to asking a woman to abort her own child, which has a low risk of causing an infection and even infertility. what right do you have to tell a woman what to do with her own body and potentially even risk her life? as i said, you are being very dramatic. a few hundred a month for a child is not a lot of money. but asking a woman to abort her child against her will, that is much graver. although it does not happen often, it is possible to have severe issues from an abortion. we are talking about lives here, not money. i am not saying women aren't responsible. if they choose to have her and YOUR child, BOTH of you are required to support it. she won't be sitting with her legs up on the couch while you work.
if you think you have the right to endanger a woman's life by telling her she has to have an abortion (and potentially make her infertile for life), or on the other hand, if you think you have a right to endanger a woman's life by forbidding her from having an abortion (which can make her desperate and look for other unsafe means to have that abortion, as has been done in the past), then why should women not just ask you to get a vasectomy? problem solved. you think that a woman and her child are living off of the 300 dollars a month you give them in child support? that is delusion talking. she has to work too, and hard. and you are claiming that a woman gets to decide to have an abortion without consulting the man. well, it is her body, her life. she has to give birth to the child, and she can potentially die of child birth. there could be any number of reasons why she cannot have the baby. remember, before you force a woman to have an abortion or question why a woman is the only one who has control over her own body and why you don't have a say, it's because she can die due to a pregnancy or birth, while you don't have to worry about that.
so, Mr. Hell, to put it simply, if you love your money and don't want to support your own child alongside a woman who decides to keep her baby and work hard to raise them, then consider getting a vasectomy. it is very easy for you to throw the word abortion around and to compare a woman's life and the life of her baby to your measly 300 dollars a month child support payments.
@hellionthesagereborn also, ***some** men (not all) just don't want to have any responsibility and to grow up. you say i consider women objects and unable to think for themselves? really? well, if men are not legally required to support their own kids, how are women supposed to trust any man that he will support his kids? out of the goodness of his heart? his word, his promise? why is the bare minimum difficult for you to do? will people stop having children because no one can trust each other? no marriage, no more legal requirement for child support? just a bunch of liberated dead beat fathers who have 800 kids and don't want to lift a finger to support them, just because they can. a woman may want to trust a man and start a family with him. but what will she do if he falls in love with a woman with bigger boobs in 3 years after she gives birth to triplets and runs off into the sunset with the new woman without a care or responsibility in the world? we would become a dysfunctional society, with men who have 800 kids each who are impoverished, while daddy is off to find another girlfriend.
i know not all men are like this, and i am not suggesting they all are, but we cannot deny that there are enough players out there who only care about taking advantage of a woman and could care less about her or any child they may have together (child support is the bare minimum and keeps those assholes in check). you cannot seem to answer my questions regarding my concern for a dysfunctional society full of impoverished mothers and children with dead beat fathers, yet you complain about the responses i give you.
@DianaWest you can buy human beings 😑
We can argue that women get abortions because they don't want the responsibility too. But again women love the benefits but dont like it when it doesn't favor them. A man should absolutely have the option to opt out of fatherhood if she chooese to keep it. Lets also not act like women dont spend that money on themselves. True equality is giving men the option to opt out if she keeps it.
Its not that I don't understand, its that you refuse to accept your ideological inconsistencies because you directly benefit from them. A human life is worth more then money and that is why you support the ending of a human life and extorting and enslaving a man if a woman decides to do so.
Hermsman vs seyer was a court ruling that decided that under no circumstance is a male allowed to avoid paying child support. The male in question was a 12 year old boy who was raped by his babysitter and then forced to pay her child support for 18 years. Was his life more important? Of course not. So a childs life doesn't matter, a mans life doesn't matter so when does the life matter to you? When it is directly benefiting you. This is your argument this has always been your argument, you wish for women to have no accountability for their actions at all and men to have nothing but obligations and responsibility which is why you have decided that the rules apply only one way, the way that benefits you and women and hurts every one else. I'm stating that this is irrational and immoral because it is. This is the issue, you don't want to give up your privilege no matter how impossible it is to rationalize this terrible behavior and system that is specifically designed to hurt every one to the benefit of women.
That would only be equivalent if the woman were to stick the cash up the man's ass and make him walk around with it for 9 months.
Yeah…but only if welfare is given more freely to single mothers to make up the difference. Or else we’re assigning tons of babies to starvation.
No, it's called responsibility. You broke it, you pay for it.
Seven blue pilled cucks disagree in the voting but i agree. A man shouldn't have to pay if she chooses to keep it
So your dream is to starve a child to death?
