Mothers get 3 chances to opt out. Abortion, abandonment, and adoption. All legal options that completely remove parental responsibility. Men get 0. Since it's a mother's choice, shouldn't she be the one who pays for it?

Amablue · 2012-08-02T16:10:23+00:00

If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support … autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.

Feminist Karen DeCrow.

I grabbed the quote from this article

Drainedsoul · 2012-08-02T07:11:56+00:00

Yes.

There really is no other answer that isn't tied up in female privilege/superiority.

oneiorosgrip · 2012-08-02T11:00:12+00:00

Mothers get 4 options to opt out. Before abortion, abandonment, and adoption, we have the option of using various long-term hormonal birth control drugs, hormonal pills, or an IUD (some of which now also use hormonal birth control.) We do not have to depend on condoms, and we do not have to depend on heat of the moment decisions. We can be prepared to prevent pregnancy before we are even in the same room with a guy.

Because we have pretty much all of the options, and because we have the capability to trick men with lies about birth control and lies about what we'll do if we get pregnant, women should not have the option of using pregnancy to extort money from a man.

ninjarxa · 2012-08-02T07:20:45+00:00

I really wouldn't bitch out about outright paying for an abortion as it would be infinitely cheaper than having and raising a child. I do think that since it took both parties to get pregnant, both should chip in on the procedure though.

eberkimer · 2012-08-02T16:00:31+00:00

God... I tell this to feminists all the friggen time. The usual response is "He needs to be responsible for the child! If he didn't want a kid, he shouldn't have sex!"

:( x1000

2012-08-02T14:22:12+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Aavagadrro · 2012-08-02T15:17:02+00:00

My daughter got in an argument on FB about the father being required to pay support starting at conception.

My-Work-Reddit · 2012-08-02T15:34:04+00:00

What about the guys who want the child, but the mother wants an abortion?

stinger503 · 2012-08-02T20:42:25+00:00

Forgot one: Live off the checks you get from your boyfriend

hykl · 2012-08-02T14:28:20+00:00

In a perfect world, both people would decide on an option and pay for it. For example, if my boyfriend and I were to realize there was a baby on the way I would hope that we would discuss, make a decision and go half and half. To me, that's fair because we both engaged in sex, something went wrong, and we should be there for each other. I'm assuming OP is referring to random hook-ups? Because in an actual relationship I can't see the male looking at the female and saying, "Well, that's on you" and continuing a relationship after that...

If they're in disagreement then I can see how it would be on the mother. If the male wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't, I can see her paying for all of it because it's not a mutual decision. Is that what the OP was getting at? Because it's kind of unclear.

chaz4224 · 2012-08-03T00:37:55+00:00

1 step at a time we're still trying to get married men who prove their not the father to no longer be responsible, it might be open to lawsuit

Belgian_Rofl · 2012-08-02T08:07:02+00:00

I won't be paying anything if it's a result of trickery. I won't run either. I'll render myself completely worthless to her through ceasing to exist. If all men simply refused like that we'd have alternatives quickly.

Average_Joe32 · 2012-08-02T16:26:42+00:00

I think that this is one of those things that biology will just not allow to be fair. A woman needs to have the final say on what happens to her body, so a man can't be the one to insist on an abortion. I don't think that a woman can abandon/put up for adoption a kid w/out the father's consent. Unless of course she doesn't tell the guy that she's preggers. Either way, people should be financially responsible for their kids, regardless if they wanted them or not.

2012-08-03T00:23:49+00:00

There are a several ways to solve this, some significantly easier than others.

