Restrictions on "financial abortions"....

CopperFox3c · 2016-02-16T15:36:41+00:00

Just because a man consents to sex, doesn't mean he consented to having a child. That would be like saying just because a woman consented to foreplay, she consented to sex ...

Men should have full legal rights over their reproduction, same as women. I would be interested to hear blue-pull arguments about why they shouldn't.

That said, all women/feminists will do is shift the burden to the state to support more children of single mothers, along with higher taxation, and even a "bachelor tax" for single men eventually. The reality is that if women choose to have a child without partner, they should have to bear the brunt of that cost themselves ... but we all know that is not how it will work.

nicethingyoucanthave · 2016-02-16T15:39:05+00:00

In my opinion, the right to decide if and when to become a parent is a fundamental human right. It's a right that we have given to women. It's not a right that they naturally have, regardless of the fact that the fetus is physically attached to them. No, we developed technology that made this right possible. After we developed the medical technology, we as a society had a long and protracted discussion, and we made the right decision to extend the right to women. We gave them the right to decide if and women to become a parent. We as a society, gave women that right.

To that end, my answer to your question:

would men accept this legal right if it came with comparable legal restrictions pro life types are trying to force in abortion cases

is that men would be very happy to have just a taste of the reproductive rights that women today enjoy. I wouldn't be surprised if there was dancing in the streets. As I said, the right to decide if and when to become a parent seems to me to obviously be a fundamental human right. And it is a right that we currently deny men. So yes, I think they would "accept" this right.

I can even offer a concrete framework for it - something specific that we can discuss, rather than the nebulous idea.

When a male is officially notified(1) that he has impregnated a woman, he has a reasonable period of time(2) to officially opt-out(3).

(1) Married men are assumed to have consented to parenthood. Unmarried men are notified through the same government infrastructure that currently exists to notify men of child support obligations. Everything is already in place.

(2) The amount of time that is reasonable can be very short, so as to allow a woman the greatest-possible time to exercise her own options. Honestly, a single week would be a great step forward for men's rights. Giving a man a week to opt-out does not, by any reasonable definition, inconvenience women or prevent then from exercising their rights.

(3) Having opted out, a man loses all paternal rights and is prohibited from ever contacting the child (should the mother choose to keep it). If he ever violates this prohibition - if he so much as sends a birthday card - he becomes liable for all the child support (with interest) that he would have otherwise paid. This prevents men from cheating the system by "opting out" (getting out of child support) but then still enjoying the benefits of parenthood.

And for blue pillers here, the arguments you have against extending this right to men are all very easy for me to shoot down - just letting you know.

For example, in giving women this right, we didn't accept arguments like, "think of the children." We acknowledged that at the time women exercise their right, there is no child, only a fetus. So if your knee-jerk reaction is to tell me that "child support is for the child" you'd better have something more than that. There is no child in this discussion.

dejour · 2016-02-16T17:54:19+00:00

Would you prefer that or the current set up where you aren't required to do any of those things because you have no reproductive rights here?

Obviously having an option is better than no option.

It would be unpleasant to jump through hoops, but it would be a couple orders of magnitude less unpleasant than supporting an unwanted child for 18 years.

PemBayliss · 2016-02-16T15:38:35+00:00

In Hypothetica, I as a man would accept the legal right of "financial abortion" even if I had to sit through counseling and "education".

But I agree with wtknight here. Allowing parents of unwanted/unplanned children to escape their financial responsibilities because "I don't want to be a parent" is never going to happen. Women can abort their children without informing fathers. This isn't fair. But this is life. These are pure hypotheticals; they are never going to happen in any kind of reality, ever.

ee4m · 2016-02-16T19:25:33+00:00

I think the current setup is similar - there is enormous social pressure to "do the right thing" and just accept that it's her decision to do whatever she wants, no matter how ill advised and non consensual it is.

Meanwhile most people refuse to accept that there is no such thing as an accidental birth anymore.

Giving men the power to say no, would have a massively positive effect on society, hardship, crime rates and poverty.

Some of all that money that goes to single mothers who are basically state assisted reproductive and child abusers, could go to the homeless for example.

There would easily be enough to house and rehabilitate all the homeless.

treebog · 2016-02-16T16:13:41+00:00

In this fantasy land the man having a financial abortion should be forced to vote for pro-choice candidates.

The funniest part about the people advocating for financial abortions is that a lot of them are dumbass libertarians who would vote for Rand Paul; the person who wants to extend the 14th amendment to include life at conception.

Even Donald Trump said that he would defund planned parenthood. At least neocons are consistent with their "traditional values" and think that a man should be the provider. MRA's are just brain dead.

wtknight · 2016-02-16T15:34:34+00:00

Financial abortion is never going to happen. Nobody is going to want to pay more taxes to support all of Chad's kids, and there will be a lot more of them because he'll go bareback with every woman that he can if financial abortion exists. These threads are pointless.

bluepy67 · 2016-02-16T16:07:44+00:00

I don't see how it would work. You would have some young men abandoning their kid, then growing up and 15 years later, wanting into their son's or daughter's life. Then, you'd also have some men with an awful lot of children. Of course, this happens today. The "alpha's" with 8 kids from 5 different women are not likely to be paying much support as it is, but this would put an official stamp of approval on it.

Maybe if there were a consequence. You can have a financial abortion, but it comes with a mandatory vasectomy. That probably violates a human right, though (to procreate without any responsibility).

peacockpartypants · 2016-02-16T17:41:33+00:00

I think what's most crucial is men and women talk about this issue before they have sex. What would both people want if an unplanned pregnancy happens??

I don't have an issue with this type of legislation as long as there's safety guards in place. If a man and woman plan to have a baby, he can't suddenly jump ship because the reality gave him cold feet for instance. At the same time, I agree women who try to trap men by pregnancy is wrong.

However, there has been huge advancement in male birth control coming soon. Hopefully this type of legislation will not even be needed in the near future.

I think men who are becoming fathers against their own will, should have a choice to financially opt out. I also think they should be encouraged to be fathers if they want to be, and only offer the assistance they want to give. The issue being that, the kid didn't ask to come into this world under the circumstances. The hurt someone might feel against a woman, shouldn't be taken out the kid.

CuddleLumpkin · 2016-02-16T20:00:53+00:00

Women have an additional right, the right to abortion, because women are the only ones who can get pregnant. Sorry, that's biology. You're trying to create a "fair" situation by extending men an opportunity to bow out of parenthood, which, for all intents and purposes is what abortion does for women, however women do not have the right to abort because of that reason. Women have the right to an abortion because it is considered a medical procedure, and for that reason, it has been deemed none of the government's business. You're trying to create an "equal" situation or of an inherently inequal situation.

The repercussions of aborting a fetus, and denying a child financial support, are entirely different, hence why they are treated differently. Child support is the right of the child. You cannot deny a child its rights because you don't want to pay up. The reason child support was instituted is so that the taxpayers do not have to pick up the tab for your financial abortion.

[deleted] · 2016-02-16T15:42:43+00:00

[permanently deleted]

DivinePrince2 · 2016-02-18T01:00:12+00:00

If the guy wants a kid he can fuck someone who wants a kid. I don't see a problem.

Villaintine · 2016-02-16T16:32:39+00:00

I think men in such a situation would accept it, but the men and women in the government would never, ever allow it.

AutoModerator · 2016-02-16T15:03:58+00:00

Attention!

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

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.

Title	Restrictions on "financial abortions"....
Author	5th_Law_of_Robotics
Upvotes	8
Comments	198
Date	February 16, 2016 3:03 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/462stm/restrictions_on_financial_abortions/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/restrictions-on-financial-abortions.276213 https://theredarchive.com/post/276213

Comments