The pro-choice argument and the forced paternity argument are the same argument

Zabadoodude · 2026-03-13T22:06:40+00:00

Women have different biology. One of the few perks of having a female reproductive system is it gives women another option for birth control that men don't have. The argument is that no one should be forced to go through forced pregnancy and childbirth. Men biologically don't have that problem.

krackedy · 2026-03-13T21:37:59+00:00

The main problem choice argument is bodily autonomy. They want control over whether someone else is living inside them and using their organs. There's not really a male equivalent.

Tylikcat · 2026-03-13T22:00:02+00:00

You can't ignore that the person who is pregnant has more on the line and needs to have more say than the person who isn't. It is not symmetrical. It's either in your body or not.

I'm up for "paper abortions" if and only if they are agreed on before sex. Because men already routinely lie to try to have unprotected sex for women and otherwise act like they have no skin the the game.

ETA: agreed on with a signed document.

Weecodfish · 2026-03-14T10:23:16+00:00

All these arguments are useless and pointless, abortion is the direct killing of a human being and it is wrong and immoral and evil.

Lazy_Rough8481 · 2026-03-13T22:46:09+00:00

Yeah, she is the one carrying that baby for nine months, dealing with the sickness, the physical risks, labor, breastfeeding, and everything that comes with it. That is not equal work, so it’s not an equal choice.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that can permanently affect a woman’s body and health.

anewleaf1234 · 2026-03-14T01:15:13+00:00

The child's claim to resources are stronger than the man's claim to responsibility free sex.

No matter what argument you make, the child's claim to resources are superior.

My taxes aren't going to go up so can have responsibility free sex as often as they want.

love_in_october · 2026-03-13T22:37:14+00:00

If there is an abortion a child doesn't exist. If someone is obligated to pay child support and doesn't, the child does already exist.

I believe that children should be cared for and paid for, and I'd prefer that those who do that are their parents rather than me, a tax payer who isn't responsible for making them whatsoever. If you don't want a child who is already born, you can't pretend they don't exist, and child support is nowhere near even half the cost of raising a child unless you are very rich.

Queer_Advocate · 2026-03-14T00:32:13+00:00

Lol no.

Big-Sir7034 · 2026-03-14T00:34:45+00:00

To an extent you have a point. I agree that general autonomy and choice about how we live our lives, commit to our futures, and assume responsibility should be what primarily justifies abortion. And in that case it should allow for paper/financial abortions in favour of dads.

However, common arguments for abortion often use bodily autonomy. Not general autonomy. The baby inside may very well be a person. It may very well be an innocent person. But it’s a trespasser, and people are not expected to give charity to trespassers, especially not when it comes to the use of one’s body. As soon as the baby is viable, you can remove it from the body without killing it, which purportedly explains the cutoff point.

Now personally, I find a pure bodily autonomy argument a bit questionable. When you’re raising a child, your bodily autonomy is curtailed anyways. You have to use your body to look after them, and yet you can’t ignore your parental duty to pursue bodily autonomy. People might say that’s different because it’s not inside the body, but I personally question why that makes a difference in terms of autonomy. You have parental duties. So I think it makes more sense to determine abortion by whether you choose to assume those duties (I.e. general autonomy and choice).

There’s also the healthcare angle as well.

alotofironsinthefire · 2026-03-13T22:41:29+00:00

Sigh

Abortion is about healthcare

Once there is a kid here both parents are responsible for it. Including financially.

While yes, I think parental rights should be easier to get rid of, on both sides.

It is nowhere close to a healthcare procedure that's currently denied to people, denying people their body autonomy and putting their health and lives at risk.

They are not the same

And you cheapen the argument by trying to compare it

Flightlessbirbz · 2026-03-13T23:24:18+00:00

The difference is that children who have already been born: a) are not inside someone else’s body, B) cost money to feed.

Abortion is not about consent to parenthood, but rather, consent to what happens to your body. Because women cannot simply decide not to continue supporting a child who has been born, either. If a father gets custody, the mother cannot just say “I don’t consent to pay for this child,” she too will have to pay child support. Child support doesn’t discriminate by gender, it discriminates by custody arrangement.

Now, I do believe in better social safety nets so that both custodial and non-custodial parents who are struggling financially don’t have to worry about how they’re going to feed their kids or afford child support. But I can’t justify making the taxpayer foot the bill for a deadbeat parent who earns plenty of money but doesn’t want to pay for the child they had a 50% input on creating. That’s the glaring weakness in any “paper abortion” argument.

fapfap67 · 2026-03-13T23:14:53+00:00

Why waste your time trying to reason with women?

Save yourself the trouble . Any double standard that benefits them is okay, any double standard that harms them is sexist.

No logic just self interest.

Pretty simple

Solondthewookiee · 2026-03-14T04:35:46+00:00

Men who get pregnant have the same access to abortion and women.

YveisGrey · 2026-03-14T00:06:52+00:00

This argument always gets brought up, but again there’s no comparison here as abortion prevents the baby being born, whereas a father abdicating his rights does not.

From a legal standpoint, the reason abortion is allowed is because fetuses do not have a right to their life. They don’t really have any rights at all in fact, which is why you don’t have to pay child support for a fetus either. And of course, this is somewhat contingent on the state as in some states fetuses are granted some rights after a certain point in the pregnancy in which case they are no longer allowed to be aborted. You are wrong to say that abortion is legally permitted because of “a right to autonomy”. This is an argument commonly made to justify abortion, but it is not the legal basis for it being permitted. The legal basis is completely contingent on the legal status of the fetus.

A newborn infant automatically has rights by virtue of being born, one of those is some care and responsibility from their parents. Therefore allowing men to “abort children”, by abdicating their responsibilities to their children is just depriving a child who is born of their rights. A woman having an abortion does not deprive any child of their rights because fetuses do not have any rights (depending on the stage of the pregnancy). The abortion prevents the fetus from becoming a child who was born therefore at no point do they ever get rights.

Even if a man were to abdicate his rights before the child was born, that abdication would become null and void once the child was born because they would receive certain rights upon being born. For example, imagine a scenario in which a pregnant woman seeks an abortion, but for whatever reason, the abortion is not successful she remains pregnant unknowingly and a few weeks later goes into labor and gives birth. She would not be able to abort her newborn child after that fact, even though she wanted to before they were born, this is because upon being born, the child would have a right to their life, and therefore abortion would no longer be an option.

The same thing theoretically would happen to a man who tries to “abort” his child before the child is born. Once the child was born. His abortion would be null and void.

Queer_Advocate · 2026-03-14T00:38:36+00:00

This comparison is made all the time, but it fundamentally misunderstands the difference between physical rights and financial obligations. You are comparing bodily autonomy to financial autonomy, which the law treats entirely differently for both men and women.

No_Teacher_3313 · 2026-03-13T22:23:05+00:00

No. The foundation is that consent to sex is not consent to carrying a child and going through childbirth, that your body can’t be required to be used as a vessel.

It’s not related to parenthood.

Lost_Reaction_5489 · 2026-03-13T22:54:49+00:00

Is that the foundation of the argument? Or are we saying that because the pregnancy is inside the woman's body that she has full control of that just like a male has full control over where they place things expelled from their body?

BestPlant6968 · 2026-03-14T00:29:38+00:00

Literally nobody can force a man to be a parent. There are no government mandates that say a biological father ever has to lay eyes on his child. Once he ejaculates, his in person obligation is gone forever.

His sperm is entirely under his control and is where his physical control and physical responsibility ends.

You’re right, consent to sex doesn’t mean consent to parenthood.

Sex doesn’t have to result in a child. Without the presence of sperm in a woman’s reproductive system, there can be no child. Women’s birth control can attempt to mitigate the effects of that sperm but it’s pretty well known that those methods are imperfect at best. Women cannot control a man’s sperm. The man absolutely can.

The ONLY method that 100% allows adults to have sex without the risk of pregnancy and a child is if the sperm never comes in contact with the woman’s reproductive system. It’s literally that simple.

No reasonable person would equate a man’s ability to control where his sperm ends up with a woman undergoing a potentially deadly and likely emotionally impactful medical procedure that can also devastate her future fertility and/or possibly result in her incarceration on charges up to and including the death penalty depending on where she lives…

A man can control the consequences of his sperm (his body his choice) up until he chooses to deposit them into the body of a woman. The woman is forced to control the consequences of his sperm until those consequences leave her body (her body, her choice). Once those consequences leave her body (after 9 1/2 months of physical, financial, social, familial, professional, and psychological consequences born by her) and include a living child, the only consequences a man can be compelled to bear are financial, not parental.

Not saying you can’t have sex. Sex is fun. People (men and women) like sex. That’s not a question.

Have all the sex you want! If you really don’t want to potentially be financially responsible for the consequences of your sperm complicating a good time, control its final destination. Easy peasy.

Novadina · 2026-03-14T04:41:01+00:00

The foundation of reproductive autonomy is that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Your interpretation is completely false. You are misunderstanding the foundation of reproductive autonomy. The word “pregnancy” was a hint…

The foundation is BODILY autonomy.

Even a dead person has it - they can choose not to be an organ donor when they are alive, and despite dying and having no use for their organs, we allow them to rot rather than have that dead person lose autonomy over their body.

Pregnant women deserve as much bodily autonomy.

The original argument for Roe v Wade was about MEDICAL PRIVACY. Not about consenting to sex or consenting to parenthood, but about people being allowed to make medical decisions about their own BODY.

You took some catchphrase you heard and misunderstood what it was about. Pregnancy happens in the BODY. It’s about your body.

One decision doesn't obligate you to eighteen years you never agreed to.

Sadly in our capitalist country this isn’t true. You can make a decision to take out a student loan, for example, and be forced to paying the next 50 years. You can make a decision to buy a house and be forced to pay for the next 30 years. You can make a decision to get a job and be forced to pay taxes. Men and women are forced to pay for children they contributed DNA to. Money is not your body.

Men do have reproductive autonomy in US when you understand it is about choice for their own BODY - they can choose what they do with their own reproductive organs. For example, they can choose to eject their sperm from their balls into a toilet and it is not illegal to do that.

But in many states women do not have the same choice about choosing what they do with an egg in their uterus, and it is illegal for them to eject their egg from their uterus into a toilet.

Money doesn’t really have anything to do with bodily autonomy. You can make a case for financial autonomy, but it’s a completely different argument and right now it’s the same amount of autonomy financially for both men and women.

TheRedPillRipper · 2026-03-13T21:47:05+00:00

Don’t have a baby with someone who isn’t enthusiastic about it if you can avoid it.

The issue is post conception, only the woman decides the level of enthusiasm required. For instance two people can be fully on board about not having kids. Plan B. Abortion if necessary(and a legal option). As soon as conception occurs? Enthusiasm is only applicable to one party.

Conversely as a Christian, I interpret the pro-choice movement more akin demonstrating to enthusiasm for kids pre-conception. For instance a significant long term relationship. Discussions. Planned Parenthood. Marriage. Which are far better indicators of investment and intent. Which ultimately is the difference.

CatchPhraze · 2026-03-13T23:47:25+00:00

Abortion doesn't involve a born child, child support does.

Altruistic_Look_7868 · 2026-03-14T03:31:32+00:00

You don't want kids? Get a vasectomy. If you don't want kids, it's your responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen.

You have bodily automy too, not just women.

ThatBitchA · 2026-03-13T22:08:24+00:00

Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy.

If you're not protecting yourself from pregnancy, a pregnancy will likely occur.

AutoModerator · 2026-03-13T21:36:01+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

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

Simply_Weak_Glucose · 2026-03-14T02:50:18+00:00

This argument to me really only gets shown when it comes to rich dudes especially in sports. Like its not common for the day to day person.

Intelligent-Insight · 2026-03-14T05:02:18+00:00

Here's a simple thought experiment.

Assume, there exists a way to not kill a baby but a woman doesn't have to give birth. Say, the law is that you can't kill babies but the advances of medicine allow to extract the egg early and then incubate it. Raise it in a tube or an artificial womb. Do you really think women would be okay with that alternative? Do you think it's really about giving birth only and not at all about being a mother?

pie-mart · 2026-03-14T19:30:35+00:00

The thing is, you choose to take the risk of pregnancy when you have sex. And the truth is, women are the default parents and they are usually the ones who have to raise the child the vast majority of the time.

The least a man can do is pay for his responsibility and take responsibility for his actions

This doesn't mean forced paternity. But he definitely can't just go around fucking women getting them all pregnant and leaving them all as single mothers and without any consequences.

He needs to at least pay for those kids

But forced parentage is not enforceable.

Its why sometimes the mom wants to give the child up for adoption, but the father may not want that. And sometimes guys expect the woman to get pregnant and suddenly wanna be moms and are surprised when their trapping execution didn't forsee those women giving those children up for adoption or getting an abortion

Men generally have less default responsibility when a child is born, hence why there are laws protecting mothers and allowing them to at least have financial support if the man isn't going to be in the child's life

Substantial-Fly4895 · 2026-03-15T06:10:32+00:00

Solve through technology: get a vasectomy. This is my solution to the problem OP.

Same thing will eventually happen with abortion, once artificial womb is perfected then the logic of "I can't be forced to be an incubator" no longer works and men can now adopt the baby and force the woman to pay him.

Ofc when this happens there will almost immediately be legislation that unwanted babies have to be paid for by the state so you'll be proved right at that point in history OP. We can reconvene to discuss this and have a toast in your honor in 15 years. But until then your accusation of hypocrisy will be one of those "I know she's lying but I just can't prove it" situations.

Realistic-Ad-1023 · 2026-03-15T17:07:50+00:00

Nope. It’s not the 18 years you aren’t signing up for. It’s the 10 months of using your body as an incubator you get to opt out of. Just like you don’t have to be an incubator.

Just like I can’t kidnap you and hook you up to a dying baby and make you stay connected for ten months, under threat of legal repercussions. The baby will die if you disconnect yourself. It was illegal for me to kidnap you and hook you up. But should it be illegal for you to unhook yourself from the baby? What if it’s your baby? What if it’s your fault the baby needs your blood/kidneys/ whatever reason I hooked you up? I am not asking if you would stay connected personally. I am asking if there should be legal repercussions for disconnecting yourself.

You have just as much bodily autonomy as I do. Once a baby is born we are both obligated to pay for it unless someone else takes on that responsibility.

the_scar_when_you_go · 2026-03-15T23:06:10+00:00

Comparing the two is bunk bc it's in bad faith.

Reproductive choice is completely unrelated. It's a different kind of issue, for different reasons. It only gets pulled in bc it's a human rights issue. The urgency and weight we place on human rights issues are being co-opted to push ppl toward a similar-looking stance on a very different issue.

Like if I took an argument against putting ppl in cages, and tried to apply it to dog boarding facilities. They aren't the same, and I know that. I'm just doing it to try to get you riled up, so I can direct your emotion where I want it to go.

Parental responsibility laws are flawed. There are discussions to be had, and changes to be made. But when that comparison pops up, it signals bad faith, and we don't get anywhere like that.

SelectAd1485 · 2026-03-16T00:51:27+00:00

Your not making a relevant point at all and you sound like the judgmental sexist idiots from my era the 70s. I had a abortion with my 5th child as I was unhappy and delusional and that's it. Don't regret not bringing another kid into a already full world of unwanted kids. It's a choice and it's good that it is otherwise many other babies would be killed like here in Newzealand where I'm from and every year it happens so that's why we have abortion. Your view are outdated and worrying please get a life.

Brief_Mongoose_7291 · 2026-03-17T09:46:32+00:00

I love it how they are literally proving exactly what you said here with their every response. You literally told them, "You will do this because you are hypocritical!" and they were "NONONONONO we aren't hypocritical!" and then they go on and do exactly that. Lovely.

I-wanna-GO-FAST · 2026-03-14T00:04:06+00:00

The solution to this issue will be technology. Artificial wombs that the fetus can be transferred to while it fully develops lets women retain their bodily integrity. Then the same reasoning they use to enslave men can be applied to the mothers as well, and they will all suddenly walk back their arguments about a parent's responsibility for any children they helped concieve.

Kaleidoscopetide · 2026-03-14T02:38:57+00:00

I just don’t think a fetus is a person, for the same reason I don’t think teratomas or collections of HeLa cells are people. I don’t think that aborting a fetus is murdering a human being.
I am indeed very disturbed by the “you should have thought about that before you have sex” rhetoric. Parenthood isn’t a punishment for sex.
Nonetheless, I think it’s necessary to have laws in place that say that if you are a parent to a real human child, you must support that child, because children don’t consent to be born either, and if nobody feeds them, they die.

These-Purpose-7019 · 2026-03-14T01:59:58+00:00

I agree on the abortion side as a woman aborting leaves no one to take care of vs paper abortion leaves a child potentially hungry.

The double standard lies in the fact a woman can give up her responsibilities thru adoption and safe havens without having to pay support

GGMcThroway · 2026-03-14T00:21:00+00:00

The actual solution is inventing artificial wombs such that you could extract a fetus and allow it to complete its gestation. This would allow both parents to equally abandon their children before birth.

MautKaFarishta · 2026-03-14T00:37:21+00:00

Paternity release has nothing to do with not wanting to financially supporting a child. It has to do with the agency to make life decisions and family planning. In states like California you literally need 0 reason to have an abortion. You can have an abortion simply because you’re not ready to be a mom. But men are expected to be constantly prepared to be dads? They get no say in their life decisions or family planning?

Men only have 1 contraceptive option. Meanwhile women have like 10 different types plus the day after pill. Men even have to carry that condom around instead of administering it on their own time or having something implanted. The condom can be damaged or tampered with, without any indication. If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant she should carry the slim higher responsibility as she has more methods of avoiding it. It isn’t something a man did to her like it’s typically framed.

