Just feminists explaining why its okay for women to have choices, but men get obligations ("Financial Abortions")

imbignate · 2013-06-28T09:46:44+00:00

If, as feminists contend, abortion is a right of bodily autonomy, then the consequences for it are solely on the head of the woman. That means if she chooses to bring the child into this world the man is not responsible for her choice. She is.

jetboyJ · 2013-06-28T13:39:44+00:00

She uses the phrase "bodily autonomy" as a buzzword and a philosophical bludgeon without thinking about what the phrase actually entails. To ease her cognitive dissonance, she elevates pregnancy to the category of "bodily autonomy" but relegates every other conscious parental action to some less important realm.

In reality, there is no type of autonomy or freedom that isn't "bodily." What the hell would that even mean? Non-corporeal autonomy? When a man is forced to work for 18 years for a child that he never consented to have, that is definitely affecting what he can or cannot do with his own body. Slaves don't have "bodily autonomy".

drunkenJedi4 · 2013-06-28T13:54:42+00:00

I'm all for bodily autonomy, but it has to also apply to men. However, an obligation to pay child support is a clear violation of bodily autonomy as the man is compelled through the threat of state violence to work to support the mother of his child (who will then supposedly use that money for the child, but there is no guarantee for that).

Even setting aside the issue of bodily autonomy, what about adoption? Women can unilaterally decide to give up the child for abortion. LPS should be compared to that right, not abortion. We need to hammer home on that fact. Feminists should not be allowed to get away with arguing about abortion, which is nothing at all like LPS.

dungone · 2013-06-28T12:48:37+00:00

The problem is really bad because millions of them feel very strongly about this and use the same kind of special pleading. Yet every single time, they just keep talking past you and making personal attacks until they run off huffing and puffing with their fingers in their ears.

ExpendableOne · 2013-06-28T16:04:36+00:00

I like how her main argument is "women get to choose, because of bodily integrity" when the primary motivation for the vast majority of abortions(which is the unwillingness or incapability of taking care of a child or taking on the obligation) has nothing to do with bodily integrity. The motivations for women who choose to have abortions are the same ones that men would have to want a woman to have an abortion in the first place. This choice, or the motivation for that choice, also isn't in the interest of the child, so for her to subsequently make the "in the interest of the child" argument when it is convenient for women is pretty hypocritical. Not to mention that, when a woman chooses to go through with a pregnancy knowing the damages/risks it poses, she also accepts that those risks/damages are going to happen, essentially forfeiting any right to protect her body from any physical strains/damages of that pregnancy. If protecting a woman's body was the primary motivation for abortion for women, no pregnancies would ever get past the first week.

Disgusting part is, the "nightmare scenarios" she imagines are not only nightmares to her because of her own irrational cognitive bias for women, or women's concerns/insecurities, but still comparable to what men would experience to begin with(something which she doesn't really seem to care much about). Every argument she has about how men having the right to choose would be horrible for women, she blatantly misses how that same argument could be made for women having the exclusive right to choose, with absolute authority, and how it affects men in the same way.

Prezombie · 2013-06-28T07:43:30+00:00

[permanently deleted]

2013-06-28T15:14:47+00:00

I'll support this opting out if, as part of the procedure, you are castrated. Does that work for you?

Feminism helps men too!

Peter_Principle_ · 2013-06-28T12:36:07+00:00

Imagine what NASA could accomplish if we could convert feminist special pleading fallacies into energy.

callthebankshot · 2013-06-28T12:30:10+00:00

I look at it this way.

Should a mother be legally permitted to put her child up for adoption? Ans - Yes.

So why not fathers?

callthebankshot · 2013-06-28T13:46:04+00:00

Just remember that you aren't really trying to convince the person you are arguing with. You just need to win over the people listening in from the sidelines.

It's also my experience that very few people will simply reverse their beliefs on an issue on the spot. If they are going to change at all, it will happen later and privately after they run the ideas through their head a few more times.

After finding the actual thread and reading a little bit more of doubleemmartin's arguments, it seems that she is centering it around the idea that women have the right to bodily autonomy but do not have the right to surrender parental obligations. And since both men and women have the right to bodily autonomy, there is equality between the sexes.

The argument seems disingenuous to me as the right to bodily autonomy for women in this case also provides the de facto right to surrender parental obligation, but doesn't for men. It also follows that if men and women have the right to self-ownership, then their labor is not owned by a child or the state. Finally, women do have the ability to surrender their parental obligations without their right to bodily autonomy through adoption, Safe Haven laws and the control of naming paternity.

haharae · 2013-06-28T13:38:34+00:00

The argument going around in that thread is "it's my body, it's my choice!" It's funny how angry many of them get when you use the same logic in the counterargument of "it's my wallet, it's my choice!" That thread is so full of hypocritical feminists, I'm surprised it hasn't burst yet.

circuitology · 2013-06-28T13:55:17+00:00

The right to control others without taking responsibility for yourself.