How would the child starve to death if he has. Mother
the milk eventually runs dry :(
But I thought girls were independent and needed no man?
@maybe-your-neighbor lol. women are independent indeed we are. all men need to worry about is getting as many women pregnant as possible and not having to support any of those children in any way. run free butterfly. go off into the sunset and let the women be men and take responsibility for her and your actions.
@DianaWest 😂😂😂
@maybe-your-neighbor We do need men. We need to tease them about how doofish they are. Do you know how much pleasure I get teasing people like you? It is what inspires me to wake up each morning. :)
@supercutebutt 🤣🤣🤣
Do you support abortion?
No, you don't need men. 50 years of Liberal Feminism and 30 years of 3rd feminism and 10 years of 4th wave feminism have made it very clear that ladies can do it all and you can do everything better than a man. Remember us "boys are stupid", all we're good for is dick and most of us don't even know where the clit is.
How is it you empowered wonder women warrior queens need a useless man to feed and cloth a child for 18 years? I see you all over facebook and social media showing off cars and college degrees, apartments, bank cards and all this other shit for likes and shares - y'all dont need us.
@ronaldo75 that’s stupid Ronaldo who could women honestly believe they don’t need us men built this world
@Hanmakev I don't care what men built. It's 2021 and I've been hearing this bullshit for close to 10 years. Women are BETTER than men. Women are taking over with girl power and they're literally unstoppable goddesses. By logic and rationale they should be able to do just fine without men in their lives. Get out there and make it happen ladies.
@ronaldo75 OK I will :)
@ronaldo75 please women are slightly more intelligent than children they just want attention men have to work and struggle to get what we want we HAVE TO for women it’s a choice and they still complain women are actually really inferior that way they’re too weak emotionally and mentally they’re babies
@Hanmakev Aren't you a Trumptard, though?
@ronaldo75 Hanmakev will be quiet now. :)
@Hanmakev women are intelligent. that's why some men to this day in many parts of the world shoot them if they dare to work, drive, or go to school. what are some men afraid of, if women are so inferior and stupid? why keep women chained on a leash like dogs and forbid them from working, getting an education, driving, being independent? men did not build the world without the women by their side, so try harder. of course, while women were being kept on leashes for the first couple of centuries, yes, men built the world.
you think you're intelligent for thinking you're superior? laughable. people with superiority complexes are usually the stupidest. you didn't build the world, your ancestors did. and women could not do much for centuries because some men were busy keeping them on a leash and forbidding them from stepping out of the kitchen. do a google search, if you can. see how many women made breakthrough inventions in computer science, astronomy, science, medicine, physics, telecommunications. women are soldiers, police officers, architects, doctors, engineers, fire fighters, scientists, astronauts, lawyers, etc. there's nothing a man does that a woman cannot do, so stop with your bs about women being inferior. the only ones who are inferior are those who feel the need to generalize and discriminate an entire group of people, be it by sex, race, religion, age, ethnicity, nationality etc. because they themselves deep down feel inadequate and threatened by said groups. unlike you, i do not have an issue with all men, and certainly do not categorize men as inferior. i judge only individuals, after they speak and act, not before.
Why do women keep avoiding answering my questions? Do you support abortion?
@DianaWest Women are intelligent just like men and women make idiotic mistake just like men. Get off the pedestal already and keep a consistent position.
@hellionthesagereborn She had to get her little moment of glory in there and give a bullshit speech no one needed and avoided all your questions in one word salad. It's very typical of the shit you see in today's victim culture.
@hellionthesagereborn i responded to your question but i suppose someone didn't like my answer and removed it because it hurt their fragile ego. some of you men keep avoiding every question i pose and then claim i'm the one not answering your question. i said this already to Mr. Oracle or whatever his name was and he didn't respond to my question.
to reiterate, i said, if men are not legally obligated to support their own offspring, what incentive do men then have to actually settle down, marry, and raise a family and support a woman and a child? what prevents a man who has no responsibilities or financial obligations from impregnating 300 women and running off into the sunset with 300 more because he simply can and no one is going to question him about his actions or responsibilities? what will happen to those women and their children? as i said, there are good guys out there who would not take advantage of women, but there's also plenty who would see this lack of legal requirements and financial obligations as a golden opportunity to exploit women and take advantage of them only to fulfill their own agenda and needs.
What does that even mean
yes, yes yes yes yes yes
Absolutely YES
110% yes
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions