Pro-lifer argument: "what if your parents decided to abort you?!"

[crewskater]

And yes, that is covered under the 14th Amendment, which also protects men. If he says a man can simply opt out, then a woman should be able to do the same, and dump a baby in a guy's lap and just take off.

The man does have a choice, a willful decision during sexual intercourse. the woman has that same choice, and they take the action together. They are both equally responsible for her getting pregnant, and that baby being born 9 months later. And I want to be clear, if no other actions are taken, that is the result. So, if one wants to argue that a man can give up custody quite easily, then the woman should also be able to do the same. Of course, that's arguing that people shouldn't be responsible for the consequences of their actions, which is quite the slippery slope when applied to other things.

- - - Updated - - -



I want to make sure you are clear, should a woman be able to say she doesn't want to have custody of a baby, and push all custody onto the man, just like he can do to her in your scenario?

She can give it up, it's called aborting the child LOL. Why would you carry a baby to term and give it up right away without adoption in mind. I think you're just trying to play devils advocate and doing a bad job at it.

[Nurasu]

I want to make sure you are clear, should a woman be able to say she doesn't want to have custody of a baby, and push all custody onto the man, just like he can do to her in your scenario?

Ideally, I think it would be more of a legal contract before the child is born, assuming only one party wants the baby and the woman is even willing to carry it to term in the first place.

[Machismo]

She can give it up, it's called aborting the child LOL. Why would you carry a baby to term and give it up right away without adoption in mind. I think you're just trying to play devils advocate and doing a bad job at it.

That's the thing, you are pushing a double standard, something you claim to want to fight. if you want the same standard, then she should be allowed to absolve herself of custody, and dump it in his lap 10 seconds after it's born. I'm pointing out that she would be literally doing the same thing as he would.

Having a baby requires only one willful action between two people. Period. If no other action is taken, that baby is an inevitability. So, i you think he should be able to avoid responsibility for the baby by giving her custody, then she should be allowed to do exactly the same, right?

That's why it always ends up in one of two issues. Either people want to take bodily autonomy away from women, or they want men to not have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

- - - Updated - - -

Ideally, I think it would be more of a legal contract before the child is born, assuming only one party wants the baby and the woman is even willing to carry it to term in the first place.

I agree, it should be done before conception even happens. If they want to sign a contract, great, they both sign it.

[crewskater]

That's the thing, you are pushing a double standard, something you claim to want to fight. if you want the same standard, then she should be allowed to absolve herself of custody, and dump it in his lap 10 seconds after it's born. I'm pointing out that she would be literally doing the same thing as he would.

Having a baby requires only one willful action between two people. Period. If no other action is taken, that baby is an inevitability. So, i you think he should be able to avoid responsibility for the baby by giving her custody, then she should be allowed to do exactly the same, right?

That's why it always ends up in one of two issues. Either people want to take bodily autonomy away from women, or they want men to not have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree, it should be done before conception even happens. If they want to sign a contract, great, they both sign it.

As Nurasu said, these are generally done before the child is even born. So she would be breaking the contract after birth. Sorry I should have clarified that earlier.

[Machismo]

As Nurasu said, these are generally done before the child is even born. So she would be breaking the contract after birth. Sorry I should have clarified that earlier.

How would she be breaking it, let her do it early. If the man can unilaterally walk away, and have her raise it all on her own, then she can do the same to him. You want equality, right?

[Eveningforest]

That one reason is that women are far more statistically likely to want to retain custody. Men are far more likely to want out and feel they should be able to abandon their kid. This isn't biological, it's cultural.

I think the people who like to overlook this fact tend to be the ones who also have the most critical things to say about single mothers. We see a lot of that sentiment around here, unfortunately. I wouldn't be completely surprised if they're also the types who claim that women have a 'biological predisposition' to be care givers and therefore, should take on a disproportionate amount of work related to child care, ironically enough. After a child is born, the one and only thing a woman can do that the man can't is to breastfeed. That's it. Your cultural vs. biological remark is spot on.

I was trying to do a quick search to find recent statistics regarding sole vs joint custody in a divorce scenario (without much luck), so I'm hesitant to say that joint physical and legal custody is more common now. It may not be, mainly due to the reason already brought up, but its popularity is definitely growing and, study after study, shows it to be the best possible scenario for the child.

