Men should be allowed to sign away parental rights without the consent of the woman during pregnancy. If she can choose to not be a mother, he should be able to choose to not be a father.

Postichiolio · 2018-12-17T17:32:09+00:00

[permanently deleted]

spaceraverdk · 2018-12-17T16:01:18+00:00

Government will never allow this, as there's no way for them to stick you with a bill for a kid you don't want, if it is enacted..

pandalovexxx · 2018-12-17T16:07:52+00:00

[permanently deleted]

julie_k8 · 2018-12-17T16:44:41+00:00

It’s crazy because when the girl doesn’t want to be a mother she can abort it. Some don’t even mention this to the fathers. They leave a lot of men heart broken because I’m sure there are plenty of men who would’ve wanted to be and could’ve been great fathers.

But the moment a girl wants to keep her baby the man is ordered to pay child support despite him not being ready. And who knows where the hell the child support money goes to?

topsy_cretsz · 2018-12-17T19:59:15+00:00

I think Karen DeCrow's quote perfectly conveys how I view the situation -

The courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that 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. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.

kevingrumbles · 2018-12-17T16:27:55+00:00

[permanently deleted]

MistaMayfair · 2018-12-17T17:26:56+00:00

I like the idea, but here's how I think this should pan out: Man makes it clear he wants nothing to do with the child, Woman gets to have a state funded abortion (because aborting a child is cheaper than paying child benefits out) or carry the child to term with the knowledge that the father wants nothing to do with it. The Woman should be notified of the father's intentions before he signs away his parental responsibilities, but she should not be able to block it. The latest a man should be able to do this is before the woman is 20 weeks (or 4 months) pregnant to ensure she has the option to have the abortion (I believe the cutoff is 24 weeks, but I could be wrong, feel free to correct me). If he decides after 20 weeks that he wants nothing to do with the child then tough shit, he has to either convince the woman to give the child up to adoption (therefore both parents give up parental rights) or pay his share of the child's welfare.

shot-in-the-mouth · 2018-12-17T20:10:51+00:00

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/03/german-man-ordered-child-support-ex-wife-forge-signature-ivf-pregnancy.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/man-loses-damages-claim-against-ivf-clinic-over-forged-consent

purpleblossom · 2018-12-18T02:56:46+00:00

I have been saying this for YEARS and one major change for women is that they would have to name the father before birth, which would actually help the process on paperwork for newborns as well.

Of course there should also be a process that if the mother claims a man is the father and he contests that claim instead sighing his rights away, she is legally bound to do a paternity test so some guy isn't randomly signing rights away to a child that isn't his.

Alternately, there should also be a way for men to keep the baby if the woman doesn't want to abort but doesn't want the kid and the father does. It would mean he legally signs up to financially help her through the pregnancy but at birth, she no longer has any legal rights to the kids, meaning she cannot change her mind to keep it without going to court and doing so on the father's terms or giving the kid up without the father knowing. There are too many cases of the latter happening and it's just not right.

UrPrettyMuchNuthin · 2018-12-18T16:54:33+00:00

I saw this all the time. The common response? "He consented to sex so he knew this could happen"

Wrong

Kogster · 2018-12-17T17:21:25+00:00

Anyone seen that meme "if men could get pregnant, abortion pills would be in the supermarket in a range of flavours"?

The beauty of this being that even a second of critical thought leads you to the conclusion that abortion for men is possible, and yet there is not a single place in the civilised world which grants men this right, while women do have this right in most places. It's actually an example of a right women have that men don't.

It's turned out to be a nice way to differentiate those who are so indoctrinated to their ideology and dogma that they are incapable of critical thought. Although it is depressing to see just how many people actually see that meme and agree with it.

SadRoads · 2018-12-17T16:04:47+00:00

good point too 🤔 but I doubt the feminists will push back on equal rights for men

KillingFain · 2018-12-18T11:22:16+00:00

Never looked at it like that, but I think that would probably cause a lot more problems than it solves. The better way to avoid having kids you don't want is to simply use protection.