Classic.

Jazzeki · 2013-06-28T15:09:16+00:00

i'm far more intrested in the fact that this woman aparently suports the idea that if a woman have an abortion it should come with a hysterectomy.

i mean if men must be sterelized to opt out of parenthood the same ideal must aply to women.

also you only get pregnant if you are careless about birth control so no woman ever has had a reasonable excuse to have an abortion. they were simply lazy and careless.

Perpetual_dissident · 2013-06-28T09:27:50+00:00

I might lack the clarity of concepts to articulate my position with regards to that article however intuitively it sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.

shadowboxer47 · 2013-06-28T16:19:17+00:00

I notice the downvote brigade is hard at work in this thread.

MRMRising · 2013-06-28T18:40:44+00:00

Feminists argueing for female privilege, and against equal choice, not surprised.

Thisismynetlife · 2013-06-28T20:06:46+00:00

What the fuck happened to equality? If women can opt out completely, then only the exact same choice for males would balance out the equation. Feminists sure suck at maths.

VoodooIdol · 2013-06-28T21:24:59+00:00

It it's "all about the rights of the child, then are we saying that women are incapable of raising a child on their own? Because, if the former is your argument, then your reason is the latter. That is to say: feminists are saying that women suck and can't financially raise children on their own.

Think about that for a minute.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2013-06-28T15:32:28+00:00

The whole "it's not about choosing parenthood, it's about bodily autonomy" argument is a complete misdirection.

The fact remains that women get to choose to enter parenthood or not. Your own motivations or justifications for abortion do not change that fact.

Additionally, it's also partially false. The fetus isn't technically part of their body. The autonomy refers to the resources of their own body and deciding whether the fetus gets it. Of course then when we're deciding on whether someone has a right to your resources, suddenly their argument is empty rhetoric against enforced child support without consent.

fluxBurns · 2013-06-28T14:11:49+00:00

If that is the thread in AskWomen, it is actually quite an interesting discussion. Worth a read. Not quite a completely feminist rant thread.

nwz123 · 2013-06-29T06:52:35+00:00

Parent obligations are the right of the child? Tell that to children put up for adoption/dropped off at safe havens... This person is up on some bullshit.

If financial abortion makes 'women and children' more 'vulnerable', then said women need to start making better choices with all that damn power and autonomy they have (in regards to whose children they decide to have, that is). That's what it means to have agency and choice.

Also: nothing wrong with women choosing to go it alone in terms of parenting. My mom did that (more or less), and she didn't even know how she was going to do it. She just went for it and stuck it out (she's also fucking amazing, so that helps).

2013-07-01T17:44:45+00:00

My problem with the post is that it argues that it suggests that a woman's choice to have an abortion is a solely a medical decision. She's arguing that having an abortion is like making a decision akin to removing a tumorous mole. Yet, from the male's perspective, she sees his decision to want to "financially abort" as one exclusively to avoid parenthood. The truth is that women, overwhelmingly, have abortions not to avoid the physical repercussions of carrying a child, not for any abject medical reason, but because they themselves want to avoid parenthood. And, in the interest of fairness, shouldn't men be afforded the same opportunity?

iongantas · 2013-06-28T11:57:51+00:00

This is all so incredibly frustrating. The gross display of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy is enough as it is, but as the text continues it progresses into straw man arguments, childish remarks, and even lashing out irrationally. Fuck this gay earth.

Omni314 · 2013-06-28T14:45:58+00:00

And their argument against putting it up for adoption?

Perpetual_dissident · 2013-06-28T22:36:03+00:00

So, a man has no right or say on whether a pregnancy should go on yet he does have an obligation to financially support the child if he actualy is born. Yet the women do have the right to abort and is entitled to a part of father's income upon childbirth.

This argument would slighly make more sense if joint custody was a reality happening in practice, where man's resources don't go to the mother but directly to the child.

Otherwise, it's just fucking bullshit..

SDcowboy82 · 2013-06-28T22:44:02+00:00

It's all about bodily autonomy. Child support comes from wages. Wages arise as an output of one's efforts, out of the production of his or her body. By mandating child support one in fact states that a child support payer's wages, and in fact their body, is to be owned by someone else. A second party is entitled to the productivity of one's body.

Therefore, as women's choice is about control over their body, men's choice is also about control over their body.

But let's look at it another way. If one asserts that post-birth all decisions and rights are child centric, then the state must pursue that policy more universally than it does. For example, it is in a child's best interest to be raised in a two parent household. Thus, in a world that is child centric, an unmarried couple that have a child must marry, and married couples with children must be prohibited from divorcing.

In addition, it is in the child's best interest to be raised in an economically stable environment. People who live below the poverty line may be forced to relinquish their children to wealthier couples should such couples request it.

