Why can't the father choose not to pay the child support if he wants abortion?

[Deleted]

No it is not, vasectomies aren't close to viable for young men, they are not preformed on them and they have to be sure they never want to have kids, not really an option for an 18 year old.

Well they can be undone to a degree and you can freeze your sperm (infertility or rather rather difficulties in getting pregnant due to scarring is a risk when having a surgical abortion btw.)
There are also injections you can get on top of condoms (which you should use anyway) - so the chances are pretty slim.

And of course you can always choose not to have sex with a woman you don't trust.

Just because you say its irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant, it is very relevant when it becomes 100% a choice versus 0% choice.

It's not irrelevant because I say it, it's because the child is there and it needs your support, regardless of what choices you had or didn't have.

[Grimreaper]

Because she goes through 9 months of the blood sweat and tears of growing a human body in her body that have risks up to and including her death. Guess what if you don't want the chance of impregnating someone keep your dick dry, keep it wrapped, or get your tubes snipped. If a fetus comes to term that you helped create you are responsible for it so pay your share. I find it funny how the people usually calling for dads to not pay child support are also the ones saying abortions should be banned. Also for the most part those calling for abortions to be banned are also the ones crying hardest that social programs need to be cut down or completely. So what is it Pro-Lifers you seem to care so much about a fetus in a uterus but then when the fetus comes to term then instantly that baby and it's mother are societal leeches who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or die off. This political cartoon really says it all.

Her body, her choice, her responsibility, her money.

[PL-Cibo]

Mostly because it would just hurt the child, it's called child support- not "woman I slept with-support".

If you have sex you run the risk of having a child, contraception doesn't always work. Condoms are like 93% effective, P-pills are in some studies only 90% effective because women forget to take them when they should.

If you're not prepared for the (unwanted) consequences then don't have vaginal intercourse, it's as simple as that...

Condoms are lot more effective, 93% would be kinda stupid. And the Pills are not only 90% effective because women forget to take them. there efficiency is higher and no, even forgetting to take it one day will make someone instantly in danger of getting pregnant... If you understood how it worked you would sprout these strange numbers.

@at topic:

A man, same as a women has no right decide things about another persons body. Hard to understand for you poor male victims I know. but hey call it feminism instead of logic. call it matriachate instead owning up for your own shit. And then wonder why every civilized person looks at you funny.

[Mifuyne]

It takes two to tango.

[Deleted]

Well they can be undone to a degree and you can freeze your sperm (infertility or rather rather difficulties in getting pregnant due to scarring is a risk when having a surgical abortion btw.)
There are also injections you can get on top of condoms (which you should use anyway) - so the chances are pretty slim.

And of course you can always choose not to have sex with a woman you don't trust.




It's not irrelevant because I say it, it's because the child is there and it needs your support, regardless of what choices you had or didn't have.

The to a degree part is what is the bad part, as for freezing, it is possible but not that great for the sperm quality either.

That there are risks to abortions has no baring on this?
That you should use condoms is a no brainer, but also not really relevant to the question at hand.

All of this seems like full on anti abortion to me if you were to just change the sexes, they were not valid then, they are not valid now.

No it is relevant because the child is there because of a decision made unilaterally. If she wants to have a child she should find a willing partner or be able to support it on her own. If she can't take care of the child it should go up for adoption directly or it should go up for adoption regardless of what the mother wants (if we are talking best interest of the child).

- - - Updated - - -

Condoms are lot more effective, 93% would be kinda stupid. And the Pills are not only 90% effective because women forget to take them. there efficiency is higher and no, even forgetting to take it one day will make someone instantly in danger of getting pregnant... If you understood how it worked you would sprout these strange numbers.

@at topic:

A man, same as a women has no right decide things about another persons body. Hard to understand for you poor male victims I know. but hey call it feminism instead of logic. call it matriachate instead owning up for your own shit. And then wonder why every civilized person looks at you funny.

No one is arguing that anyone should have a say over someone else their bodies, but strawman's are at a all time high it seems.

[Soxoffender]

If this was true then the child would go to adoption immediately, that would be in the best interest of the child.

Taking a child away from a parent who has chosen to love it is in the best interests of the child?

[xindralol]

Because woman have more rights then men.

women* than*

I agree that it's absurd but with your spelling you just look like an idiot.

[Deleted]

Taking a child away from a parent who has chosen to love it is in the best interests of the child?

Having two loving parents that are screened and have the means to take care of the child is better then having a mother.

[Deleted]

The to a degree part is what is the bad part, as for freezing, it is possible but not that great for the sperm quality either.

That there are risks to abortions has no baring on this?

Well you are arguing that the a vasectomy does carry certain risks so you're not taking it into account - I'm just saying that abortions also carry risks, which you might not want to perform them either - just like a vasectomy it's not an easy decision and not risk free.

No it is relevant because the child is there because of a decision made unilaterally.

Well both decided to have sex, accepting any risk involved with that activity. It doesn't matter at that point who had the easier/later/earlier choices to prevent a pregnancy.
Certainly not for the kid and the support it needs.

[Pannonian]

No, im arguing because person A has a very significant right, person B should have this same very significant right. Because equality, that is exactly how the law works.

As i tried to explain: he does have it. It's the right to bodily autonomy. This exist for man as well. If man could get pregnant they would have the same right. That's important. Its not the right to abort a pregnancy to opt out of custody. It's the right to bodily autonomy. Is it clear now?

[Deleted]

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion effectively free you of parental responsabilites if you dont want it. That's what abortion was made for.
Maybe I went too far by assuming you were a logical person and I apologize for it, but maybe you should expand on your reasoning.

No. Absortion was made because young women kept killing their children, in order to hide their motherhood. The reason for this was simple; the masters of the house would not accept his young mistresses's children having a legitimate claim to his property, so he would fire them, if they carried his children to term.

[Soxoffender]

Having two loving parents that are screened and have the means to take care of the child is better then having a mother.

You're making an argument in favour of snatching children from their mothers and putting them at risk of a childhood spent entirely in the child welfare system as answer to the non-existent problem of child support legislation. You've either gone too far down this rabbit hole and are just arguing for the sake of it or your moral compass is completely fucked.

[Raelbo]

They have the choice to not become a parent, males should have the same, not giving them that is sexist.

Males have shitloads of choices to "not become a parent".

Get a vasectomy
Find a woman who will have an abortion in the event of an accidental pregnancy to have sex with
Find a woman who willing to exempt you from parental responsibility in the event of an accidental pregnancy to have sex with
Find a woman who cannot have children to have sex with
Avoid vaginal sex
Accept the small risk of pregnancy and ignore all of the above

What you're actually arguing is that you want males to not have to take any responsibility for their choices, and still have a get out of jail free card after they impregnate a woman. Very mature....

No, it is not, a strawman is equating two different things as the same. That i did not do

You are equating "choosing to not have an abortion" with "choosing to become a parent". Clearly these two things are not the same. If you can't see that then maybe you need to bow out of this discussion now because you're clearly not sufficiently proficient to participate.

Yes they are exactly one and the same thing, because it is a choice, not something that happened. It doesn't matter why she doesn't want to abort, it doesn't make it any less of a choice.

I never argued that it wasn't a choice. Of course it's a choice: to abort or not to abort. That is demonstrably not "exactly one and the same thing" as choosing whether you want to become a parent or not.

1) You might choose not to abort in spite of not wanting to become a parent
2) You might choose to abort even if you want to become parent

When you go to an abortion clinic they don't get you to sign a consent form that simply stipulates that you agree that you don't want to become a parent. You have to sign a form that you agree to an abortion.

Being intentionally obtuse isn't an argument.

What exactly was obtuse about what I said?

the only relevant thing is that males have to find a willing partner, females do not.

Again, at the risk of sounding "obtuse": there are laws against raping men or stealing our sperm without our consent. Unless you can provide some other explanation of how a female can become a parent without a willing partner?

Well, that is more of a question for you now is it?? For males having sex is the same as saying you are okay with being a parent,

You seem to a have a problem with the telling the difference between different things. Let me explain:

Having sex means having your genitals stimulated. It generally involves getting naked and sticking some appendage(s) into some orifice(s), getting hot and sweaty, exchanging bodily fluids, and is generally considered pleasurable. Specifically the type of sex you seem to be refering to here involves a dick going into a vagina.

Saying you're okay with becoming a parent means talking to someone and making noises with your mouth, lips and vocal chords that sound like this: "I am ok with being a parent".

See, two totally different things.

Yes, yes, I do get it. You're trying, rather ineptly, to point out how it is implied in choosing to have sex that you accept the *risk* of an accidental pregnancy and the risk that the woman elects to not abort, thus making you liable for child support. But the way you're putting it, it's like pregnancy and childbirth are a foregone conclusion. Furthermore you're ignoring the part where you can choose to actually talk to a woman before you have sex with her (yes, a novel concept for some people I do realise) and establish what your risk actually is.

Regardless, your expectation that you somehow are entitled to the right to have risk-free sex is ridiculously self centred, narcissistic and immature to the point that I would argue that you're not actually ready for sex in the first place.

For a woman sex always carries it with it the risk of an accidental pregnancy. And while you may delude yourself into believing that abortion is this easy get-out-of-jail-free card with zero consequences that any woman can elect to do on a whim, for most women it's not that simple. Having to go through with an abortion is, for many women, less preferable than going through with an unwanted pregnancy.

So kindly stop whining about how tough you've got it as a man because you might have the consequence (if you're stupid enough to have sex with the wrong woman) of having to pay child support. Women always have consequences in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, and any consequences suffered by the man are generally small compared to those of the woman.

so you are for the abolishment of abortion apparently, or you are sexist. I think it is the latter though.

Or how about neither? Or do you lack the capacity to think beyond those two pitiful options?

Only if the female wants this to happen, that makes it a choice, not something that just happens.

You're assuming that just because a woman chooses to go through with a pregnancy, that she wants it to happen. You have utterly failed, repeatedly, to grasp the simple concept that maybe some women are opposed to abortion. And because you refuse to accept what I am telling you, that makes you not only ignorant, but willfully so.

Just because some feminazies want to have men take care of their children doesn't mean that we should have sexist rules thank you very much. If you want to talk rights then you going to have to talk equal rights or be deemed a sexist and ignored for having stupid sexist opinions.

Again with the name calling. Tsk tsk. PS: there are very strong themes of misogyny in your ramblings. People in glass houses and all that...

Nope, just the truth, treating people differently because of their sex is sexist,

Letting a woman decide whether or not to abort because she is the one with the womb is not treating her differently because of her sex. It's treating her differently on account of a relevant physiological difference.

There are very sound arguments that justify was, as a civilised species, we have converged to this point that you seem to think is sexist towards men. The only problem is that you refuse to hear them because you do not like the logical conclusion, namely that you're wrong and that you don't get to have your proverbial cake and eat it.

[Deleted]

As i tried to explain: he does have it. It's the right to bodily autonomy. This exist for man as well. If man could get pregnant they would have the same right. That's important. Its not the right to abort a pregnancy to opt out of custody. It's the right to bodily autonomy. Is it clear now?

We need to be consistent in how we apply rules, all this tension is because we're applying arguments unequally to men and women:

Bodily autonomy argument (her rights over her body are inviolable!):

I agree with this btw; but that's the same argument why circumcision should be illegal: if you agree with one, you must agree with the other, or else your views are inconsistent and thus invalid

Abstinence argument (men don't have sex and you won't have to pay child support!):

This is the same argument for women: "women don't have sex and you won't have to get an abortion" - this is not a good argument, and it's the one used by the religious right

Middle view:

Biology is indeed unequal and women are the only ones being pregnant; their choices over their own body are inviolable and should remain so -- but this removes choice from men and forces them into economic slavery without recourse, a problem we as a society need to resolve

---

2 ways to go:

Option A: Gender-neutral laws:
If we want to go beyond biology and get to gender equality, we need to tailor a way for men to opt out of child-responsibility given that they have no reproductive rights when it comes to abortion; this would probably need the state to intervene in the interests of the child, but men cannot have their labour forcibly stolen for a choice they cannot make (this is economic slavery, like prison labour)

Option B: Gender-unequal laws: Men pay child support without reproductive rights (status quo)
If we don't want gender-equal laws, that's fine too, but then things like affirmative action, board quotas, wage gap reduction etc need to be tossed out and we need to respect biology > equality as the principle to follow in society

---

Pick a path but be consistent

[Pannonian]

We need to be consistent in how we apply rules, all this tension is because we're applying arguments unequally to men and women:

Bodily autonomy argument (her rights over her body are inviolable!):

I agree with this btw; but that's the same argument why circumcision should be illegal: if you agree with one, you must agree with the other, or else your views are inconsistent and thus invalid

Abstinence argument (men don't have sex and you won't have to pay child support!):

This is the same argument for women: "women don't have sex and you won't have to get an abortion" - this is not a good argument, and it's the one used by the religious right

Middle view:

Biology is indeed unequal and women are the only ones being pregnant; their choices over their own body are inviolable and should remain so -- but this removes choice from men and forces them into economic slavery without recourse, a problem we as a society need to resolve

---

2 ways to go:

Option A: Gender-neutral laws:
If we want to go beyond biology and get to gender equality, we need to tailor a way for men to opt out of child-responsibility given that they have no reproductive rights when it comes to abortion; this would probably need the state to intervene in the interests of the child, but men cannot have their labour forcibly stolen for a choice they cannot make (this is economic slavery, like prison labour)

Option B: Men pay child support without reproductive rights (status quo):
If we don't want gender-equal laws, that's fine too, but then things like affirmative action, board quotas, wage gap reduction etc need to be tossed out and we need to respect biology > equality as the principle to follow in society

---

Pick a path but be consistent

I agree, circumcision should be illegal.

Abstinence, for what its worth should apply to both, yes. Though if its the best idea... is another argument.

So, no big inconsistency on my part here.