[crewskater]

How would she be breaking it, let her do it early. If the man can unilaterally walk away, and have her raise it all on her own, then she can do the same to him. You want equality, right?

Before the child is born, both parties need to sign a contract on what they want to do.

[Endus]

Before the child is born, both parties need to sign a contract on what they want to do.

You can't force someone to sign a contract.

[crewskater]

You can't force someone to sign a contract.

Ok so don't force them to sign anything. Give him the option to fill out a form absolving his responsibilities.

[Endus]

Ok so don't force them to sign anything. Give him the option to fill out a form absolving his responsibilities.

That doesn't serve the welfare of the child, which is the basis of child support legislation. Women don't have that right, so there's no reason to give such a thing to men. And giving them both that "right" hurts children, for no real gain, and addressing only an entirely manufactured and imaginary sense of injustice.

[Yarathir]

The problem with that is that it effectively removes the woman's choice. By refusing to help support the child that a woman might want to keep, the man is potentially forcing her into an abortion or adoption.

What's the problem with that again?
If she has the right to get rid of it, even against the guy's wishes, the guy has the right to not want to support it, even against the woman's wishes.
You can't have it both ways.

Or should he just have kept his legs shut?

[crewskater]

That doesn't serve the welfare of the child, which is the basis of child support legislation. Women don't have that right, so there's no reason to give such a thing to men. And giving them both that "right" hurts children, for no real gain, and addressing only an entirely manufactured and imaginary sense of injustice.

They do have that right, it's called abortion.

How can you even bring up the welfare of the child when you support abortions? That seems a little contradictory.

[Thirza]

"I'm pro life, I really hate the idea of helping a child have a good life though."

You people really don't see how ridiculous you look to everyone?

[Machismo]

Before the child is born, both parties need to sign a contract on what they want to do.

Fine, and she can have every right to say she doesn't want it,a nd he will take care of it, just like he can do to her.

The only issue is that if they both don't want custody, it would become a state responsibility.

It would also have to be completely voluntary by both. So, if he said he didn't want custody, and she said tough shit... then there's not much he could do about it, and vice versa.

[Nasuuna]

I'm pro-life myself. I'm not necessarily saying abortion should be banned though. It's a complicated issue. And the only reason I'd say to keep it legal is because women who want to kill their unborn children will do so whether it's legal or not, so this way it can at least be somewhat safe (well, for the mother at least, not for the baby in any case). I, however, do believe abortion should be limited to the first trimester, except in the case of non-viable pregnancies or risk to the mother.

A woman does have the right to do what she wants with her body, but I also would have my right to end a relationship or marriage with my wife/gf if she kills my unborn child for non-medical reasons as well. I wouldn't stay with a woman who'd do that.

you aren't allowed to have nuance. this is the internet

[Machismo]

If a woman can choose whatever she wants with my piece of DNA then I should be able to choose whether or not to pay for child support :P

You did choose what to do with your DNA when you had sex.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok so don't force them to sign anything. Give him the option to fill out a form absolving his responsibilities.

And if she doesn't, then he's not out of it.

[Yarathir]

You did choose what to do with your DNA when you had sex.

- - - Updated - - -



And if she doesn't, then he's not out of it.

Then so did the woman.

I guess both of them will just have to keep their legs closed if they don't want a child. :^)

[crewskater]

Fine, and she can have every right to say she doesn't want it,a nd he will take care of it, just like he can do to her.

The only issue is that if they both don't want custody, it would become a state responsibility.

It would also have to be completely voluntary by both. So, if he said he didn't want custody, and she said tough shit... then there's not much he could do about it, and vice versa.

If she does't want it and neither does he, there's adoption or they can leave it at a fire station.

[Machismo]

Then so did the woman.

I guess both of them will just have to keep their legs closed if they don't want a child. :^)

Exactly, they both made a conscious decision, and if no other actions are taken, the result is a baby in 9 months. They are both equally responsible for the consequences.

[Granyala]

Pro-lifer argument: "what if your parents decided to abort you?!"

Well, that surely would have saved me a lot of trouble and pain.