So I dated a girl for a few months, it was shaping up to be a longterm thing, but things went bad. We basically went a few months with no contact, until she contacted me, saying she was a few months pregnant and needed my support. I was floored. We'd barely spoken since the breakup, and I was clear as day about the fact that I NEVER wanted kids.
This was one of the worst things that could conceivably happen to me. She suggested getting back together, which I shut down right out of the gate. I explained that we were through months ago, and that I don't want to be a father, and hung up. She is dead set on keeping it, there have been tests, and the kid is mine, though I dont know how the fuck it happened, since we were fairly strict with contraceptives.
I have a new GF, and we've just moved to a great new apartment. This phonecall literally shook me to my core, and I am freaking out like crazy. I've been searching for every possible way out, and I heard of a financial abortion, or whatever its called. Basically I want to resign any rights and responsibilities for the kid, since I never wanted him/her to begin with. I refuse to pay out the ass for a kid I don't want, and I obviously won't and can't force the mother to get rid of the baby, or give it up for adoption.
Her friends have called me, saying that I really hurt her by refusing to acknowledge this kid, and calling me selfish and whatnot, but I can't handle all that stuff right now, or ever probably. Am I the asshole for wanting a "financial abortion", that is, no contact, no child support, no custody, and is it morally and legally okay???
[–]deathtocontrollers8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
When it comes to women - "Her body, her choice!"
When it comes to men - "MAN UP!"
[+][deleted] [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
The OP is going to learn his lesson the hard way:when a child is involved, nobody gives a fuck about what you want. Keep the kid, not keep the kid, it's all out of your hands.
The double standard being, if the mom didn't want the kid and the dad did, how many white knights and fems would say how dare the man try to tell her what she can or can't do?
The naivety of the OP is astounding to say the least. Did he really think in the gynocracy that is the West he would just get away scott free?? Just sad, the guy is fucked beyond belief.
[–]deathtocontrollers2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Dumb ass should have went MGTOW monk or fucked escorts and this kind of shit wouldn't have happened.
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]project_mayhem_1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
I agree that this is the wisest course.
but you are arguing in favor of a system in which one adult has sole authority over a child, to determine its diet, hygiene, education, chore requirements, allowance, residence, religion, language, discipline, permissions to associate with others, and every other decision pertaining to the child, and yet for some reason, another adult is required under government coercion to pay money to that other adult.
not only is it impossible to make any legitimate moral case to support such a system, it was impossible to even conceive of such a system prior to a modern economy. permitting the government to pursue other men to enforce women's sexual imperatives is the ultimate white knighting. if the woman lets her child starve, execute her. if you catch her neglecting the child before it dies, imprison her and place the child in state custody.
i'll say.
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]project_mayhem_0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
that is current law everywhere in my country and the rest of western civilization. what change to that would you prefer?
ideally, women should choose to have children with men who have indicated a desire to raise families with those particular women. they don't. they lie about birth control to trap men who have specifically denied any intention of raising a family. they agree to the men's faces, and then do as they please. there is no higher authority or judge than the woman in this. she decides and so it is.
I know. better than most, I know.
he should want to raise the child he specifically asked her not to become pregnant with in the first place? he should want to have the course of his life decided for the woman he boned? fuck off. I read the part about the judge as you wishing for more equal parenting arrangements in court orders. I agree this would be better, but 1. it won't happen, and 2. it still leaves the woman able to unilaterally make choices that will harm others and shift at least some of the consequences away from herself. this is what is called a moral hazard, and it is unfair to everyone, even the woman, and especially the child.
this "deadbeat" standard (which only applies to men) is wrong on so many levels you have apparently not considered (because I have reevaluated you and decided you're not a deliberate white knighting cuck, but merely another like we all were, slowly divesting yourself of your blue pill conditioned responses). what must a man do to not be "100% deadbeat"? well, he can't be on welfare himself, he has to be a productive, tax paying member of society, and since child support is not a deduction, he has to pay it, and all of his own living expenses, out of post tax dollars. the median male income in the u.s. is a bit under 40k/yr. and peak earnings are in men's 50s. the typical 20 year old man making well under 30k/yr and paying tax on all after standard deduction. he simply cannot afford to live as an independent adult if a further 15% is ordered to be paid in child support. this is current law, and it condemns the overwhelming majority of men in their twenties and thirties to either inceldom, or risk of "100% deadbeat" status if his partner makes the unilateral choices the law excludes him from, deliberately and by design. what, on the other hand, does a woman need to do, not to be 1% deadbeat? be at least old enough to carry a baby to term, and not do what my mom did and abandon her children after abusing them for years. she needn't reach any particular income threshold, as she'll be the one awarded support, and money from her parents, and money from her new boyfriends, and exempted from taxes, and given a tax refund in excess of everything that was withheld from her check, and food stamps, rent control, and other benefits. they get this on the basis of custody of minor children, which they have by default, having deliberately and with specific purpose, become pregnant from men who made no indication of intent to form a family.
this is the only salient point you have made here, but nothing I have said is in disagreement with it.
this is just silly. I expect higher quality argument from you, and I know you are capable of it. get back to the issue. I stated that you cannot make a coherent moral argument for the child support model. you have attempted to do so and failed spectacularly. this demonstrates, rather than refutes my point. try again.
[–]MichaelSkarn_FBI1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It’s a little ironic that all the moral arguments made against him could also be made for a pro-life position.
Where are all those so-called “pro-equally” feminists when a man simply wants the equal right to walk away?
[–]DigitalDegenerate6142 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Welcome to 18 years of gynocentric shekel enslavement, Toby!
Maybe next time you'll look at your rubbers before putting one on, know when a bitch is lying about being on the pill and says condoms aren't necessary, dispose of used condoms far out of a bitches hands/eyesight, and watch if a ho's hands are playing the magic hat removal trick in her pussy.
[–]thewatisit0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The guy took safety precautions, made it clear he didn't want children and yet people in there still say he has to take responsibility because he "took the risk". Whelp, we know the answer. Don't take the risk, the penalties are not worth the rewards.
Should save that post as an example on why to go monk.