Child support doesn’t start at heart beat because you don’t spend money to take care of a child while pregnant you dumb cunt

Reddit View
April 23, 2019
post image

Post Information
Title Child support doesn’t start at heart beat because you don’t spend money to take care of a child while pregnant you dumb cunt
Author GooseMan126
Upvotes 58
Comments 26
Date 23 April 2019 12:15 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit antifeminists
Original Link
Similar Posts

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy

While I believe the whole system of child support is completely and utterly fucked, pre natal care does cost quite a bit of money. Though if it turns out the kid wasn’t yours there should definitely be repayment plus damages.

[–]InformalCriticism4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Pretty sure that's covered by health insurance, right?

[–]maexx801 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

yes it is

[–]Aro22203 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is covered by OHIP in Canada.

And if women want a man to care for them while pregnant they should have put a ring on it.

You're on your own, lady!

[–]GooseMan126[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Not as much as a born kid

[–]HBenedek388 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy

I love how she's just going to ignore the fact that men are FORCED to pay child support under ANY circumstance.

BTW ask any feminist what she thinks of the idea of financial abortion/paper abortion. They will come up with some mental gymnastics about

  • "That's different!" (it's not)
  • "Abortion is legal because of women's bodily autonomy!" (as if you didn't have the right to your OWN property...
  • "Child support doesn't exist to hurt the father, it's there to help the child" (as if outlawing abortion was to punish or hurt the mother, and NOT to protect the child)
  • "If men wouldn't pay child support, the child would grow up in poverty!" (if she was clever with choosing a partner and securing her situation financially, she wouldn't have to worry about the child living in poverty)
  • "Men consent to being fathers by putting their penis inside a woman, they should own up to it!" (even thought the same argument is used by anti-abortion activists regarding women's responsibility).

[–]InformalCriticism5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

Yeah, you do a good job of exposing the duplicitous and hypocritical views they hold. I try to reduce the conversation to its most inflammatory and overly simplified terms.

Women are the only people on the planet who can, legally, either:

  • Kill babies.


  • Indenture an unwilling father to their selfish desire to have a child for almost 2 decades.

They have their cake and eat it, too. I'd ask them to choose which one they want more.

If they want to kill babies, they can't enslave men. If they want to enslave men, they can't kill babies; equality achieved.

Too bad they don't want equality.

[–]Username16422 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

The father has no say in whether the woman gets an abortion or not. It is simply down to her choice and state law. If abortions are legal - which I'm pretty sure is the case in every state - then the woman is choosing whether to have the baby or not. This means that it is the woman's choice over whether the man has to pay her for giving birth for 18 years. If it was the man's choice, or the man even had a say, then yes, of course he has to pay for the whole thing. However, a woman could slip something into a man's drink to get him super drunk, sleep with him (which I'm pretty sure is rape), get pregnant, refuse to get an abortion (even if he begged her and offered to pay), and then sue him for child support at the end of it, so he has to pay for all the expenses of her child, which she got from raping him. Yep, women are so oppressed.

[–]InformalCriticism2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah. Women who lie about being on birth control is probably the most common form of sperm jacking out there, and it's not even somewhat illegal, and probably impossible to prove.

[–]Username16420 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

All good except for the last point. You forget that women shouldn't have to be responsible for anything, and that they deserve everything in their life to be perfect in every way, because otherwise it's sexist.

In all seriousness, that argument is potentially invalid in both cases, particularly the child support one, if the man uses protection which fails. Then, he took steps to avoid the pregnancy, and so clearly isn't consenting to be a father.

[–]HBenedek380 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

While you're right, I wouldn't argue this way, because it leads to a problem. Financial abortions should be the right of men whether they WERE irresponsible or not, just like abortion is a right of women up to a certain point, whether she WAS using contraceptive or not.

By placing an extra condition on men for WHY they are justified to ditch the baby, you're essentially GIVING feminists a weapon they can beat you with, by just saying "well, then the man should be obligated to prove that he was using contraceptives!".

This of course leads to another set of hypocritical feminist debates, but generally, the more conditions that have to be met for men to get their right to abort their unwanted child, the more hassle it will be to convince the public that the feminist position is wrong.

Even worse - if you offer this alternative, that is, only menn who used contraception can abort, we WILL end up with a compromise, and the system WILL inevitably be twisted in women's favour.

This is the same thing as with the gun control debate. If you start debating "well, pistols kill more people than rifles" - they will go after the pistols! And at that point, it's not that hard to twist the legislation into taking away the rifles either.

The solution with these lobbyists and feminists is to ALWAYS keep your back straight, and NEVER back down. Never compromise. Any compromise you make is more power for them, and a further dilution of what you actually wanted. Partial solutions are no solutions.

[–]Username16421 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I think I should clarify. I was just pointing out the stupidity of that argument. I wasn't compromising on any of the points or anything. I was just saying "that point is particularly dumb". And also doing a bit of satire.

[–]HBenedek380 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ah I see.

[–]Aro22203 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

This whole problem would be resolved in a year if we just make women responsible for themselves. No women fucks a guy by accident. If she gets man juice in her vagina it's her fault.

Therefore, no more child benefits. You pregnant? Your problem ... Can't afford your child? CAS takes it away and gives it to the Man.

Oooo women would start being much more careful with opening their legs. And the ones that don't would be destroyed and we could leave them to starve to death.

Or you know we can continue to abuse men and make them die until this mgtow movement continues to build until men in general no longer care about protecting women.

And we can replace all those white men with immigrants from countries like afganistan and Somalia who actually do have a rape culture and who actually will abuse the shit out of women.

Boy the future looks bright for feminism.

And I am at the point where I don't care anymore.

[–]Undead_Chronic0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

As a white male, i dont give 2 fucks what happens to white women

[–]Aro22200 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well that's weird.

[–]SophistMonk1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Wish someone aborted her before first heart beat.

[–]Uranium_Donut_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Honestly, I have nothing against abortion, but the double standard in child support baffles me

[–]Ultrcombraun0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ah yes, I shall be legally required to pay for 1 half of everything you buy in the next 7 months. MAKES SENSE TO ME

[–]activiss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Your body your responsibility

[–]Bryston32q0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Fr.... Smh

[–]hateyoukindly-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

I mean... you DO spend money while pregnant preparing for when the baby comes. that's the point of baby showers.

[–]Bryston32q0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Your not supporting the child. More like herself.

[–]hateyoukindly-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

that is incorrect. you are supporting the child. it's called a BABY shower

[–]Bryston32q0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

U don't have to spend money for a baby shower. The women can ask someone for a cake and another for decorations bam then she has baby shower 👶🚿 get crap for the baby . Noice! The man don't have to pay for baby shower or baby before shower 🏃💨🚿🛁😌.

[–]hateyoukindly0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

a cake cost money. decorations cost money. things for the baby cost money. idk why that's so hard to understand. everything about a child is money money money as soon as it's known that it exists.

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

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter