Dave Chappelle's comment about abortion and abandonment in his Netflix stand-up special is a watershed moment for recognition of society's hypocrisy in how it addresses the consequences of men's and women's sexual expression.

TrueReligionGenes · 2019-08-28T14:27:49+00:00

You can tell by the quality of arguments that oppose the idea that its the fair thing to do. It has certainly struck a nerve with some folks. True egalitarian society would see this right be given to men.

pnadlerlaw · 2019-08-28T02:28:08+00:00

I’d agree, but it’d have to be implemented where a man can only give up his paternal rights and financially abort if it’s done before the 3rd trimester.

Makes things tricky, but that’s really the only way you can make it fair.

Nevidimka- · 2019-08-28T10:53:09+00:00

I think that if paper abortion would be possible, a lot of men would sign it even after a planned pregnancy "just to be safe". They would fully intend to financially take care of the kid, they'd just want to decide the exact amount themselves. Which is fair because sometimes child support orders are ridiculously high.

But then they'll always have leverage over the woman. You want to leave me? You're not behaving exactly the way I want to? I'll threaten to stop paying.

How do I know men will do this? Because women are doing the opposite of this currently and being purple I believe that men and women are equally capable of being shitty humans.

So I think in the end you're going to replace one problem with another, and we should work out something that is safe for both sides.

welcometothejl · 2019-08-28T09:01:06+00:00

Or, a man should also be able to claim 50/50 physical custody as a right in lieu of paying any child support.

pnadlerlaw · 2019-08-28T12:50:45+00:00

Parental rights “don’t exist” before the child is born.

Child support liability “doesn’t exist” before parental rights exist.

Birth —> parental status —> prenatal liability

What “creates” parental status for men is not conception, nor choice, not consent, but merely “biological affinity,” determined “presumptively” through a “genetic marker” (DNA) test.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving/

What always struck me as fascinating was Justice Ginsburg’s last words on abortion:

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation. Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to their ability to control their reproductive lives. Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html

In other words, it is not some “general” privacy right that the 14th Amendment protects, it is not even the fact that “it is my body, therefore, my choice” that the 14th Amendment protects. The 14th Amendment is neither so general nor so limited. Instead, the 14th Amendment protects the right of the individual to have the autonomy to determine their “life’s course.”

State law that automatically “creates” (i.e., imposes) parental status on a man for no other reason than his “biological affinity” to a child effectively rob that man of his autonomy to determine his life’s course.

The state, based on a woman’s ultimate choice or the criminal or civilly fraudulent actions of others, makes that choice for him. All that is left for men to do is pay the cheque.

The definition of “parent” is something that a child and the state do not necessarily get to control or determine. A child conceived through an anonymous sperm donor with the help of a medical doctor has no legal father, despite biological affinity to a man. A child conceived from the sperm of a close male friend and egg of a deceased lesbian partner (and adopted by the surviving lesbian partner) has a “mother” different from its “biological” mother. A child surrendered by its mother to a safe haven has no parents until it is adopted.

In all these cases, the state and society agree and accept the malleable framework of “parenthood” and parental status, as well as accepting a definition that includes a child being born into a life where it has only one legal parent or no legal parents (without purporting to have “the best interest of the child” override such private choices over determining the adult individual’s life course).

The “biological affinity” basis for “creating” parental status comes from the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601, which codified into law what was known as the “moral obligation doctrine” of child support liability.

Prior to the “moral obligation doctrine,” the only liability a man had towards a child was one he assumed through written contract (e.g., the marital contract). Absent a written agreement creating clear evidence of his consent and promise to support a child (or children of the marriage), a man’s “biological” child was not necessarily his “legal” child (i.e., as a matter of law, he was not the “father”).

But in the 1500s, three things were true that are not true today:

A. Conception = Pregnancy = Birth (no Plan B, no effective birth control, no safe and legal abortion procedures);

B. Women could not work;

C. No safe haven option.

Under these circumstances, a man who “caused” a woman to “be in such a situation” (i.e., pregnant with no possibility of escaping motherhood) could not be said to “morally” be allowed to walk away from destining her and the resulting child to a life of financial destitution. So, equitably, he had a “moral obligation” to support both mother and child.

