TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

USA: The men who feel left out of abortion debate. There is currently a lawsuit in Alabama by a man who says his girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes.

furchfur

August 29, 2019
47 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49240582
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title USA: The men who feel left out of abortion debate. There is currently a lawsuit in Alabama by a man who says his girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes.
Author

furchfur

Upvotes 47
Comments 39
Date August 29, 2019 7:17 AM UTC
(6 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cwxgkh/usa_the_men_who_feel_left_out_of_abortion_debate/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/usa-the-men-who-feel-left-out-of-abortion-debate.1204523
https://theredarchive.com/post/1204523
Top posts by furchfur

UK: Innocent student wrongly accused of rape calls for anonymity for sex assault defendants until they are found guilty.

17408 upvotes
December 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar. Up to 30,000 tests are being performed every year, says Alphabiolabs. In the UK about 750,000 babies are born every year. Feminists want the test to be illegal without the written consent of the mother.

4746 upvotes
January 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Male rape survivors tell of their battle to have their voices heard after being told ‘men are the attackers, women are the victims’

4394 upvotes
April 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

16yo female 'prodigy' developer's app was actually written by a male programmer.

4210 upvotes
February 6, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Mother-of-two, 40, falsely branded a neighbour a sex offender because he 'made too much noise building a guinea pig hutch in his garden'. It seems for many women if they do not get their way they make a false sex allegation knowing a man is not protected by the law.

3937 upvotes
March 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Female British YouTube vlogger accuses Dublin hotel of bullying her after it refused her request to stay there for free and posted their scathing response saying she 'lacked dignity' online

3871 upvotes
January 18, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Nearly 500 men and boys are freed from 'house of torture' Islamic boarding school where they were chained up, raped by staff and starved 'in the name of teaching them the Koran' in Nigeria. OP: We will see how much media coverage this gets.

3825 upvotes
September 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

Teenager, 18, who lied that ex-boyfriend drugged and raped her after he refused to rekindle their romance is convicted of wasting police time

3747 upvotes
May 29, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]furchfur[S] 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

From the article:

Currently in the US, fathers have no legal rights to hinder the abortion of a pregnancy for which they are responsible. State laws requiring that a father be given a say in, or even notified of, an abortion have been struck down by the US Supreme Court.

And:

"If men had to sign off on an abortion, I think you would see a 50% drop, and that's why the [abortion providers] don't want men involved," says Mr Purington.

Conclusion:

"It's changing now, men are fed up," Ms Bonopartis says. "Men had bought into how they have no say in this and that if they speak out, they are against women, but now the impact is being felt by more and more of them as the repercussions of 45 years of abortion are being seen."

[–]apainfulpoop24 points 6 years ago [recovered] (36 children) | Copy Link

If women are allowed to abort without men's consent, then surely it'll only be fair if men could disown without being locked into child support

[–]AskingToFeminists -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Well, actually, no. You see, the main justification for why abortion is legal is bodily autonomy, not consent to parenthood. Whether you agree with that or not is beside the point, as it is the reasoning used to justify it being legal. And that reasoning means that it is only a question of a woman's body not being imposed on, which means that men don't have a say in it, and the question of, if the pregnancy goes to term, who is responsible for the child is separate from that.

The only real argument for LPS is that women have the right to abandon kids through safe haven and things like that. Which means that for a woman, abortion rights or not abortion rights, consent to sex isn't consent to parenthood, and that independently of the biological question of carrying a pregnancy to term or not. And there, you have an iron clad double standard that can't be dismissed because you missed the justification of abortion laws.

[–]pasta4u 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

18 plus years of financial support of a child that you don't want is certainly imposing on a man's body and by my public education 18 years is many times more than 9 months

[–]AskingToFeminists -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, but no, paying is not the same as having your body serve as host to another entity. And the issue with child support is more regarding the way child support function.

What I am saying is that you would have to make a very, very strong case to equivocate child support with infringement of bodily autonomy. I am not sure that many people beyond the most extreme "taxation is theft" libertarians would agree with that, and I doubt it would convince many people having thought about the different kinds of rights and so on unless your case is more than excellent. And I have yet to see someone make that case.

On the other hand, LPS is very much akin to abandonment, and women have the ability to abandon without the father's consent, which make for a much stronger case for giving fathers the right to abandon their newborn kid too.