Birth control options for men are probably the biggest advances we should be striving for. The availability of such birth control would solve a huge number of problems frequently discussed in MR. VasalGEL is currently in phase III of clinical trials and already has patents in the United States, pending FDA approval. This seems to be the most imminent and most effective form of male birth control on the horizon. Male birth control pills or shots are in various stages of development/clinical trials as well.
Upon the availability of male contraception, there needs to be a big political push to have such methods covered under the ACA much like female birth control is covered as of yesterday. There will likely be much opposition to this just like there was for female BC, but in addition to objection from religious organizations there may be pushback from feminist organizations. More on that below.
Once male birth control is available, there should be an option for a "financial abortion," or legal paternal surrender for up to 19 weeks post-conception, wherein the father relinquishes all rights and responsibility to the child. If he doesn't sign in that time, tough shit. I suggest a time limit since women are also subject to pre-viability laws, ranging anywhere from 21-23 weeks depending on the state. There should be a time difference for men and women so that a man morally opposed to abortion couldn't wait until the last moment to sign away his rights, pushing the mother out of the abortion window. It is entirely possible that a mother's decision to abort may be hinged on whether she will have assistance from the father, and not just for malicious reasons either, so she should have time to make her own decision once the father has made his. Feminists will almost certainly fight this, and say it would be "forcing women to have abortions they don't want." This one will be the most difficult by far.
If a financial abortion is made available, it should be permanent and irreversible. A woman can't back out of a medical abortion, so a father who signs away his rights should be restricted from having contact or communication with the child and the mother. If you aren't subject to the responsibilities of parenthood, you should not have access to the benefits.
Any mother who wishes to sue for child support should present a signed and notarized document showing that she informed the father of her pregnancy within the allotted timeframe. If she was unable to contact the father despite good faith efforts, she should show record of her communication attempts during the filing of the lawsuit, and if a judge does not find the evidence adequate then it may be thrown out. The only problem I can find with this is if the father assures the mother that he'll be there for the baby and that he doesn't need to sign the papers, doesn't she trust him? A father may also outright refuse to sign such a document so as to try and evade birth control claims without signing away his rights. If anyone can think of a good alternative or failsafe let me know.
A mother who wishes to give up the baby for adoption must also get permission from the father unless he is not able to be contacted despite honest efforts, or if he signed away his rights. If the father wishes to keep the baby, full custody should be given to him and the mother's rights signed away, including financial responsibility.

The above points should all but eliminate the need for child support lawsuits, save for situations where the father was unable to be contacted/evaded contact, or refused to sign the papers indicating he was informed of the pregnancy and didn't relinquish his rights. I suppose it may also be an issue if the couple originally decided to raise the child together (for example, marriage) but it didn't work out between them, or if the father changes his mind after the child is born. Not sure how birth control lawsuits would be handled in those cases, but hopefully they would be rare enough that they could be handled on a case by case basis.

It will be interesting to see if feminists fight tooth and nail against male birth control insurance coverage. One wonders what their argument will be. I somehow can't see them going public with the message, "it violates a woman's right to become pregnant against the father's wishes!" Granted, they very well may do this, but the damage it would do to their reputation would be massive. Most regular women (not to mention men) are disgusted by the kind of women who get pregnant through deception in order to try and "force" the man to stay in a relationship, or worse, to just use him as a meal ticket. Major feminist organizations aren't stupid, and they will likely know that they can't hold on to their immense power if the majority of the public is turned against them.

rightsbot · 2012-08-02T07:10:16+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

Demonspawn · 2012-08-02T08:05:00+00:00

[permanently deleted]

radamanthine · 2012-08-02T20:11:21+00:00

Abstinence, (edit:) morning-after, condoms and birth control also included, of which men have 2.

sorry4partying · 2012-08-03T01:02:03+00:00

If a father could "financially abort" it would kind of suck for the kid. And the kid is what should come first.

ModerSvea · 2012-08-02T13:10:34+00:00

[permanently deleted]

zlatandiego · 2012-08-02T11:55:34+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Mothers get 3 chances to opt out. Abortion, abandonment, and adoption. All legal options that completely remove parental responsibility. Men get 0. Since it's a mother's choice, shouldn't she be the one who pays for it?

Comments

a·ban·don

verb /əˈbandən/