I agree pregnancy involves bodily autonomy. No woman should be forced to give birth. BUT, if she wants the child that should be a 2 yes decision, or she should be willing to raise the child independently. The bodily autonomy arguments ends with being able to have an abortion. Sure in the past women were dependent on men and couldn’t make their own way in life. But today women have the exact same rights as men (more if you account for pregnancy and the draft). They make up the majority of college enrollees. They’re making equal wages relative to their position. They’re strong independent women. Women today commonly say they don’t need a man. Perhaps that should extend to raising children too? They should raise a child on their own if they want to and are able to.

Some claim the man would be abandoning their child. But women are able to leave their child at any fire station or orphanage if they’re not ready to be a mom but gave birth. Again, no questions asked. AKA they’re abandoning their kids. Perhaps we should take that right away?

You say if men aren’t ready to take responsibility they shouldn’t have sex? Cool. Let’s ban abortion. If a woman isn’t ready to take the responsibility they shouldn’t have sex too. Sounds pretty equal to me. This has also been the typical excuse against women in the past, “if you didn’t want to get pregnant, you should have kept your legs closed.” So is that true or not? Or was it only ever true for men?

The fact of the matter is once women gained the right to abortion and the pill, they basically got a cart blanche on free casual sex. They can use their preferred method of birth control, sow oats every day all day long, and get an abortion whenever needed. How about let’s make abortion only medically necessary or under certain crime acts? Not just because you had a one night stand or aren’t ready to be mom. Seems closer to equality than the current standard. I’m not even against casual, risk-free sex if it’s available to all (the risk free part).

The legal reason for men being obligated to financially support a child is that once a child is born, the government looks at the best interest of the child, not the parents. But we haven’t even reached the point of a child being born yet. Like feminists saying, it’s just a clump of cells so abortion isn’t murder. So how are men abandoning anything when it’s just a clump of cells? Just like the woman is able to do her family planning during that time, the man should be able to do the same. If the man wants to give up rights, the woman still has the choice of being a single mom or having an abortion.

The pregnancy mortality rate is 0.023%. That’s it. The male suicide rate is 0.028%. Basically the EXACT same. But the level of activism and push for change is so one-sided it’s laughable. I’m not saying the lives lost to pregnancy don’t matter. They do. A lot. But so do the males succumbing to their inner turmoil. Why is one issue taking SO MUCH precedence over the other?

I’m just advocating for equality, or as close as we can currently get (male birth control would be a huge game changer). I’m not even saying I’d take this route ever for myself. But this is just an example of women cherrypicking rights to what is their best interest, not what is equality.

If you disagree with me you’re supporting baby-trapping. That’s it. That’s all you’re fighting for.

Salty-Map-942 · 2026-03-14T02:40:07+00:00

I can understand the logic that it's because it's a woman doing the literal labour of developing and then birthing baby in 9 months, so it's a bigger deal by far than what feminists point out is otherwise just 'cumming in her'

But that argument arguably becomes moot once the child is born. For example, why should an accidental pregnancy that the father said was also accidental since day 1, have to sacrifice some form of themselves and/or their assets to bringing up a child he never wanted, but she does now?

If anything, she should have the right to decide ultimately, but especially in a sit down talk and legal consequences, the father SHOULDN'T have to pay and should make it clear in the law as to that, so the woman understands that if she goes through with the birth, then it's her responsibility only. THAT'S the hypocrisy imo. Women rightfully say that they have to put up with the burden of physically developing and birthing the baby in 9 months, but that argument conveniently flips to it's the man's responsibility only after the child is born, which will be far longer than 9 months of responsibility, but 18...

ThotismSpeaks · 2026-03-14T11:40:12+00:00

A man's involvement in the reproductive process ends when he ejaculates. A woman's continues for the duration of a pregnancy. You both had the same autonomy to decide if she got pregnant in the first place, but she is the only one who can end her own pregnancy. This isn't an unfair advantage for women.

AutoModerator · 2026-03-13T21:36:01+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" 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.

Pitiful-Purple-7459 · 2026-03-13T22:52:28+00:00

I think you guys realize how messed up paternity is. There are people defending that even when you're not the father you still have to be on the hook. If a woman just decides to pit your name on a certificate and you didn't know about it you're still in the hook. You have to admit that there is something objectively wrong with that you could be raped you could be lied to you could be a lot of things that you did not consent to and you're still on the hook

The pro-choice argument and the forced paternity argument are the same argument

Comments

teambuttsex

Title	The pro-choice argument and the forced paternity argument are the same argument
Author	Pitiful-Purple-7459
Upvotes	14
Comments	644
Date	March 13, 2026 9:36 PM UTC (4 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1rt0jmd/the_prochoice_argument_and_the_forced_paternity/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-pro-choice-argument-and-the-forced-paternity.1575436 https://theredarchive.com/post/1575436