Today, in 2019, not a single one of the three justifications for the “moral obligation” basis of liability remain for men who “cause” women to “become pregnant.” Whether someone “has the heart to” or “believes in” or “is against” exercising any of the three options is irrelevant. The fact is, “the man” is no longer the one who is pre-destining mother and child to a life of destitution.

It is state law, not biology or nature, that creates “child support liability.” That state law effectively deprives men from autonomy over their life’s course. It doesn’t care whether the man was the victim of a forcible or statutory rape. It doesn’t care how the man’s genetic materials were obtained, only that they were, and that the resulting child bears a biological affinity to the child support obligor in question.

When Title VII did not classify “pregnancy” as a basis for sex based employment discrimination, it was argued that the law was written in gender neutral terms (e.g., an employer could argue it treats both men and women equally, if either one of them is pregnant, they would be terminated; therefore, no discrimination), even if it did affect women 100% of the time and men 0% of the time. Congress stepped in and immediately addressed the issue by explicitly making “pregnancy” a basis for sex based employment discrimination.

State legislatures and Congress, despite being aware of this issue for decades, have been silent and failed to even discuss correcting it.

Why? For the same reason “pro-forced-population-growth” advocates fight tooth and nail against abortion, advocate “for” maintaining a “subsidy” of population growth (e.g., the child tax credit). Forcing men to subsidize (50%) a woman’s ultimate decision to be a mother costs the government nothing, and artificially increases the size and growth of the population more than an alternative system where the man’s written consent is required in order to create parental status, rights and liabilities with respect to a child.

Increased supply of labor —> lower wages —> higher profits

Increased demand for goods and services —> higher prices —> higher profits

Increased tax base —> higher government budget

So, unfortunately, unlike “pregnancy” and unlawful sex based employment discrimination under Title VII, it’s “against” big government and corporate interests to see a genuine application of the 14th Amendment in this area of the law.

MuleFool42 · 2019-08-28T18:00:35+00:00

Men and women are going to have sex. It's neither's fault if a baby is conceived. So it seems natural that both would be allowed a choice. Men not having ANY reproductive rights after conception has been, in effect, unequal rights and protection under the law.

Feminists talk about equality but in this they are silent. They like having their cake and eating too. Men in this situation should be given the option of "Legal Paternal Surrender" before the baby is born and at least up to a month, maybe more, after, to file.

I have no problem if the woman decides she needs to have the child, but her choice should not allow her to extract his earnings, benefits, and savings for the next 18-26 years until the child graduates college. That's too high of a penalty for a child he never wanted.

Here is a video from Karen Straughan on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRdq2zqGxgY&t=69s

rhyth7 · 2019-08-28T08:22:53+00:00

People shouldn't have babies they do not want and they shouldn't force others to have those babies either. Both parents should want the kid and it's immoral to bring it into this world unloved.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-08-28T01:49:40+00:00

As long as there is welfare and aid exist nothing will change. The government changed its policy to go after never wed bio dads to defray the costs of out of wedlock welfare babies, what on earth do you all think will be THE GOVERNMENTS incentive to let never wed fathers off the hook again?

Do you demented morons want to go back to Welfare Queens? Do you all understand what welfare was like before AFDC was ended and child support enforcement had teeth put into it?

How many poor mens crotch spawn do you all want to pay for?

ThrowAwayBro737 · 2019-08-28T11:45:09+00:00

And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong. Think that shit out for yourselves.

I think this was the key to the joke. I think this was a reductio ad absurdum argument, and Dave was just saying that abortion is wrong. I don’t think he was genuinely advocating for financial abandonment. He was advocating against abortion.

fevertree · 2019-08-28T07:44:07+00:00

I don’t think this is a new idea.

GracefulStoat · 2019-08-28T12:26:45+00:00

This is definitely not the first time a successful male comedian has made this exact argument. I don't see why you expect it to get more traction this time than it has every previous time.