I don't like the opt-out for one very specific reason: why should i? If we give parents the option to opt out, someone else will have to provide for the child. With no parents around, this will fall to the government and society as a whole. Then i think: why should i if the actual creater gets an opt-out?

I like the ruling as is: no one gets an opt out. If you want to be sure to not have any responsibility: don't have sex, but if you do, dont expect everybody else to pay up.

To re-iterate: i don't see the problem you and other posters try to make. From a legal prespective it is simple: no one has the right to opt out. Women can use another right (which is the exact same for men) to opt-out. Doesn't give them an explicit right to do so. Btw.: not a big fan of affirmative action, but that has not much to do with this.

[Flarelaine]

right now, you can stop this from happening by using protection. "but condoms don't always work" they do if you use them correctly
"but women sabotage them to catch us" don't sleep with psychos.

Better yet, bring your own condoms.

[Raelbo]

Abortion effectively free you of parental responsabilites if you dont want it. That's what abortion was made for.
Maybe I went too far by assuming you were a logical person and I apologize for it, but maybe you should expand on your reasoning.

I am glad you brought up logic because the problem here is that you failed to apply it: Just because someone like you sees abortion as nothing more than a means of escaping parental responsibility doesn't mean that I have to be against abortion to be for people accepting their parental responsibility.

But sure, I can expand on the reasoning. Let's start by taking a look at what "parental responsibility" actually means:

1) During the early stage of a pregnancy, the parental responsibility of the mother is to make a decision on whether to proceed with the pregnancy or terminate. Up until this point the father has pretty much no parental responsibility.
2) Once the mother has made a decision to proceed with the pregnancy it becomes her responsibility to not screw up her foetus. She should avoid drugs and alcohol, she should ensure she gets proper nutrition. She should avoid activities that put her foetus at risk
3) Once the baby is born both parents have an equal parental responsibility towards the child.

So no, I am not against abortion just because I believe that "no one should get exemption from their parental responsibilities just because they don't want the child."

If a mother chooses to abort, she isn't exempting herself from parental responsibilities, she is, in fact, exercising them

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

because then any guy that just wanted out could cry abortion and be off scot free.

[Demontjuh]

before taking abortion/adoption into the equation only the act of sex:

(1)man no condom + woman no pill > pregnancy = both neglected, both pay

(2)man wear condom but fail + woman no pill > pregnancy = man didn't want baby, woman neglected, woman pays

(3)man no condom + woman take pill but fail > pregnancy = man neglected, woman didn't want baby, man pays

(4)man wear condom + woman take pill > pregnancy = both didn't want, mainly for completion sake, not sure what to do with this one.


now theres multiple choices to make regarding abortion or keeping it, i established they both pay for their mistakes but how much depends on their next choice. (i admit i have no clue what happens to a woman's body after birth or abortion, but in the case theres something, i'd say often the man has to pay for that period depending on his role during the act)
(1a) woman wants to keep it, guy pays child support
(1b) man wants to keep it, woman pays child support, and since the woman has to actually carry the child for 9 months + some months afterbirth changes, i'd say the man has to support financially during this period, for carrying child + nutrition cost + pregnancy/labor medical + job complications (they both knew what happens when u have sex unprotected, the woman will have to own up to her mistake if the guy wants to keep it, its only fair)
(1c) they abort, both pay for the procedure and whatever recovery period there might be (fixed amount of time)

(2a) woman wants to keep it, shes on her own
(2b) man wants to keep it, woman pays child support, and since the woman has to actually carry the child for 9 months + some months afterbirth changes, i'd say the man has to support financially during this period, nutrition cost + pregnancy/labor medical
(2c) they abort, woman pays.

(3a) woman wants to keep it, guy pays child support + since the woman has to actually carry the child for 9 months + some months afterbirth changes, i'd say the man has to support financially during this period
(3b) man wants to keep it, since the woman has to actually carry the child for 9 months + some months afterbirth changes, the man has to support financially during this period, for carrying child + nutrition cost + pregnancy/labor medical + job complications
(3c) they abort, man pays procedure + whatever comes before/after for xx period + job complications.

(4a) woman wants to keep it, shes on her own
(4b) man wants to keep it, woman pays child support, and since the woman has to actually carry the child for 9 months + some months afterbirth changes, i'd say the man has to support financially during this period, for carrying child + nutrition cost + pregnancy/labor medical + job complications (they both knew what happens when u have sex unprotected, the woman will have to own up to her mistake if the guy wants to keep it, its only fair)
(4c) they abort, they both pay for procedure + whatever comes before/after for xx period + job complications.

[Flarelaine]

She spreads her legs, he shoots the load. What did i miss?

Quite a lot, in fact, if that's all sex is to you.