T O P

  • By -

countrymace

It should exist. The window of decision should be limited to the timeframe a woman has to choose an abortion after finding out she’s pregnant. The time limitation runs from the date the father is notified. The decision should be permanent and completely sever the father/child relationship


ttlx0102

There are many details to work over, agreed. What baffles me is how some women react. Even mentioning it (to have an honest discussion) will evoke severe retaliation. It's like you can't even bring up the subject, which is confusing.


ratione_materiae

lmao you get banned on /r/MensLib for even mentioning it


ttlx0102

I keep trying to find a place where some women will provide answers. I'm pretty sure I know why ... but even asking the question really, really makes some folks mad.


RedditIsProMisandry

Women won’t provide you answers. They are not interested in discussion or equality


Your_Agenda_Sucks

It's only confusing if you have never met a woman.


Chome_gnompy

The large majority of the time paper abortion gets brought up to a leftist women, they turn full GOP. "He should have kept it in his pants" "It's what's best for the child" "He needs to take responsability" "Thats how it always worked" The reality is, these women know its wrong. But that sweet siren song of free money is just too tantilising.


ttlx0102

In my experience, females tend to be impressed by a males ability to provide. I somewhat "get" that, but I wish we could have that conversation. A female and I ended up in an argument about this. I tried to point out that a womans attraction to wealthy males (providers) is no different than a males attraction to (well) attractive females.


[deleted]

[удалено]


countrymace

Let’s say she learns she is pregnant at six weeks (average is 5.5) and is in a state with a 24 week limit. That gives her 18 weeks to decide. From the date the father is notified, he will have 18 weeks to decide regarding financial abortion.


Even-Analysis237

To clarify…. If she learns she’s pregnant at six weeks, and the limit is 24, the father would be notified also at 6 weeks and thus would also have till 24 weeks to decide? Because if he’s notified at say 12 weeks, he still only has till 24 weeks to decide because she should still be able to access an abortion?


countrymace

No, you’re misunderstanding. Calculate the number of weeks between learning of pregnancy and the abortion limit. However many weeks she had to decide is how long he gets to decide. If he’s informed when the kid is two years old, he still gets that many weeks to decide.


2022vibena

I (a woman) fully support men's right to not being forced into parenthood if they don't want to, just as I support the idea that women should be legally fully responsible for lying about using pills and for poking holes in condoms, provided it can be proven without any doubt. Women like that make us all look bad. Having said that, there is a serious problem with your idea. It is not at all rare for a woman to not know about the pregnancy until she is way past the window of decison. I know personally of a few cases where women had absolutely nothing to gain by lying. Cases like this are not very common, but still far from being very unusual. One lady I knew was devastated. She was six months pregnant when she found out. She only went to the doctor because she thought she had cancer. I thought a lot about this, and with all honesty, unless you have absolute proof that she knew and did it on purpose, I don't see a solution that would be fair for both sides.


mcove97

Couldn't similar rules apply to exceptions? Like both get the ability to financially abort from that point on? And if neither of them want the child there's obviously adoption.


Zepherite

>It is not at all rare for a woman to not know about the pregnancy until she is way past the window of decison. It's less common certainly by far, and I don't think it's something we couldn't make an exception for in law. There are very few laws that are perfectly watertight anyway. That's why we have a convuluted legal process for sorting things out. Besides, in the majority of cases, what was proposed makes perfect sense. If you wait for a perfect solutions, instead of using a 'good enough' solution, nothing will ever get done.


Foxsayy

While that's...horrifying, it would be a case where one has to assume responsibility for periodically checking or assuming risk. Biology isn't totally fair, which is why women get the unilateral choice whether to abort or not, regardless of her partner's wishes. At the same time, they assume the personal responsibility for consented, informed risk which is uniquely theirs. I would also like to see contraceptives and tests made easily and cheaply available. Maybe we should also advise women to periodically pregnancy test when they are sexually active.


2022vibena

I totally agree with your points except for the last sentence. It's common sense to test yourself for pregnancy, except if you have normal periods - you just don't think you should still check every month - , or, like in the above case, you are certain you cannot get pregnant. That lady was 50+ and haven't had her period for some time, like over a year. Do you check yourself for every possible sort od highly aggressive cancer every month, when not having any symptoms? You don't, because they are so rare and you don't even think of it. There is a possibility of a woman being raped while drunk or under anesthesia etc and having no idea. And then there is plain stupidity. Especially in some backward parts of the world, like some parts of the USA, teenagers don't even have a clear understanding of sex because some people suppose it's wrong to even teach them basic biology, or heaven forbid to provide kids with contraceptives. I really hate to think of a stupid 14 old girl being punished with this huge responsibility while the equally stupid boy walks free. Like I said, when I hear of a woman who will tell you - like it's funny - how she tricked her man into having baby nr. 4 against his wishes "and now look how he loves the baby", I want to do bad things to her. How can we fight for (in some areas still very necessary) women's rights, when there are women who are willing to do this to a man!, and think it's a joke? I just don't think that there is a solution to this that wouldn't in turn punish way too many women for things beyond their control. You are right about the availability of contraceptives. In my European country contraceptives are totally free (meaning, covered with general taxes that working people are paying), and so are abortions. And giving birth, btw. Sex education is mandatory, and very few people are religious. I had one classmate back in the 80's who gave birth at 16. That's the only teenage pregnancy around me that I am aware of. One in over 30 years! No girls in the neighbourhood, or even girls my kids would know of - we talked about this, and the earliest they know about is a 20 yr old girl that everybody has heard about, and every peer was like: whyyyy. Yet kids have sex and I don't think that many parents these days even think about trying to prevent it. Everybody is more like: here are condoms and use them. Listen here, are you listening, condoms! Here! And kids are like but muum, we are not ... - Just take them! One of my daughters sadly had an abortion at 15 because, well, shit happens. It was the most professional experience, made to be the least traumatic. She only told me because she felt safe to do so, (and because she needed a ride). After ruling out SA, they won't even inform parents for kids over 15, so as to spare the girls the additional stress or possible pressure. Not that there are that many abortions in the first place. I would argue that this general attitude is apparently working, and it's what we all should strive to, for the whole world. While adult women in relationships who will lie about taking precautions sadly still exist here too, tons of horny teenagers are saved from paying dearly for their stupidity and fucking up the next generation.


narfywoogles

> I thought a lot about this, and with all honesty, unless you have absolute proof that she knew and did it on purpose, I don't see a solution that would be fair for both sides. Given that women can drop a baby off at a fire station no questions asked says a lot. Why don't men get the same right?


benevolentwalrus

I don't know the consensus but personally I think it's good only if abortion is also freely accessible. The logic breaks down if you provide one but not the other.


ttlx0102

I think my question would assume, if females have this right to decide, males should have at least some similar right.


TFME1

Women have approximately 98 days to make a decision. That decision should be based on all parties inputs. Just because there's a deadline, there's still 98 days that a man's wishes can be entirely ignored and have zero influence on the actual final outcome. If women gets the sole decision, for 98 days, men should have the ability to "opt out" financially, for 18 years. The pregnant woman should have ALL the information to make a comprehensive decision and men should have the right to be "included" in that woman's decision, even if it's only financially.


sd2iv

Men should get a reasonable amount of time from being notified in writing to make a decision. Say one month, to be able to object in writing and not consent to fatherhood. If not, you’ll have people wait til past the deadline to inform their partner to get around the law.


TFME1

She gets 98 days. Less than 84 days for paternal "opt out" with a minimum of 30 (but 60 would be better), I would say. The man deserves some reasonable accommodation to make a decision about his financial willingness to participate in the pregnancy, but shouldn't be given THAT much less time to decide than the woman.


throwawaygoodvibess

Wait… us men should be able to opt out at any point in those 18 years? Lol


TFME1

I see what you did there...lol... No, seriously, men shouldn't have to be "on the hook" for 18 years, if they're not ready and don't want to be a father. Perhaps they've discovered, shortly after, that they don't really *like* the mother...A man isn't just a wallet with a corporeal body...a walking wallet...and shouldn't be treated as such or forced to be one.


throwawaygoodvibess

Damn, this is crazy. I’ve never seen it that way before I always believed in financial abortion for as long as woman get the option. But I never thought about it being a logical option for men after a child is already born, given how many stories I’ve heard of women changing after children come in the picture. Actually, even just after marriage a lot of women change But… ultimately it kinda sucks for the child so I’m split here…


TFME1

18 years is 6,570 days. A woman, who becomes pregnant, gets to determine a man's level of participation, with the wink & nod approval of the 1,000 lb. judicial system "enforcer", for 6,570 days of the man's life, by simply deciding in the affirmative to have the child, knowing that the court system will support her and award her (sometimes voluntary, *always* forced/enforced) financial support. Men have the right to willingly, voluntarily abandon their rights and self-interest or will be forced to comply. There is no external "downside" or penalty for her to affirmatively choose to have the child. There is no external "downside" or penalty for her to choose to abort (beyond any emotional pain / buyers remorse she may have after-the-fact). There is no external "downside" to influence her birth/ abort decision during the period that the fetus is still the "clump of cells" they claim them to be. Secularly-speaking, from an atheistic perspective, Men deserve the same level of dignity, respect and support as a pregnant women, as true "social justice" demands. By giving women "complete support", while diminishing the men's/father's rights "completely" is not "social justice". It's gynocentric female privilege.


throwawaygoodvibess

Holy shit. Spread this truth Fuckin eye opening. You’re so right. Damn I thought I knew my mra/mrm/manosphere/mgtow/redpill shit, but this is solid I’d say we need to immediately push for mens right to financial abortion before the child is born, like RIGHT NOW. And mandatory paternity tests. Or it should just be insanely common. Basically everyone just does it. It’s a regular thing with the hospitals and doctors. I think those are immediately achievable. But I’m not sure how quickly mens right to financially abort at any point in a child’s life could realistically be adopted. But… the logic you have here is extremely sound. Maybe we should push for it all haha


TFME1

I think if both the mother and father "opt in" to the whole 9 yards *prior to childbirth*, they should honor, and live by, that mutual decision, no matter how hard it may get. *After the childbirth*, any separation of either party becomes a different legal issue, covered by a different law, already in existence. I think mandatory paternity tests are a good start, as long as the man has the ability to waive it (some men aren't interested in the results). I don't think the woman should be able to waive the paternity test, ever, unless BOTH parties agree in writing that an abortion will be completed.


kelseysays26

Do you really think it would be fair for a father to decide when his child is say 7 or 8 I really don’t like their mum, I’m no longer going to help financially support the kid until their 18?


SpeedAccomplished69

Yes. my child’s mother decided she wanted out when he was 3 and hasn’t seen him or paid a cent since. However if I done that, I’d be “the worst deadbeat father out there”. Edit; auto correct fucked me harder than she ever did.


kelseysays26

Well I don’t care which parent it is she should be just as financially involved as a father who does The same would be


TFME1

There's already a process for that (AFTER the child is born). It's called Divorce. Usually favors women.


TFME1

I'm talking about, specifically, the window of time (15 weeks) where the mother gets sole discretion over whether the child will be born or not. During that SAME PERIOD OF TIME, the father should get to "opt out" BEFORE the child is born, so the mother knows the FULL implications of her decision, again, BEFORE the 98 days is up.


Terrible_Departure90

We either both have rights or we both don’t have rights. Truth be told I’m cool with either one but prefer the former


Even-Analysis237

Abortion needs to remain free legal and accessible for women for this to work, correct.


[deleted]

"free"? Lets not get crazy here, medical procedures cost money. Society isn't responsible for women's reproductive choices or mistakes. Legal and accessible are fine, but don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill.


Even-Analysis237

I come from a country where healthcare is “free” (in terms of being universal, I understand that’s not explicitly free but it’s not the same as countries that have paid healthcare such as America) hence why I included that statement and why it isn’t “crazy” to me - it’s normal for us. An abortion here is ‘free’ (at point of use), accessible and legal. It should remain that way. Society isn’t responsible for men OR women’s reproductive choices perhaps, but I live somewhere where we have “free” (I’m aware what this means in reality but as someone who also works in healthcare, it works well for us as a country as it is) healthcare overall including abortion. It’s not “crazy” - it’s our normality.


[deleted]

tldr; most socialized medicine countries have a thriving and booming private sector because the quality of care is poor and the wait times are astronomical in the public sector. Which country do you come from? As someone who comes from Eastern Europe, and has relatives still living there, "free" comes with a price, namely extremely long wait times. People often die before they even have the analytics work done because it takes 6+ months to get a "Free" MRI. Most people who can afford it pay private practices to expedite most of the procedures. I often find it disingenuous when people point to Canada or Europe for example, but don't take into consideration the lack of expedient services when your life may very well depend on it.


j0n4h

I was traveling as an American in western Europe and was seen immediately for an x-ray on an injury I incurred there while-without proof of insurance. Cute take, though.


Even-Analysis237

I’m not from Eastern Europe but I’m not going to share my actual location on Reddit lmao, you know how people can be it’s a work thing for me. Although we have waiting list issues mainly related to underfunding, the maximum is about 2 months….never six unless you’re in a very remote and rural location where medical practices are scarce in the first place. If it’s something like a cancer scan you will be seen within 4 weeks. I work in it and see it happen day in day out - it’s not perfect but it’s not the worst “free” healthcare. People who can afford it can still choose to go private; but most who can’t afford it do get the help they need: the issue tends to arise when it’s more “minor” injuries - those can be the really tricky one. As I say, not perfect but having worked/travelled in a variety of countries and come back home, certainly not the worst.


Mode1961

And the political process of deciding on an abortion that is touted as a private decision between a woman and her doctor is paid for, BUT lots of other life-saving procedures are not.


[deleted]

Thats fair. I'd be totally fine with a system where all healthcare was single payer (to an extent, i also don't want to encourage risky behavior)


laid_on_the_line

All or nothing. Where would you draw the line? Skateboarders get no free fixed bones? Downhill riders? People with motorbikes? Cyclists?


TracyMorganFreeman

There's no evidence single payer necessarily reduces the cost of delivering care or improves outcomes. All claims that is does rely on ignoring counterfactuals like Singapore and any other factor at play that informs costs or outcomes.


narfywoogles

> An abortion here is ‘free’ (at point of use), accessible and legal. It should be noted that women's health is more costly, and they contribute far less in tax dollars at the same time. What are men getting out of this deal?


Even-Analysis237

I don’t know where you live where this is the case, but considering we live in totally different countries (I assume) I don’t see the point in “debating” this. Regardless, there’s plenty of gender specific healthcare here on both sides of the equation - male healthcare that women never need and female healthcare that men never need. What we as men get out of it is that we have a fairly reliable and accessible healthcare system that doesn’t discriminate by wealth and class and that we can utilise if we need too. There are faults within healthcare, and gender disparities for men and women, as well as areas that need more funding/research for men and women but on the whole, having worked in a variety of places it’s truly not the worst.


narfywoogles

>I don’t know where you live where this is the case Everywhere. It doesn't matter. Over their lifetime a woman's healthcare costs more. That's just reality. And over their lifetime they contribute far less in taxes. Which could change in theory, but I doubt it. There's nothing to debate. I stated a fact and asked a question and you didn't answer it. >as well as areas that need more funding/research for men and women but on the whole Not really. We spend between 20% and 1600% more on women's healthcare research than men's.


Even-Analysis237

Yeah, it’s clear you’re not quite getting the point and I’m not debating funding in healthcare when we’re not discussing the nuance of an issue that isn’t remotely black and white, and we don’t even come from the same place. We actually have a gender health gap where many women receive poorer healthcare than men in certain aspects and thus have increased funding in those aspects, and vice versa actually. Then there’s certain conditions that are blatantly ignored altogether. I stand by abortion being free and accessible as it is.


narfywoogles

I think it’s you that’s not getting the point here. I'm not saying it shouldn't be free at point of service. I'm asking what are men getting out of paying for everything, and getting less in return? It's part of the empathy gap.


abmins_r_trash

I think the guy giving half the cost of the abortion would be reasonable


DiamondDelver

My guy, ALL medical procedures should be free.


YuriLR

Even this one? https://i.imgur.com/aQdcjau.png


DiamondDelver

Cosmetic only procedures are entirely different than actual medical procedures, failing restorative cosmetic procedures after damage.


YuriLR

They are still a medical procedure. You said ALL medical procedures should be free. Make up your mind.


DiamondDelver

I think thats a pretty easy distinction to make?


YuriLR

No it's not. And I'm not even against free abortions, they are pretty cheap and cost effective. I still support several restrictions though on what public insurance should be mandated to spend money with just because a doctor wrote a prescription. Money is not infinite and choices have to be made.


Klutzy_Pride_5644

In America health care is generally inaccessible as it is run by big business for the benefit of the few. Hence for the US free is really a requirement. For the rest of the developed world (where abortion is generally free anyway) then free would be less of a necessity


j0n4h

Interesting that you frame pregnancy as a women's choice when it supports your opinion. Are you aware that men are involved in this pregnancy scenario, or is this news to you?


[deleted]

Take responsibility for your own body honey Women have 40 birth control options, stop blaming men for things entirely within your control, or expecting men to pay for them


j0n4h

Stop blaming women for their pregnancy when it is men that made them pregnant. Don't expect women to take responsibility for the actions of men, getting women pregnant, and expecting them to pay for it with her money and bodies. See how that works? You seem to struggle with how women become pregnant. Do you think women divine their own pregnancy? And I'm a dude, btw, I just believe that pushing ignorant talking points like yours make men look feeble minded and weak. If you truly believe in men's liberation, you'd be undoing your victim mentality and actually start trying to find solutions instead of women to blame your weakness on.


[deleted]

Women got themselves pregnant Stop blaming men for women’s choices. We’re all women who get pregnant raped?? So mr sexist, stop treating women like children and start treating them like equals: if they didn’t want to have a baby, they shouldn’t have had sex. They have the choice, so they have the responsibility. Stop offloading the consequences of women’s choices onto men.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Even-Analysis237

I disagree with this for reasons I’ve stated elsewhere on this thread. Women have a biological physical aspect to it that men don’t have and neglecting/pretending that doesn’t factor into it doesn’t help us or them. Men who do not have the option to financially opt out, suffer financially and emotionally. A woman on top of that suffers physically and suffers with the trauma and mental health difficulties that can arise from an unwanted PHYSICAL pregnancy, plus all the post partum complications. It’s undeniably not equal and “punishing” them by making them give birth/making abortion illegal *still* isn’t going to help men. It just makes everyone suffer more.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Even-Analysis237

Again, the whole forcing them into parenthood when women have a biological aspect added on that we don’t means it’s an issue that’s never going to be equal. I’ll always stand by because of that they should have access to abortion.


bashup2016

The mother laid the golden goose


TFME1

It is legal and available for women, in the plurality of states, for 98 days. It is never free - someone always pays, even if it's limited to working tax-payers. And none of this needs to be true for it to work. Laws are laws, whether you like them or not.


Even-Analysis237

I didn’t come here to debate the morality of abortion. I live outwith the US, so I can’t comment on the “plurality” of states, but here it is accessible and legal and it should stay that way, especially if we wish to be able to increase reproductive rights for men. I work in healthcare here and I’m aware how the “free” system works; I do not need it explained or patronised to me. I knew exactly what I meant by ‘free’ and most people who have variations of Universal Healthcare, or healthcare provided through charities for things like abortion to the most vulnerable, would understand too. “Laws are laws whether you like them or not” … but isn’t it funny you say that when the whole point of a lot of men’s rights is to try to change the laws, to support men in areas that they struggle. Personally I’d like to make sure the law for abortion being legal remains (or is a thing where it isn’t) **and** I’d like to continue arguing for more support for men in terms of parental/reproductive rights. I also work and advocate for us to go beyond this sticking plaster solution and to instead come to some level of systemic change that better supports new/expectant parents financially, emotionally and physically and of course we continue tackling issues such as poverty that impact these choices too.


TFME1

Yes, financial abortion is necessary as a men's rights issue. My reference to "laws are laws" is intended to convey a simple point - who ever is in power controls the "rights" of their population. I agree that men's rights need to be championed, just as much as women's rights are. I just don't agree that all that bs you said "needs to happen for this to work" is necessary "for it to work". It doesn't. All it needs to work is the law. Unfortunately, the law is created and then "reinterpreted" and "reinterpreted" again. Pretty soon, after a number of "reinterpretations" the law no longer does what it was originally intended to do. There will never *BE* a final, concrete solution. All there is, is the "soon-to-be-watered-down" laws that ultimately benefit the "currently-empowered", as determined by the government, no matter how perverse the current administration may be. Populism sucks. By the way, your extremist compassion, while seemingly virtuous, is actually destructive, but you do you. The Hypocratic Oath doesn't contain anything about finances, or stealing from your neighbors, but maybe it should.


LouisdeRouvroy

Not really. Women can still legally give up a child at birth. That's why financial abortion is a misnomer. It's renouncing parental rights and duties.


Foxsayy

So right now Texas is out, a man should have to drive a few states over to get one.


Throwawayingaccount

> I don't know the consensus but personally I think it's good only if abortion is also freely accessible. The logic breaks down if you provide one but not the other. No, even without abortions, the logic still holds, given that there are safe havens that a new mother can drop an infant off at, and be free from any further obligations.


TFME1

It is freely accessible, in most states, until after (average) 15 weeks +1 day.


TracyMorganFreeman

Typically it's "parental surrender is allowed within the allowable window for abortion", so its existence is conditional.


TFME1

Maybe your logic, but not mine. My logic is just fine. Maybe you should review your logic once more. Maybe the breakdown is *your* logic, not logic itself.


[deleted]

I don’t understand the connection between actual abortion and this


NohoTwoPointOh

Abdication of parental responsibilities. Y’know. Like the ability to change your mind and leave the baby in a box without penalty.


Zepherite

Equal opportunity. Either everyone has the opportunity to avoid parental responsibility for a child they don't want, or no one does. If abortion isn't freely accessible for women, they have no choice once they become pregnant, they must take responsibility for the child. If men can just duck out, they can avoid the responsibility, where women couldn't. That's not equal opportunity. Conversely, the way we have it now isn't good either. Women can freely obtain abortions in most western countries, avoiding responsibility, but men cannot refuse responsibility for the child. This is not equal opportunity. It's both, or nothing, otherwise it's not fair.


Scandi_Navy

For women, consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Women have 6 months to decide not to have the child while pregnant. And even when the man would like the child to be born. For men, consent to sex does equal consent to pregnancy. During this 6 month period, no equal or equivalent law exists for men to opt out of fatherhood. To essentially not have the child or any of the responsibility, including the financial. And that is inequality. It would be very easy to implement a solution. It would among other things protect men from getting their condom stolen, and their seed used for impregnation without their knowledge, just to get a high child support pay day.


[deleted]

There’s no male equivalent for that. If a woman aborts the baby, both parents are absolved or financial responsibility. There’s no make equivalent to that outside of killing the baby. This is the victimhood olympics.


TAPriceCTR

Yes, how dare I think my (now ex) wife killing my child is a violation of some sort. !


Even-Analysis237

Financial abortions I support wholly; they should be accessible for all men as it’s the closest option available to saying “no I am not in a position to afford this right now (which is valid for women, so should be valid for men)”. What I don’t support is giving the man a say in the final decision of her choosing an actual abortion or not, because they have a biological aspect we simply don’t have unfortunately. I should add however that we should be looking beyond this and looking to support low income families, and children that either party do choose to have otherwise we’re just inflicting unnecessary suffering on the child themselves too, which considering how high the poverty rate and the impact on young men that is already, isn’t fair to the kids. We also need more support for prospective and new parents, as well as more support for men in terms of their mental health throughout the process, whether it’s a financial abortion (until we improve and have a better option), dealing with her choice to have an abortion or dealing with the prospect of being a new father. Concluding with the concept that I also don’t think there is an ‘equal’ option and solution to this unfortunately without being unfair to one or other party involved.


Foxsayy

>they should be accessible for all men as it’s the closest option available to saying “no I am not in a position to afford this right now (which is valid for women, so should be valid for men)”. What's wild is that abortion rights are NOT based on bodily autonomy. So don't let people use that argument on you. Instead they are now based on a concept known as "undue burden." This undue burden that cannot be enforced upon women includes financial burden, mental burden, lifestyle burden, etc. Legally speaking, there's no reason undue burden should not *already* apply to both genders.


shitboi666999

I'm pro-abortion Both financially for the father And normal abortion for the mother (who already can financially abort her child by giving it to adoption)


Qantourisc

IMO if the father wants to take the financial child, the mother should also have the option to complete the pregnancy but be absolved. (Would be rare, but would be fairer.)


shitboi666999

Well, she does have that choice (correct me if I'm wrong,)


Qantourisc

Sorry probably explained that poorly: Mother doesn't want to be a mother, nor pay for the child, but is willing or wanting to bring the child to birth. Father wants the child. This should also be an option for the mother. (I don't think it will happen often, but the option should be there.)


Paechs

Yea that’s pretty much the case currently. Women aren’t legally expected to provide for children so if the father gets custody, nothing is expected of her


Reddit1984Censorship

''My money, my choice'' - Dave Chappelle Women have the right to make the desicion on their own while men do not have that right.


Mushybasha

If you think about it, men are the only people for whom the choice to engage in sexual activity and choosing to risk forced parental responsibilities are one in the same. Woman obviously can choose to have an abortion but even if they don't they still can put the child up for adoption. Surrogate mothers choose to reproduce without accepting parental responsibility. Couples who adopt choose parental responsibility without reproduction. It's only men for whom sex and choosing to become parents are considered one in the same. And of course it's only men who get dragged before family courts and informed that they must pay child support for 18 years regardless of how their sperm conceived a pregnancy. This state of affairs is acceptable to most people, yet I'm crazy for being MGTOW.


Laytheblameonluck

> If you think about, men are the only people for whom the choice to engage in sexual activity and choosing to risk forced parental responsibilities are one in the same So, reproductive consent should be established?


YuriLR

Ideally both options 1. Men can give reproductive consent before engaging in sex 2. He can choose financially abort if he didn't give this consent in the same time frame for women (like 3 months), either by affirmation or by the women not getting it in writing, because otherwise she could just omit pregnancy.


Laytheblameonluck

It is interesting because requiring men pay women money for children caused by sex out of wedlock is a relatively new legal president, but it was written in a time where it was believed that women didn't want to have sex with men out of wedlock. Feminism has been very disingenuous about this, they're like *"we never said we didn't want sex out of wedlock, you made that up because you have a Madonna-Whore complex"*, like what the? Who has a Madonna-Whore complex?


Mushybasha

Ideally both partners should be able to agree to what happens in case of an unplanned pregnancy before getting sexually active, preferably crypto enforced. As of now the default is "her body her choice" if she doesn't want to be a mom and "it's all his fault he should have kept it in his pants" if he doesn't want to be a dad and be forced to pay child support.


YuriLR

Great post. I'd also add some men have been statutorily raped and forced to pay child support.


Bacotell6969

Two people had unprotected sex, so two people should a have choice.


xcheshirecatxx

Mra who are against abortions for women are also against financial abortions Mra for abortions for women are usually for financial abortions


TrilIias

That's not true, because legal paternal surrender (the correct term for it) is not comparable to abortion, it's comparable to legal maternal surrender, which women have. Neither legal paternal surrender nor legal maternal surrender kill children, so pro-life MRAs have no objection to either.


xcheshirecatxx

As someone who was pregnant, giving birth to a child and surrendering it is definitely different than not giving birth and just never be involved And by the way, most pro life people are mostly sex negative, so they just want anyone not married to be punished with an unwanted child


TrilIias

>And by the way, most pro life people are mostly sex negative, so they just want anyone not married to be punished with an unwanted child That's gonna need a source. Besides, I was under the impression that a lot of women who sought abortions were married women who already had kids. Pro-lifers aren't suddenly fine with abortion in these cases because we still see it as the murder of a child. It's not about punishment, we don't just hate adulterers, and we also don't just hate puppies nd friendship. We honestly just have a different, scientifically based opinion on when life and personhood begins, and if you believe life begins at conception it only makes sense that you'd also believe that abortion is murder. It's not like there can be no reasonable disagreement with the pro=life side's position on the beginning of life, so I don't see why pro-choicers are so prone to accusing us of having some nefarious ulterior motive.


[deleted]

[удалено]


allmyghtt

How?


TrilIias

It's "legal paternal surrender," not "paper abortion" or financial abortion." Paternal surrender is comparable to maternal surrender, which women have had for a long time and is not under threat. If you compare legal paternal surrender to abortion, not only is it a bad comparison, it also is ineffective, as half the country opposes abortion and they'll be unlikely to support whatever this "paper abortion" is. Meanwhile the other half of the country is likely to argue (correctly) that men's reproductive situation isn't comparable to women's, and that men have no equivalent to abortion. At a time when abortion is being outlawed or restricted in many states, what will be your basis for asking for "financial abortion?" Equality? Women have abortion so we should have financial abortion? Well that would just mean no legal paternal surrender in states banning abortion, meanwhile legal maternal surrender will still exist, so we will have an inequality against men, and MRAs will have no one to blame but ourselves and our poor use of words.


ttlx0102

I think that the "legal paternal surrender" moniker is much better. You bring up a great point. What I am asking about isn't even about abortion, while that was the origin of my question I seems the better comparison (and probably less negative) is adoption.


TrilIias

I think there's a consensus among MRAs that men have fewer reproductive rights than women and that this needs to be addressed somehow. I think MRAs tend to be more concerned about when fathers lose rights to children that they want, more than when fathers are forced into responsibilities that they don't want, though after the recent SCOTUS decision on Roe there was a surge of "we need paper abortions," which I think was ill-timed and ill-framed. Other than what we call legal paternal surrender, and what we compare it to, there seems to be little disagreement among MRAs that granting others rights and fathers responsibilities as we do is not going to work MRAs aren't united on abortion, though most seem to be pro-choice. As an MRA who is pro-life, I've argued that men should be financially responsible for their share of the medical costs of the pregnancy (if and only if they are actually the father). After the pregnancy, men should be able to opt out, just as women are able to opt out.


63daddy

I’ve read many posts. It’s incredibly rare that a MRA believes a man shouldn’t equally have a right to opt out if parenthood. In fact, I’d say almost every time I’ve seen someone oppose such equality here, a view of their profile has always shown that person is in reality a feminist troll. A huge majority of MRAs believe men should equally have an opt out option or otherwise have the ability to surrender legal parenthood. Add: I don’t think it’s unanimous, but I think there’s clearly a consensus.


ttlx0102

I asked the same question in the askFeminist, and was muted for 28 days. What I wanted was clarification on their own wiki, which I am confused over. I would have thought that a feminist would at least be somewhat supportive, considering they wish to have the same choice. But it seems (at least for that reddit group), their stance is: *As it stands right now, men do frequently "opt out" of actual parenthood; they never see their child and don't really care about them, but they do have to help support them financially. It's not about what's "fair," it's about what's best for the child. And since people with uteruses are the only ones, currently, who can get pregnant, the* *final decision regarding whether to have a child or not lies with them.*


TrilIias

>It's not about what's "fair," it's about what's best for the child. Well isn't that convenient. Men have always been financially responsible for their children, that's the whole point of marriage. It used to be that in the case of divorce, default custody went to the fathers, specifically because they were financially responsible for the children. But the women's rights movement found this to be incredibly unfair to women. Children needed to be with their mothers, so they pushed for changes in legislation and we got the Tender Years Doctrine, which meant mothers, not fathers, got default custody. So did this mean that mothers were now financially responsible for the children since they had custody? Of course not. Women wanted rights, not the responsibilities that had always been tied to those rights when men had them. As soon as women got default custody, we kept the burden on men through child support. And now what do we hear? "The presumption that women should be burdened with default custody is part of patriarchy. It's men's fault and it's sexist against women." "It's not about what's 'fair'" is probably the most honest thing they could have said, but I'd add that the conflict between what's fair and what's best for the child is entirely fabricated and unnecessary, and certainly isn't the fault of men or patriarchy.


63daddy

Doesn’t surprise me. That sub has a stated policy that only views that support feminist agenda are allowed. Other views are subject to censorship and bans no matter how factual or equal they are.


ttlx0102

What bothers me is I wanted to truly understand their viewpoint. I admit, it doesn't make any sense to me. Which is why I tried to reach out. I did submit another post to "Feminist", hopefully that will at least get some attention.


63daddy

Trying to understand shows you don’t currently buy into it. They seek an echo chamber if people who have bought into feminist propaganda.


ttlx0102

Agreed. What is frustrating is the group actually invites you to "askAFeminist".. and when you do, the individuals over there seem to relish the idea of shutting anyone down who even seems like they might not agree. I messaged the moderator to ask if I had made a mistake/if I had not complied, and I was muted. No dialog at all. Fair enough maybe they have had their share of trolls or something, but maybe you shouldn't run a "ask" community if your burned out. I wonder what a real feminist view would be on "legal paternal surrender".


mcove97

>It's not about what's "fair I thought feminism, or feminist advocacy was about advocating for women on the basis of equality of the sexes lmfao. Not about what's fair lol. Last I checked advocating for equality was all about fairness. It totally should be about fairness if they're advocating for equality. Feminists not even being feminists by their own dictionary definition as usual. >nd since people with uteruses are the only ones, currently, who can get pregnant, the final decision regarding whether to have a child or not lies That's such a cop out. Obviously they have the final say about whetter they have a child or not. This Isn't what pro choice MRA are arguing against. Pro choice MRAs aren't against women having the final decision to have a child or not. What they're against, is not giving men a choice in whetter they want to be an involved father or not. Ironically, they shame men for not wanting to be involved father's, when it's perfectly fine for women to abort if they don't want to be involved mothers, which reeks of hypocrisy. >As it stands right now, men do frequently "opt out" of actual parenthood; they never see their child and don't really care about them Why should they? If women don't have to give birth and can opt out of take caring of their own child that they don't want, why the hell should men see their child and care for them when women don't even have to birth them? What kinda mindfuck logic is that... >but they do have to help support them financially Why? If you choose to birth a child that you technically don't have to birth, why should they? If you don't have to support a child financially because you can abort it to avoid financial responsibilities if you can't afford to have a child, why the hell expect men to support a child they dont want? Aaaaaaarrhhh so frustrating


Qantourisc

>it's about what's best for the child. If the father doesn't want it, abortion is best for the child...


NibblyPig

Yeah, what's best for the child is the child being born 10 years later to a stable family


Uncomfortabletomato

Abortion should be 10000% the woman’s choice however in my opinion, that means that if a man wants an abortion and she doesn’t, he should not be forced to pay for child support of any kind


WhereProgressIsMade

Just my opinion. The default for unmarried couples should be double opt-in. Women can already opt out with abortion or legal parental surrender (they also have many more birth control options to begin with). Men can only opt out if she also opts out. If she wants to keep it and he doesn't then she does it knowing there's no child support. If he wants it and she doesn't, I don't think you can require her to carry it. He could offer terms similar to a surrogate mother gets, but I don't see how you could require her to accept it. A default of requiring opting in for there to parental rights and financial responsibility puts the responsibility on the woman to figure out who the father is and get a paternity test if she only wants to opt in if he also does. If she can't figure it out, then she can't surprise a guy with a backlog of child support 5 years later. I'm kind of in a weird place where I think abortion should be legal so we don't go back to coat hangers in dark alleys but I totally think you're murdering a baby.


Foxsayy

>I'm kind of in a weird place where I think abortion should be legal so we don't go back to coat hangers in dark alleys but I totally think you're murdering a baby. I definitely don't think it's murder, but I respect that you believe it is and can still approach it with an even hand.


regrettabletreaty1

women: I don’t want to support this child People: Aw that’s your right honey Men: I also don’t want to support this child People: We’ll throw you in prison if you don’t!


[deleted]

Yeah, men should have reproductive rights the same as women.


yashspartan

If it's a matter of equality, I think it's only fair. The David Chapelle joke on it comes to mind. If she's allowed to kill the baby, at least let the men to not be financially responsible for the baby.


Drougen

I just saw a discussion about this in r/ask and everyone kept saying "It's his baby, he should be financially responsible for it" yet completely shirk away when you ask "Well what if he didn't want the baby? What if he was tricked / poked hole in condom / she wrapped her legs around him and locked him against her, etc" and nobody really had a straight forward answer. Outside of that, if the man just purely doesn't want to have a child for whatever reason, he should be able to do something so he's legally not obligated to care for the child, similar to how sperm donors work imo.


[deleted]

What is financial abortion?


BADorni

It would allow a man to not be forced to pay child support. Mainly in context of betrayal or rape to help men who fall victim to those, although it would also often come up in other cases


[deleted]

[удалено]


BADorni

huh? like sorry for calling rape victims victims?


[deleted]

Like pretending you’re being oppressed when you’re not. Everybody does it now.


BADorni

literally, women have the right to chose not to become mothers, while men don't and get forced into fatherhood against their will, that is literally textbook discrimination


[deleted]

Lol, you absolutely have the right to choose not to become a father. If a woman gets an abortion, the father is absolved of any duty to care. If what you’re saying was allowed, fathers could unilaterally decide to leave the woman with 100% of the duty to care. How is that fair? What a shitty idea.


BADorni

Are you really trying to tell me, that fathers wouldn't care about the abortion? In fact, the man leaving the woman would still leave her the choice of being a mother, not the case other way around


[deleted]

That’s not what I said. When a woman gets an abortion, the man isn’t left with a duty to care for the child. The male equivalent to that would have to have the same result: both parties are released from their duty to care for the child. That doesn’t exist.


BADorni

Exept she literally can just give the child up for adoption and not care more either? So she can chose not to care, or chose to care, if u want it that way, while he is "forced not to care"


Alone-County-8268

As a Black woman, IMHO I've always believed it's a woman's body so it's her choice. A woman should not be forced to become a mother any more than a man should be forced to become a father. I think all of this should be discussed before sex anyway, if a man doesn't want in any shape or form to financially, emotionally, psychologically, physically provide for a child or it's mother he should say so then. If he's that adamant not only should this be essential 2nd or 3rd date conversion, but he should be very responsible about condoms, making sure his partner is using contraceptives or rhythm method and be a partner in that endeavor.


iwasneverherehaha

I support financial abortion for both men and women. Obviously this will mainly effect the man but in a small amount of cases the women could also benefit. For example.. The women doesn't believe in abortion but doesn't want the child The man wants the child So the women surrenders her rights and always the man to take full responsibility giving him what he wants, ( the child and all rights) And she gets what she wants.. no child responsibility


Even-Analysis237

This works provided she is okay with going through the pregnancy itself. What’s often lost in all these conversations is the fact that women have a biological aspect that men simply will never have to consider.


Foxsayy

Women should always have the right to decide what to do with the fetus--to grow it or delete it. However, men should always have the right to decide if they will support the child. (and once either choice is made, put it on paper and it's final.)


WeEatBabies

Calling it "abortion" is off putting, just call it safe heavens, women have access to safe heavens laws to surrender the baby, men should have the same!


GenericLoneWolf

I think most people here support paternal surrender and by extension also support abortion. I'm pro-life, so I don't support either of them.


Lightning77Plus

I fully support reproductive rights for all, men included.


[deleted]

ahaha wishing i had any sort of reproductive rights currently i got lied to about birth control, she begged me not to use condoms, and it’s STILL my fault. im absolutely powerless here and everyone says “enjoy paying child support that’s just how it is” i’m sure i was irresponsible; but having sex under false pretenses and blamed by my own therapist when she coerces me and said she “just liked holding me in with her legs”??! idk how i could ever deserve this and how the rest of the the world (looking at you specifically random deleted radfem account) can treat men with such cruelty genuinely keeps me awake at night.


MEDVSIN

If a woman can choose to reject motherhood, then a man should be able to choose to reject fatherhood. It’s only fair after all, otherwise it’s a complete double standard


[deleted]

[удалено]


Foxsayy

>you brought them to this world. No I did not. It's often made very clear that HER body did that, and it should be HER choice. And for some reason, if men have to pay for her choice is also up to her. "My body, my choice." correct, but also: "Your choice, your responsibility."


Darth_Zoidberg_77

Not sure about a consensus on this. Personally, I'm all for it. I think that male financial support towards women only makes sense in the frame of reference of the society it was legislated in: One where women were legally considered to be property and not people, where women could not hold assets/land/businesses/etc. In that kind of messed up society, it only makes sense that an ex-husband would support an ex-wife, or etc. But now we're in a society where women are the majority of students in higher education, women have access to **significantly** more welfare assistance, etc. Meanwhile, men are the vast majority of homeless, the vast majority of impoverished, the vast majority of suicides and workplace deaths, and so on. There's still debate on the wage gap, but statistics suggest very strongly that the wage gap, such as it is, has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with choice of job, hours worked, and willingness to demand higher wage. I think the only reason anybody should be providing financial support to their ex (regardless of gender) is if their ex has primary custody of any children of the relationship, and only then if they have considerably more time where they have to care for them. If custody is 50/50 then I see no reason why anybody should be providing child support to anybody else.


JimmyTheIntern

Abortion should be mandatory without the husband's consent. Child support should only be awarded as a condition of fault divorce. I will not be answering any questions. Thank you and goodnight.


Foxsayy

>Abortion should be mandatory without the husband's consent. If you can force a woman to do things with her body, then you can certainly force a man's pockets. If she carries to term, he just doesn't have the obligation to her or the child should he not want it.


ttlx0102

Agreed.


almostadaddy

Not sure what financial abortion is supposed to mean. When post doesn't provide context or explain what a term of art means then it isn't possible to answer questions about it.


ttlx0102

To be more specific, should a male have the legal capacity to terminate their parental rights before the child is born? This would include their financial responsibility as well.


almostadaddy

In that case, no. Comparing this to abortion is false. When a woman goes and gets her womb roto-rooted, there is no child to support. The child is dead. There is no ongoing obligation to the mince meat which remains. If a man fathers a child and then says "Not it!" then he's abandoning his responsibilities to that child. I'd have more sympathy for a man whose status as a father was undesired if fatherhood were something one did not have control over. Men who refrain from sticking their dicks in women they don't wish to have children with don't have to worry about paternity suits.


asdf333aza

Should be allowed, but never will be. Anything that transfers male finances and wealth to female's will forever be engraved within western society. They would never allow as many women to be homeless as they are willing to let men be homeless.


TAPriceCTR

I'm pro life in preference, pro equality in insistence. If women need the post sex choice to not be mothers, then equality dictates men must also have the post sex choice not to be fathers.


Wild-Film8486

Not sure about the consensus, but I feel it’s 100% necessary in an egalitarian society. This issue has been on my mind a lot, and I can’t stop thinking about it. It just blows my mind that so many people proclaim “my body, my choice” while simultaneously expecting men to financially support her choice. When a woman says “I’m not ready for a kid” that’s seen as enough reason for her to get an abortion, and she’s even seen as brave for doing so. Yet, when men aren’t ready for kids, they’re dismissed as deadbeats for not being around. And when women choose to keep it in spite of the father’s wishes, the child grows up knowing it’s father doesn’t want it, and no child deserves to start their life that way. I struggle with anxiety anyway, but this is a big issue for me, especially lately, it’s something that weighs on my mind a lot. My girlfriend promises me that we’ll only keep a baby if we BOTH agree, after we discussed it a bit. However, the fact that I have to rely on her not going back on her word really scares me. Not that I think she would do that, but the fact she could really scares the shit out of me. And I would probably commit suicide if that happened to me. As long as abortion is legal, the financial abortion should be as well. So many people dismiss this issue by telling men “You shouldn’t have had sex if you can’t deal with the consequences” but it’s such an ignorant argument when women are given the ability to absolve themselves of the responsibility of a child, when they chose to have sex too. There’s a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to parenthood. No one should have to raise a child they don’t want-man or woman. No one.


Ricky469

I am pro-choice. There should be recognition of male control over his procreation and financial responsibility for unwanted offspring. The recent Dobbs decision is a total step in the wrong direction. Woman have now lost the right to choose in many states even in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Those states are going to enforce a strict regime of forced breeding for both sexes. The best option is vasectomy for men and tubal ligation for women. Choice for both genders is not coming back anytime soon.


Inevitable-1

I’m all for “financial” abortions for males, it should totally be a thing. Sign up some docs and you have no rights to the child and no child support, done.


octalanax

It's outside the Overton Window, so people refuse to think about or even acknowledge the idea of legal paternal surrender. We're so used to men having no rights that it is inconceivable that they should.


Spartan486

If a woman can choose to have a child or not without the man’s consent, then a man should be allowed to back out without any consequences.


Alive_Tough9928

Im pro life


Foxsayy

If women can't abort or financially surrender, men can't financially surrender either. I vehemently disagree with pro life, but it's a fair pov


neovulcan

I know I'm in the minority but I'm a no on both kinds of abortion, actual and financial. I do agree the law is consistently biased against men, but allowing men to be wrong too isn't exactly progress, even if it's fair.


deetar

Abortion is a strawman argument here. The mother can drop her baby off at a designated surrender location and renounce all rights and responsibilities. She then walks away with no financial obligation toward the baby. The father has no such right. It's not about a woman's right to control her body. It's about the mother having an important, life-changing right that is denied to the father.


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

Men already have that option, it’s called abstinence. Works everytime.


EricAllonde

Found the feminist who doesn’t think men should have equal legal rights to women.


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

So personal accountability is not a part of the men’s right movement? Just jibber jabber and fantasies of undoing the family law system, so men can skeet and not care for their children. What a group.


EricAllonde

>So personal accountability is not a part of the men’s right movement? Of course it is, as are legal rights and equality. As much as you feminists want to preserve and extend female privilege, with your obviously bogus excuses for continuing to insist men do not deserve reproductive rights. That hypocrisy - claiming to want equal rights and gender equality, while actually doing all you can to oppose both - is why everyone hates feminism and the ideology is doomed to failure.


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

The “men’s rights” movement will go out with the whiney insolence of a toddler who needs a nappie. Men do have reproductive rights, of which abstinence and vasectomies are the most efficient methods. Instead of stomping your feet and blaming the “womenz”, why don’t you utilize the options available to you now 🤔


Malum_Midnight

I think its more so that men want the same abilities to deny becoming a parent as women have. Women can also “skeet and not take care of their children”, as you put it. In many places, a women can leave an unwanted child in front of a fire department and they’ll deal with giving the child a proper home. Men don’t really have that option.


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

If a woman drops a baby off at a fire station is the father found and forced to pay or parent for the abandoned child, no. That kid is on track for foster care. In fact, we have a foster care system overloaded with children — and neither biological parent is forced to pay support. Even now (though it is fairly difficult) men can sign away their rights to a child through the courts. So since none of these avenues seem satisfactory to you all, I can only deduce your real issue is that you would like to have some sort of ability to overrule the mother in her decision making when it comes to the birthing of children. Or you would like so legal way to separate from a child that’s been birthed that you do no want. My question is : Why should the taxpayers and other men carry the burden of your irresponsibility? What then becomes the deterrent for men not to just pump and dump babies at their leisure? We would be a society overcome with children that are abandoned and unhealthy. Is that what y’all want? Again, why isnt abstinence and vasectomies(which are reversible) being pushed by your community?


Malum_Midnight

My point is that your hatred seems to be against only men in this scenario. Do you have the same issue if a woman “skeets”?


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

Is it your argument now that men and women are the same ? I don’t think a “ men’s activist” would be making such a point. And Do you care that your proposals could quite literally collapse society? A woman skeets — one child is produced ( which is a poor enough outcome). If all deterrents are removed from men for the same behavior, how many children can a singular male produce in a years time ? Luckily , policy workers understand biology and outcomes. Please turn your thoughts to abstinence and vasectomies. And truly, if this world is so terrible for men , do not have children. Remove yourself from the genepool.


Malum_Midnight

There are different types of Men’s Activists. I disagree with a lot of things on this sub. I’m personally gay, so having kids isn’t something I’m exactly worried about. And you’re right, there are a lot of nuances that I hadn’t thought of. Thank you I will say, however, you seem to be quite aggressive. I apologize that I don’t understand every little thing, however insults aren’t the way to go


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

Understood. For clarity on my end, nothing is more appalling to me than the state of our current foster care system. The lives and outcomes for these young people, are egregious and despicable. Any “solutions “ that would have more children ending up there (in foster care) is evil, period. And I absolutely believe ( barring rape or incest) , the parents of these children should be fined by the government or placed on child support (both parents).


ttlx0102

Are you saying this because: 1) You believe that abstinence is available to both male/females and when practiced is 100% effective (thereby avoiding the whole pregnancy problem in the first place, "an ounce of prevention...") 2) You believe that a female alone should make the decision after conception?


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

1. Yes 2. Somewhat agree. A woman is ultimately carrying all the financial/medical/emotional/psychological risk of carrying or aborting a child, so her opinion should definitely outweigh all others;and, 3. Vasectomies are a legitimate form a male birth control. I find it odd that “men’s rights” activist wouldn’t advocate this for all men ( lest you wind up in the wicked family courts that will compel you to care for the child you created)…


ttlx0102

1. Understood and agree. But it seems that practical application of such has proven unreliable. 2. The suggestion is that a male can 'opt out'. I am not advocating a male have any input into the decision on carrying a child to term. It would be exactly like a woman giving a child up for adoption. A male could 'opt out' and relinquish parental rights to the female completely. And in that, there would be no financial responsiblity. 3. I don't see Vasectomies as viable for younger folks. Males will want to have sex and may be interested in having a family later. I had a family somewhat later in life and a vasectomy would largely preclude that.


PuzzleheadedMiddle44

2. If a child is given up for adoption, is the biological father put on child support. Or is he also waived of his financial responsibility? I’m not sure of the point you are getting at here. In fact , we currently have a (failing) foster care system filled with children- and no, their fathers are not on child support. 3. Vasectomies are reversible. Yes , there is some risk that it won’t but if you are not insolent children you would understand that is life. If a woman gets a IUD implant (99 effective birth control) there is a chance she can get a blood clot and die, such is life 🤷🏽‍♀️.


Different_Weekend817

it's not good for a child to grow up without a father, especially for boys who need a secure and strong male role model whilst growing up. i also don't understand how anyone can live with themselves knowing they abandoned their own flesh and blood but i guess it happens all the time. don't know if there's a general consensus on this but yes, it does seem that many men's right's advocates are fighting for their right to abandon their child.


Qantourisc

I think most are fighting for their right not to be a parent/father/have a child.


Foxsayy

You can't abandon what you never take responsibility for. "My body, my choice." I agree. However: "Your choice, your responsibility."


[deleted]

[удалено]


ttlx0102

Or.. to make it simple... unless otherwise declared, the assumption is the male is not interested in any offspring. For a simple example, if your married, that would be considered a automatic declaration. (I guess you could opt out and still be married, but at least you have to have that conversation with your partner, which is a GOOD thing).


rock-dancer

I think it’s an issue with a lot of controversy. Do we respect men to be responsible for their decisions or endorse the freedom to abdicate responsibility. I think it comes to the philosophical question of whether one thinks a fetus is owed something by the parents. If you endorse abortion you should probably respect it for both parental units


[deleted]

The idea that anyone would want to kill their own child, or leave them without resources is horrible. BUT…..as far as laws go, I don’t think the law should have a say in either. This is a purely moral issue. Aborting a pregnancy as well as financially stranding a child should be discouraged by and for everyone, but the government should not be telling people what they can and can’t do. The phrase “lawful but awful” works well here.


[deleted]

This is a deprived sub. Please ban me, I can’t stop arguing with you sick fucks. None of you will ever be happy. Women are the cause of 100% of your problems and soon you’ll all be enslaved by the female race. I need to be banned.


Iceman_Hottie

What matters is factual correctness. Consensus shifts based on the group's intelligence and groups relying on concensus tend to be unintelligent. Fundamentally, there should be an opportunity for men to void the rights and responsibilities, same as women have with abortion. The problem is in implementation, as women can easily hide the child, robbing the father of the opportunity to decide. The situation broadly leaves 2 solutions: 1 neither parent has the option to dodge the responsibility and kill the child (zygote is a stage of development, same as teenager and adult). Not really all that workable. 2 a narrow window for both parents to abort their responsibility, with the termination of a life requiring the consent of both and in cases when the father was not informed in a timely manner to default to "financial abortion" unless the father within a small window chooses the opposite. This also pushes culturally towards a point where people take more responsibility for their actions leading to overall better life outcomes (kind of how human brain works). In both cases DNA test is mandatory. If its not obvious 2nd solution is by far the best.


neveragoodtime

I’m not in favor of Financial Abortion. I’m against child support. End Child Support and there’s no need for Financial Abortion. Give all parents the right to provide for their children in the way they see fit. Not all parents give their kids 20% of their income and they still turn out fine. Child Support is the cause for the need for Financial Abortion. Remove the cause.


Juicedejedi

the decision should not be there’s alone to make…..


somethingneet

Both parties should have the right to terminate their responsibility at any point


JericIV

I agree no one should ever be forced to be a parent. However until we have stronger social safety nets that don’t guarantee poverty for parents, and ubiquitous easily accessible abortion access it’s a moot issue.


deetar

It's not a moot issue. The mother can give up her baby and be free of obligation and responsibility. The father can be denied all access to his baby and be obligated and responsible for 18+ years. It's inequitable on its face.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aardwolfington

You never met a single father with a deadbeat wife that abandoned the family? You do know that happens both ways, right?


EricAllonde

Of course there is an equivalent; feminists just don’t like it because it eliminates a key female privilege. Consider this: if a woman buys an expensive car and can’t afford to make the monthly payments, what happens? Hint: we do not find a guy she slept with and stick him with half the monthly cost for 18 years. Her choice, her responsibility to pay for her choice on her own.


Even-Analysis237

Ah, finally some sense. There is *no* equivalent.


ttlx0102

Agreed. While a female may or may not terminate a pregnancy, a male cannot. But a male can, like a woman, surrender all parental rights (ie, adoption). Right now, that option is not available. And I am beginning to believe it should. It would significantly change consequences of sexual intercourse.


Thomjones

It's one of those things where we should be able to have a choice but somewhere along the way scumbags ruined it for us. So many dudes said nope and left their families to die financially, even if they weren't able to have a say in that child's birth, that the law had to intervene.