Financial abortion doesnt make sense

techr0nin · 2022-11-08T00:40:19+00:00

Sooo… Basically your argument boils down to men shouldn’t have FA rights because female contraceptives are inconvenient.

Fun_Push7168 · 2022-11-08T00:14:23+00:00

All I can say is you did a very poor job arguing your point. You didn't come up with one single thing that doesn't equally apply to both genders involved in order to illustrate how it's actually different aside from some physical discomfort you can't completely worm your way out of regardless which choice you make.

In fact you attempt to place all responsibility on men while absolving women who made the exact same choice. Assuming I agree with your premise you did a better job of convincing me to change my mind and disagree.

Actually I've never seen a logical argument as to why it's different. Women want to claim it's just not the same because...uh...it just isn't.

Facts are there is no good solution and this choice is simply an unfair advantage that women have due to pure and simple biological construction. You've got several months to ponder your choice outside of the heat of a moment and absolve yourself of accountability for it if you wish and there is no practical solution to even that out.

mmm_try_again12345 · 2022-11-08T00:38:58+00:00

If you dont want a kid, wear a condom so that your sperm isn't in someone else's body.

If you don’t want a kid, don’t let someone else’s sperm enter your body

JumboJetz · 2022-11-08T00:15:42+00:00

As I say in every thread where the stupid concept of financial abortion comes up - if the man whose sperm produced the child doesn’t pay for the child, ME the tax payer will end up paying for the child. And I didn’t even get to have sex.

Podlubnyi · 2022-11-08T00:29:56+00:00

This is why I don't give a damn whether abortions are legal or not. If you would deny me my right to opt out of parenthood after conception, then why should I care about your right to do the same?

classicliberal1 · 2022-11-08T01:36:35+00:00

but this doesnt make sense to me cause theyre 2 very different things.

It makes sense under the 13th and 14th Amendments. Forced child support is indentured servitude at best and slavery at worse. It is also a clear violation of equal protection under the law. If a woman wants to have the baby, the man has no say. The reverse is not true.

but this doesnt make sense to me cause theyre 2 very different things.

Yes, actual abortion involves killing the offspring. Whether or not and at what time the offspring is a person is a grey area, but it does involving killing a life form that is potentially a person. Financial abortion does not. If anything, "they're 2 very different things" implies that only financial abortions should be legal as they don't involve any killing whatsoever.

If you dont want a kid, wear a condom so that your sperm isn't in someone else's body.

If this is an argument against "financial abortion" than it is also an argument against actual abortion and for the exact same reason. Either sex is irrevocable consent to reproduce, or it isn't. To make it irrevocable consent for one gender but not the other is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment.

Women's BC and abortions are not a walk in the park or just a button you click, there are always physical side effects and hormonal changes(that affect the woman's life) and pain involved.

This is not relevant to the issue. The 9 months of gestation is utterly insignificant to the 18 years of child support. One might argue that the 9 months of gestation is too much of a burden as well, or one might argue that the mother should just give the child up to adoption rather than killing it. However, one cannot make a moral argument the father should be enslaved at gunpoint for 18 years, but the mother not.

Equating FA to abortion is absurd because FA has no such consequences on men, FA has nothing to do with your body and women who keep the baby are paying financially as well.

Child support has deep consequences on the man, both in terms of his life and his ability to have a child with a different woman or to raise a child rather than pay for a child he cannot even see. Child support also absolutely violates the "keep your laws off my body" principle as the man's body is forced into a cage at gunpoint if he loses his job and cannot make child support payments. The man's body is also being used at gunpoint to perform work in order to pay child support.

You know what the "keep your laws off my body" principle does not apply to? Actual abortion. This principle would apply to the offspring as much as the mother if it were a principle. It also does not address the fundamental issue of abortion, which is when does the offspring become a person. "My body, my right" does not apply to using your hands to strangle a newborn.

Look, I'm all for abortion being legal before the brain develops, but there is no way you can make a "abortion is a human right" argument while still making a "men have no right to walk away from parenthood" argument. Women's and the state's position that a man is not needed for anything but a financial slave is utter hypocrisy.

fakingandnotmakingit · 2022-11-08T01:35:22+00:00

Consent to sex isn't consent to parenthood.

That's 18 years of your life paying child support. 18 years of labour. 18 years of work

I'm not a man, but I feel like that's pretty unfair.

CimZim · 2022-11-08T00:23:52+00:00

Women are capable to abort the baby whenever they want because it's her body, so why can't he 'abort' the baby when it's his bank account?

Both man and woman are responsible for safe sex, before, during and after their encounter, should the woman become pregnant regardless and should she seek to have the baby, he has no choice, should she choose to not have the baby, he still has no choice. What this means is that the man by-default is a second-class parent akin to what a second-class citizen would be within a country, for her sake, not the baby's, and definitely not his, all other parties in this situation are by default powerless and must submit to the whims of the woman. If women are to be afforded perks and benefits as a result of their physiology, why can't men receive equivalent perks and benefits? For example, men tend to die younger (partially as a result of physiological traits), and should therefore have an earlier retirement age.

The process of becoming pregnant is not an instantaneous process, and the woman actually has days to prevent the pregnancy, for example, the Morning-After and Plan B pills can be used up to 5 days after sex, and don't forget the list of ways that women can reduce the chance of pregnancy too. While for the man all he has to do is to ensure that his method of sexual protection is adequate for roughly 20 minutes. While women are given days to take action, and a man only 20 minutes (cooperatively with the woman at that), the woman is by default absolved of any responsibility and may simply take the 'easy way out' via abortion, while the man is instantly punished and must take full responsibility, even if he upheld proper practices for safe sex.

But given the differences in how men and women are able to prevent pregnancy, and given the parameters of the specific situation that we're describing, wouldn't it be safe to say, that in such situations, the man has more than likely taken the correct actions to prevent pregnancy, while the woman hasn't? There is also the possibility of the woman tampering with the protection method, such as poking holes into the condom, or lying about being on the pill. The woman's consent is upheld as this unquestionable force, yet the man's is effectively brushed aside as meaningless, regardless of the actions that the two have taken.

feanoric · 2022-11-08T17:44:41+00:00

If you dont want a kid, wear a condom so that your sperm isn't in someone else's body. Or support research on men's birth control pills.

Funny. If I tell that to women suddenly I'm a hateful prolifer.

Clearly some women are allergic to any kind of responsibility.

MotleyCrew1989 · 2022-11-08T00:08:13+00:00

The moment sperm leaves a man´s body, they lose all reproductive rights.

If you use a condom, throw it, but the girl uses the content to inseminate herself, you have to take responsability for the child. Or if you cum in her mouth, but she uses it too.

If the girl lies to you about birth control is the same scenario.

Even if you donate it to a female friend who wants kids, she can come after you for child support.

UneastAji · 2022-11-07T23:46:07+00:00

If you dont want a kid, wear a condom so that your sperm isn't in someone else's body.

Condoms aren't 100% safe, no birth control except abstinence is. Have you had sexual education?

Equally, no one can force you/blackmail you to use your reproductive organs in a way you didnt consent to.

That's literally pro-life argument against abortion right. Are you also anti abortion? If you aren't, this is hypocrisy.

Women's BC and abortions are not a walk in the park or just a button you click, there are always physical side effects and hormonal changes(that affect the woman's life) and pain involved.

Just like men's birth control pills.

Equating FA to abortion is absurd because FA has no such consequences on men,

It's not absurd, both are here to give people a choice.

FA has nothing to do with your body

We earn money using our body for labor, and we have a shorter lifespan than women's with the same expectation of labor time in our lives. So this has everything to do with our bodies.

and women who keep the baby are paying financially as well.

They kept the baby knowing we wouldn't support her financially, that is her fault.

Aubrey_D_Graham · 2022-11-08T01:00:35+00:00

Hot take warning, men would be more supportive of expanding abortion if they also have the universal right to abortion.

Gating a right to abortion behing a gender is sexist! I support feminism which means equality between the sexes.

Bubbly_Taro · 2022-11-07T23:50:55+00:00

Should FA be a thing for rape victims?

tonyghow · 2022-11-08T01:39:33+00:00

The argument for financial abortion and actual abortion can only be invoked once conception has already happened.

The woman can also choose not to open her legs to a man who doesn’t want children. Especially if she’s against birth control.

Women pride themselves in being super selective, dismissing large swaths of men as trash. But apparently, it’s too difficult to select a man who wears condoms or is vocal about properly raising a child if a pregnancy did occur. Can’t you at least be on the same page before opening your legs?

(And don’t come back with some BS that men pressure you into not using condoms. GTFO of that situation, then.)

TheCounsellingGamer · 2022-11-08T00:44:22+00:00

Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy or parenthood. No one should be forced to be a parent in any capacity, not a woman or a man. As such I 100% believe that a man should be able to terminate his parental rights and not have any financial or emotional obligations to that child.

Of course there are some caveats to this. I don't think a father should be able to terminate his rights at any point. A father can't decide when the kid is 10 that he can't be bothered anymore. If you accept the responsibility then you have that responsibility for the rest of your life, there's no walking away after that point. It should only be able to be done either before the baby is born or very shortly after (let's say within 4 weeks of the baby being born or being notified that your the father of a child). That then gives the mother time to decide whether she wants to raise a child alone or have an abortion/give the baby up for adoption.

I don't particularly like the term "financial abortion" because termination of parental rights and termination of pregnancy are 2 completely different things. There are several reasons why someone might get an abortion, some of which have nothing to do with not wanting to be a parent. The only reason why someone would terminate their parental rights is because they are unwilling or unable to meet the obligations of parenthood.

Ultimately though, we shouldn't be forcing people into parenthood. Doing that not only causes a huge amount of problems for the person who's been forced to be a parent, it also often damages the child. People who are pressured or forced into parenthood are usually terrible parents who deeply resent their children. I don't think I need to explain why this is bad for a child. It is better for that parent to not be present at all, than be abusive, neglectful, etc.

We also shouldn't use phrases like "if you don't want a kid then wear a condom/don't have sex". These are the exact phrases that are used by anti-choice people in regards to abortion. Once again, consent to sex isn't consent to parenthood.

THROWAWAY_Bus880 · 2022-11-07T23:47:40+00:00

[permanently deleted]

SoIlikeMangos · 2022-11-07T23:54:32+00:00

Don't worry people thay come up with this nonsense would never get anyone pregnant

RocinanteCoffee · 2022-11-08T02:15:04+00:00

While I think both parties should be responsible for methods of birth control I think a lot of people neglect to state that over 70% of people who are found to owe child support NEVER EVER pay it (US).

So even if a court does find it at some point the actual chance that you'll ever lose a single dollar to it is pretty low. And some of the remaining 30% who do actually end up having to pay at least a few dollars (usually quite a bit more) are women.

SuspiciousRule · 2022-11-08T00:32:28+00:00

I would just say I one situation you have a living breathing child that need to be care for. You can't just abandoned a person. Even in situation of of stuff like debt and bills can fall on family members. If no child is born it doesn't effect the system at all.

buttercreamandrum · 2022-11-08T02:46:46+00:00

With millions of women unable to access abortion, I wonder if the proponents of financial abortion still advocate for it? The concept of a financial abortion is usually based on the idea that if women can terminate parenthood, men should be able to, too. Equality or something. Problem is pregnancy and child birth are inherently not equal situations. Aborting a pregnancy has entirely different consequences than denying a child financial support, which is why the two situations are not treated the same.

naiya_1219 · 2022-11-07T23:51:34+00:00

it's not the same at all and i wish men would stop making the argument lmao

Lost-Zebra6453 · 2022-11-07T23:43:26+00:00

Yeah I can understand way they would feel upset that they have less say in the matter and it’s a huge life altering consequence having a child but it’s not the same and at the end of the day of the child is born it does need resources and deserves both contributing makers to support

BigZaddyZ3 · 2022-11-08T01:08:33+00:00

I agree with you tbh. I’m obviously not against men advocating for rights, but the idea of “financial abortions” always felt like copium or some sort of weird revenge fantasy.

Not to mention, it’s a slippery slope argument. As who’s to say guys who initially did consent to having the child wouldn’t abuse this system to get out of child-support or other shit?

Also imagine thinking a world where even less children get the financial support they need would somehow be better for society…

AndyBrown65 · 2022-11-08T02:03:21+00:00

There are a number of cases where "financial abortion" makes perfect sense. As with everything in life, it is not "black and white"

The issue revolves around fairness and equality. A child has a right to have access to both parents. A father has a starting point 50/50 access right. There are some groups of people who fail to respect this right and who are so filled with hatred of men that see than any access is wrong. However, those toxic attitudes have permeated society in such a way that society essentially views men as wallets on legs.

Child custody and the games associated with child alienation are essentially used to hurt former partners and to extract money out of partners. What "financial abortion" essentially is, is an assertive way of saying "if you are not going to grant me my 50% share of the child's life, then you are not going to get my wallet"

pm_me_hairy_nudes · 2022-11-09T04:30:31+00:00

OP you are really bad at making this point, but I agree with you.

Financial abortion is not equal to abortion because money is not equivalent to my bodily autonomy, to me being able to own my own body. Governments should be able to fine or tax you, but they shouldn't be able to tell you to sell or rent out or donate your organs. If I want to take a medicine that will save my life but increases the risk of miscarriage, I should be able to choose that.

Interesting attitudes from so many men here -- hey to other women here, conservative, "moderate", salty incel men do NOT care about your human rights. They don't give a fuck if that ectopic pregnancy kills you, out of revenge for not having a bangmaid waifu at home.

Vote AND KEEP. VOTING.

HazyMemory7 · 2022-11-08T00:32:58+00:00

It doesn't, but not for the reasons you stated in my opinion.

The reason it doesn't make sense is because all it means is that tax payers will be paying for the child (or rather, a greater share than they already do) instead of the man that got the woman pregnant in the first place.

If people acknowledged this at the start of the discussion suddenly I bet nobody would be supporting financial abortion. It's a stupid idea.

mumblebumblegrumble · 2022-11-08T09:28:25+00:00

All I can think about is the bureaucracy cluster fuck FA would be. Regular abortion, 1 fetus that could be born or not. Even if the woman got pregnant every 9 months as soon as she could, eventually her body would give out and she couldn't do it anymore.

FA, a man can impregnate as many women potentially as he could sex for many years with no end in sight. The extra court cases when men that financially aborted try to contact the kid.

Would the removal of consequence from using a condom make less men use them? Probably, leading to more children unwanted by their fathers.

AutoModerator · 2022-11-07T23:39:20+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Maffioze · 2022-11-10T13:37:23+00:00

If you dont want a kid, wear a condom so that your sperm isn't in someone else's body. Or support research on men's birth control pills. Equally, no one can force you/blackmail you to use your reproductive organs in a way you didnt consent to.

So in your worldview it is simply not possible for women to use their partners's sperm to get pregnant without their consent? The last sentence of this paragraph is just so blantantly untrue, I don't know what else to tell you. If there is one gender that can be forced/blackmailed into using their reproductive organs in a way that they didn't consent in a country where abortion is legal and affordable then it is men. Btw the reason why we don't have male birth control is because its simply way more difficult to create one that doesn't absolutely destroy the hormonal balance of men.

Title	Financial abortion doesnt make sense
Author	THROWAWAY_Bus880
Upvotes	0
Comments	188
Date	November 7, 2022 11:39 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/yp4u7v/financial_abortion_doesnt_make_sense/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/financial-abortion-doesnt-make-sense.1139453 https://theredarchive.com/post/1139453

Comments