These are, of course, absurd infringements on the rights of the parents, and are especially abhorrent in the eyes of the public because they limit the self determination of women. All talk of legal practice being child-centric after birth is ridiculous. It is, and has been for a very long time, mother-centric.

toptrool · 2013-06-28T16:28:57+00:00

my thoughts:

where elective abortions are allowed, abortion is female privilege:

1) females are allowed to legally kill their offspring if they do not desire it; males have no say on whether they want to be a parent and they are legally mandated to provide for the offspring.

2) the "bodily autonomy" argument feminists often try to object with does not work. if we consider the purpose of child support, that is providing shelter and nutrition to the offspring, then there's no reason why females can't be obligated to carry the pregnancy to term. the uterus' sole purpose is to provide nutrition and shelter to the offspring. if feminists think that one method of child support (pregnancy) is unacceptable, then we can argue that other forms (financial support) is also unacceptable. if they want to get into absolute "bodily autonomy" rights, we can go into absolute property rights. thus, for the feminist objection of "bodily autonomy" to work, they would have to clearly and distinctly explain why pregnancy is not a valid form of child support.

there are also several things wrong with the "bodily autonomy" arguments in this case:

i) child support is meant for the child, and the parents' thoughts, feelings, inconveniences, rights etc. take a backseat.

ii) being forced to put your body through labor to provide for your children is a violation of bodily autonomy; not to mention that being jailed for insufficiently providing for your children is also a violation of bodily autonomy.

3) personal responsibility cuts both ways. to avoid looking like hypocrites when they use the pro-life argument of personal responsibility ("you should've not have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father," etc.), feminists come up with a lousy retort of "consenting to pregnancy," which is essentially "just because the woman consented to sex doesn't mean she consents to carrying her offspring for nine-ten months." the flaw with that argument is that you can only consent to acts, you cannot consent to consequences. when b.p. caused the oil spill back in 2010, did they consent to the drilling? yes. did they consent to the oil spill? obviously not. did they have to take responsibility for it? absolutely. thus, the claim that a female does not consent to carrying a pregnancy is not a valid reason for her to abdicate her obligations to her offspring.

this is an equality under the law type of argument. either make both parents responsible for the offspring (ban abortions, mandate child support) or allow both parents to abdicate responsibilities to their children (allow abortions, get rid of mandated child support). pro-aborts start experiencing major cognitive dissonances when presented with this argument.

ExPwner · 2013-06-28T14:45:00+00:00

This is just more of the same thing. "My body, my choice, his wallet."

Personage1 · 2013-06-28T18:21:23+00:00

I'm curious if anyone has any ideas for alternatives? The fact is that child support is put in place to support the child. It doesn't matter how unfair it is for the parents, the child's interests come first. If it was legal to simply ditch a baby and force only one parent to try and provide for it, that's not good for the baby.

The solution seems that we should fight for the state to always make sure that each and every child has enough money. Therefore if the mother or father drops their economic obligations but the other one doesn't the state will pick up the tab. Otherwise it is not good for the child.

_Stoned_Panda_ · 2013-06-28T14:45:13+00:00

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.

If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

Also, please consider using an alternative to Reddit - political censorship is unacceptable.

Inbefore121 · 2013-06-28T20:58:46+00:00

I have a question. I was recently banned from ask feminists for doing something very similar to this with the exception that I provided a link to the sub. My question is: what is the difference between this and providing a link to the thread?

Mitschu · 2013-06-28T10:44:55+00:00

If you were to list the reasons why abortions are moral, it would probably look something like this:

Fetus' are not aware they're alive

They are 100% dependent on others for their survival

Fetus' do not feel pain nor have a "desire" to live

Fetus' have very limited cognitive facilities

If you were to list the reasons why killing people in their sleep / while comatose is moral, it would probably look exactly like that, too.

Celda · 2013-06-28T14:42:50+00:00

I do wish you'd actually countered some of her points, there. The most striking to me when I discuss this is mentioned in her original post: When, and by which method, would a man give up his rights and responsibilities to the potential child? Before the end of the first trimester? Before entering a sexual relationship?

Quarkster · 2013-06-28T16:22:38+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1h6lqj/if_the_father_wants_to_keep_an_unborn_child_but/carww8j

Mr_Rivers · 2013-06-28T11:24:18+00:00

The argument she made was so full of holes I really don't feel like refuting it.

AceyJuan · 2013-06-28T08:03:39+00:00

TL;DR

Title	Just feminists explaining why its okay for women to have choices, but men get obligations ("Financial Abortions")
Author	nlakes
Upvotes	141
Comments	106
Date	June 28, 2013 7:23 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1h8i70/just_feminists_explaining_why_its_okay_for_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/just-feminists-explaining-why-its-okay-for-women.1169982 https://theredarchive.com/post/1169982

Comments