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

Should dads-to-be have the right to opt out of parenting?

skymod1

April 2, 2016
47 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fatherhood/should-dads-to-be-have-the-right-to-opt-out-of-parenting/
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 Should dads-to-be have the right to opt out of parenting?
Author

skymod1

Upvotes 47
Comments 58
Date April 2, 2016 7:39 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4d2yi1/should_dadstobe_have_the_right_to_opt_out_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/should-dads-to-be-have-the-right-to-opt-out-of.952688
https://theredarchive.com/post/952688
Top posts by skymod1

How 'dad deprivation' could be eroding modern society

157 upvotes
July 7, 2016
/r/MensRights

Yale Student Group Wants To Force Fraternities To Admit Women - Isn't Demanding Sororities Admit Men

146 upvotes
February 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

Great Tumblr post on understanding Men's Reproductive Rights

117 upvotes
February 6, 2017
/r/MensRights

Men's rights group lawsuit: male-only draft violates constitution

87 upvotes
December 12, 2015
/r/MensRights

Sexist domestic abuse posters by the Northumbria Police.

74 upvotes
December 29, 2015
/r/MensRights

The violinist who couldn't listen to music after being falsely accused of rape

50 upvotes
April 17, 2016
/r/MensRights

Men should not be left out of the equality fight

50 upvotes
October 18, 2018
/r/MensRights

Thread about male rape in /r/askreddit

29 upvotes
July 6, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]-er 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't like the idea of opt-out for fathers. It's better than the current model we have, but I would rather see a policy where fathers opt-in. This prevents the mother from withholding her pregnancy or even birth from the father in order to seek child support later. Of course she doesn't ever have to tell the father anything, but this means she is solely on the hook if she decides to keep or abort the child. In order for a father to be financially responsible, the mother must have the father sign a form stating he wishes to be a guardian and financially care for the child. It should be assumed by the mother that the father will not care for the child unless he specifically states he will, so if a mother doesn't want to care for the child herself, she should opt for an abortion. I also think the parenting agreement the father must sign should have the ability to include a clause that states that a paternity test must be conducted before the father is responsible for the child. When a paternity test is performed, if the results come back and the child is not the father's, then he can opt out of child care at that point. In this case, the father is responsible for the cost of the DNA test unless it comes back that it is not his, in which case the cost is deferred to the mother. If the mother chooses to have an abortion, the father should be required to pay 1/2 the costs of the abortion. Again, if the man believes he is not the father, he can request the DNA of the aborted fetus be tested at his cost. If it comes back an he is not the father, the cost of the abortion and DNA test is deferred to the mother.

[–]TedTheAtheist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree and have been saying it for some years now that men need to opt-in. Women can hide their pregnancies and leave for awhile, then come back. We need to make men safe from this.

If the mother chooses to have an abortion, the father should be required to pay 1/2 the costs of the abortion.

This I will have to disagree with. I know you're trying to come across "fair" and all, but you did it without thinking completely on the issue, I would guess. Abortion is the choice and action of the woman.

That being said, I wouldn't mind helping the cost depending on the situation, but it should not be required of me.

[–]-er 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think if fathers are in an opt-in situation then they are never at any financial lose if they choose not to be, where as the woman will have to pay in either decision she makes. She either pays for the abortion or pays for raise the child. In my opinion, this places an unfair burden on the female. So I have no problem requiring the father to pay for half of the abortion in exchange for the right to not be financially responsible for raising a child. Hopefully this would create some incentive for men to use birth control also, because if men have no reproductive responsibility, they would be less likely to use contraceptives. I feel there would even be a segment of the male population that try to get women pregnant if they knew they had no repercussions for their act, especially if they knew the mother was pro-life. I am not trying to vilify men, but there are bad apples in any group that large. I'm sure you'd have some men bragging that they had 20+ kids and didn't have to pay any child support. Of course women should be equally responsible for using birth control to protect themselves, I am not saying that either sex should bare that load alone.

[–]TedTheAtheist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She either pays for the abortion or pays for raise the child.

Well, pregnancy is something that happens to the woman, not the man. It is her responsibility. We can help her with it, but it shouldn't be forced since it's her business.

In my opinion, this places an unfair burden on the female.

If I have to do something to my body for whatever reason, that's my body and I have total responsibility over it.

So I have no problem requiring the father to pay for half of the abortion in exchange for the right to not be financially responsible for raising a child. Hopefully this would create some incentive for men to use birth control also

We can assist the woman with her request for birth control use, as she can deny sex unless we do. However, pregnancy is still her ultimate responsibility, not ours.

I feel there would even be a segment of the male population that try to get women pregnant if they knew they had no repercussions for their act

Men don't try to get women pregnant. Women allow themselves to get pregnant. Pregnancy is a occurrence only to women, so it's something they control. It's very important that we pay attention to who's body does what. This is the only way we can reasonably assign responsibility.

Women control if they get pregnant. Men do not. I know this may be unusual for you, but your brain is used to seeing women as less responsible for these things, when really they have ALL the responsibility. Men can only ASSIST with the WOMAN's responsibility out of an act of kindness.

You'll find few women who will agree with this, but you'll never get a good argument against it. I've been debating it for years.

Of course women should be equally responsible for using birth control to protect themselves,

Their bodies, their complete responsibility.

[–]JasgerP 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

The issue with having dads be able to opt out of parenting is that some of these children would be living in poverty if the single parent can't afford the child on their own. You would have to come up with a way to make sure those children are financially supported, otherwise I don't see these laws changing. If a successful way to do so can be found, then it's possible for change.

[–]logix425 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's really not the issue.

If our society is really that concerned with preventing children from living in poverty as a result of who their consenting parents are, then we should conscript people into paying for and supporting random children on the basis of their income. (And we do that, collectively, to a certain extent - that's what public education and welfare often are.)

But we don't - we're perfectly okay with children growing up in poverty because their parents are poor, or because their mother abandoned them for adoption, et cetera - but we're suddenly very "think of the children" when a man doesn't want to consent to fatherhood.

If it's not okay to assign random wealthy women to be the legal "mothers" of impoverished children from single-parent homes against their will, then it's similarly not okay to do that to nonconsenting men.

[–]JasgerP 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But it is the issue and it's why child support is in place to begin with. That's why welfare exists as well. To pull people out of poverty line. The government unfortunately can only do so much with the tax dollars without raising them. If we pull child support away from these children, the future of our society... without having a back up plan, we are setting these children up for failure. How are they suppose to learn in school if they're hungry? How are they suppose to feel secure if they aren't given a proper home? These issues have a great potential to affect them for the rest of their lives.

I do think if they are going to continue child support, it does need a big reform of some sort and make sure that fathers aren't being put in the poor house because of it and make sure the money is being used for the children. However, just because there are some kids living in poverty in this world, that doesn't mean we should just let more children live below the poverty line. It's unfortunate that some children do, but I can't see how society would benefit from letting even more children go without food.

And that whole 'wealthy women' argument was a bit weak considering that women would have absolutely no tie to the child at all. It's not like these fathers are just randomly called upon.

[–]-er 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That may have been why it was initially implemented, but it is obvious from some of the required child support payments that it really isn't about simply keeping the child out of poverty. When someone is required to pay several thousand dollars a month in child support, it isn't just about making sure the kid is clothed and fed.

[–]-er 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I actually feel fewer children would end up in poverty because mother's who live in poverty will be less likely to keep a child if it is solely up to her to support and they will not see the child as a meal ticket. Because there would be no real economic incentive to have a child, you'd also have fewer children born to mothers who really don't love or care about them and really only had the child to milk a father for child support.

In addition, I think this would also clear up a lot of room in family courts so they could spend more time helping children in bad circumstances.

[–]JasgerP 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually think reforming child support and making sure the money is going towards the child would be more likely to prevent mothers from seeing their child as a meal ticket and also keeping children out of poverty. For example, putting a limit on child support payments no matter how much the father makes. Perhaps even handing out the support payments in the way of food stamps etc.

If it were true that women wouldn't have babies if they couldn't afford them, you wouldn't see so many children in poverty as is. There are still a lot of them being born into poverty. Now there may be a few cases where it might be an incentive for an abortion, but I don't think it would be as high as some people would think.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]Murky42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Problem is that sometimes those options aren't available (religious women does not feel capable of having an abortion).

Now you can spite her for her religion but that isn't gonna solve the problem.

Now we need to figure out how to make sure that despite the unpleasant situation we need to help out. Because otherwise chances are he is gonna have a shit life and become a shitty person and eventually a shitty criminal. The loss of productivity+ the cost of the crime + the cost of prison is more then the cost of welfare in this case.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]Murky42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As far as reducing the amount of funding on a child is concerned I don't think putting the child up for adoption is a good measure. That just puts even more care in the hands of children.

Furthermore being put in an orphanage in many cases fucks people up. Certainly not a good alternative if you want to lower the crime rate in comparison to a single mother raising the baby.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/the-orphanage-problem/

Citation needed is indeed justly said as I do not have a source on that claim handy. That's a very hard claim to measure. That being said with the above stated piece of mental math I would be very surprised if my statement wasn't true.

You get both lost productivity in the mother and the child and quite probably any person that interacts with either of these two if they get no support whatsoever.

It's also the consistently more ethical choice which has some value.

I'd say the best odds/reasons for my statement to be false would be me severely underestimating the costs of welfare/ underestimating the amount of single mothers that would choose an abortion over not having any state funding.

[–]bitchycunt3 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

It's comments like this that lead to people dismissing men's opinions on the basis of their gender. The side effects all of these can have mixed with the price and lack of availability in some parts of the country/world make it so that they are not available to every woman. In fact, they are least available to women in poverty, the very women you're suggesting use it.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]bitchycunt3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I dismissed your opinion not because you're a man, but because based on your comments you seemed to know very little about monetary costs, side effects, and restrictions to anything, and the fact that you chose to research monetary costs of a pregnant woman putting a child up for adoption rather than any other issue...well, it makes your lack of knowledge more apparent.

I was referring to birth control, tubal litigation, plan B, and abortions when I was referring to money being a direct impediment.

Adoption does not typically cost anything for a pregnant mother (I don't know about countries outside the US), however, depending on the states, adoption agencies can turn away any pregnant woman they want for whatever reason they want. While this isn't typically used for racial discrimination or anything like that, it's very difficult for women with disabilities, a family history of disabilities, or a pregnancy that doesn't go perfectly to find adoption agencies that will take their child. In certain cases it is actually impossible.

A woman can still have the child and then use a safe haven as far as I know, but if finances are an issue, the woman may not be able to be able to afford the pregnancy.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]bitchycunt3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Thanks to those things, those options actually aren't options for many women. You're assuming that since they're available to some women they're available to all, but they're not!

A woman living in poverty often won't be able to afford birth control. Certain relatively common women's health issues can make it so a woman really should not be on birth control.

It's much easier to find a doctor willing to provide a vasectomy to a young man than a tubal litigation to a young woman. So this is not only basically accessible to both genders (different procedure but same general outcome) so it doesn't belong on the list, but it's actually more accessible to men. Not, again, going into financial or health issues that can prevent a woman from being able to afford it.

Taking plan B, as sad as it sounds, can actually cost too much for some women. Not to mention the health effects it can have on some women, which, when combined with certain health issues, can be deadly.

Abortions are limited by money and location. They're not available in every state, so not available to every woman.

As discussed, there are limitations on putting children up for adoption.

Both genders have the option of condoms, and that's really something that you should be using every time you have sex unless you've gotten a vasectomy, tubal litigation, or you know for a fact that your partner is on birth control and takes it properly.

I'd also argue that rather than fucking over children because men don't have as many options as women, we should focus our efforts on researching options for male birth control.