[–]pasta4u 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's simple. It takes money to live and you trade your freedom for work. If you have child support your already making less per hour than of you didn't. Alot of people would be forced into a lower quality of life to make child support payments. Some people may need to work over 40 hours a week to afford it or give up college or not be able to swotch careers because it might mean taking an lower quality job. More over time could mean less time to focus on your health. More over time can mean more stress. Forgoing college can mean you make millions less a year. God forbid you loose your job and cant lay child support. Then you got to jail.

Meanwhile a woman will get free money from you and can simply go on government assistance and get housing and medical.

Why should a man give up his body for a woman when a woman gets to choose what she wants to do with her body?

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You assume things about how child support work. You are arguing against the US specific kind of child support, which isn't an argument at all against child support in itself, and still isn't the same as having something using your body for its survival.

Don't mistake me, I am against child support. But not on the basis of "abortion exist". I find that comparison completely void, and a weakening point of the argument rather than a strengthening one. Bodily autonomy is a different category of rights than the right to keep all the money you make. When you try to equate the two. You increase the chances of people dismissing you as some kind of lunatic. Just as a basic difference, the consequences of abortion and LPS are completely different. In the case of abortion, there isn't any kid who needs to be raised, while in the case of LPS, the kid is still there, and still needs to be raised. This difference alone make it so that arguing for one one the basis of the other is invalid and makes the person doing it look like a dimwit. And I am for LPS, so I'd rather that people who argue for it don't pass for dimwits and lunatics.

For example, imagine that abandonment wasn't a thing. A woman becomes pregnant, for any sort of reason, she doesn't get an abortion. Maybe she is ethically opposed to it. Maybe she is in denial that she is pregnant (yes, that's a thing, a thing that can go on until birth). Doesn't matter. She gives birth to the baby. She has no choice but to either raise the kid or have it raised by the father. A custody battle ensue. The winner gets the child, and the other has to pay child support. In this case, there is no inequality in front of the law. I would still oppose child support on different ethical and practical grounds. The right of abortion stems from the biological dimorphism of our species, so it's not unfair treatment for women to have it but not men. And yes, it gives women some level of advantage regarding reproduction, but such a thing is inherent to us mammals. The reasons I would oppose child support and be for LPS include the practical reasons that this natural imbalance should be corrected for a society such as ours to function properly. And things like "if you are the one who has the custody, you are the one who should pay, as rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If you want to pay less, then let your ex have some custody" which is both more fair, and foster shared parenting rather than conflict over money and custody.

I mean, even if you don't agree with me on why the two aren't the same, you are aware that abortion is a very contentious subject. The tradcons who object to abortion won't agree with you on LPS because if you convince them that LPS and abortion mutually reinforce each other's, then they will want to avoid accepting LPS in order to get a chance at removing abortion. And the feminists who despise men will see it as an attempt to cheapen the sanctity of abortion in order to make it easier to remove, since they don't agree that LPS should be a thing, and you trying to equate it to abortion will seem to them as an attempt to make them disagree with abortion.

By using that argument, you are getting in opposition of the two major political forces on the board. What do you expect to accomplish that way?

On the other hand, if you want to change child support or even get rid of it, you can say :

  • people are motivated by money
  • people want to spend more time with their kids if they can
  • people tearing themselves apart in some kind of conflict is bad for their children

Therefore :

  • If you say that the person who has custody will receive money from the other in addition, that's double the incentive to fight with all you've got to receive both custody and money, which increase the likely hood of people tearing themselves apart, which is bad for the kid

-if you say that each person has to pay for the kid when they have it, then you are rather incentivizing shared custody a'd people working things out in the way that works best for both. Which is much more sane for the kid.

And step back, and watch them struggle to say any of that is false in all honesty.

It's a much better place to at least start the argument if you want to have a chance to convince anyone, and not have them raise their shield at the first mention of "abortion"

[–]OrionTheWolf 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fact is you’re arguing for a privilege in the name of equal rights, as has bee made clear by others we don’t have bodily autonomy, we don’t get to choose, and that includes if a women decides to deceive us or sabotage a condom and that’s it, we have to pay

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You don't get it, do you? As I have said multiple times, I am against child support. I think it is wrong. And I think it is unfair to make people pay. But this isn't a question of bodily autonomy. This is an other kind of right that is infringed upon. And trying to say that it is a question of bodily autonomy is misguided, and will more hurt the argumentation than help it. And making a parallel between LPS and abortion is more likely to burst in your face than to convince anyone. The tradcons will want to oppose LPS because if it pass and is based against abortion, it will mean they will have to fight both abortion and LPS to get rid of the one. The feminists, who consider LPS unwarranted, will see it as an attempt to either cheapen or even oppose abortion, and will fight you tooth and nail for that. After all, if LPS is like abortion, since they consider that LPS shouldn't be a thing, you trying to say they are the same is you trying to convince them that abortion shouldn't be a thing. Remember, when an issue is seen as affecting both men and women instead of just women, people care less, rather than more, and you are trying to manufacture a male equivalent to abortion? They will hate you for that.

The fight for LPS is already hard enough without motivating people to oppose it even more. Especially by trying to equate two things that aren't equivalent and will make us look more frinhe or lunatic than we are already perceived to be.

Yes, women can get pregnant, and men don't, so there is an asymmetry regarding the rights women have regarding pregnancies. It's a fact of nature. Time to move on. There are plenty of arguments that can be made for LPS, but a moral argument based on bodily autonomy in parallel to abortion isn't one of them.

You might, maybe, try a practical argument based on the existence of abortion, trying to argue that for a society to be stable and still having men daring to risk dating, where women can abort, there need to be some way to even the unfairness biology puts in place. But that argument isn't based on bodily autonomy, and is harder to make than other kinds of arguments.

Far easier arguments which don't require people to buy into your analysis of "what will happen to society if..." :

  • abandonment is possible for women when the father is not living with her, men should have a similar right, to abandon a child when he isn't living with the mother - >LPS

  • people are motivated by money. People are motivated by raising their kids and having custody. Child support means double incentive to have long custody battles which harm everyone in the family, kids included. Having parents pay for the kid when they have it instead incentivize people to share custody, which is better for everyone involved, and doesn't introduce struggles for money in already failing relationships.

  • nature is unbalanced regarding parenthood. There is a need to balance it out in a way that incentivize dialogue, communication and responsibility in people without imposing anything they didn't choose on them could be great : a system to opt in paternity instead of default paternity, will ensure that women who want to be single mothers can be, but they will have to assume it themselves. Couples that want children can have them without any impact. See my post here for a first idea of how such a system might work

  • probably any other argument you can think of

[–]OrionTheWolf 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My point was merely that any time abortion laws are brought in you’ll see a whole wave of women talking about bodily autonomy as if they don’t have the edge, what? If I don’t practice safe sex I might be stuck with a baby? That’s not fair! When men don’t really get that choice, at least in the eyes of the law, I see your point and felt I needed to make mine clearer. I’m not backing up LPS just pointing out privilege

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So men who are enslaved for children they don't want, men who DIE early because they have to work to support those children. Men who are thrown in prison because they can't afford to pay.

Yeah those men aren't having their "Bodily Autonomy" violated, but the women who voluntarily engaged in sex and then went "Oops, I got pregnant guess I'll murder it" are?

Just admit you hate men, it's a lot more honest than this bullshit you're pulling.

[–]ZimbaZumba 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

What I am saying is that you would have to make a very, very strong case to equivocate child support with infringement of bodily autonomy

Demonstrating that child support is an equal burden or more than carrying a baby to term is at the heart of these arguments. There are certainly aspects of both burdens that can be objectively quantified, but a calculation of the relative burden would be largely subjective. The burden would also vary enormously on a case by case basis.

Subjectivity and social issues boils down to social attitudes , ie social norms, which are by definition social constructions. It has been normalised to think in our society that carrying a child to term is vastly more a burden than 18+ years of child support. There is very little logic to this as social norms are largely arbitrary. People think this because they have been bombarded with arguments that are repeated time and time again. Once a critical mass believe this belief is normal then others will follow suit in droves, with dissenters receiving social sanction for their opinions. Soon society will consider the opinion as simply normal and natural with dissenters being seen as eccentric or bigots.

In short, with enough power and knowledge you can convince large numbers people to believe and do just about anything you want, eg religions, slavery and convincing soldiers to go to war. You can even convince people of things that objectively make no sense at all.

Objectively, I think child support as a burden has been under estimated in our society. We have been conditioned not to even consider it a burden. The MRM is not going to change attitudes by logic, regardless of how strong their arguments are. The only way to change social attitudes is by making one big huge fuss, Flak as Chomsky calls it. The MRM needs to campaign vigorously - using the media, demonstrations and lobbying. Arguments need to be attention getting and repeated time and time again.

tl;dr Mass persuasion and not logic is at the core of this debate.

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I kind of agree with that, and that's part of the reasons I find it a very bad idea to make a parallel with abortion for LPS.

I will quote what I said to pasta4u :

I mean, even if you don't agree with me on why the two aren't the same, you are aware that abortion is a very contentious subject. The tradcons who object to abortion won't agree with you on LPS because if you convince them that LPS and abortion mutually reinforce each other's, then they will want to avoid accepting LPS in order to get a chance at removing abortion. And the feminists who despise men will see it as an attempt to cheapen the sanctity of abortion in order to make it easier to remove, since they don't agree that LPS should be a thing, and you trying to equate it to abortion will seem to them as an attempt to make them disagree with abortion.

By using that argument, you are getting in opposition of the two major political forces on the board. What do you expect to accomplish that way?

[–]Mackowatosc 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Financial autonomy = bodily autonomy. My wallet is my castle.

[–]AskingToFeminists -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not exactly. Those two aren't exactly identical. There's plenty enough of nuances that allow room to not equate LPS and abortion. And though I'm all for LPS, I find that equating it to abortion make it for a much weaker argument, and make it far more likely for the discussion to derail. Much better to just go straight for the "women may abandon their children, so consent to sex isn't consent to parenthood, so for the sake of equal rights, consent to sex shouldn't be consent to parenthood for men"

[–]Mackowatosc 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At least where I live, women can, and do, abandon their children if they want to. Google > hatch of life. Note that men have zero such LEGAL options. They can also adopt out the child without fathers consent, or, indeed, knowledge of the fact. Note, again, that men dont have that LEGAL option either.

So, pretty please, I expect same option, thank you.

[–]AskingToFeminists -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much what I have been telling this whole time. Don't even bother mentioning abortion. Abandonment is far more than enough to justify LPS.

[–]a-man-from-earth 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Forgive a non-American, but what does LPS stand for?

[–]furchfur[S] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Legal Parental Surrender.

And yes it should be a legal option for men. It totally discriminates against men but that is a different argument to the abortion article.

Children in the UK cannot be put up for adoption without the consent of the father.

https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/birth-parents-your-rights

[–]AskingToFeminists 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Children in the UK cannot be put up for adoption without the consent of the father.

What about the cases where the father isn't known, or isn't aware that he is the father?

Men aren't automatically made aware of their paternity.

[–]furchfur[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

The woman has to convince the agencies that the father is absolutely unkown and non contactable. This is problematic since rarely a new born is given over for adoption without a father also agreeing. The agency by law has to take all reasonable steps to contact the father.

You cannot overturn an adoption in the UK so agencies are reluctant to agree to an adoption now without a father also agreeing.

So babies are fostered out first and only after a lengthy period are given over for adoption if the father cannot be identified.

If a mother wants a baby to be adopted but the father does not then custody automatically goes to the father and any adoption or fostering is stopped.

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

So, what is fostering? Is it the mother giving up the baby to some agency to take care of? Some forms of abandonment by the mother? Or is she still forced to pay for the child when the baby is fostered?

[–]furchfur[S] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It is huge in the UK and other parts of Europe.

Children in care are sent out to live with families. These families have been carefully vetted and usually sometimes have natural children of their own.

They get paid by the state, it is cheaper than children being kept in care and it gives the children a chance of family life be it paid for by the state.

It is not permanent, the children may only spend a 1 year with a family or even a week or two.

The child can go back to the birth parents or move to another family.

Adoption is permanent and cannot be overturned fostering is flexible.

There are problems.

  1. The children can be troubled. So it can disrupt a family.
  2. It is nearly always teenage boys that do not want to be taken on by families
  3. False accusations against families are rampant and every allegation has to be investigated.
  4. The children know that the families are being paid to look after them so kind of second best family life.
  5. It is disruptive for children when they get moved on by the agency.
  6. A family or the child can request a new family so this happens a lot.

Probably better than an orphanage but not ideal

​

​

https://swiisfoster.care/fostering-with-swiis/swiis-fostering-allowance/?msclkid=99bfc589e73514b60b4d98ee5a3a2b69&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=DP%20-%20Foster%20Care%20-%20England&utm_term=%2Bfostering%20%2Bpay&utm_content=Fostering%20allowance

[–]AskingToFeminists 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

OK, that's what I thought. And in all this, you didn't mention the mother who fostered her children having to pay anything regarding this children. Am I correct in assuming that she hasn't?

[–]CHRIS_PURPLE 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So ideally there should be some sort of official form to consent to parenthood on the man's side, maybe that should reduce the child support required, or have some sort of consequence. And if the mother in that case goes against those wishes, i.e. by going off contrception against the agreement, she should also be responsible to some extent for her actions?

Just throwing some ideas out there, wondering if that would be fairer overall?

[–]AskingToFeminists 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe a month ago, I tried to begin a discussion on the subject, but it seemed to fall flat. Here's the link r/MensRights/comments/cjz6dr/legal_paternity_surrender_sure_but_how/

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

she should also be responsible to some extent for her actions?

If women could be held responsible for their actions abortion wouldn't be legal in the first place.

[–]CHRIS_PURPLE 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, if their fetus was killing them it would be so irresponsible to abort... even if they just werent ready to take on the huge responsibility of raising a child, how irresponsible..

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Your viewpoint is that men should be enslaved for 18 years against their will but women can commit murder.

So you just think men are slaves then?

I guess being locked up in a tiny cell because you weren't a productive enough slave also doesn't constitute violating bodily autonomy?

I guess we should throw women who abort in jail, I mean at least we wouldn't be violating their "Bodily Autonomy".

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You see, the main justification for why abortion is legal is bodily autonomy, not consent to parenthood. Whether you agree with that or not is beside the point, as it is the reasoning used to justify it being legal. And that reasoning means that it is only a question of a woman's body not being imposed on, which means that men don't have a say in it, and the question of, if the pregnancy goes to term, who is responsible for the child is separate from that.

Actually this is all undeniably untrue, the main reason why abortion is legal is because of a misused and asinine "Privacy" ruling by the Supreme Court. The secondary main reason is because women have a lack of responsibility - it's about killing whats inconvenient for a woman, it's for this same reason that women constantly get away with killing newborn babies.

To say that "Abortion is about bodily autonomy" is nonsensical, how shredding a little body to pieces "respecting bodily autonomy"? The body they're tearing limb from limb in the womb is not theirs - DNA evidence proves this - if it were about "Bodily Autonomy" then they'd be required to remove and care for the child. It's because of this that places like New York and Virginia have pushed bills allowing the child to be killed up to and after birth.

As we move towards artificial wombs it will become glaringly obvious that it was always about murdering out of a lack of responsibility - Women won't want to pay 18 years of child support because they've been immune to responsibility so they'll still demand that the child is executed.

People who support butchering unborn children will be remembered like those people who owned slaves.

[–]DanteLivra 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The better thing to do would be to give father, legal abortion rights.

Because even if you want the child, you can't force anyone into nine months of pregnancy.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because even if you want the child, you can't force anyone into nine months of pregnancy.

Nobody is forcing anyone into pregnancy, she chooses that for herself by opting into reproductive activities.

[–]DanteLivra 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That argument is bullshit and won't lead us anywhere.

Because then, feminists can say the same thing for child support.

This argument could even be used to justify giving STDs to someone.

[–]evenmoremeancomments 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"But it's misogynistic and controlling for a man to decide what a woman has to do with her body even though a child belongs to both parents! sToP cOnTrOlLiNg mE mY bOdY mY cHoIcE now pay child support"

[–]squarebe 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its just weird a; how do you make sure/pursue someone to dont do anything against the baby, not just drog usage but self starvation 9 months straight, b; on the opposition how do you force someone to have an abortion against her will? It comes down to intelligence, if you dont want a kid protect your self, if you do want then speak to your other half.

[–]McGauth925 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Although I hate to see women so irresponsible that they'll get 6 abortions, I'm marginally pro-choice. So, I don't support this guy. What I do support is male abortion. If women don't have to bear children, then men shouldn't have to support the children that women don't have to bear. FAT chance that will happen.

[–]Badgerz92 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He's going about it backwards. Of course it's anti-woman to force a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth, that's literally slavery. You can't force a woman to use her own body and resources to carry and birth a child. But it's also slavery to force an unwilling man to raise a child he never had any say in. We shouldn't get rid of abortion but we do need legal parental surrender for men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, we should actually stop murdering unborn children.

Step one is expecting women to accept responsibility for themselves rather than treating men as pathetic as we do women.

[–]ntlady99 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have to laugh. No one will control women just as no one will control men. Condoms and birth control r the answer and if a man behaved as honorably S u expect women to, we wouldn’t have this problem. PAY UP First and commit to paying and taking care of a child u didn’t want in the first place. Then we can talk

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter