If a woman can decide she wants an abortion, why can't a man decide he isn't going to pay child support if she has the chid?

[RingOfFire]

Updates

+1 y

It's really quite simple...

If she has an option to take responsibility OR NOT for the life she created by choosing to have sex, he should also have the option of taking responsibility OR NOT for the life he created by choosing to have sex.

[inhua]

look at these feminists and male feminists trying to justify this double standard

they never truly believed in equality anyways. bunch of fake hypocrites

[RingOfFire]

Right on 👍

[slatyb]

There's no double standard because the father and mother are not equally situated. Only one of them gets pregnant and gives birth.

[inhua]

@slatyb it is a double standard when feminists supposedly "fight for equality"

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

The two don't correlate. She's giving up her body for 9 months plus all the lasting effects it has on her for a lifetime.

"But a guy gives up his body to work..." you say...

I counter with, so does she. She most likely still also needs to work raise the child if she decides to keep it.

When men can carry the child for her, then it will be equal.

[RingOfFire]

Okay... so then if she can decide the child will be aborted he should be able to make that decision too.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

If he can take over carrying the child for her, then sure. But once he had sex with her, if she decided to keep it, then he is on the hook for child support.

Men need to take responsibility, too, when it comes to sex beyond just a condom. They need to know who they are sleeping with and know if the woman intends to keep a child or not since it's gonna affect him as well. He can't, however, make the choice for her. It's her body in the end.

[RingOfFire]

"Men need to take responsibility too"

That isn't in debate.

The argument is that she has an option to take responsibility for her choice to engage in sex or not. If she has that option so should he. If is unfair to allow her that option and not him.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Again, he gave up his portion of his choice when he chose to ejaculate into her. If he doesn't want a kid, then don't have sex or use protection.

She has the same choice but with an added ability to pick an abortion since it's a part of her own body now.

[RingOfFire]

"If he doesn't want a kid, then don't have sex or use protection."

She had the same choice but chose to take the chance. So she is responsible for the consequences of her actions. If she has another chance to avoid the consequences of her behavior he must have one too. EQUALITY means EQUAL rights. Making up excuses for exceptions to suit your bias is not equality.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

That's only gonna happen if men can start carrying children as well. Cis men are not burdened with having to carry a child so it's a benefit to them that cis women don't have in their court. On that front, it's already unequal.

On the other hand, they both work to cover the costs of the kid so that's already equal.

But she has to also raise the child, take them to school, help with homework, cook dinner, breastfeed, stay up late nights with them, deal with all their problems, take them to the doctors, etc. If a guy's only contribution is part of his paycheck and the woman is also working, then this isn't equal either and heavily favors the guy.

Sounds to me like guys get off easy in this exchange.

[RingOfFire]

"On that front, it's already unequal."

Nature is never "unequal" because equality is a social concept not a biological concept. If we used your definition, fish should be suing for equal rights because they were born with the disadvantage of not being able to be admitted to college or have careers as lawyers.

[RingOfFire]

Applying your interpretation, men should be receiving reparations for not being able to be able to experience the joys of childbearing and nurturing.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

T-that's... a take... I suppose. It's a very odd one, but hey, I'll work with it.

Of course there is unequal things in nature. For example, a lot of incels believe it's impossible to get a girlfriend unless you are good-looking and are bigger than 6 ft tall. Those would be natural advantages that some guys have over others, wouldn't it? That would be unequality in nature in action.

Now those same guys who claim it's impossible to get a girl under those circumstances, start developing an actual good personality, clean themselves up a bit and maybe show they can support a healthy relationship have made social changes to make themselves more equal to those who have biological advantages.

Both exist.

But hey, that would be like men being unable to carry children and then asking to not have to pay child support. Using their natural disadvantages to claim victims and look for societal equality to level the playing field.

Also, I'm sure if fish had the intellectual capacity to attend college and become lawyers and we still didn't admit them, then they could have every right to sue though.

[richardcory]

But those are all choices for the woman. She can choose abortion or not if she doesn't want to carry the child. She can put it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. But in most jurisdictions if the woman keeps the child, the man is responsible for helping pay to raise it.

In the case of one friend of mine he was sort of tricked into getting his girlfriend pregnant. Then she dumped him, didn't want him to see the child, but still insisted on child support.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

As it should be. He helped make the child, then he is also responsible for it.

Your friend, while unfortunate, needed to do better in choosing a partner.

[richardcory]

So even if someone is deceived by the woman who they thought loved them, they must still bear responsibility for the child, but the woman can choose to kill if she wishes? Is that fair?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Yes. She could also be deceived which places that in equal territory again. The only thing that's going to make it equal is if a cis man can carry the baby for her.

[slatyb]

He chose to have unprotected sex.

[slatyb]

@richardcory deceived? How? She carefully perforated a condom and then resealed it for him to use?