[–]garglemesh42 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]bitchycunt3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The doctors I've spoken to won't do it to any women as young as me (28). My fiance agreed and I have a disorder that makes me incapable of tolerating birth control. My fiance, same age, went to one urologist (I went to five obgyns and at a younger age (20 I think) had been to six others that refused to do it).

Safe havens are an option for both genders, actually.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"I can't afford contraception or abortion, but having/raising a child is even more expensive, so I'd better have the baby and force the (putative) father to pay for it while I live on state assistance."

Holy shit. Found the woman.

[–]bitchycunt3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A lot of people in poverty haven't had great education and don't tend to think about long-term costs vs short-term costs, or they believe they won't be in poverty for long, so they think it'd be better to have the child.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If a poor couple decides to have a baby they can't really afford, best of luck to them and the baby. That's when they call the relatives, pick up second jobs, get into vocational training or community college, go to food shelves, get on public assistance, etc. But we're talking about a woman, regardless of financial status, having the right to force a man, regardless of financial status, to financially support a child he didn't want and often has no access to under penalty of imprisonment. "Being a poor uneducated mother is hard" is not an argument. What logically follows from that? It's also hard to be a poor, uneducated father too. So what? Your body, your choice, your responsibility!

You have no access to contraception, no access to abortion, no access to adoption, no access to safe haven abandonment, can't get a man to voluntarily support you and the kid, can't get by on welfare, can't get your family to help, etc? Then guess what! Your reckless little experiment with reproduction is over! That's when this nifty human invention called "government" comes in and takes your kid away before it dies of Irresponsible Parent Syndrome.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No. Women's desire to maximize their reproductive freedom and control while minimizing their reproductive obligations is what leads women to dismiss men's opinions about their own reproductive rights. Women dismiss men's opinions on these matters because they don't want to let go of their unearned privilege, tee hee. Fuck off back to r/againstmensrights, please. "You have to go back."

[–]bitchycunt3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, it's really not. Do you have any sort of evidence for that argument?

I thought mens rights was supposed to be more accepting of different viewpoints than feminism...huh.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You made an assertion about why women dismiss men's opinions on the basis of their sex. I made an assertion about why women dismiss men's opinions on the basis of their sex. Neither of us provided any kind of data to support our assertions. You don't get to demand evidence from me without providing any yourself. This issue won't be settled here, but long story short, I think plenty of people of all different ideologies will find dishonest, lazy ways to win arguments in order to get what they want. Certain types of women want to maximize their power, privilege, control, and freedom while minimizing their obligation, specifically in the sexual sphere. This is not the root of all evil; it's self-interest. That's all the explanation I need for why certain types of women use fallacious bullshit rhetoric like attacking a man's credibility on the basis of his sex instead of arguing the point.

I don't accept your view. You don't accept mine. Being "more accepting," whatever that means, is not necessarily a virtue. I try to be critical of every viewpoint, including my own, so as to only accept the correct viewpoints. The point is to be selective by testing ideas, which means rejecting ideas that don't pass testing. Don't dismiss it without testing it, but don't accept it without testing it either.

[–]bitchycunt3 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

My comment was intended not to be a true "This is why anyone who dismisses men's opinions on the basis of sex does it," but rather a comment so OP could realize that he doesn't have a grasp of what he was talking about. The implicit assumption that forms of birth control available to some (mostly middle/upper-class, able-bodied) women are available to all women is a good place to start an argument from. False premises will give you false conclusions. I then mentioned a litany of examples of why these are not accessible to all women. By far the most accessible form of birth control in the US is condoms, and those are available to both men and women.

The reason I brought OP's sex into it is because many men aren't aware of the issues that come with access to forms of birth control because they don't have to deal with those issues. If you don't do specific research into these issues, people will dismiss you as not understanding the issues. My comment was meant to encourage OP and other people who don't know about these issues to research them, if that was unclear my bad.

It also seems like you're implying that I'm using fallacious bullshit rhetoric to maximize my power, privilege, control, and freedom while minimizing my obligation. If that's your intent, then let me tell you I'm in the same boat men are. I have health issues and a history of blood clots from birth control to the point where my only viable option of birth control is condoms or my partner getting a vasectomy (I have yet to find a doctor who will tie my tubes tied). But good try, assuming that I'm just trying to fuck over men.

By "more accepting" I meant not telling someone to fuck off. I suppose I should've said more willing to listen?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're arguing that women should be able to force men to financially support children they didn't agree to have because there is a relatively small subgroup of women that only has access to the same birth control men have access to? WHAT? Should a man be able to surrender paternal obligations because there weren't any condoms around? Holy shit. We're talking about legal rights. Women have the legal right to kill my kid without my consent, "but the clinic was overbooked and so far away and muh anxiety disorder so I'm going to force you to pay for the child without your consent." I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything like a coherent argument in anything you've written. Not all women have access to birth control and abortion? Well not all men have access to fucking jobs so you're not allowed to tell them, "Make money and give it to me or go to jail." With all that "specific research" you've done you haven't come up with anything that affects the logic of the argument in favor of legal paternal surrender. If you're lazy or poor enough, you "can't" get birth control or abortion. If you're lazy or poor enough under the Swedish proposal recently discussed, you "can't" go through the legal procedure to opt out of paternal responsibility either. So once again poor people and people who fuck their own lives up don't get to experience the same level of justice and fairness as others. What else is new?

If you can legally kill my kid for virtually any reason you want, then it's not my fucking kid in any real sense. Your body, your choice, your responsibility. Get it? You can't kill things that legally belong to me. If you can legally kill it, it doesn't legally belong to me. If it doesn't legally belong to me, I'm not legally responsible for it. Just because you lacked the agency to successfully kill my kid in time doesn't mean that I'm now responsible for it. And you have the gall to come in here with some emotional appeal about women who are dirt poor and don't have universal on-demand access to licensed baby-killers and so men are on the hook? There's no argument there.

You're saying women dismiss men's opinions on the basis of their sex because most men don't know just how hard it is to get an abortion? Well maybe I should say that men dismiss women's opinions because apparently women either can't think straight or have no sense of justice whatsoever. That wouldn't be offensive at all. Totally neutral statement, huh? The fact that not every woman can get her hands on Plan B doesn't change the logic of the argument about legal paternal surrender, so as nice as it is of you to try to educated us lowly ignorant males, it turns out all the facts in the world won't do you any good if you can't put them together in a coherent way. Most black people don't know as much as I do about X, so we whites just sometimes like to dismiss their opinions about X. Maybe if blacks learned more about X they'd be taken seriously. By this logic highly educated and intelligent people would dismiss virtually everybody's opinion. I can certainly dismiss women's opinions on anything relating to masculinity or the male experience. I don't claim that YOU were defending this kind of sexist dismissal, or that you were guilty of it yourself; I said that women dismiss men's attitudes about reproduction because it's the easiest way for women to defend their territory. "My body, my choice" is transparently territorial. I deny that women possess lots of relevant knowledge that men lack in this area. I deny that men are much less likely to form sound opinions about reproductive rights, especially since attitudes about abortion aren't predicted by gender. And remember, brilliant newfriend, we're talking about men's reproductive rights here. The only right we're talking about taking away from women is the right to impress men into indentured servitude. We're not talking about rolling back abortion rights. Now as I said before, having that whole argument would take us far afield and I've already lost my patience with you. All I'll say to that is: if you want evidence that women have more reproductive control, power, freedom, and privilege than men do, then you should stick around and lurk moar. Pop in every now and then. Gather data. I said that people of all ideologies use dishonest, lazy tactics to win because they're self-interested. I don't think most women specifically seek to fuck men over. But I don't think most women specifically avoid it either. Certainly not the women who are represented by feminist advocacy. I said that certain types of women use bullshit when it comes to sexual and reproductive matters. I made no claim about what kind of woman YOU are, but I noticed you couldn't wait to tell me. What a surprise that you would take a claim about women and personalize it.

This is why I told you to fuck off. I don't tell everybody to fuck off. I'm not allergic to women, feminists, or anybody who disagrees with me. I told you to fuck off because you're polluting the intellectual commons with delusional, deceitful, emotional arguments. If you come into a public place and take a big ol smelly shit in the middle of everything, you're might to be invited to leave in less than pleasant terms. I'm ending my part of the conversation here. I'm getting nothing out of this extended mansplanation. If you respond it will be for the benefit of Reddit.

[–]bitchycunt3 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You're arguing that women should be able to force men to financially support children they didn't agree to have because there is a relatively small subgroup of women that only has access to the same birth control men have access to?

Did I ever argue that? I don't think you've actually read my posts. All I've argued in this is that not all women have the access to options that OP claimed they did. I haven't touched on the subject of financial abortions at all. You seem fairly angry about arguments that I haven't made.

"My body, my choice" is transparently territorial.

God forbid women be territorial about their body?

I made no claim about what kind of woman YOU are, but I noticed you couldn't wait to tell me. What a surprise that you would take a claim about women and personalize it.

Which is why I said you implied it, not that you said it.

I told you to fuck off because you're polluting the intellectual commons with delusional, deceitful, emotional arguments.

Please, what delusional, deceitful, or emotional arguments have I made? At all. I think you're just making a lot of assumptions about me based on strawfeminists you've seen posted on here.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Parenthood should be a choice. Consenting to sex is not consent to make a baby, and it is not consent to 18 years of financial support.

[–]blueXcat 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm very tired because when I tell that to other women, they end up saying a guy takes the risk when he agrees to have sex. Same should apply to women than

And when you say that, they accuse you of controlling women

[–]logix425 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, this is big.

Not the proposal - "financial abortion" or fatherhood opt-out has been an MRA issue for as long as there's been an MRA. The fact that it's getting coverage in a relatively mainstream newspaper - and that the coverage isn't of the "shame on evil men! Deadbeats! Deadbeats!" variety that usually accompanies any mention of male reproductive rights.

Of course, the version they're proposing isn't ideal - it's "opt-out," and the nature of pregnancy means that a predatory woman trying to rope in a father without his consent could simply conceal the pregnancy until after the deadline, then spring it on him. And even the advocates are pushing for it to be "complex and expensive," not out of necessity, but as a punitive measure to poor men who mistakenly believe they should have reproductive rights just like the wealthy. (?)

Problems aside, the simple fact that this proposal, and that this coverage, exists, is a wonderfully positive sign in the usually bleak landscape of male reproductive rights.

[–]mariox19 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The man was 48. He had been single for a while. Through a dating network, he met a woman who was 38.

PSA: A childless woman in her late 30's, more likely than not, has babies rabies. You would do no worse trusting a mad dog not to bite. No matter what she tells you, wrap that rascal!

[–]hackableyou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

I realize this isn't the opinion of all mras, but I don't think either gender should have the right to give up their child.

However, if we are gonna go ahead and give women the right to murder her children because she decides that her sex should have no consequences, then we should let men have the right to give up their responsibility to their children.

[–]Cardz16 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I suppose that if a woman can't be forced to gestate a baby for nine months then a man can't be forced to work to support a child for 18 years.

[–]hackableyou 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

if we are gonna go ahead and give women the right to murder her children because she decides that her sex should have no consequences

Except that's not why the supreme court ruled the way it did. The legality of abortion is founded upon the notion that a person, any person, should be able to medically protect their own life, and is not legally obigated to cede their health and risk their life for another person. That's a genderless standard, equality epitomized. Because we often discuss the poor treatment of kids (boys especially) here with topics such as genital mutilation, we also have to acknowledge that what you are advocating would indefinitely also result in the poor treatment of children, half of which are boys. Abandonment is not cool, and is a major psychological issue for lots of people. If you want to be self-interested, fine. More power to you. However, your argument is formed under a false pretense of a non-existent equivocation between men and women. Women can actually be pregnant and subsequently abort in a legally protected manner due to the identified and statistically inherent life-threats associated with pregnancy while men cannot even be pregnant. So you're off-base. The context doesn't match and it's a non-sequitur to try and apply a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." That stance just doesn't follow as the biological context is what dictates the legal protections here. We as guys simply don't have the requisite biology that necessitates a legal protection for us with regards to "opting out" of raising a child, and that's a stone cold fact. Not being pregnant vs not being pregnant.... nothing changes in my health as a man as it does for a woman during those 40 weeks. I suggest you read the entirety of Roe V Wade and Judith Jarvis Thompson's "A defense of Abortion" before you report back how you feel that either of these societal benchmarks apply to men. Also, don't stick your dick in crazy.

[–]hackableyou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Right to protect your life does not affect 99% of pregnancies. So, yes, it is the same thing.

Men currently have the right to abandon their children, what I am talking about is child support payments to the mother. This would help more children than it hurts as it would (1) disincentivize women to trick men into pregnancy, and (2) incentivize women to work with the father instead of relying on the state to collect money from them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Right to protect your life does not affect 99% of pregnancies.

The maternal mortality rate still outnumbers the mortality rate of women who abort previous to the end of the first trimester (given medical access in the United States, 18 weeks in Sweden). That's the bottom line. Abortion prior to the end of that period has been identified and repeatedly verified to be the safest course of action to preserve a woman's life once she discovers she is pregnant. So to say that the right to preserve one's own life doesn't affect 99% of pregnancies is misleading, since that the implications of those statistics apply to 100% of all sub-groups of pregnant women, no matter how you break them up. Be it by age, ethnicity or location, the scenario doesn't fundamentally change. But, I also added general health in there, which you don't seem to address.

Men currently have the right to abandon their children, what I am talking about is child support payments to the mother.

Visitation and child support are exclusive issues. You don't get to stop paying because you aren't granted visitation and vice versa. Don't conflate them.

This would help more children than it hurts as it would (1) disincentivize women to trick men into pregnancy

How does that help a child?

incentivize women to work with the father instead of relying on the state to collect money from them.

Courts already do this. Courts prefer to be hands off, and make rulings on payment and visitation as a last resort. This is by designed procedure in most places.

[–]hackableyou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You are kidding yourself if you think that even 1% of abortions are being done out of protecting the mother's life. Stop strawmanning and come back to reality. You sound ridiculous.

Yes, visitation and financial obligation are two separate issues. Please reread what I said.

Hmm, are you even thinking about what I am saying or are you just trying to respond in a manner where you are correct? I ask this question seriously. Children being born because a woman scammed a man into getting pregnant is not good. If women don't do that or they do that a lot less because they won't be able to collect tens of thousands of dollars, this will help children as that child will be born later in life when the woman finds a man she wants to be with.

Courts may attempt to incentivize women to work with the man to a small degree, but that is not reality for many cases because she is able to collect child support, period.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You are kidding yourself if you think that even 1% of abortions are being done out of protecting the mother's life. Stop strawmanning and come back to reality. You sound ridiculous.

Did I ever once purport to speak for women and their motivation? No. You are straw-manning. I simply pointed out the facts of why abortion is a legal procedure, and that no such justification can apply to a guy who doesn't want a social or financial obligation to a child he helped make. Because of the biological determinants involved, the calls for equality between the genders here is misplaced. Don't want a kid? Fuck her in the ass instead.

[–]hackableyou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So you advocate for extra rights for women. Got it. But your rationale has flaws. Just come out and say we should give women rights because (fill in the blank).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

But your rationale has flaws.

I cited the deciding case. By all means, show the flaws that the Supreme Court made in their decision.

[–]hackableyou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You did cite a case (which you gave no link to), but then you misapplied it to the conversation. Should I cite a case about mmr vaccines not being linked to autism? I advise you to go back up this thread and reread the conversation. Perhaps you have forgotten part of what we talked about.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

you misapplied it to the conversation.

On the contrary. What is requested here is being called equality in terms of opting out of child-rearing. However, the legal protections that women currently have for opting out of child-rearing by way of abortion have their foundations in biology and medicine. This foundation is not one that can be applied to men. If men want to opt out for reasons that are not founded in biology and medicine, then two things occur. 1, an equally compelling reason must be applied. 2, The equal treatment being called for here would also apply to women. No matter how you play it, that isn't and cannot be a matter of equality because nature has bestowed differences upon the genders from birth. Women will still have one more legally permissible reason than men. You yourself called it extra. What I have seen is that people are trying to equivocate the legal reasoning behind the permissibility of abortion and simply abdicating their responsibilities as a parent. Sorry, but that's a false equivocation.

[–]VernonMaxwell 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

If the mother chooses to go to full term or to kill it, then the father should have the right to opt out of parenting if he didn't want the child, and the mother did.

If/when I make the choice to have sex, and impregnate a women, that I expect to parent and take care of the child no matter what though. I personally don't believe in killing the fetus.

[–]roharareddit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What if she lied about her fertility status and you had sex just to have sex? What if the condom broke?

How many times in your life did you have sex to have a baby?

[–]VernonMaxwell 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I know that there is always a chance of pregnancy.

[–]roharareddit 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yea, and when that happens she has, included in her reproductive rights, the right to force you into parenthood as well as the right to opt out of it herself.

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

She doesn't have the right to force me into parenthood. Are you implying child support is parenthood? Because its not. Parenthood is much more than paying someone childsupport, putting a roof over the childs head or putting food in its mouth.

Regardless, I'd willingly be a father if I made the choice to have sex and there was an unplanned child.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

What is this?

[–]VernonMaxwell 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

but being forced to pay someone else "child support" (which is often far in excess of what the child actually needs, and is often not even spent on the child) certainly isn't pleasant, especially if you never wanted the child in the first place.

I agree. The system is completely fucked up. That's why I'm careful as I am. And I don't fuck randoms anymore, nor have one night stands.

[–]roharareddit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She doesn't have the right to force me into parenthood.

Oh yes she does.

Are you implying child support is parenthood?

Absolutely not! It is the states deffinition of parenthood though. It's what I like to call the "sperm donor turned ATM" model of parenthood and the state will make you comply by force of going to jail if you will not or cannot pay.

Parenthood is much more than paying someone childsupport, putting a roof over the childs head or putting food in its mouth.

Tell that to the child support agency. They will literally laugh in your face. Seriously, it's been known to happen.

Regardless, I'd willingly be a father if I made the choice to have sex and there was an unplanned child.

Did she not have sex too? So if she gets pregnant then you are entitled to her having your child?

What's this "unplanned child" thing anyway? Women have complete control over their fertility and the ability to terminate a pregnancy at will. There is no such thing as an unplanned child, for a woman that is. Only for men.

[–]VernonMaxwell 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh yes she does.

no she doesn't. She can force that you pay child support. Parenthood involves more than just that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parenthood .. the state of being a parent and the responsibilities involved.

I never said nor implied that one can't be forced to pay child support.

Did she not have sex too?

Obviously she did.

So if she gets pregnant then you are entitled to her having your child?

huh?

Women have complete control over their fertility and the ability to terminate a pregnancy at will.

wrong. nothing is 100% childproof except abstinence. and yes, they do have an ability to kill a fetus, although I personally don't believe in it. I know that even with protection there is a tiny chance of pregnancy. Luckily, i've never gotten a girl pregnant, but if I did, I wouldn't want a chick to kill the fetus, based on a choice that we both made to have sex, and both knowing there is always a tiny chance of pregnancy even if precautions are taken.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A man can absolutely be forced into parenthood. You can't force him to parent, but you can force him to be a parent.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/parenthood http://www.dictionary.com/browse/parent

[–]VernonMaxwell 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Wrong. Giving money to the parent in custody to the child is far from parenthood. Parenthood involves taking care as well.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parent a person who is a father or mother : a person who has a child

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