Financial abortion

Rare-Discipline3774 · 2026-02-14T04:35:37+00:00

If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice. -Karen DeCrow

Arguesovereverythin · 2026-02-14T23:34:46+00:00

I think what's even more concerning than this is the movement both by Republicans and Democrats to force the financial burden of raising children on everyone.

You could be perfect. Literally stop having sex with anyone. Doesn't matter. You'll still pay child support through school taxes. Parent's will receive child tax credits and you'll have to pay the difference. The only silver lining is that at least these taxes are applied equally to both single men and single women. There are also women out there that don't want the financial burden of having children and are forced to pay. But this doesn't matter because the government will always choose to take money forcibly from people if they can.

I don't want to be too divisive, but I think men interested in preserving their rights and freedom of choice should consider supporting Libertarians. If nothing else, a smaller government and smaller tax burden will at least give us some sort of escape from this nonsense.

InsaneBasti · 2026-02-15T00:45:20+00:00

Never is the answer to that braindead thumpnail

nrverma · 2026-02-15T01:38:34+00:00

Thank you for posting this informational video!

Child support should just be abolished, for a myriad of reasons:

At the most basic philosophical level, the concept of child support is invalid, especially in the 21st century. If the law allows a woman to forego motherhood, then the law shall allow a man to forego fatherhood.
There is a greater encompassing philosophical quandary here as well. The concept of child support is based on the idea that one citizen must directly subsidize another citizen. We see this societal concept being enacted in only one type of situation: biological sex. Concepts like child support and alimony are only tolerated because they involve men subsidizing women. I doubt society would tolerate laws that compelled individuals of one ethnicity to directly subsidize individuals of another ethnicity, or heterosexuals to directly subsidize homosexuals.
Even if child support laws were philosophically valid, their enforcement would be counter-productive. Typically, people who violate child support court orders are incarcerated. But how can someone pay child support if they are incarcerated? Enforcement of child support laws just makes the problem worse; now, not only are the child support payments not being made, but an individual is now incarcerated at the expense of the taxpayer.
One of the most common counter-arguments that the video brought up was the concept of "best interest of the child". This argument is also invalid, and we can demonstrate this invalidity with a hypothetical situation. Say a child is born, and the mother does not know who the biological father is. On the birth certificate, the father is listed as "unknown". The state, in order to remedy this situation, compels a random male citizen to pay child support to the child's mother for the next 18 years. Would such a law be tolerated? I think not! Most individuals would acknowledge the injustice of compelling a random person to directly subsidize another individual, even though it would be in the best interest of the child.

Title	Financial abortion
Author	Ozhubdownunder
Upvotes	49
Comments	4
Date	February 14, 2026 1:12 AM UTC (5 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1r46zlb/financial_abortion/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/financial-abortion.1573429 https://theredarchive.com/post/1573429

Comments