If the right to have an abortion is a woman's right because its their body why should a man pay child support for a decision of a woman?

CainPrice · 2018-09-16T10:57:06+00:00

Abortion rights aren't about a woman's right to choose to be a parent. That's the side effect. Abortion rights exist due to a woman's physical bodily integrity. You can't force a woman to carry a child to term any more than you can force a woman to have an abortion. The only reason abortion rights became a legal thing was due to the mother's right to physical integrity out weighing the state's interest in the unborn. It had nothing to do with money or deciding to be a parent.

As an unavoidable side effect, however, a mother exercising her right to physical integrity also allows her to decide whether or not the father becomes a parent or not, which can cause the father to be financially responsible.

If we lived in a magical universe where women didn't get pregnant and carry children and the only rights at stake were whether or not someone becomes a parent or becomes financially responsible - no physical pregnancy, childbirth, abortion, or other medical procedures required - then abortion rights wouldn't be a woman thing.

There were actually some court cases following the abortion ones that related to in vitro fertilization. After divorce, wives who wanted to implant frozen embryos and husbands who said no. The husbands won most of those cases. Remove the mother's physical body from the equation and her overriding rights aren't a thing any more. It's not about money. It's a about physical integrity being a larger right than the other rights in play.

abaxeron · 2018-09-16T16:13:03+00:00

Because a woman's body belongs to herself, and a man's body belongs to the state.

mareenah · 2018-09-16T08:32:57+00:00

In my opinion, he shouldn't at all have to be responsible for an unwanted child and has every right to 'abortion' of his own without consequence or judgment. But the usual argument against 'financial abortion' is that once the child is out there in the world, it's a done deal and the child needs to be fed and clothed, and the individual's responsibility for the kid lessens the burden of the state.

DemonConsulting · 2018-09-16T13:44:24+00:00

There are two different issues at play here.

The first is the right to bodily autonomy which applies to all people. This incluedes being able to terminate or carry on a pregnancy happening on your body since it is a serious medical condition with many possible implications for your health in both scenarios. An Abortion is often an invasive procedure and carries risks, a pregnancy involves major changes to your body and even the risk of death during delivery. Neither decision can be forced without infringing on the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

The second issue is child support and that is much more of a political decision than a natural consequence such as pregnancy happening in women's bodies exclusively.

The general reason for child support is that it is in the state's and society's best interest to make sure children are adequately cared for financially. Basically no starving or otherwise neglected children on the streets are not only a good thing from a humanitarian point of view but also reduce crime and increase the general standard of living.

How the government/ society ensures that children are cared for financially is really the issue here. The way it currently works is that the biological parents are primarily held responsible and only if they are unable to provide does the state step in and foots the bill, potentially takes the child into custody if the parents can't physically care for them either, etc.

The thing is, the state doesn't care about what's “fair“ to the parents at this point, the focus is on making sure the child is financially cared for and that the cost for this ideally does not rest on the taxpayer. Everyone likes to vote for supporting children, noone likes to pay higher taxes, especially to support someone else'd kids when they themselves probably have a family to support and those “deadbeats“ are shrinking their perceived responsibility.

So really there is no natural reason why anyone “should“ pay for anything, this is just the current political solution that ensures both financial support for children at as small a cost for the state as possible.

Venicedreaming · 2018-09-16T13:19:23+00:00

The state will end up having to care for that child if the woman cannot sufficiently provides for it. Why should the rest of us subsidize you two’s bad decision? Hence the decision of the state to hold you, the sperm donor, responsible. Wrap it up, don’t stick your dick in crazy, select your sexual partner carefully. I don’t care if the woman sabotages her birth control and ends up pregnant. There are effective precautions you could have done for yourself and you didn’t, so that’s on you. For example: bring your own condoms, disposes your condoms yourself, always wear a condom, buy good condoms, inspects your condom every time, have plan B ready and on standby. I never slept with crazy or casual strangers so never had to go that far. But you want your cake so eat it carefully

whichbladeN · 2018-09-16T14:00:52+00:00

Women abort children because they don't want to birth them.

Everyone is so fixated on whether or not it's fair, but don't acknowledge that pregnancy itself isn't fair to both of the sexes.

And like other people have said. Ultimately child support is to keep the government from having to pay for children to survive.

WestsideMoonWalker · 2018-09-16T08:30:13+00:00

The state's interest > any one person's interest. The state wants to make sure kids don't grow up in poverty, at least in theory.

This is a leading question though.

sublimemongrel · 2018-09-16T12:59:32+00:00

There are different rights/obligations involved between the two scenarios. This is just the simplest answer to your question.

[deleted] · 2018-09-16T13:51:57+00:00

cause fuck you, pay me

themultipotentialist · 2018-09-16T16:37:16+00:00

He shouldn't. End of story. But he shouldn't then have any parental rights when he chooses to forego this.

themultipotentialist · 2018-09-16T20:58:21+00:00

Here's how we make it equal.

The current state of things is that a woman can choose to become a parent or not. A man cannot choose.

So to make it equal, we take away the woman's ability to choose.

If a woman decides to get an abortion, fine. She gets to maintain her bodily autonomy. HOWEVER, the state will assign an orphaned child to that couple to raise until adulthood.

Bam! Equality! Women no longer have an out from parenthood, just like men.

Oh, the woman isn't emotionally or financially able to support a child? WELL TOO FUCKING BAD!! Equality sucks, huh?

flamingoinghome · 2018-09-16T08:55:38+00:00

Because that child will grow up to be another citizen, and the state has an interest in seeing them fed, healthy, and decently educated, and less likely to turn to a life of crime. The state COULD (and should) support the child with its own funds, but they're too afraid of riling up the "muh taxes!" crowd.

MySweetBitch · 2018-09-16T15:09:09+00:00

The man has all the power to not ejaculate inside of the woman in the first place.

ifelsedowhile · 2018-09-16T10:52:13+00:00

Blue Pillers and leftists seem to ignore that there's a number of ways a woman can trick a man into an unwanted pregnancy and good luck trying to prove her malicious intent. That's the reason why a man shouldn't be forced to financially support an unwanted child. If women had by default all the financial responsibility for a child, they would be more responsible and take precautions to avoid unplanned pregnancies.

azngirl7689 · 2018-09-16T13:46:44+00:00

It takes two to make a baby. Wear a condom if you do not want children. Sorry I’m being harsh but I find attempts to dodge child support so distasteful. You broke it? You buy it.

AutoModerator · 2018-09-16T08:16:59+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.

Willow-girl · 2018-09-16T14:18:27+00:00

He decided to make a baby when he blew a load into a fertile woman.

Next question?

TheMedsPeds · 2018-09-16T17:52:21+00:00

Should abortion be legal? Uh yeah, of course.

Should men have to pay child support? Depends. I think a man should be able to file legal papers during the pregnancy if he has no wish to be a father, surrendering any paternal rights and responsibilities. So if a man that is married or domestically living with the mother of his child and when the kid is 2 he decides: you know what? This sucks, I am going get a bachelor pad and fuck 19-year-olds and act like this whole "family" thing never happened, he doesn't get a get-out-of-jail-free card. He still has to pay the chid support.

The difference is a woman can opt out of pregnancy and motherhood before the fetus is born and granted personhood, the man should be able to as well. He's got 9 months to ponder if he wants to be a dad, that's plenty time.

Skratt · 2018-09-16T13:59:52+00:00

It was his decision to sleep with her. She didn't just spit out a baby. He gave it to her. Next question?

[deleted] · 2018-09-16T13:57:55+00:00

I think a man should be able to opt out especially if he voiced he did want a kid early in their pregnancy or relationship

wtknight · 2018-09-16T16:29:09+00:00

Because much of society think that it's a greater harm for children once they are born to only be supported on one income and not two.

Aggressive_Beta · 2018-09-16T17:08:46+00:00

He doesn’t unless he signs the birth certificate agreeing to be the legal parent

pentakiller19 · 2018-09-16T18:40:14+00:00

He shouldn't.

Transmigratory · 2018-09-16T23:57:57+00:00

That's interesting. Morally it makes no sense, especially if the man doesn't want the child.

RcktDoctor · 2018-09-18T17:57:23+00:00

It's the law's underhanded way of not admitting women can't be held responsible for their actions. That's the job of men, to protect civilization from the feral, savage nature of female pride and selfishness. Also, they have an insane addiction to buying shoes. It is well documented that the Roman empire fell due to the female shoe fetish. Prove me wrong!

sublimemongrel · 2018-09-16T10:47:00+00:00

This has nothing to do with PPD.

YaAmar · 2018-09-16T09:05:55+00:00

because as soon as his genetic material enters her body it becomes her propety, and as such she can expect to get paid for it. In any case, guys should get their sperm frozen in their early 20s and then get a vasectomy, for maximum safety. Of course if the guy is a red piller there is no need to keep himself from getting a woman pregnant because there's no chance of that happening.

RockinSocksII · 2018-09-16T12:37:54+00:00

He shouldn't have to if he was against it from the get go and truly wants nothing to do with the kid..

But the usual argument is that the kid didn't choose to be born or something.

warlords203 · 2018-09-16T09:09:34+00:00

My belief is that if a man has no say in whether a woman can terminate or keep it. Why should the women be allowed to have a descision over his finance. If a woman wants the child it's a shared responsibility but if she doesn't want to it's her choice. Seems kind of hypocritical don't you think

😘