IambetterthanUall · 2019-08-28T22:38:17+00:00

Chapelle is a genius in his own right. The conniving C-U-N-T-S should take care of their own mistakes if they insist on having the child.

katymarx · 2019-08-29T01:43:56+00:00

Im watching the new Chappelle special and its hilarious and amazing as always. It's so much more than that one comment about financial abortion....

ontherailstoday · 2019-08-28T03:15:02+00:00

Eh. Child support is an idiot tax. Just like raising the kid of some ass who you don't think is a fit father or isn't 100% on board, or laying on a cold surgical table while people you never met until then go deeper into you with a scraper than you've ever known before are also idiot taxes. Be an idiot, pay some form of idiot tax. When you want the woman to abort and she does, congratulations she's paid both sets of idiot tax for you, I suppose if we wanted strict equality we'd pop you up on a gurney there too, strap your legs to stirrups and start poking at your insides in the name of fairness and equality. Them's the breaks. If the takeaway you want from all this is 'how can I be an idiot but avoid paying an idiot tax" then you're probably the exact sort of person who makes idiot taxes necessary, you are Adam in the garden of Eden whining that "it is this woman you gave me... not my fault even a little bit, all you and her right?"

Tell me, what form of idiot tax are YOU actually willing to pay for doing the idiot action of being part of an unwanted conception?

Tomatoccino · 2019-08-28T08:51:33+00:00

If he lets her know prior to, or during the 1st trimester, then fine. That way she can get an abortion.

Here4thebeer3232 · 2019-08-28T04:30:50+00:00

This argument again?

The issue with the paper abortion idea is that, at the end of the day, the kid needs to be taken care of. Men having their paycheck skimmed will never beat starving mothers and babies in terms of morale high ground of public opinion.

So, since the kid needs to be taken care of, there are two options. Have the actual biological father who sired the kid take care of the child payments. Or have all the taxpayers fund the kid that they had even less say in. It's one or the other. And most people are of the mindset to have the actual parents be responsible.

Personally, I'm for expanding childcare services and healthcare services to make the cost of childrearing more affordable for everyone. But good luck getting something like that through in this current political climate.

alby333 · 2019-08-28T10:25:15+00:00

Wouldn't joint 50/50 custody as standard with neither paying child support (as long as both parents are fit to do so)go some whay to solving this issue? Baby gets 2 parents both parents have the choice to work obviously the reduced working hours will hurt both parents income but hey that's the price you pay. At least no one is handing over a large chunk of their paycheck to an ex. I suspect without child support payments and a fair split of marital assets youd see a reduction in 5be divorce rate too

Bntt89 · 2019-08-28T20:42:52+00:00

I dont agree with him in any regard a women isn't the solely responsible for having the baby she just has it physically, that doesn't change the fact tha the man should have some say in the abortion. And due to that he must e responsible for the baby.

I dont understand how women can say my body my choice when realistically not really, when your a women you unfortunately bare the responsibility of the child. This also goes for men to if you shot sperm into some girl you are responsible for the baby you make with that sperm. I think if this view from the point of the child, if both parents dont agree to have it abort it it's fine its betther that way. But both should be in on the decision because it takes both parents to make the child.

poppy_blu · 2019-08-28T01:48:27+00:00

a watershed moment

Only to someone woefully ignorant of American society. How many millions of American dads have opted out on their kids? Do you live under a fucking rock?

reluctantly_red · 2019-08-28T02:10:05+00:00

Guys can opt out of being a dad anytime they want. No one can force a dad to spend time with his kids. However, we're all responsible for our actions. If I hit a pedestrian with my car I'm responsible financially. If I knock up a woman I'm likewise financially responsible. That's just life -- deal with it.

skystar86 · 2019-08-28T01:32:04+00:00

I disagree. Abortion punishes the men who would want the baby and financial abortion punishes the women who would want the baby. This does nothing to help the situation where a guy wants a kid but she wants to abort.

PPD-Angel · 2019-08-28T05:24:39+00:00

This post is making an affirmative claim, but because it has already been up for a while and there is some discussion, it will remain up. In the future please follow our posting guidelines.

Bouletka · 2019-08-28T06:52:04+00:00

Can't the men who don't want kids simply ALWAYS wear a condom during sex? Condoms are very good protection.

Ideally, though, men should understand that sex, even protected sex, sometimes leads to pregnancy. And if you decide to have sex, you run the risk of becoming a father. Surprise!

There is plan B that the woman can take if she agrees to it (it wreaks havoc in the body) if the condom rips. I think all men are capable of wearing a condom for sex and checking if it ripped.

Don't sleep with woman you wouldn't want to father a child with, you will have no problems.

Set higher standards for yourself, stop whining and making yourself into a victim. It's not like you have to have sex with some random woman you woudn't like be co-parent with.

shoup88 · 2019-08-28T03:07:21+00:00

The only alternative is increased welfare.

The rest of us will have to pay for the poor decisions of a few.

The_Bald_Black · 2019-08-28T01:46:43+00:00

This doesn't seem to be too important. The joke side steps the issue of whether a fetus is alive and has rights, which is the crutch of the issue. People are not fighting for abortion at 8.9 months after all.

LillthOfBabylon · 2019-08-28T13:02:53+00:00

I think this is a watershed moment in the recognition of men's rights.

You guys rely on a comedian to address your issues? There are so many ways for men's issues to be brought up by the public, and we had to wait for DAVE CHAPPELLE?

Also, you seem to have forgotten the Dave is from a country that have the half hates abortion and a fifth of the population wants abortion outright banned as soon as Roe-V-Wade is overturned.

If you think society is going to let a man walk out on paying child support for his biological children, you are sadly mistaken.

gibsmedatreparations · 2019-08-28T13:52:25+00:00

Next up on “how to take jokes as statements of fact”....

reluctantly_red · 2019-08-28T05:07:51+00:00

Guys who don't want to be dad's need to learn how to use condoms. It's that really so hard?

AutoModerator · 2019-08-28T01:01:05+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 their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

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.

Psych0_W0lf · 2019-08-28T10:56:16+00:00

That comedy routine was gold

Level99Legend · 2019-08-28T19:46:35+00:00

Lets take for instance a situation. Woman has child, but has severe oost partum depression and runs off, leaving father alone with child.

Its doesn't matter. She still is on the hook for child support.

Men nor women get a say in whether they pay child support. Its not their choice. They enter into a legal contract where a third party has ABSOLUTE control over them (the child).

Anyone advocating the financial abortion hasn't actually thought this through.

meomeowmeoww · 2019-08-29T01:08:52+00:00

I don't get it, why do men continue to have sex when they don't want kids?

AggravatingTartlet · 2019-08-29T06:45:46+00:00

Idiotic.

In every possible way. Oh wow, a comedian sez something. And now it's a watershed moment.

If this stupidity was made law, women can then look forward to men whipping off their condoms during sex, because there will be no reason not to. All possible responsibility will be on the women.

Don't men ever want to grow up?

Million-Suns · 2019-08-29T17:40:36+00:00

It's more symptomatic of how people are celebrities dependent.

Many men and some women have already said what Chapelle said in his netflix special. But just because he's Chapelle, suddenly these words have weight?

Does even 90% of the population matter at this point or what?

bonusfruit · 2019-08-29T23:41:06+00:00

Standard mra talking point from 2011 suddenly granted credibility because a comedian parroted it. Woo

katymarx · 2019-08-30T04:37:03+00:00

I watched last night and he spends more time talking about kids anuses than this 90 seconds.

PotatoKiin · 2019-09-25T00:47:18+00:00

A joke is a joke. Downvote me all you want but you cant change the fact that dave was literally bating you into this post.

GiveMeABreak25 · 2019-08-28T03:22:47+00:00

Men can and do skip out on parental responsibilities. They can also give up parental rights.

Next.

Triadfamilyties · 2019-08-28T13:29:56+00:00

Literally nothing. Dave chappelle being a gen xer whos very out of touch in some ways and not a role model for anyone isn't going to give the idea of legal paternal surrender any traction or teeth, you're just spinning escapist fantasy because someone who makes you laugh said something really fucking stupid that you happen to agree with.

HossMcDank · 2019-08-28T10:03:02+00:00

Dave Chappelle has never been a "politically correct" kind of guy. See the well-known "whore's uniform" skit, or trans-related jokes.

That being said, I (despite being firmly pro-choice) disagree with him on both counts. For one, a person's genitalia has no bearing on the veracity of their argument. Abortion should be a legal right because a fetus is only a human life in the sense that a tumor is. The "potential life" argument falls rather flat when one realizes that the same can be said of sperm and ovum. According to Chappelle's logic, if the majority of women supported banning abortion, suddenly it would be indefensible.

The "financial abortion" point is one of the areas where I think the MRAs don't have it right. When a woman gets an abortion, neither parent is required to care for a child. On the other hand, a man refusing to pay child support will place the burden on not only the woman, but in very many cases the taxpayer -- and the living, sentient child will pay the price.

heart_lungs · 2019-08-28T14:25:56+00:00

I disagree, you're punishing the kid which you helped create. Why should others (taxpayers) have to pay because you had (possibly unprotected) sex and then decided to abandon the kid(s)? I think it's just gonna put even more of the birth control burden on women, because men would be able to opt out and don't have to care about the risks of sex. I think many kids already suffer enough from not having a father figure, and I think something like this would just encourage walking away from unplanned kids even more.

NotGoingAway101 · 2019-08-28T06:42:38+00:00

The dating and sexual marketplace is so fucked up right now. And anyone who criticizes it gets shut down by people who don't even know whats going on or are the ones doing it.

Birth control has only been around since the 1950's, 69 years compared to over 1 million years of mankind.. So it gives women the freedom to completely control the dating market. "Oh, there's that badboy who I wouldn't wanna have his kid, so I'm just going to ignore him because he's a bad guy. OH WAIT, I HAVE THIS MAGIC PILL. HE"S FUCKING HOT AND I DON"T HAVE TO HAVE HIS BABY AND NOW I CAN FUCK HIM WITH NO CONSEQUENCE'. And if you say anything about it, you get power-shunned. "You're just a woman hater and can't understand what a woman is going thru and her journey she's a person you asshole".

So birth control allows females to fuck any type of guy they want, with no strings attached at all. One night stands back in the day resulted in a baby, so women had to be careful. Now here's the death sentence if that wasn't bad enough, the dating apps allow any female who is 4/10 or above to essentially 'wait in line' for a top male. For a 4/10 girl, that's usually once or twice a week. For anything above that, it's literally whenever. So all these dating market 'cards' and power have been given to women.

And yes, I know condoms have existed longer. But here's the big thing you're not thinking about. If you were scratching your head saying 'Why would a 9/10 guy want to fuck a 4/10 girl', it's because that 4/10 girl will let him do anything he wants with her, on the first night. This includes no condom obviously. And something people don't really talk about is that really healthy people are more immune to things like STD's, so the guys don't use protection. I know because I've done it. There's no stress, just worship and love and goodbye. I know they do this, because I do it myself on dating apps. We all do what we are programmed to do, which is please ourselves while eventually passing on our genes hopefully. But nowadays there's not such a big 'urge' to reproduce, society will always go on, so women and men are taking their sweet time to have kids, which of course is going to make the genepool even worse, because it's well known that a mother has the healthiest child in her teens and twenties.

I think a lot of males are slowly realizing through the different pills and knowledge that the meaning of life is basically an equation. It's nearly the same with every species, roughly 1 out of 10 males passes on their genes. Female mates with the largest top males they can find for as long as she's beautiful and once her looks begin declining she searches for a male she has respect and power and resources from. There are exceptions to this, but it is the natural human order. I can't fault anyone involved, but when multiplied by the ease of dating apps, the natural order which was rough 20/80 (top 20% of males get the top 80% of females) is now something more like 5/80 or worse. Natural order has changed very recently, and people deny that it's happening, which drives eveyone involved crazy. I have friends who look perfectly good and have great jobs and the only interest they've gotten is obese chicks. I'm talking about like 7/10 guys, just being invisible. So I can't even imagine what sub 7 guys feel in 2019, it must be extremely painful. Too painful for most to even think about, hence the blue pill where 'every person is special in their own way'

Don't beleive me about mating systems? Well, then believe literal professionals. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mating-systems-in-sexual-animals-83033427/

If you can't decypher the charts, basically males skyrocket in partners based on their 'sexual fitness'. Females just have to hit a certain level and all males will mate with them.

Littleknownfacts · 2019-08-28T01:31:27+00:00

Most people have never heard of him so ya I don’t think stand up is going to move the needle.

Comments