[richardcory]

@slatyb That does happen, as do women stopping taking birth control - and the man is still responsible for child support. This case was not exactly that, but in the same sort of vein.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

He can, by signing away his parental rights. At that point, he is no longer legally tied to the child and also never sees the kid and has no right to be in the child’s life without the mother’s consent.

[RingOfFire]

No he cannot. That's why Hunter Biden is forced to pay for the child he has no relationship with.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

It varies from state to state

[Soteris]

Why are those things related in your mind in the first place? The reason women have the right to decide over abortions is because they have bodily autonomy as a basic human right. Do men have a right to child support money as a basic human right too? If not, then what the hell are we talking about?

[RingOfFire]

If she has a right to kill the baby then he should too. Why should she be the one who decides whether or not he will be committed to a life of slavery?

[Soteris]

... Eh? What sort of logic is that? "If she has the right over her own body, then why does he not also have the right over her body?"

Are you drunk?

[RingOfFire]

It's really quite simple to understand except for the simple minded.

If she has an option to take responsibility or not for the life she created by choosing to have sex, he should also have the option of taking responsibility or not for the life he created by choosing to have sex.

[Soteris]

Well, here is the kicker. Men and women already have equal rights in this regard. You see, women have bodily autonomy that allows them to have abortions if they are pregnant.. and so do men, if they also become pregnant with their own body. That is your option, enjoy.

[RingOfFire]

Moronic answer which is no surprise from you.

[Soteris]

How is that a moronic answer? It is literally the truth, and unlike your bullshit reasoning it actually makes sense. Same rights, same outcomes. Why should men be given a special right that women does not have?

[MzAsh]

I believe he should be able to but only make that decision before birth, not afterwards.

[msc545]

Why? The woman can sell the child or put it up for adoption or abandon it after it is born without consequences and without consulting the father. In some instances, she can fill it and later claim post-partum depression or psychosis and do little or no prison time.

Compared to that amount of privilege, surely the father deciding he isn't going to pay her after it is born is minimal by comparison.

[msc545]

*kill

[MzAsh]

I don’t think it’s minimal for men to financially abandon, I think it’s major since women are still considered the primary child care and men are still considered the primary financial providers. Maybe this needs to change.

[msc545]

Yes, it most certainly needs to change. This is an archaic and bigoted view that you just described.

[MzAsh]

Believe me, I agree. I think women need to work and men need to be more involved in the day to day child care. If men want a stay at home housewife then he doesn’t deserve to get equal custody.

[richardcory]

Agree. I think what you are saying follows naturally from allowing abortion - and I support both. The exception is if there is a marriage or other contract that gives him responsibility

[Snakeyes7]

Exactly, if the mother can simply opt out of parenthood after the child is conceived, why shouldn't the man? Is equality not the goal here?

[RingOfFire]

Finally someone gets it! 👍

[slatyb]

It's his child too. It's he didn't want to pay support he should have used a condom.

Theoretically, child support is for the child, not the custodial parent.

[RingOfFire]

"It's his child too."

So then if she can decide to abort it why can't he?

[slatyb]

He can if he's the one carrying the pregnancy.

[msc545]

@slatyb The operative word is "theoretically" - in reality, the mother usually spends the child support money on her self wi no consequences.

[slatyb]

Because she's the one who has to carry the pregnancy. It's her body.

[msc545]

And the guy is the one who has to work for 18 years or more to pay child support. I think caring a baby for 9 months is a lightweight load in comparison to this.

[JoeMichael67]

Yeah unfortunately you can't if the sex between both parties was consensual. It would have to be extreme circumstances for a man not to be required to pay child support, like if he's autistic or homeless.

[RingOfFire]

Right! If the sex was mutually consensual than these are the only fair options:

1. She should not be able to abort the child that her voluntary act created and he should not be able to avoid providing the means to care for the child that his voluntary act created. Choices have consequences.

2. She should be allowed to abort the baby and he should be allowed not to pay for it if she doesn't.

[Billlewis]

Because he's the one who got her pregnant to begin with.

[RingOfFire]

So she had nothing to do with it?

[msc545]

That is a really ignorant response. Nobody gets anybody else pregnant. It takes both an egg and a sperm. Eggs. Originate with women, and sperm originates with men. That means both are equally responsible for a pregnancy. I think it's really pathetic that you require very basic fourth grade biology lessons to understand this issue. Pregnancy is no more a man's responsibility than it is a woman's.

[FunkyMonkee]

... against his wishes.

[RingOfFire]

Right

[Anonymous]

Sounds like one of the best pro-choice arguments yet!

[Opinion Owner]

You didn’t detect the facetiousness in my comment apparently.

[Opinion Owner]

@Soteris no worries.

[Opinion Owner]

Gents, could you continue this discussion on another thread, please?

[Opinion Owner]

You’re blowing up my notifications.

[Opinion Owner]

Take it elsewhere please. You’re hijacking my comment.

[Anonymous]

True. My money my choice!😆

[msc545]

He can do that and also go to jail.