Willravel · 2018-12-17T19:04:26+00:00

It's not just choosing not to be a mother, it's choosing not to host a growing fetus for 9 months. Being pregnant is a significantly difficult ordeal that, in and of itself, can and often does change loves. That's not the same thing as the few seconds it takes to sign a piece of paper.

This is not an equivalent comparison and oversimplifies a complex ethical question to the point of absurdity.

doghome107 · 2018-12-17T19:17:18+00:00

So, we're all just competing for the right to not be a parent?

UrPrettyMuchNuthin · 2018-12-17T23:53:25+00:00

Yeah, while women are encouraged to be more and more liberal and progressive(the phrase I usually use is 'teflon, like consequences don't stick'), given more and more rights every year, men are expected to stick to the conservative stereotype of responsible citizenhood, by law

It all starts with doing away with child support and alimony. While these measures are still there, it is every man's responsibility to make sure he is not caught in these traps. I am morally good with men running away to non extradition countries, taking a metaphorical dump on the mouths of the judges and the women who seek their wealth and fruits of their labour. Eat shit bitches.

ralphswanson · 2018-12-17T19:42:04+00:00

No quicker way to turn a feminist into a pro-lifer than to request equal reproductive rights for men. Feminist 'equality': Men have duties; Women have rights.

jonnytechno · 2018-12-18T15:03:56+00:00

I'm all for this, pregnancy is so often used to trap men into commitment with the threat of child support. I guarantee if me gain the right to opt out the amount of single mothers will plummet

jacksleepshere · 2018-12-17T19:46:58+00:00

This thread is clearly getting brigaded, and most of the arguments come down to “don’t have sex” or “men should do their job and be providers”

HeroOfOne · 2018-12-17T18:15:07+00:00

This is absolutely 100% sane and correct and logical. I've been saying it for years, and most people I've had conversations with tend to agree.

Truthfully, the reasons a woman chooses to have an abortion do not always fall into "not wanting to be a mother". I'm incredibly pro-choice and men should never, ever have the power or ability to force a woman into a pregnancy she doesn't want just to produce a child for him. There isn't equality here -- women have to go through the pregnancy process. We, as men, should never really have a say in if a woman goes through that process.

That being said, no one should have a say in whether or not we want to be a parent. Now to simply be able to change our mind at the last minute and not sign the birth certificate and walk away scott free and leave the woman with the baby -- that's not fair.

But the term "paper abortion" which I've seen in the comments makes a lot of sense.

Give men x amount of time equal to the typical amount of time of when a woman discovers she is pregnant and when the cutoff for a legal, by choice (not medical) abortion is to decide if we want to opt out of the rights of parental rights.

If the woman tells us at the same time she finds out she's pregnant, and we decide to opt out, that gives her time to use that information to have an abortion should she choose to do so with the information that she'd be raising the child without any emotional or financial support from the man. If the woman does not tell the man until it's too late -- then the man is still granted that same amount of time to opt out... otherwise that's entrapment.

I never want to advocate to take away a woman's right to choose, and I don't necessarily like the argument that the only reason a woman may have an abortion is because they don't want to be a mother. However, there is something to be said for a man's right to choose -- and the ancient argument that a man's right to choose means he shouldn't have sex -- well that doesn't work anymore.

Stephen1985 · 2018-12-18T02:00:42+00:00

There should be limits on it though just like abortion.

UrPrettyMuchNuthin · 2018-12-18T07:23:17+00:00

Idk I can’t get behind this. We don’t need equality in society between men and women. Men have a job to provide for their kids and to be there. If I ever have a kid I will try my hardest to provide every opportunity to them until they’re an adult. For me, it’s the duty of being a man and a father, and I want a society whose laws reflect that.

Of course my views go both ways. Women also have a duty to their family and society. But today more and more often we can’t talk about this duty because it’s branded as sexists..

porraSV · 2018-12-18T08:41:09+00:00

To be honest I agree with this point of view and I am a woman.

Valendr0s · 2018-12-17T21:04:06+00:00

To be honest, I would rather have the government massively fund the studies required for FDA approval for Vasalgel.

It's promising, effective, and it's totally reversible. But there's no money in it. Manufacturing will be insanely cheap. It will replace a large percentage of condom use, so the condom industry wouldn't fund it. It will be a massively cheaper substitute for vasectomy so urologists wouldn't find it. And it will replace a large percentage of current and future daily birth control pills, so the pharmaceutical industry would never fund it.

It's unfundable and completely useful. A perfect example for something that should be funded by the government. But the above 3 industries as well as pro-life dummies would lobby hard against such funding.

But... It would allow boys to get the procedure around sexual maturity and then get it reversed when they wish to start having children. A great backstop protection against unwanted pregnancy.

2018-12-17T20:39:26+00:00

I've been saying this for 20 years. It should be within a certain time frame, to allow the female time to consider whether she wants to commit to the enterprise alone.

Will it ever happen? No. But it should.

richasalannister · 2018-12-17T20:15:35+00:00

Good idea but you'll end up paying for the kid through taxes anyway

2018-12-17T23:53:58+00:00

Agreed! Were a long way from that happening tho. Ive mentioned this to people and tbey stare at me like im from outer space.

This would also protect women from being harmed from unwilling fathers such as the football players case frim the Carolina Panthers.. .... name isnt coming to me

gloryhole87 · 2018-12-17T18:48:22+00:00

As someone whose father left when I was a baby, and contributed nothing to my life, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. To some extent, men already have that ability, they just have to be good at disappearing. Alternatively, they can opt not to become a father by using contraception, not having unprotected sex with women they can't be sure are on the pill, or by having a vasectomy.

EDIT the exceptions being, if the man has been raped, or had his sperm stolen in some way. In those circumstances, yes, you should be able to give up your rights and responsibilities.

drifter100 · 2018-12-17T18:28:06+00:00

Ya...no to that one.

agprincess · 2018-12-18T04:31:01+00:00

Alright but if a woman gives birth and doesn’t want to raise it but the man does than she should get to sign the kid away to hime too.

TopofToronto · 2018-12-17T20:00:18+00:00

It is called a paper abortion .

Should be the law that once a woman knows she is pregnant she should be obligated to inform the man.

He signs a paper saying if he wants to be a parent or not .

If he does not then she has enough time to get an abortion or make other plans and he has not legal or financial obligation after that

abusmakk · 2018-12-17T17:31:36+00:00

The best thing about this suggestion is probably that it would force the mother to include the father in her decision.

A shame that society has evolved in a way that we have to pass laws for something that two adults should be able to figure out on their own.

muchachomalo · 2018-12-18T00:05:45+00:00

I feel at the very least a court should be able to waive paternity. Like in the case a woman rapes a child and gets pregnant.

Nude-eh · 2018-12-18T14:59:57+00:00

It is her body, but it is your wallet.

mraproj · 2018-12-18T19:05:15+00:00

Its been tried and failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dubay_child_support_case

But with effort, someone could pickup from where he left off.

Ive been debating this topic for years, and the logical conclusion of this idea comes down being a double edge sword.

If men want the right to relinquish rights and responsibilities of a child before it is born, then they'll have to accept that this comes with the option for a woman to deny a man custody rights (although she'll be waving his child support payments as well).

Basically if you want the right to walk away, by logic you give her the right to walk away with the child as well and keep you out.

Most MRAs dont want this, many arent even able to reduce the principles down to understand why the double edge sword is created, so everything stays the same.

Im actually fine with this though. If I get a woman pregnant, and she doesnt want anything to do with me, I'm happy for her to walk away with the kid and never demand a cent in child support. I'll find someone else. But many MRAs dont like it. They think that if a kid was created with their sperm, they should have automatic custody rights - but then think they should have the right to legal parental surrender.

Well, you cant have the cake and eat it too.

PurpleAngel23 · 2019-01-11T04:59:56+00:00

On that same note, I’m not a fan of men having to pay child support to women who get pregnant behind their backs. I’m referring to women who openly lie and tell their partners they’re using birth control, when they aren’t. I honestly think that’s financially and sexually abusive (if the woman was honest about refusing to use prevention in an effort to get pregnant, the man would most likely refuse sex).

I’m talking about situations in which the woman is actively trying to get pregnant against the man’s wishes, not situations in which both parties are lazy, unprepared, or when surprises happen.

themolestedsliver · 2018-12-17T18:08:41+00:00

Really, i honestly am very paranoid about this it really isn't even funny.

Legit i could have a relationship with a women, up and down "no i would get an abortion, no i dont want a kid" then the condom breaks, her birth control doesn't work, one of the many things that can go wrong and hey she's pregnant.

well....sliver, i had a change of heart i want to be a mother....Guess who has literally no option aside from paying child support for 18 years?

Like i have a medical condition in my family i am a carrier for, if i want a child i would adopt when it is time.

TruthGetsBanned · 2018-12-17T16:49:47+00:00

If the 14th Amendment actually meant anything, this would already be the standard, but, nope.

A strong, independent woman has bills to pay, so some penis owner must pay those bills, because that's equality. If you disagree you're a deadbeat rapist who should be put to death. Welcome to the USA.

Makes me want to burn the world.

skellious · 2018-12-17T17:37:40+00:00

(men should at the least be able to sign it away up to the abortion cut-off date)

ElectraUnderTheSea · 2018-12-17T18:07:11+00:00

Abortion should be an absolute last resource thing, a one in a million thing. People are so damn careless about birth control... It baffles me how much focus is put on a solution rather than prevention.

And I agree with you: no one should be forced to be a parent against their wishes, be it man or woman. If getting pregnant is a well-known risk of sex, both parties must accept that risk and its consequences, and have an equal right to forfeit those consequences.

iareslice · 2018-12-17T18:04:15+00:00

I too enjoy burdening the government with a ton of new social spending for poor single mothers after the father bails.

2018-12-17T18:39:33+00:00

Women were given the ability because everyone seems to think they shouldn't have to be responsible.

Tankbot85 · 2018-12-17T17:35:40+00:00

I agree 100%. This is always an argument i have made. If a woman can abort and not involve the father in the decision, then the man should be able to do a "financial and responsibility" abortion and sign away his rights with no questions.

AP3Brain · 2018-12-17T20:21:44+00:00

It's because children have rights while fetuses don't.

Cking_wisdom · 2018-12-17T17:26:15+00:00

I've been saying this for months but nobody thinks its fair for some reason.

Trihard1999 · 2018-12-17T23:32:03+00:00

No I don't think so.

jmac323 · 2018-12-18T01:41:50+00:00

As a woman I agree with this 100%! Her body her choice and her responsibility. Not the man she choose to sleep with and not the taxpayers.

pasta4u · 2018-12-17T17:17:09+00:00

[permanently deleted]

HisMortimerness · 2018-12-18T08:21:55+00:00

I'm gonna be downvoted for this, but I'll say it anyway:

You can't be demanding the right to be spawning children into fatherlessness just because you want 5 minutes of joy without responsibility every once in a while, and campaign for equal parental rights at the same time.

There is no right to have sex without consequences. And there is no safe method of birth control. And yes, it sucks.

This discussion is utterly selfish because it just looks at a grown ups prospect of having sex every in a while, while completely ignoring the rights of the third party that nobody wants to talk about: the child. If you have sex with someone, you will always risk the consequences. That's just how it is. But that goes for men and women alike. Your right to those 5 minutes just don't and never will weigh heavier than a childs right to both parents. You're grown up, act accordingly.

JettNaps · 2018-12-17T18:52:20+00:00

I know im going to get heat for this but this bullshit experiment of free sexuality needs to stop. Sex being connected to commitment, love and pregnancy and people accepting that reality leads to superior outcomes for society as a whole. Nobody should have the "right" to opt out unless there is a gurantee that someone else can care for the baby.

lespetitspains · 2018-12-17T18:39:26+00:00

Man makes his choice when he chooses to have sex. Ok woman has a choice there too. But man could pull out or wear a condom. Woman may control the pregnancy later, but man has huge choice in conceiving the child or not early on.

LeafFallGround · 2018-12-17T17:48:47+00:00

Hey buddy. You're beating a dead horse. A sad, non-existent metaphorical horse. God how I wish we could actually make this a law.

DrewFlan · 2018-12-17T17:41:43+00:00

It's not that cut and dry. Sometimes women can't chose. Sometimes even if they can the process of aborting a child puts their health and life at serious risk.

maxp0wah · 2018-12-17T17:19:55+00:00

I understand the moral argument here, but who pays for the child? The mother alone? Taxpayers?

elizacandle · 2018-12-17T19:18:28+00:00

I think so.

kairi157 · 2018-12-17T19:46:15+00:00

I think you are on to something there but I think you would have more traction if you argued from the side of "women can give up a baby for adoption without the father's consent" because many states require that if a father wants to contest or be part of an adoption contract they have to legally prove paternity. Arguing over abortion will likely get you nowhere fast because, yes, abortion gives up maternal rights but it also gets rid of any sort of paternal rights by negating the need for them. But the argument that a woman can give up a baby for adoption with little or no input from the father, thereby giving up her maternal rights, directly aligns with your thought that men should be able to give up parental rights with little or no input from the mother. They are also similar in that it could leave the child in the sole care of one or the other if the person so chooses to not also give them up for adoption and wants to keep them. As it is you're arguing that a woman's ability to make a decision that removes the parental respinsibilty from both parents should mean that a father can make a decision that only gives up his parental responsibility and leaves her with all the responsibility. And many people will see that part of it and argue that it isn't the same thing. But arguing from the side of adoption rights has more clear similarities and people would probably be more likely to listen

fuzzy_bunnyx · 2018-12-17T19:52:08+00:00

You could make this even simpler. Men by default would not be considered fathers upon conception because they have yet to accept the responsibility of parenthood. After conception, a woman would report the pregnancy and the man would get notified if he wants to accept parenthood. The decision for both would be reversible to the certain deadline. Furthermore, if the mother chooses to give the baby up for adoption and the father choose parenthood, he would get automatic custody...

v650 · 2018-12-17T23:14:23+00:00

Hmmm, that's a good point. But if they do then that's the government, ie us the taxpayers paying for the kid. So fuck that.

DEVOmay97 · 2018-12-18T00:30:51+00:00

I've actually argued this point before, but everyone just talks about how "abortion isn't a man's issue" blah blah blah. Rather than comparing this idea to abortion, I compare it to a common law in many western countries called the safe haven law, which allows a mother to bring her kid to certain emergency public service locations like hospital ER's and fire departments and leave their child there to be put up for adoption, no questions asked. Using the safe haven law example seems to get through to people a lot better than comparing the idea of men being able to opt out of fatherhood to abortion because the safe haven law has nothing to do with a woman's unique anatomy.

bradtwo · 2018-12-18T02:11:55+00:00

Sad truth.

Your child’s life is a decision she can make without you.

GJokaero · 2018-12-18T11:26:47+00:00

I agree but only if a woman can get an abortion for free, with no questions asked, and only up to the point where an abortion is no longer allowed. (Whatever that is I know it differs)

BatmanAtWork · 2018-12-17T21:10:50+00:00

But when she chooses, both of you are off the hook. If a man chooses, there's still a kid that needs to be taken care of.

SuperSulf · 2018-12-17T17:10:59+00:00

Idk. I think the main reason why some people would agree with this is the reality of pregnancy. Men don't have to carry the burden of being pregnant, and go through labor and childbirth. That is exclusively a problem for the pregnant person, so they get to make the decision. Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, having a child is not just a problem for the woman, if you're a good person . . . but throughout the history of our species, 2 people could have sex (consensual or not), the man leaves for some reason, and the woman was left to deal with being pregnant by herself and raising the child. If men (other than trans men, different subject) were able to get pregnant and have kids, this would be an entirely different debate and our culture would be vastly different.

What are the laws regarding this in different countries? States?

jacksleepshere · 2018-12-17T16:37:50+00:00

Without a doubt.

petielvrrr · 2018-12-17T20:53:50+00:00

Here’s the point a lot of you are missing:

When a woman has an abortion, she is taking away both parties parental rights.

When a woman gives a baby up for adoption without ever telling the father, she is taking away both parties parental rights.

What this post is arguing is that men should have the ability to take away only his rights, which shoves the entire burden onto the woman. There are no legal situations in which women can do this to men without both parties consent. What you are asking for is not equality at all.

Also, abortion is about bodily autonomy more than anything. Forcing you to pay child support is not taking away your bodily autonomy.

2018-12-17T19:30:46+00:00

Women can also decide to have a child whether their partner wants to be a parent or not. Both parties should be careful and use birth control, but very few methods are 100% so there's always a chance. So even if you both agree this was a casual encounter and a child is not the desired outcome, what happens when one is conceived?

I totally agree with a woman's right to choose to have a child or not and I don't think she should have to have the father sign-off on an abortion/morning after pill. However, if she suddenly decides to have the child, there should be some legal protection involved, some mechanization to secure rights for both parents and the child. At least a record that it was discussed and the desires of both parties documented, imo. That way the father can point to that legal document that says what level of involvement they desired when the decisions was made to continue with the pregnancy. And the mother can show that this person has no parental rights or obligations and they arrived at this agreement together.

Wouldn't that avoid a lot of hassle later? For everyone?

fiverhoo · 2018-12-17T21:13:56+00:00

Society would completely collapse within 18 months lol.

Walshy231231 · 2018-12-18T00:26:44+00:00

*rights and obligations

vitogesualdi · 2018-12-18T02:54:30+00:00

The pipe dream of pipe dreams. Religious conservatives would go nuts in response to a measure that would massively increase abortion rates.

2018-12-18T07:03:16+00:00

I also think so but only if the state helps the mother financially. No one should be forced to abort their child) because they don‘t have the money.

pukkandan · 2018-12-18T12:47:29+00:00

It should be an opt-in, not opt-out; to prevent fraud cases.

kickaturtleover · 2019-01-01T23:58:19+00:00

Men can totally choose not to be fathers - it's called jacking in the toilet.

AtoZandalizard · 2019-01-06T12:07:36+00:00

The choice of risking parenthood is made by both parties. Both parties can sign away their parental rights the moment the child is born. This also terminates any child support obligation. The exception of course would be where the parents were both married before the termination of parental rights then money would still be paid.

TL;DR This is already a thing, it just has to be done at birth once the fetus is recognised as a child

JustFizzie · 2018-12-17T18:01:29+00:00

how about both parties need to agree before the decision? Your proposition seems unethical and is just there to prove a point

turpin23 · 2018-12-17T19:24:55+00:00

Get a vasectomy at 18. Medical costs and interest are both tax deductible. Even if you are broke it's worth it. When you are ready to have kids you can get it reversed.

Drezzzire · 2018-12-17T18:38:01+00:00

Equal rights indeed.

If only that was that objective

Men are wallets and the laws ensure as much

ne1av1cr · 2018-12-17T19:29:17+00:00

We do have the same right to choose not to carry the fetus to term. But the difference comes in that we aren't necessary for the fetus to come to term. We can declare, just as the woman can, that we refuse to allow the fetus to continue to reside in our bodies. Neither of us can decide that a fetus outside our bodies must be destroyed. It's a false equivalency.

EricHerboso · 2018-12-17T21:45:45+00:00

Men already have the choice of whether they want to be a father or not. You can participate emotionally in a child's life or not; it's your choice. The only part that is mandatory is financial.

I think that you may be making the mistake of thinking that the financial component is there because you wanted to be a parent. If this were true, then the financial component should cease if you don't want to be a parent. But that's not why the financial component exists.

The state has an interest in the welfare of all of its citizens. In the United States, if a 28 year old cannot afford healthcare, we help them with Medicaid. If a 73 year old cannot afford food, we provide via the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This is something that the state does for all citizens, regardless of age.

These methods of assistance require money. Generally, the cost of these is passed to taxpayers. But the state reserves the right to be compensated by parties that cause the expense to occur. For example, let's say you are on Medicaid. You slip on ice in a mall parking lot, causing injury. The state pays for your healthcare. Ordinarily, you'd be able to sue the mall for damages, but since the state is paying for your care, it is allowed to receive the funds that you would otherwise obtain from the mall for your fall. What's key to recognize here is that the state is allowed to collect payment to provide the funding for your care, if it can identify the cause of the care in the first place.

This is why there is a financial component when a new citizen is born. It has nothing to do with you being a good parent who provides. It has nothing to do with your choice of whether you wish to be a parent in the first place. The state will not force you to be emotionally available, nor force you to undergo visitation. But someone has to pay for the child's welfare. If no parent can be identified, the state (i.e., the taxpayer) pays for the child's welfare via an orphanage or a foster family. On the other hand, if the parents can be identified, then the state has allowance to ensure that the parents bear the cost of raising the child.

There are many situations where men and women are treated differently by the state. But the financial component of being a biological parent is not one of them. Whether you are a man or a woman makes no difference in the calculation the state does of finding the cause of the new citizen, then forcing them to provide funding for their care.

Now, it just so happens that women have an option available to them that men do not: women can abort the child. But their right to abort is completely unrelated to the interest the state has in securing funding for a new citizen's care, should they be born.

This situation is like any other that deals with biological gender differences. Both men and women are legally allowed to breastfeed their child, but only biologically female parents can do so in reality. Both men and women are legally allowed to make decisions about their own pregnant body, but only biologically female expectants are capable of being pregnant. Both men and women are required to provide financial support for the care of a child, but only biologically female persons can choose to abort, which effectively removes the need for providing financial support.

It's less clear when you deal with percentages rather than absolutes, but the same thing happens in other areas, too. For example, men are on average taller than women. Taller people are on average better at basketball. So both men and women are allowed to play a pickup game, and there's no rule that says that the men have to win the game. But, on average, you might see that the men generally win. Hopefully you can see that there's no intended discrimination here, and yet the result is that one side is better able to win the game. In the same way, the law is not discriminating against men by making them pay financial support. It enforces support from either gender. Yet because of biological differences, it happens to be the case that most of the time, financial support for children is sought from a man, not a woman. This is not a case of gender discrimination. It's a case of biological differences causing an unbalanced outcome. Any unfairness you see is a result of biological differences, not gender discrimination for the state.

tl;dr:
The reason parents must provide financial support has nothing to do with their gender. It has to do with the state having an interest in providing for citizens, and then passing that cost to those responsible, when it can identify them. Women have the option to abort, which allows them to escape financial responsibility, but this right to abort is completely unrelated to the financial support interest.

2018-12-18T00:40:10+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Ted8367 · 2018-12-17T20:36:52+00:00

The difference is that the man is choosing the leave the woman stuck with the baby alone, whereas the woman is choosing to not have a baby in the first place. It's disingenuous to say that these are the same thing. They are effectively the same if the woman is pro-choice and is able to get an abortion after the man leaves, but for many women this doesn't apply.

The reason men don't have a say in abortion is because there is no child to have rights to yet, it's purely a matter of the mother's body. The woman has a right to her body, and the man has a right to his body; equal rights. After birth, the mother and father are both allowed to abandon responsibility for the child, but they will probably have to pay child support; equal rights.

Ciancay · 2018-12-17T23:40:41+00:00

So while I do agree that men should be given more options in cases like this, I don't think it's as black and white as we think. There are some differences between a woman getting an abortion and a man not wanting to have a child. To articulate this, I'll present some of the different possible scenarios. I will leave whether or not the interested parties are actually in a relationship out of the equation to keep it down to brass tacks.

Man and woman get pregnant, and both decide to keep it. They go through with the pregnancy, and everything goes according to plan.

Man and woman get pregnant, both decide they don't want the child, and mutually agree to go through with abortion/adoption. Everyone is on the same page with this arrangement and everything goes according to plan.

Man and woman get pregnant, and the father wants the child, while the mother decides she doesn't. While it is very messed up that the father has no say in whether the woman keeps the child, he ultimately isn't on the hook financially or otherwise in any mechanical way. He suffers emotionally, but not physically.

Man and woman get pregnant, and the mother wants the child, while the father decides he doesn't. As opposed to the former scenario, if the father is given a free pass, the mother is on the hook financially. While she does not have to suffer the emotional trauma of a baby she wanted being put down without her consent, she is now completely responsible for supporting and raising the child on her own, which is a large burden to bear and often an extremely difficult path. The only way to avoid suffering through that in this scenario would be for the woman to get an abortion or give the child up for adoption, which loops us back into the same emotional trauma that we are angry men have to endure.

While the woman is given the benefit of the choice, should it not make sense that the burden of that choice (and let's be honest here, a decision like that IS a permanently life-altering burden) fall to the individual responsible for gestating and delivering that life? I feel like sometimes in this sub we look at it as though it is black and white and assume that a woman getting an abortion is doing it purely because she doesn't has no interest in raising a child, when there are actually a lot of variables at play here. Something has got to give, and there could be a better solution than what we have now, but I really don't think it's as cut and dry as we often paint it.

AliceInNara · 2018-12-17T19:39:07+00:00

I would vote for this if it also applied the other way, any man that wants to be a father has to be subjected to the same physical strains of pregnancy. Mothet got morning sickness? Better be swallowing some throw up pills. Mother's mother rips anus to genitals? Has to leave work to recover after a serious surgical procedure that pregnancy is? Develops post partum depression, incontinence, prolapse? Oh brother are you in for a treat...

Since we're equating pregnancy and abortion to signing a piece of paper and paying bills, why not go all the way and make sure everyone is completely equal, since that's what we're striving for here apparently, right? Or maybe we can realise it's a much more complicated issue when biology and another human being are involved, instead of dumbing it down to hurr dur feminists bad out to get men yet again.

anothercarguy · 2018-12-17T18:49:32+00:00

Fuck yeah! Add in due to notify

VioletteToussaint · 2018-12-18T10:33:01+00:00

Just wear a condom guys. 😂

sherlockMeUp · 2018-12-17T20:02:06+00:00

Nope. Don’t agree. The assumption here is an abortion is ok, which it isn’t. If you have a child, both parents should be equally responsible. A paper method to avoid that responsibility is NOT ok.

xseiber · 2018-12-17T20:41:15+00:00

Why is it that the government slaps us with more jail time for say, something like murder? Well because with murder you’re taking away the life of someone who contributes to the economy via GDP. Also, the earning potential of a man is much higher than most women due to more work hours and willing to do most, if not any job, to get paid for it and spend on things.

2018-12-17T20:42:37+00:00

u/unpopularopinion

RedPillAlphaBigCock · 2018-12-17T21:15:47+00:00

I think about this a lot and can;t get a good solution- I don't want to have to pay for your little shits either :)

Treeshere · 2018-12-17T22:55:45+00:00

You can relinquish your parental rights to a child whenever you want (after they're born anyway)... But what's really shitty is in many states that doesn't necessarily exempt you from child support.

Voodoo1285 · 2018-12-17T23:09:52+00:00

I usually argue for this along side my pro choice arguments, but as soon as I bring it up I’m a dead beat shit hole who doesn’t care about women. But yeah, I agree.

2018-12-18T00:26:14+00:00

Tbh, I don’t agree with you guys very often, but this I do agree with.

chambertlo · 2018-12-18T01:13:05+00:00

Agreed. If a woman can kill her unborn child and call it “abortion”, a man should at least be able to sign away his rights and responsibilities as a parent. Someone needs to get on this ASAP.

UrPrettyMuchNuthin · 2018-12-18T03:26:03+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Ed_G_ShitlordEsquire · 2018-12-18T06:05:38+00:00

Or of course, and hear me out....they could both just try and raise the baby.

tallwheel · 2018-12-18T06:14:59+00:00

Yeah, but boy this post really makes me feel like I've heard all the men's rights ideas already. I got into the scene back in 2011, and have been hearing this one since then. Guess this sub starts playing "greatest hits" once it runs out of material to air. Must be the holidays or something.

Comments